Help Scotty decide on an Expedition Moto...

[Scott Brady]

I have decided to buy an Expedition / Enduro Motorcycle. It will happen in Dec. or Jan.

Why:

1. I want to explore some areas on a bike and start writing some articles on dual-sport travel. A business justification.

2. I need a vehicle to pre-run the Baja 500 efficiently and quickly. I cannot build a pre-runner truck right now.

3. I need a back-up vehicle for the Tacoma, a parts and errand runner because I am selling my Jeep.

Requirements (in this order):

1. Reliability above all else

2. Off-Road performance

3. On-Road safety and handling

4. 200 mile off-road range (with aftermarket equipment if required)

5. Ability to fit bags for 3-5 days of camping. Possibly longer.


It really needs to be rock solid on reliability and good on the trail or it does not satisfy my requirements. I don't care about a bunch of power or the ability to do 80 all day with it (my Tacoma suffers on both accounts).

I want to be able to jump it, wheelie it, climb rutted and rocky trails and be able to pick it up a dozen times in 50 yards if the terrain requires it.

All of my riding has been with 4 stroke dirt bikes with long travel and great reliability. I just want to add an electric start, license plate, GPS, big tank and a few bags.

What:

BMW 650 Dakar- Reliability is sketchy based on my research, great road performance, looks great and can haul two if required.

Honda XR650L- Great reliability and great in the dirt. Big road compromise though. A top contender at this time.

Suzuki DRZ400S- Good reliability and price. Limited freeway use.

Suzuki DR650SE- Good reliability and price. 10.2" of travel

Kawasaki KLR650- Reliability not known, 9" of travel, 6.1 gallon tank! Very high rankings and owner opinion.

All the KTM enduro bikes are too big.

So help a moto newb get the right machine

[goodtimes]

As you already know, I am very happy with my BMW. But it is heavy for a dirt bike, and to be honest, it is more like a 75% street, 25% dirt kind of deal. I don't know if I would want to beat one across Baja or not. With a good set of knobbies, some aftermarket springs, heavier oil in the shocks....people seem to be happier off road. But it's heavy....and the newer versions are getting pretty technical. As in, everything is run off of the computer...just like modern cars. Fuel injection, spark control, oxygen sensors....when it works, it works very well. I have seen a few people (on line) have problems with them, but honestly, not many. And I can only think of one or two threads where major problems are occuring.

The biggest problems I have seen....they are heavy, expensive (relative to other bikes of the same size), and hard to find. As you know, I had to wait 4 months to get mine. During that time, I only saw a couple for sale locally (cycle trader), and they wanted a friggin mint for a beat up bike with high miles. Seriously, who is going to pay $7000 for a 4 year old bike with 38,000 miles on it, when a brand new bike, with the improved ignition system and a 3 yr/36K warranty is only $7100?

[Nullifier]

Well Scott I only know enough about dual sports to be dangerous LOL! But for what it's worth I have always had great reliability with my Kawasaki's. Now I know a bit about the KLR in the sense that the part reliability is excellent and inexpensive. As well as it is a simple machine to fix in the field. I know that some folks would say that because it is an old design it is out dated but asometimes that can be agood thing as we all know.

On the Week of river trip I led I had a chance to ride one. One of the paddle club members has one and he brought it to do some riding in the blackwater forest. It had been forever since I was on anything other then a street bike But I found it to be very comfortable. I guess if it were me personally I would probably go for the KLR. I guess because I like Kawi's and it makes great sense economically.

[Ursidae69]

I really liked my KLR, but when I get another bike I plan to get something lighter, even if it means no freeway driving. I had a stretch of trail one time where I dumped the klr like 5 times, it exhausted me because it is so heavy. I really like the DR400, and might get that next. You should test drive them if you can. I guess I need two bikes, one for haluing around and playing locally in the dirt, and a BMW for the longer expo type trips.

[Jonathan Hanson]

I, too, have had just enough experience to be dangerous. But if you plan to use this for articles, then BMW is without doubt the iconic choice, the Land Rover Defender of all-terrain motorcycles, the one everyone secretly wishes he owned.

[pskhaat]

Honda. It may not be the Rover of bikes, but it's the Toyota of bikes. Great all around machines with some of the best engine engineers on the planet in that company.

[VikingVince]

2. Off-Road performance

3. On-Road safety and handling

4. 200 mile off-road range (with aftermarket equipment if required)

It really needs to be rock solid on reliability and good on the trail or it does not satisfy my requirements.

I want to be able to jump it, wheelie it, climb rutted and rocky trails and be able to pick it up a dozen times in 50 yards if the terrain requires it.

Your offroad requirements appear to be dominant, especially the "jump it, wheelie it, climb rutted and rocky trails and pick it up a dozen times in 50 yards..." Doesn't THAT statement, in and of itself from a practical standpoint, make anything over 400cc's less desirable? Yes, you could do that with a 650 but that's significantly more weight to be dealing with. I agree with Chuck...not only does it exhaust you picking it up repeatedly but there's also a significantly higher potential injury factor in having a leg/ankle getting crunched under a heavier bike. (when doing the stuff you described)

I want a Suzuki DRZ400S...but, damn, it's hard to find a used one in southern CA...can't go out of state either because of emission differences. Also, one of my criteria is being able to transport it (not offroad) in a hitch carrier behind my truck...set up base camp in a campground and go biking. The 291 pound dry weight of the Suzuki 400 seems to be the most I should go with a rear hitch carrier behind a Tacoma. Is any of that a consideration for you or are you getting a bike trailer? Or are you not planning on taking the truck and the bike at the same time?

[Scott Brady]

Is any of that a consideration for you or are you getting a bike trailer? Or are you not planning on taking the truck and the bike at the same time?

I am planning on having the bike and truck at times (like Baja for pre-running). The Chaser trailer will be the transport.

I have spent some time on a Honda 650 and really like the bike in the dirt. It's capabilities would make it less likely to get dumped in the first place. I am doing some research on smaller bikes too.

Sand and mud is where dumping most often occurs. Tough stuff to lift a bike out of from my experience.

So, you are right about the 400cc or less advantage. The problem is highway and long trip performance.

I am seriously considering riding whatever I get to Alaska next summer.

I need the Toyota Tacoma (with DR suspension) equivalent in a Moto

[VikingVince]

I am seriously considering riding whatever I get to Alaska next summer.

It seems to me...and a little knowledge is dangerous I know...that at some point the very concept of "dual sport" becomes flawed, i.e. not big enough for long distance onroad and too big for effective handling offroad. Would you really want to ride a Honda XR650L all the way to Alaska? Wouldn't that be one sore body after a few days?

It seems to me that with the dual sport concept, one has to choose which of the dual activities you MOST want the bike for...and choose your bike accordingly. But as we know with trucks, it's always a tradeoff.

[Scott Brady]

Well maybe there is a KTM option

11.5 and 13" of wheel travel and factory dual sport kit.



Wicked in the dirt and 6th gear for the road...