Have motorcycles really come all that far lately?

[faffi]

When you read a test report, the journalist tend to rave themselves silly about the newest and latest model. Brakes are ten times better, the engine a mile smoother, fueling have improved to another level and the suspension is ever so much greater. I've also been told over and over I need to try a modern bike (the "hottest" bike I've ridden before the MT was a Honda VTR1000F...) because even economy models had improved so much.
 
Well, for race replicas and adventure + touring bikes with active suspension this may have some merits. But since I have ridden neither I cannot comment.
 
What I can comment about is motorcycle evolution to some extent. The oldest bike I have ridden more than around the block was from 1974, the most current my 2015 MT-07. Behind the two there are worlds, with just about everything so much better on the latter that it isn't funny.
 
But for (my) fun, let's compare a couple of other motorcycles to the MT-07. Like my slightly upgraded Kawasaki Z650 from 1977.
 

 
I modified the damper rods (drilled out the compression holes) for more compliance and fitted custom-made Ikon rear shocks 21 mm longer than stock (4/5 in) with the same increase in shock travel. The fork gave more compliance and the shocks more control than the stock items on the MT-07. The brakes, though, really are worlds apart, with the items on the MT-07 being much better. The Yamaha engine also have a lot more power everywhere. Typical fuel consumption on the MT-07 seems to be around 63 mpgUS, the KZ averaged around 50 mpgUS with a high of 60 mpg achieved once.
 
Still, other than the brakes and the MT's ability to change direction quicker, there isn't much to suggest that there are nearly 40 years between them.
 
Next example is with a little more contemporary motorcycle, my bone stock 1996 Suzuki GSX600F (Katana in USA). It still represent technology mostly from 1988, but it was upgraded for 1990 with better suspension and wheels. The 1990 and 1996 were  identical, though, save for the colour.
 
There isn't a tremendous amount of difference between the brakes other than the benefit of ABS on the MT. Yes, the MT brakes are more powerful and hence a little easier to control, but in actual stopping distance I doubt there's much in it. Front suspension is pretty similar between the two on smooth roads, but the Suzuki had more in reserve under hard going. And the rear shock on the Suzuki is miles ahead of the one fitted to the MT, being both far more comfortable as well as much better controlled. 
 
The Yamaha is nimbler and quicker steering, but part of that comes from the taller and wider handlebars - the GSX was in no way a slow or heavy steering machine, but the MT is in a class of its own. Performance wise... well, the GSX of mine was much faster, but the MT at least feels quicker up to about 75 mph. In normal riding, however, the MT will kill the GSX because there is always instant power on tap, in any gear, at any rpm. The GSX also pulled surprisingly well - it left my mate's CB750 Nighthawk for dead in top gear roll-ons and nearly stayed with my brother's Triumph 900 Daytona in every way - but it doesn't hold a patch to the low- and midrange power of the MT. Fuel mileage was about 47 to the gallon, BTW.
 
From my rather limited experience I would expect rather little difference in chassis performance between a 1990 Honda CBR600F and a current CB650F, or a 1996 Yamaha Thundercat and a current XJ6F, or a 1990 GX600F and a current GSX650F, or a 1990 ZX-11 and a current ZX-14. I would also expect a 1996 GSX-R750 to outperform any current sports-tourer.
 
However, since my experience is so limited with modern motorcycles, I would love to hear from others that have and what they think.
 
 

[Beemer]

I remember back when manufacturers started de tuning their sport bikes and giving up top end power for more mid range punch. I also remember a lot of people didn't like that chet. I think of the FJ600 when I think about that era, it being one of my favorite bikes back then and being affected (negatively) by de tuning.

[faffi]

The FJ600 dominated box stock racing in 1984 and -85 IIRC. It had a little more peak performance than the GS(X)550E and held an even greater advantage over the VF500F and GPz550. But whereas the Honda was typically very smooth in how it delivered power and the Kawasaki had a little bit of grunt, the Suzuki was all top end. The Yamaha, however, had more power everywhere, especially below 8000 rpm. Not unlike the MT-07 vs the competition today.
 
 
I didn't know Yamaha ever detuned the FJ, though?  By 84, Kawasaki had already made their GPz peakier than before when upping power first from 58 (1981) to 62 (1982) and finally 65 (1984) and that didn't change for the coming year. Honda detuned their Viffer and dropped the redline by 500 rpm, Suzuki made no mention of detuning, but it certainly got slower during the following years. The FJ held steady, though, and the Ninja 600 introduced for 1985 didn't quite seem to be a match for the FJ in overall performance, despite 3 more claimed ponies and better streamlining. Like the others, it lacked the grunt of the FJ and hence came off the tight corners slower.

[Cruizin]

I had a GPZ 1100 in 1983 and it was fast as hell for that time period. Faster than that piece of shet Honda V-65 Magna was. Some marketing guy wrote that the V-65 Magna was statistically capable of 170 MPH and everyone went crazy over it. The V-65 Magna made 100 Horsepower and handled like crap.
 
The GPZ-1100 made 120 HP stock and more could be had by installing a Kerker exhaust. Plus, back then we still had real gasoline in the USA. The high octane gas was purple. And when i put that purple hightest gas in my GPZ that bike freaking flew! Fly right up the tallest of hills with my Girlfriend on back screaming bloody murder, lol.
 
Not mine but just like the one I had. Sadly, that bike got stolen and never returned. Pissed me off!! And the 1984 Girlfriend dumped me!
 
 

 
So then I got the lighter and more powerful GPZ900r. Holy crap tat bike was fast. Kawasaki got rid of the bad fuel injection and went back to carbs. I rejetted the carbs and installed a kerker and omg that bike was so freakin fun. I seriously think that the GPZ900R was one of the very best bikes ever made. So fast, so comfortable, good for two up, good for distance riding, good for drag racing, good for the track. It was an amazing bike in the 80's. It was the beginning of liquid cooled superbikes. 16 inch front wheels, good fairing, the first anti dive system.
 
Of all the bikes I have ever owned, the one I wish that I still had was that GPZ900R.
 
 

 

[faffi]

The GPz1100 made 1 hp less at the rear wheel than the V65 Magna, both tested at the Cycle magazine dyno, both making around 105 rwhp. The Honda towered over the Kawasaki at anything below peak rpm, though - Kawasaki sacrificed a ton of midrange power when they upped the claimed power from 110 to 120. The V65 was marginally quicker in the standing start 1/4-mile (on average, figures taken from period test reports), the GPz had a higher top speed. Yes, the Honda was geared for 170 mph, but had power for about 140 due to aerodynamics.
 
That said, there were even bigger production tolerances then than we have today *. Much bigger. So I wouldn't be surprised if you had engines from both makes producing anything between 80 and 110 rwhp. If you had a hard running Kawasaki, it would naturally run circles around an average Honda.
 
As to the Ninja 900 - yes, it was a fantastic motorcycle, well ahead of its time. The technology was simple, but the execution superb. After all, it stayed in production for 2 decades, which doesn't happen often. Over the years it gained a 17 in front wheel and lost the AVDS anti-dive, but otherwise it basically stayed the same it had been since 1984. That should tell people something about how right the bike was from the onset.
 
 
* As an example: My brother and I both owned Honda CB1100Fs. Identical, but oh so different. His bike would wobble around any corner taken at full lean above 70 mph and wouldn't tolerate any cornering at all above 120. My bike could be cornered around a bumpy bend, peg and stands and exhaust on the ground, at 125 mph without moving AT ALL. It's the most stable bike I have ridden in my 37 years as a rider. Funnily enough, my brothers 1100 made enough power to redline 5th gear (137 mph) inside a 1/4-mile SITTING UPRIGHT, whereas mine would not go past 130 mph on a level road no matter how long and no matter how flat I pressed myself against the tank. His bike would leave FJ1100s as were they 750s, my 1100 didn't have a chance to stay with the FJs. Two worlds.
 

[Cruizin]

The GPz1100 made 1 hp less at the rear wheel than the V65 Magna, both tested at the Cycle magazine dyno, both making around 105 rwhp. The Honda towered over the Kawasaki at anything below peak rpm, though - Kawasaki sacrificed a ton of midrange power when they upped the claimed power from 110 to 120. The V65 was marginally quicker in the standing start 1/4-mile (on average, figures taken from period test reports), the GPz had a higher top speed. Yes, the Honda was geared for 170 mph, but had power for about 140 due to aerodynamics. 
That said, there were even bigger production tolerances then than we have today *. Much bigger. So I wouldn't be surprised if you had engines from both makes producing anything between 80 and 110 rwhp. If you had a hard running Kawasaki, it would naturally run circles around an average Honda.
 
As to the Ninja 900 - yes, it was a fantastic motorcycle, well ahead of its time. The technology was simple, but the execution superb. After all, it stayed in production for 2 decades, which doesn't happen often. Over the years it gained a 17 in front wheel and lost the AVDS anti-dive, but otherwise it basically stayed the same it had been since 1984. That should tell people something about how right the bike was from the onset.
 
 
* As an example: My brother and I both owned Honda CB1100Fs. Identical, but oh so different. His bike would wobble around any corner taken at full lean above 70 mph and wouldn't tolerate any cornering at all above 120. My bike could be cornered around a bumpy bend, peg and stands and exhaust on the ground, at 125 mph without moving AT ALL. It's the most stable bike I have ridden in my 37 years as a rider. Funnily enough, my brothers 1100 made enough power to redline 5th gear (137 mph) inside a 1/4-mile SITTING UPRIGHT, whereas mine would not go past 130 mph on a level road no matter how long and no matter how flat I pressed myself against the tank. His bike would leave FJ1100s as were they 750s, my 1100 didn't have a chance to stay with the FJs. Two worlds.

 
I drag raced numerous V-65 Magna's with both bikes, and none of em could take me. But, it could be down to rider. Keep in mind, I was 18 in 1984 and got the GPZ900R when I was 19. I was fearless and I still can't believe that I didn't crash and burn. Heck, I should have died when I was 10-11 years old on my dirtbikes, the crazy stuff I was doing on dirtbikes actually made street riding seem more tame, almost boring, lol.
 
A big part of a bike's hp potential back then was how it was broke in. My dad always had me break my engines in right the first 20 miles, by riding the piss out of them, varying rpm's, and changing the oil/filter at 20 miles. Now days this is called the motoman method but my dad and his drag racing buddies knew about this since the early 60's.
 
Thankfully, factory tolerances have come a long way since then.
 
But back to the original question, have motorcycles really come that far along?
 
Yes and no. Safety and electronic features have added alot. Weight reduction has been huge for motorcycles (cept for harley) . ABS, traction control is important to alot of people, but not really to me.
 
But the satisfaction level/performance level of bikes have not kept up with the increase in price, in my opinion. In that, today's $10,000 motorcycle really doesn't give me much more joy than the 80's $4500 motorcycles. There is alot more plastic, there is alot more electronics and to me, thats not always a good thing. Electronics means that there are now a ton of emissions limitations placed on motorcycles that have to be overcome t reach full power potential.
 
Back in the day, ya just installed a kerker exhaust and rejetted your carbs. Now, ya gotta get your ecu reflashed or get a fuel controller, or both. Decide to leave the 02 sensors or disable them and both choices have certain disadvantages or advantages depending on what elevation level you were riding to or the humidity.
 
I dunno. I guess newer bikes have come along way technology wise. But the damn price of the technology is very high.
 
And back in the 80's, if you had pulled into the pits with yellow wheels on your bike, you would have probably got yer ass kicked, lol.
 
But, I might be about to change my mind. My neighbor just brought home a 2017 KTM Superduke 1290 GT and Im told that it is the perfect balance of sheer power (176 hp) and electronics that make you a better rider.
 
I'm gonna ride it on Wed. I'm reluctant because if it is as good as I'm told, will want one. And once a bike get's in my head, I usually end up getting it sooner or later. I have never owned a 176 hp bike before. I wonder if it comes with life insurance?
 

[mjh937]

@admin, I am curious to see what you think of the Superduke. Make sure you post a review after you ride it. Thanks

[faffi]

What he said - will be interesting to hear what you have to say about the powerhouse of a bike!

[bornagainbiker]

Hey faffi--love your KZ650--beauty of a bike. 

[jake]

My dad has A orange KZ650 in the shed looking at yours make me want to go get that thing and put it on the road.

[Beemer]

I stand corrected. What I should've said was people didn't like that instead of it being tuned for top end power it was tuned for midrange power. Not that they detuned it. Wrong choice of words on my part and thanks for correcting me on that. It was a great bike at the time, though.  

[Beemer]

My dad has A orange KZ650 in the shed looking at yours make me want to go get that thing and put it on the road.

Heck Jake, can a person still get a big bore kit for those bikes. Back in the day they called the KZ650's with those kits the giant killers. (750 killers anyway) What a cool, nostalgic bike to have. Video of how it sounds, perhaps? Will it start at least? 
Sorry, not trying to dethrone the thread.
 

[jake]

My dad has A orange KZ650 in the shed looking at yours make me want to go get that thing and put it on the road.

Heck Jake, can a person still get a big bore kit for those bikes. Back in the day they called the KZ650's with those kits the giant killers. (750 killers anyway) What a cool, nostalgic bike to have. Video of how it sounds, perhaps? Will it start at least? 
Sorry, not trying to dethrone the thread.

Last time It ran was about 20 years ago for about 20 min ( I got it running but I didn't know jack then)  then about another 20 before that lol. I think I want to have a little project to tinker with here and there and its a way to have 3 bikes and the wife wont complain haha  
Its funny you bring up the 750's my uncle had that bike at the same time as my dad and the story goes my dad was racing him and my uncle was full throttle top gear along side my dad and my dad clicked it up for one more gear and left him in the dust.
 

[faffi]

Thanks for the compliment, bornagainbiker
 
You can still get big bore kits from the old KZ650. You can also quite easily fit the 750 top end to these engines.
 
For inspiration, Jake, join http://forums.kz650.info/ THE best KZ650 forum on the planet. Very friendly and highly skilled members ready to assist with repairs and restorations. It would be great to see another KZ650 back on the road!
 
Not the best recording, but how my bike (now belonging to my son) sounds