[URL]http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/190518541155[/URL]
HFM? They're coming out of the woodwork everywhere it seems: http://minneapolis.craigslist.org/wsh/mcy/2309930927.html You could buy a very decent FJR for that much, and a new ZG1400 for not a whole lot more.
Quite. And the seat and the front mudguard are wrong. A new ZG1400 for not much more than six grand? Blimey.
FFS. At 4 grand I'm not surprised at the zero bids. Even if it were reasonably priced, and I wanted another one[1] I'd really hate to deal with someone whose spelling was that bad. [1] Which of coutse a part of me does, as it was my first ever bike, back in 1976.
That didn't come out like I meant it to... I meant a new-style used Concours ZG1400 as opposed to the old-style Concours ZG1000. I owned a ZG1000 and they are an OK bike, but you'd have to have the cognitive abilities of a pissed gerbil to prefer one over an FJR, there's no comparison whatsoever. But this guy is only one of an endless procession of clueless sellers on Craiglist and elsewhere, who think their old tat is gold.
I once vaguely considered one as a cheapo tourer, before I bought the Trophy (and then the BMW), because you do seem to get an awful lot of bike and kit for not much money. I've met a few owners and the bikes seem reliable and long-lived (which is no surprise), but they do seem something of a lash-up.
I can't disagree. Making an allowance for the fact that it came out 15 years previous to the FJR, it doesn't look quite so bad, but when you're asking for similar money, well, someone's out of touch. The Concours Owners Group are a pretty rabid bunch when it comes to defending the ZG1000 (though many/most of that organization have moved on to the ZG1400 now) but to a man, they would be the first to admit that this guy doesn't have his head screwed on straight.
Kawasaki never seemed to develop the ZG. They gave it some new colours from time to time, and then, IIRC, they detuned it by about 10-15bhp, for some inexplicable reason. But later ones really looked exactly like the first ones. When you think what BMW did with the K100RT (which came out a year before the ZG), by developing it into the K1100LT and then the K1200LT, over more or less the same time-span that the ZG ran for, this is just.... well, it's just odd, considering the ZG was originally aimed head-on at BMW. Even Triumph tried to develop the Trophy. It started as a sports- tourer, and then they gave it a bigger fairing and a more upright riding position, and then they changed the screen design again, but I think that they, like Kawasaki, were trying to make a silk purse out of something that was a bit of a sow's ear. I think they made a better fist of it than Kawasaki, actually.
The de-tuning is news to me. Not saying it didn't happen but I'm fairly sure nothing of substance changed in the engines or carbs over the bike's lifetime[1]. If this had happened I'm sure I would have caught a whiff of it on the COG forum, if only from one group of owners needling others with lesser-spec engines. If you meant that they detuned it when they created the ZG shaft-drive variant from the Ninja 1000, that may well be. [1] cams[2] and carbs are the same from 86-06. [2] IIRC the intake and exhaust cams are the same part[3], but the sprockets are bolted on differently. [3] I know because I have a ruined set of cams I hadn't the heart[4] to throw away. [4] or brains.
FWIW, Motorcycle Consumer News tested the Concours in Dec 1996 and reported 88.4 hp at the rear wheel. My seat-of-the-pants dynamometer measurements of my '98 model would agree with that number. Given the typical 15% reduction in hp from what is claimed at the crank to the back wheel, that would make a 100hp at the crank number believable. The Cycle World magazine review from their September 1986 issue says the hp claimed by Kawasaki was 108. Anyhow- with the smaller 32mm CVK carbs and milder cams I am sure it did not make the same power as the ZX1000R with 36mm carbs and hotter cams, which Cycle magazine tested at 105 rear wheel hp.
Just dug it out. They claimed 92bhp for the 1994 model - the article said it had had 18bhp lopped off it due to emissions regs. Whether that was the same spec as the US model, I dunno. For 1994, the UK model got uprated suspension, tandem-piston brake calipers and semi-floating discs, a lower seat, new switchgear and slightly revised instruments. Oh, and a new front mudguard.
I /think/ we had a California spec and a 49 state spec version at some point, but I CBA to bother checking. Usually the only CA difference is adding an evaporative canister, but sometimes hard parts are changed as well. Yep, we got the same updates here. Anecdotal reports say that none of those mods made any difference worth mentioning except that some parts don't interchange between early and late models.
