Would you buy an old Ducati?

[Taipan]

I always wanted an air cooled 900 Monster but never got round to buying one. It won't happen now due to ULEZ.


Diavels are awesome. But they are too big, long and heavy for commuting on though and I imagine they ain't exactly economical either. I'll stick to the mighty MT09 and scoot.

[asmethurst99]

I was looking at Dobles stock in general - They have a NC700X for 3000 quid which is quite cheeky

[Le_Fromage_Grande]

I think a 1995 900SS is the most disappointing bike I've ever ridden, engine and gearbox from the 1970s in a chassis that was very average.

[KungFooBob]

I had an R6 in 1999, best bike I've ever owned.

[demographic]

Maybe an 851, or an 888.
The rest? Not so much.

[Le_Fromage_Grande]

I thought they made great road bikes, easily fast enough to keep up and very nice to ride.
I had an R6 around the same time, they were supposed to be the bees knees but it's the worst bike I've ever had, all noise and no go, plus a crappy riding position. The excellent road capabilities of the 900ss made the R6 feel shite.

You did well then because the R6 didn't come out until 1999, I've ridden an R6 and it's massively better than the 900SS I rode, I've also owned a 1994 FZR600R that was massively better than the 900SS, I think a 1983 350 YPVS is better than a 900SS, they really are quite dire.

[mangocrazy]

Comparing a 900SS to an R6 is like comparing chalk and cheese. The 900SS was a 2-valve V-twin that had loads of torque but ran out of puff at higher revs, whereas an R6 was a rev monster with very little torque to speak of. It really all depends on what type of motor you prefer.

[Le_Fromage_Grande]

Comparing a 900SS to an R6 is like comparing chalk and cheese. The 900SS was a 2-valve V-twin that had loads of torque but ran out of puff at higher revs, whereas an R6 was a rev monster with very little torque to speak of. It really all depends on what type of motor you prefer.

Correct, probably why I loathe them.

[mangocrazy]

It sounds counter-intuitive, but I found the step from two-stroke twins (350LC and YPVS) to four-stroke V-twins (Ducati 851/888) quite easy, despite the wide difference in the engine configurations. What I had trouble with was inline 4 cylinder bikes, with a very linear power delivery. I never really knew where I needed to be in the rev range.

[Le_Fromage_Grande]

It sounds counter-intuitive, but I found the step from two-stroke twins (350LC and YPVS) to four-stroke V-twins (Ducati 851/888) quite easy, despite the wide difference in the engine configurations. What I had trouble with was inline 4 cylinder bikes, with a very linear power delivery. I never really knew where I needed to be in the rev range.

The first 4 stroke I got on with was the 1985 GSXR 750 I had, the power delivery wasn't linear, flat slide carbs and hairy cams made it quite top endy, meaning you knew exactly where you needed to be revs wise, all the 4 strokes I'd ridden prior to that felt woolly and soft.

My memory of the 900SS is that it didn't make power anywhere and you had to be really slow with the gear change, and then you might be rewarded with a gear, I had a YZF750R at the time, which was pretty much the opposite of the Ducati (the Yamaha was very good)

[KungFooBob]

I raced a 620SSie, which was essentially the same chassis and wheels as the 900SSie, but with 25 less bhp (it was twin disc with goldlines and I had the alloy swingarm from a 900).

The 'ie' was the modernised, fuel injected version of the SS with the more ugly bodywork.

It handled ok. It went ok for 60ish bhp.

I like the idea of the 900SS, but I'd accept it for what it is, something for looking cool at the cafe and pootling around the lanes at a sensible speed. If I wanted to win inters I'd get another R6

[mangocrazy]

I've never ridden a 900SS so can't comment, but from what I read it was all about using the (nice but only adequate) mid-range rather than chasing revs. The 851 was a bit like that, but had more power and top end and the 888 SP3 was just getting into its stride where the 851 was tailing off and it loved to rev. I don't think you'd find an 888 SPx boring. They are a lot lighter than an 851 and make about 25hp more (which in turn makes about 20hp more than a 900SS).

[G.P]

As a road engine, I much prefer the 900ss to my 140+bhp Monster.
I should have bought an aircooled 1100 Evo instead.

[The Spin Doctor]

It sounds counter-intuitive, but I found the step from two-stroke twins (350LC and YPVS) to four-stroke V-twins (Ducati 851/888) quite easy, despite the wide difference in the engine configurations. What I had trouble with was inline 4 cylinder bikes, with a very linear power delivery. I never really knew where I needed to be in the rev range.

The first 4 stroke I got on with was the 1985 GSXR 750 I had, the power delivery wasn't linear

Certainly wasn't linear on my 92 GSX-R either. That had supposedly had a full Stage 3 tune with jets / filter / pipe etc... I suspect it had never been set up properly since it simply gave the bike the most god-awful power delivery ever... wouldn't pull below 4000, reluctant to 7000, scalded cat 7000 to 11, then utterly beserk for the last two thousand rpm. I still remember the effing thing pulling a monster wheelie as I accelerated hard in the wrong gear, just as I hit a big bump going steeply uphill. By the time I got the front back down I was on the wrong side of the road and heading for a sheer drop to the Devon coast. Even our tuned Endurance Racing Moped (topped out at 60 mph) had a better power delivery.

[Supermofo]

What I had trouble with was inline 4 cylinder bikes, with a very linear power delivery. I never really knew where I needed to be in the rev range.

On the GSXS it doesn't matter it goes everywhere OK it's more mental at the top but the bottom isn't far off!

[Yorick]

It sounds counter-intuitive, but I found the step from two-stroke twins (350LC and YPVS) to four-stroke V-twins (Ducati 851/888) quite easy, despite the wide difference in the engine configurations. What I had trouble with was inline 4 cylinder bikes, with a very linear power delivery. I never really knew where I needed to be in the rev range.

You can tell on mine

[mangocrazy]

In fairness, my most recent experience of riding an IL4 was about 5 years ago on a mate's CBR600 (the last of the carbed versions). The whole experience was like riding a marshmallow - soggy suspension and an unexciting motor. What power there was lived in the higher reaches of the rev band but it still felt rather flat. I'm sure if I rode either of your bikes it would be a much more engaging experience.

I probably need to get out more...

[Couchy]

In fairness, my most recent experience of riding an IL4 was about 5 years ago on a mate's CBR600 (the last of the carbed versions). The whole experience was like riding a marshmallow - soggy suspension and an unexciting motor. What power there was lived in the higher reaches of the rev band but it still felt rather flat. I'm sure if I rode either of your bikes it would be a much more engaging experience.

I probably need to get out more...

Tbh that’s like trying a milk float and complaining electric cars are rubbish having said that I’m no fan of IL4 engines, gimme a single, twin or triple any day in that order. The only 4cyl I like are V4’s

[mangocrazy]

having said that I’m no fan of IL4 engines, gimme a single, twin or triple any day in that order. The only 4cyl I like are V4’s

Pretty much exactly my view. I've never owned an IL4, but 3 V4s (VFRs), 5 V-twins, 4 parallel twins and two singles. I really should try a triple...

[Yorick]

Can't beat a litre IL4 for monster grunt