Kawasaki Motorcycle Forums banner

1 - 14 of 14 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
10 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I think I saw a new 2005 1500 fi classic at the local dealer the other day. I did not know they were going to make it again until I looked on the web site. Can anyone give me the pros and cons comparing the 1500 and 1600? They look different in the tank and fenders. Magazine reviewers have always given the 1500 high marks and the 1600 low marks, what's the deal?
 

·
VRA National President
Joined
·
203 Posts
I can only comment on esthetics because I haven't ridden either nor read enough about the 1600 to comment. Personally, I prefer the looks of the 1500. It has more of a classical look to it. I don't like the "bubbly" look that the new 1600's have and the area on the left side of the bike around the shaft drive looks bare and open, like something's missing. It reminds me of a MeanStreak. Nothing against MeanStreaks but a GoldWing shouldn't remind you of a Ninja either. Just my opinion. <shrug>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,352 Posts
re

05 FI specs-


Displacement 1470 cc Bore & stroke 102.0 x 90.0 mm Maximum Torque 83.9 lb-ft @ 2,800 RPM Compression Ratio 9.0:1 Fuel injection Mitsubishi Ø 36 mm x 2 Transmission 5-speed Charging System 42A x 14V @6000 rpm Rake Angle 32º Front Wheel Travel 150 mm (5.9 in.) Rear Wheel Travel 95 mm (3.7 in.) Front Tire Size 130/90-16 Rear Tire Size 150/80-16 Wheelbase 1665 mm (65.6 in.) Seat Height 700 mm (27.6 in.) Fuel Tank Capacity 19 L (4.2 gal.) Dry Weight 299 kg (659 lb.) Warranty 12 months GTPP 24 or 36 months MSRP $12,499

05 1600 specs-


Type 4-stroke V-Twin Displacement 1,552 cc Bore & Stroke 102 x 95 mm Compression Ratio 11.3:1 Valve system SOHC, 8 valves, automatic hydraulic lash adjustment Fuel injection Ø 36 mm x 2 Ignition Digital Starting Electric Cooling Liquid Lubrication Forced lubrication, wet sump Engine Oil: Rating API SE, SF, SG, SH (with JASO MA), or SJ (with JASO MA) Engine Oil: Viscosity SAW 10W-40 Engine Oil: Capacity 3.5 litres Spark plug DRP6EA-9 Valve timing: Inlet Open: 28° BTDC;
Close: 72° ABDC; Duration: 280°
Exhaust Open: 66° BBDC;
Close: 34° ATDC; Duration: 280° Charging current & voltage 42 A, 14 V @ 6,000 rpm DRIVETRAIN Transmission 5-speed, return Primary drive Gear Final drive Shaft Primary reduction ratio 1.517 (85/56) Gear ratios: 1st 2.500 (40/16) 2nd 1.590 (35/22) 3rd 1.192 (31/26) 4th 0.965 (28/29) 5th 0.781 (25/32) Final reduction ratio 2.619 (15/21 x 33/9) Overall drive ratio 3.105 @ top gear Clutch Wet, multi-disc FRAME Type Double-cradle, high-tensile steel Suspension, front 43 mm telescopic fork Suspension, rear Swingarm with twin shocks with 4-way rebound damping Wheel travel: front 150 mm Wheel travel: rear 95 mm Tires: front 130/90-16M/C (67H) Tires: rear 170/70B16M/C (75H) Caster (rake) 32° Trail 177 mm Steering angle (left/right) 34.5° / 34. BRAKES Front Dual 300 mm discs Front calipers Dual twin-piston calipers Rear Single 300 mm disc Rear caliper Twin-piston caliper ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT Battery 12 V, 18 Ah Headlight (high/low) 12 V, 60/55 W Tail/brake light 12 V, 5/21 W DIMENSIONS Overall length 2,505 mm Overall width 980 mm Overall height 1,150 mm Wheelbase 1,704 mm Ground clearance 130 mm Seat height 681 mm Dry weight 315 kg Fuel capacity 20 L



high marks for 1500 come from its history as being a very reliable bike,its been around a number of years -i'm sure the 1600 will prove to be equal
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
Thanks for the stats bikaholic it sounds like the 1600 is a more modern engine. Have you ridden the 1500? Can you compare the ride and ergonomics? I can see you have a 1600, what color is it?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,267 Posts
Here are some more specs from Motorcycle Cruiser mag:

2005 1500 Classic: 1/4 mile/mph = 15.03 sec/67.5 mph
MSRP = $9599

2005 1600 Classic: 1/4 mile/mph = 14.56 sec/68.5 mph
MSRP = $10,599

Kaw stroked the old 1500 about 1/4 inch to gain the diff in displacement (1470cc vs 1552cc). The bike is a bit different, wheelbase and seat height are fractionally different, rear tire is slightly larger on the 1600. The main diff is with the 1600, you get dual discs on the front brake, which IS a plus. The 1500 front brake could be stronger but is adequate.

Since I own a 1500, I am biased, but I don't see the $1000 difference in the two, especially since they went back to fuel injection on the 2005 1500. The FI is much superior, in my opinion, to having carbs. And I know the 1500 is RELIABLE - mine has 23,000 miles and all I have done is change oil, filter, and one set of tires. It is, however, time to change the coolant, which I will do this winter.

T-man
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,352 Posts
re

my 1600 is pearl white and yes i have riden the 1500 many times and it is a
great bike!! but i got a really good deal for mine and i wanted the white
so i went with the new 1600 - i feel a little more comfortable on the 16
and i also wanted cast wheels with tubeless tires but you would very happy with either bike imo :wink:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
Tubeless tires and dual disks would be worth the extra money.

Is the seat as bad as the magazines say? I guess a Mustang seat would take care of any problems.

Tman your 1500 looks real nice
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
244 Posts
The Kaw seats are notoriously bad on all the bikes. It's a probable expense whether you go 1500 or 1600. Personally, I prefer the 1600's styling. That's totally an individual thing.

Your 800B is an '89? Now that's a classic classic. Time to trade up, eh?
 

·
VRA National President
Joined
·
203 Posts
:shock: Oops! Didn't know I was dissin the moderator's bike.
What I really meant to say was that I think the 1600 looks far superior to any of the Vulcans. :)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hey Tman, that is a sharp lookin scoot. Can you post a bigger picture of it? I'd love to get a better look.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,352 Posts
re

:grin: its all good slicks - you ride a harley too so your excused :p
 
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
Top