Two KLR's, which to buy

[purdueXJ]

I'm looking at buying a bike in the next few weeks. It's my first bike, and I think I'm set on a KLR, mainly due to my budget and what is available around here. I have found 2 2006's for ~$3000, the major difference between the two is one has 14,135 miles, Doohickey fixed, Skid plate, Desert lights, 12-volt outlet, Navigation mount, Tank and tail bag, Cage with highway pegs. The other is stock with only 2500 miles. From what I've read, these bike will run for a long time, but my gut is telling me to go with the low miles bike, while I want to get the other bike because of what it comes with. I just wanted to get some input from people with experience.

[goodtimes]

You should probably go look at both of them.

14K isn't a lot of miles - and it's always nice on the pocket book to have a few things taken care of (doohickey, skid plate, bags, etc).

But - if it was a rough 14K miles, or you don't like the way the bike was modified (cheap parts, poor attention to detail, etc), then maybe it is better to do the work yourself to the lower mileage bike.

[Cody1771]

honestly i'd probably go with the one with all the farkles, 14k is nothing considering people are getting 100+

[ravenranger]

+1 Farkles

especially if they're ones you'd want anyway

[MarcFJ60]

I think Goodtimes really hit it. The mileage is far less of an issue than condition and maintenance. Moreover, a 6 year old bike with 2500 miles is less than 500 miles per year. Bikes don't like to sit around without being ridden, and that one has some significant downtime.

But if neither has been abused, you probably can't go wrong either way.

[Frank]

I would agree with goodtimes

[purdueXJ]

All good points, thanks for the input.

[Cabrito]

I think Goodtimes really hit it. The mileage is far less of an issue than condition and maintenance. Moreover, a 6 year old bike with 2500 miles is less than 500 miles per year. Bikes don't like to sit around without being ridden, and that one has some significant downtime.

But if neither has been abused, you probably can't go wrong either way.

The thing that bugs me about the bike with only 2500 miles is can you trust that they didn't just undo the speedo or replace it? I bought my 2000 KLR with only 11k miles on it and it was ten years old. As I got into the bike doing maintenance and zeroing out all the fluids ect. I came to suspect that the mileage was not accurate. Lot's of wear and tear on screw heads, and other parts.

You really need to look at both of them to decide.

[purdueXJ]

The thing about dual sports around here is we don't have too many places to ride them, mainly just dirt roads. Most of the ones I have seen in the past have pretty low miles. There's not much more than corn in Indiana.

[slawson2000]

Miles are not as important as condition. 14k of pampered miles is better that 100 miles with no oil in it. Look at them both. Then go with your gut.