Are first year models reliable? Suz,Kaw,Yam,Hon?

OB_Rogue

Registered
Top notch reliability goes to Honda. Although, they've had a few recalls in the past. The most recent on the CBR600F4 for overtorqued valve covers. Their bikes are also usually under powered compared to competition....and this is how they make their bikes reliable. They downgrade their powertrain performance to gain that extra bit in reliability. That's why Honda refuses to compete in the "Which bike is the Fastest" game. No doubt if they did, they would have reliability issues as well in the first year of production. Look at the first year production of the XX, no ramair, no FI. Did it beat the ZX11? Only after they sent a balanced & blueprinted bike to Motorcyclist. Even then, it beat the 11 only just so.

Kawasaki reliability is a notch below Honda. Their build quality is also below that of Honda & Suzuki. However, I don't remember any recalls for any Kwaks for a while now. Suffice it to say, Suzuki isn't the only manufacturer who's had cam chain tensioner problems. The previous ZX6R had it and so did the ZX11. What's the difference? Kawasaki didn't issue a recall. Not sure about the current ZX12R. And the 9R? Many people have complained about its abrupt throttle response in the midrange during aggressive cornering. Not the kind of bike I would want when I'm really pushing. Not Honda, Yam, nor Suzuki would release a bike with such a condition.

Yamaha's quality is right up there with Suzuki & Honda but reliability is the same as Suzuki. Just a notch below Honda & Kawasaki.

I think it's safe to assume that first year bikes in this caliber(ultra-sporty high perf. bikes) will have some teething problems. That's why it's wise to wait 'till the following year. Case in point is the Busa & R1. You must remember that these bikes are pushing the envelope of engine & chassis performance so everything must be precisely made & put together. In addition, design flaws sometimes don't show themselves during racetrack testing and accelerated street testing. Thus, the engineers & designers can do everything they can to ensure the bike is reliable, but they can't predict every little variable that happens in the real world. Nor can they expect to duplicate every single environmental condition(whether it be racing/street/garage/commuting/touring/etc.) that their bikes will be subjected to.

A good rule of thumb is, don't buy a bike on the first year of its production, if you don't want to deal with recalls and other little problems.
 
Honda definately has the quality. Owned a v45 Saber back in the 80s. Basically road it 30,000 miles with only oil changes and tire changes....not one problem. Owned a '94 CB1000 before the Busa...not one problem. Owned a ZX-7 before that and had a recall for oil getting sucked up in a breather between the crankcase and the airbox. Thought I'd blown the engine oneday when oil DID get sucked up into the airbox. This is my first Suzuki, so no comments I guess.
 
I definitely feel my 'Bus is more fragile then my '92 VFR. Dunno why.

The VFR (which was bought new in '95 as a DEMO with 330 miles) brought me 69,500 miles of trouble free riding. Nothing ever broke on that bike but 2 headlight bulbs. I supplied oil, tires, and chains. I checked the valves at 26,000 and 52,000 miles, and they were within tolerance. Never shimmed them. I did not ride the bike like a puss, ran it to redline daily, beat the clutch mecilessly with wheelies, etc. It simply never failed at ANYTHING.
 
OK guys, the GSXR-1000 is coming next year, and it sounds like an awesome liter bike - on paper. But after buying a 99 Busa with fuel filter, cam chain tensioner, and now rear subframe 'issues' I'm a little gunshy. Who thinks the GSXR-1000 will be reliable?

I want to believe in Suzuki, but for reliability I think I have to put Honda and Kawasaki ahead of Yam and Suzuki (as far as high end sportbikes go).

I figure:
929 - Typical Honda quality.
ZX9r - refined for 15 years. Hard to kill with an axe.
R1 - had its problems but now sorted.
GSXR-1000 - ?

Who has experience with the other brands and can comment on the quality/reliability?

For me, reliability is important. I will buy a bike that maybe isn't first in its class (or on the track) if it has less mechanical/electrical problems.
 
Honda does build a great bike, but they are plagued with problems like every other brand. I had a '84 V-65 and the cams did not get oil 12,000 miles and they were pitted bad. Honda corrected the problem in '86. The new F4's also have a cam problem. The local dealer has had one bike back twice with cams killed, bike has less than 2000 miles. The '84 Gold wings were notorious for alternator burn out. All brands have problems. The ZX-11 had bad 2nd gears in the early years and still have an oil problem is you race them hard. The early Suzuki's that I owned had really weak transmissions. And early yamahas had frame problems (cracked)and oil leaks. I have been riding for 30 years and I have found my luck lies with Yamaha. The Hayabusa has it problems to, but for the in helmet grins I get from it....well I can put up with the small problems.
 
Back
Top