BUYER BEWARE !!

Here's a guy on eBay selling a fairly nice looking KZ650 (except those handlebars), BUT he changed the speedometer to one that shows 13k miles instead of over 90k miles. Notice the blue/green ring around the speedometer; 1977 KZ650 speedometers were all black like the tach on the bike. He states the title has a mistake that shows 90,000 miles - I'm willing to bet it's no mistake because he's representing the speedometer as being original and that style wasn't even being made when the bike was made! It looks like he's sold a bunch of other bikes on eBay, so keep his name in mind if you're ever tempted to buy an eBay bike. Who knows what other lies he's telling! Geez, if he gonna cheat he should at least use the correct style speedometer.

eBay Thief

Yep, that's a speedometer from a '78! I sent a question asking why the speedo and tach don't match - stay tuned!

Good eye Ed! I'm pretty well aquainted with the 650's and I wouldn't have noticed that. I looked at both my 77 650's and you are correct, black rings on both. I also looked at my 78, 79 and 80 and they all have the blue rings. That said, the bike he has for sale looks like 13 K is closer to correct than 90 K would be. Just the overall condition of the bike and how clean the engine is etc. makes me think he isn't that far off on the miles being represented. The speedo has been changed for sure but that might have been changed while the bike was still under warranty no real way of telling.

I wouldn't have noticed the speedometer either, but like Andy said I doubt it could have 90,000 miles on it. For one that red fades real bad as we all know, and the paint doesn't show that much fading to indicate that much time in the sun. The other thing is the cam end plugs that are still those bulging original 1977 type. No way they could last 90,000 miles. So it has more that 13K probably, but much less than 90K I would think. Here's mine before I repainted it purple with green wheeels. :laugh:

Hey Ed...

Did you call him on it...
If not then expose him in a reply posting for others to see...

For $2300!... whoa! :ohmy:

Friggin thieves suck!

First reply from seller:

"I am not sure what you are seeing, but the do match"

I am sending a description of the difference, we shall see what he says to that. I doubt if the speedo was replaced under warranty for an incorrect version.

And his reply:

"It must just be the light, they do match."

Limey wrote:

First reply from seller:

"I am not sure what you are seeing, but the do match"

I am sending a description of the difference, we shall see what he says to that. I doubt if the speedo was replaced under warranty for an incorrect version.

And his reply:

"It must just be the light, they do match."

I just checked the Kaw website to find out if the 77 part# superceded to another number and it does not, they show the part# as being 25006-052 and they show it as fitting the following bikes
KZ650-B1 (1977)
KZ650-B2 (1978)
KZ650-B2A (1978)
KZ650-B3 (1979)
KZ650-C1 (Custom) (1977)
KZ650-C2 (Custom) (1978)
KZ650-C3 (Custom) (1979)
KZ750-B1 (1976)
KZ750-B2 (1977)
KZ750-B3 (1978)
KZ750-B4 (1979)

So at some point they changed the design but in a move that is totally unlike Kawasaki they kept the same part# for a part that is clearly different. They started the production run for 78's most likely in July of 77 so it could have had the speedo replaced while still under warranty and the part would have been what is seen on this bike.

We really are splitting hairs here. I don't think the seller is knowingly trying to deceive anyone here, I think it is more a case of he just doesn't know. It is a nice clean example of a 77 B model.....maybe not $2300.00 nice but that will remain to be seen.

I know I have seen many examples of people trying to be deceptive on ebay. I recall a case of someone in Taiwan about a year ago trying to sell a speedo as NOS where you could clearly see that it had been taken apart, reset to zero and put back together. It was very apparent because of the marks left by the pliers.

Many states just classify the mileage on a bike this old as exempt even if it is 100% correct based solely on the age of the bike.

Gringo wrote: "We really are splitting hairs here. I don't think the seller is knowingly trying to deceive anyone here, I think it is more a case of he just doesn't know."

I appreciate your giving the guy the benefit of the doubt, but when asked by Limey why the speedo and tach don't match how can the guy send the answer: "It must just be the light, they do match." I say the guy is full o' bull.

650ed wrote:

I say the guy is full o' bull.

Must say I am inclined to agree - the tach is clearly different to the speedo.

Gringo wrote: "I just checked the Kaw website to find out if the 77 part# superceded to another number and it does not, they show the part# as being 25006-052.... "

That is what the web site says, but actually, the part number changed from 25006-052 to 25005-1012 for MPH speedos and from 25006-054 to 25005-1013 for KPH speedos beginning in 1978. I don't know why the Kawasaki site doesn't show that, but these numbers are taken directly from the Kawasaki Motorcycle Parts Catalog Model Application KZ650C1 / KZ650C2 printed Sept. 30, 1977; Part #99910-1025-01. I've seen other omissions in the web site (especially pertaining to carbs). If anyone needs to double check a part number for the KZ650C1/C2 let me know. Ed

I think the confusion comes from the web site indicating "will fit" - yes, the later speedo will fit, and work - in fact the replacement speedo I located for my '78 is from a 750 of similar vintage but the mount, and the housings are the same - however, the 750 speedo also has the black shroud!

I took both apart, and by combining the two got the correct look - however the "font" used on the 750 version was also slightly different.

This bike looks to be in good shape - and is probably worth the BIN price - it would be a pity if he is either not telling the whole truth, or unaware that the anomaly is there - I think he should post a better close-up pic of the instruments!

Also he mentioned the flaw in the paint but no picture of the area.
Mark