GSX-S750

[Supermofo]

God I struggle to say that No matter how many times I say it, it sounds wrong.

Anyway. Anyone know much about them? In the last couple of days I've been reading/watching a few group tests of the usual suspects and most are MT09/XSR/Z900/Z900RS/Street Triple and occasionally the GSXS 750. Now I didn't really even know this existed, but esp in Euro group tests they get a pretty good review. More often than not they are rated as having better suspension (non adjustable but nicer), brakes and handling than rivals. On the down side (or upside depending on your preference) they need reving more to really get going. But it's a re-tuned GSXR750 K4 engine so it's 114bhp (down from 130 I think) so no slouch just down on torque to say the MT09/Z900. However oh my god the scream even on the (god ugly) standard can. Apparently under 5k they are pretty good town bikes but above that lift their skirts rapidly. This appeals a bit as say the MT09 engine felt a bit flat to me, maybe it's the triple. An effective engine for sure, but a little featureless through the rev range. The Z900 on the other hand universally gets handed a more serious/fast bike award, better if you want more torque low down and very nearly litre bike performance but misses some of the lower speed fun element. In several tests though they mentioned the 750 never gets left when the pace is upped, you just need to work it more.

So they are now on my radar I think. Popped into the local Suzi dealer in Letchworth and they had 2. A black and red and a MotoGP coloured one. And in the flesh they look pretty good. Not XSR good on the finish front and a little transformer looking, but I think they are alright. And as per most Suzi's they are cheap. I've seen a couple with a scorpion can and they look fairly decent. I've also never owned a Suzuki since I started in 1994.

One for the test ride list if it happens. It's a big mishmash list ATM (1090 Adv, XSR, Tracer, Z900, 790 Duke, Street Triple)

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/SUZUKI-GSXS- ... 3520021945

[weeksy]

I love them, but wouldn't buy as it's an in line 4 and I don't like the engines. But likely to be smooth.

Out of your list, well my top 2 are obvious, XSR and 790. But I'd out the Suzuki 3rd

[Supermofo]

The Yamaha is still probably top on the basis of looks and finish. The 790 I'm not sure bout the niggles, I fancy an easy life but the lightweight and fun aspect appeals still.

I don't mind IL4s so thats not an issue for me so if potentially the 750 handles better that may sway it for me. I absolutely loved my 04 Z750 and the Suzi will be better than that.

[weeksy]

The Yamaha is still probably top on the basis of looks and finish. The 790 I'm not sure bout the niggles, I fancy an easy life but the lightweight and fun aspect appeals still.

I don't mind IL4s so thats not an issue for me so if potentially the 750 handles better that may sway it for me. I absolutely loved my 04 Z750 and the Suzi will be better than that.

The 790 handles really sweetly though

[Supermofo]

That's the rub, the 790 is probably ideal. But its the niggles, will it have 1 or more oil leaks, maybe a coolant leak. They have a lot of electrics to go wrong as well for a KTM. You can get a good one of course but its a gamble.

In comparison an old GSXR 750 re-tuned should be bombproof.

Looking in a Suzuki dealer is a bit bleak in terms of models though. They sell RE too, if they didn't it'd be a bit dire. The bloke said they won't even have the Gixxer thou next year as it doesn't meet the coming regs. He said it'd be back but they didn't know when.

[KungFooBob]

The Suzuki looks cheap, you can see where it's been built to a cost easier than the competition, stuff like the swingarm and frame.

[Skub]

The Suzook apes the Sugomi styling of the naked Kawas,but kinda halfhearted. I bet it rides well though.

[Claude]

Looks nice and seems cheap (or MV Ownership has tainted my view).
No electronics though?

[weeksy]

Looks nice and seems cheap (or MV Ownership has tainted my view).
No electronics though?

Correct

[G.P]

Well that is one ugly motherfucker!

[Supermofo]

Looks nice and seems cheap (or MV Ownership has tainted my view).
No electronics though?

It's got 2 level TC and ABS but that's it. Oh and that weird Suzuki thing to stop you stalling, rev assist is it?

[Supermofo]

Well that is one ugly motherfucker!

Must admit I dislike the Yoshi as much as the OE. The scorpion looks alright in the ebay ad. I also think some colours work better than others. It's funny front the front it looks HUGE to me, but I'm coming from a very slim single.

[G.P]

For looks I'd either go with a Z900 or get some fairing and have a Z1000sx - they get rave reviews,

[Supermofo]

For looks I'd either go with a Z900 or get some fairing and have a Z1000sx - they get rave reviews,

The Z9 and maybe the RS too are def on the list. The only thing I'd want to see is how they work on the road. Several tests mention that in comparison to the MT09 and 750 they feel more like a super naked. They are only about 10bhp more but apparently feel like a more serious proposition. Not an issue as such, but I like to be able to hoon at legalish speeds whereas the Z when worked can see some big numbers more easily. The Z can be left in 3 for 30-illegal, whereas the 750 you can wang it about more often and work it. Which is what I like about the 690. I'll def be trying to get a test of the Kwak though and I think it looks better.

[G.P]

For looks I'd either go with a Z900 or get some fairing and have a Z1000sx - they get rave reviews,

The Z9 and maybe the RS too are def on the list. The only thing I'd want to see is how they work on the road. Several tests mention that in comparison to the MT09 and 750 they feel more like a super naked. They are only about 10bhp more but apparently feel like a more serious proposition. Not an issue as such, but I like to be able to hoon at legalish speeds whereas the Z when worked can see some big numbers more easily. The Z can be left in 3 for 30-illegal, whereas the 750 you can wang it about more often and work it. Which is what I like about the 690. I'll def be trying to get a test of the Kwak though and I think it looks better.

Aah, I see where you are coming from. I had a 790 and that thing made me want to ride like a twat everywhere.
I replaced it with a 1200 Monster which is bonkers fast (135bhp and huge dollops of torque) but I ride it in a far more civilised manner (mostly )

[Dodgy69]

The pointy transformer style is done by a few now, as we all know. For me, first I would choose how many cylinders I want, then its down to gadgets and practicality. At the end of day, they'll all pretty dam good, and ye, colour does makes a difference.

[Supermofo]

For me, first I would choose how many cylinders I want,

Must admit I'm not that fussed. I've ridden/owned singles (2 and 4 stroke), parallel twins (2 and 4 stroke), v-twins (2 and 4 stroke), a triple (4 stroke), loads of IL4s.

Of all of them the only one I didn't gel with was a big twin. My Firestorm was a pig below 40mph. On the flip side the SV650 was lovely.

I have a thing for singles but beyond that just want something fun and hoonable. A lot of people don't like IL4s but in the right bike they can be ace

[Bigjawa]

Why do they always "retune for torque?" on an engine derived from a sportsbike

Usually it just lops off the top end power and does sweet FA for the midrange.

Why not just let it have the full power engine?

[Yorick]

Why not just let it have the full power engine?

It's for the girls and crap riders

[The Spin Doctor]

Why do they always "retune for torque?" on an engine derived from a sportsbike

Usually it just lops off the top end power and does sweet FA for the midrange.

Why not just let it have the full power engine?

Because once you get a bike capable of topping 120-odd mph, a combination of gearing and revs dictates you can't actually unleash full power and stay even vaguely within the speed limit.

Think about it - if you have a 100 mph first gear like you do on a Gixxer 1000 or an R1 and they produce peak power up near the red line you'll never get near it in first, let alone in the higher gears. What you end up doing on those bikes is using big throttle openings at much lower revs in higher gears where you're way off the power curve.

And it's torque that gives you the shove forward, not power. I know I'm talking about a middleweight but the retune for torque on my XJ6 compared with the R6 is REALLY noticeable. Top gear round a 25 mph hairpin in the Pyrenees, on an R6? Not likely. The XJ6 managed it fine

In any case, can you accelerate any faster than a wheelie? An RD250 used to be able to do that very handily on about 30 hp. Which shows that it's gearing that matters