Most reliable bikes

I am just curious as to what folks feel are the most reliable bikes
out there today. I purchased an old '85 VF700 Interceptor and found
out that it is definately NOT one of the most reliable used bikes out
there, with its voltage regulator/rectifier, cam/rocker and related
oil supply problems. Before this bike, I owned a '90 EX500 which was
very reliable with no known chronic problems other than a flywheel
starter gear that tended to break the weld off at the bushing (I re-
welded mine). Of course having a lower end and clutch/tranny designed
for the Ninja 1000 helped.
Anyway, I will be looking for another used street bike and I was
wondering what sorts of bikes have what sorts of Achilles Heels and
which used bikes are as reliable as cinder blocks.
Any info will be greatly appreciated.

 

Depends how old a bike you're talking about. For stuff up to 20 years
old:

Honda:
The early Honda v4s were poor, but the later (gear driven camshafts)
VFR750/800 is one of the most solid engines ever built by anyone. They
just don't break. Reg/rec failure sometimes happens: that's it. The
CB500S parallel twin comes to mind. Also the CBR600 and Blackbird.
Gold Wing. Some of the smaller ones: the CD/CB/Rebel 250 twin, for
instance.

Yamaha
XJ900S Diversion - not a model the US got, I think. Again,
supernaturally reliable. A bit dull, though. The 600 version's solid,
too, but the electrics corrode a bit.

Suzuki
The old GSXR750/1100 series, if properly maintained. Modern GSXR1000
seems good.

Kawasaki
Any of the GPZ900/1000 series. Just about any Kawasaki four, actually.

BMW
The K100s and 1100s, plus the 75 triples. The modern boxers and K1200
series have a very, very chequered reputation.

Triumph
The old 900 triples and 1200 fours, post 1995, anyway. Some hiccups
here and there.

Basically, there are few unreliable bikes built these days, so it's
easier to work that way round. Some Triumphs, some Ducatis, some BMWs.

 

I like to read this newsgroup but wish people would also name the MAKE of
the bike which they reference instead of just '85 VF700'. I know it's my
lack of knowledge, but I will eventually learn to recognize the models.

Thanks,
Ivan Vegvary (has no idea what a 'Ninja' is)

 

If reliability is the ONLY criteria, I vote for a Harley Sportster any year
after about 1989. Very rarely do you see in any magazines or personal
friends that have problems with Sporties. One of my friends, who is not
great on maitenance, put 80,000 miles on his 883 with almost no repairs. The
miles where mostly two up.

Noob

 

Ivan,
The quickest course of action for you would be to highlight & copy the
name you don't understand, and paste it to the Google.com search
window.
Ninja is a often used name for various Kawasaki "sports style" street
bikes.

 

Sometimes it seems the Honda name is a bit over-rated in terms of
reliability. I know a few with VFR's and they always seem to boil over in
the summer months. If you ask a dealer, the ones who whine the most are the
Gold Wing people. Somehow they equate lots of dollars to something that
"should work" and not have problems like injector issues, head-wobble,
heating issues, electrical gremlins, CD player skipping, etc.

I believe the last J.D. Power survey put Victory at the top for reliability
and customer satisfaction.

B~

 

*Snort*

Work out how that happened.

 

Excellent information, all.
Sorry, the VF700 is indeed a Honda Interceptor, and mine still runs
peachy with 22k on the clock. "Ninja" refers to the Kawasaki sport
bikes, from the 2 cylinder EX250's and 500's, to the four cylinder
(ZX?) 600's, 750's, 900's, and 1000's.
I am quite surprised to see the HD recomendation and the Victory, um,
victory, but it is what it is.
How about any storys of "bad" bikes that folks have owned, and their
experiences with serious problems that they have encountered, or
discovered as being common to the breed? Suzuki DRZ cam tensioners,
for example.
I may consider a SV650 next and I have heard only good things about
them, but I am not sure that my wife would be any more comfortable on
the back of one than she is on the interceptor.
Thank You for all of the feedback!!
GP

 

And if we want to go back into antiquity, I nominate the Yamaha SR500. I've
had one since '83 and had only one problem in all that time until a recent
stubborn carb problem that still persists (more on that another time). And
mine isn't even stock. It had the White Brothers mods in it when I got it.

 

One of the best fun bikes I've ever owned. Wish I hadn't sold it.

 

And I wish I had effing remembered that I did have enough money for it
sitting in my savings account...

 

There's another bike I wish I hadn't sold.

 

Yes sir;.............. There is a suzuki DR600 that i had ,a bulldozer
forsure...........

Hellmopper's regards.............
..
message

 

later Nighthawks and FZR 1000's due to starter problems and starter
system access. It would be a PITA to come across something like having
the system parts located in such a manner as to require engine removal
and complete disassembly for service to the starter system. Definately
not something that I would want to get into.

 

By your logic, I should avoid buying a blue car, because I know someone
who got killed driving a blue car.

Two of the three bikes you listed don't have an abnormal incidence of
problems with their starters. The Virago, while it does have a known
problem with the starter, it doesn't require removal or disassembly of
the engine to fix it.

 

To be honest, no, do you? (other than your own personal story
about your FZR1000). I am confident in saying there isn't a huge
problem with starter clutches on Nighthawks or FZR1000s or it
would be all over the web by now.

Yes, I know. I was just responding to the OP who was lumping all
starter (clutch or otherwise) problems under the generic "starter
problem" label.

Now that you mention it I think I have heard horror stories about
certain Hinckley Triumphs destroying their starter clutches if you
attempt to start one with a nearly dead battery.

I also have experience with a failed starter clutch, it was on my '77
KZ650B1, and I did have to take the sump & oil pump off but I did not
have to remove the engine or split the cases. It certainly wouldn't
put me off buying another KZ or similarly engineered bike.

 

There was indeed. The problem, as you say, cropped up if you tried
starting the thing with a dying battery (and Triumphs of that era had
rather undersized batteries).

The starter wouldn't spin the engine fast enough, and it would kick
back, destroying the starter clutch. That was an £800 dealer job to fix.

As for Kawasakis, much the same ailment for much the same reason, though
it never afflicted my GT750. And as you say, it was possible to get at
the starter clutch via the sump.

There's a lot of crap talked about inherent bike faults, and much of it
is talked by the people who say: "Oh, well, look at how much work is
needed to fix it if it goes wrong..."

The point is that the Japanese (by and large) build bikes that don't go
wrong unless owners abuse them.

 

My thinking is that *all* starter sytems are critical systems (to me)
and that my experience has shown me that I would not want a design
that prevents easy accessability to the critical parts. A sprague
clutch behind the flywheel is fine, but I do not want to have to drop
the engine and split the cases to get at it. Virago's, OTOH, have a
known Achilie's Heel in their starters themselves (I gather). This is
all extremely good information to me, and exactly the type of stuff
that I set out to uncover with this thread.
Thanks to all who contributed.
BTW- My older brother had 2 SR500's. One was stock and the other had
a WB motor with a hand hammered aluminum tank, suspension work, and
clip ons. My thoughts are that the stock bike bike was very anemic and
not suited to 2 up riding at all, and the WB bike was fun to ride, but
again, not suited to carrying a passenger at all. And, kick start
only, is not ideal.

 

But they don't have a lot of starter problems .

Although I'll admit that at age 70, this starter is beginning to wear out .

 

If you were at all familiar with the bike, instead of poring over
diagrams, you'd know that the old Z650 lump was one of the best,
toughest, longest-lived, most developed and durable engines ever to come
from Japan.

To paraphrase Classic Bike[1] of a few months ago - it started at 64bhp,
was tweaked to over 70bhp for the Z750, tuned again to over 80bhp for
the GPz750, and then tweaked once more to 112bhp for the Turbo: nearly
twice as much power as the original Z650. And the Turbo even used the
same cylinder head.

Kawasaki knew what they were doing. A little occasional wprk on the
starter clutch on the very early bikes is hardly disastrous.

[1] Probably the most authoritative classic motorcycle mag printed in
the English language.