FJR, Connie 14, and VFR1200 comparo

[n1acguy]

Anybody get Motorcycle Consumer News?

Anyway they compared the 3 bikes and rated the Kawi 14 first with the FJR as a close second. They thought Honda was a little confused about it's mission for the VFR as it didn't seem to excel at being a sport bike or a tourer.

I just wonder why they decided to compare the VFR instead of the ST1300 for the Honda product.

It's in the August issue. Don't see it online yet so I can't post a link.

Overall the test confirmed I made the right choice with the FJR. The Kawi is an awfully heavy bike for a 32" seat height.

The FJR wins on ease of maintenance for most things like routine oil changes. They're within a half hr on valve adjustments, but they list 1.5 hrs to R&R the rear wheel on the Kawi. What needs to be done to pull that wheel?

 

[Silver Penguin]

Which model of FJR were they using for their comparison? The paint color looked light enough to be an '03. That doesn't seem to be a fair comparison with the much newer bikes.

Then, did you read what was on the page after the ride report? They talked about the bike that came along for the ride and ended up being the #1 choice of all four riders.

 

[SkooterG]

Which model of FJR were they using for their comparison? The paint color looked light enough to be an '03. That doesn't seem to be a fair comparison with the much newer bikes.
Then, did you read what was on the page after the ride report? They talked about the bike that came along for the ride and ended up being the #1 choice of all four riders.

It was a '10 model. Which is the same color as the 03 model. Do try and keep up, eh?

I thought it was a good review. I still love Gen I FJRs, but it sounds like the C14 really got better with the updates. Even though you'll never see me on a C14, it looks like the FJR really is in need of an updated Gen III version.

And that follow-up piece about the R1200GS being the best sport-tourer was very interesting. I've long been a fan of that bike. While I'll always have an FJR in the garage, that article made me want the GS even more. Too bad they're so damned spendy!

 

[SilverHound]

I get MCN and read that same review with great interest. When I bought my FJR in '08 is was down to the FJR and the C14 but the C14 owners were reporting problems with the brake rotors, the heat, the tire pressure sensors and that silly KiPass system not to mention that changing plugs was a bear.

Anyhow hey I give Kawi props for addressing (most of) those issues in 2010 but still even now I think I would choose the FJR. I still hate the idea of not just having a plain old key to start the bike and while it may seem trivial, the single muffler on the C14 makes it seem lopsided to me. Plus I have an ambient air temperature readout on my FJR so...SUCK IT KAWI...neener neener poo poo. :blum:

 

[wfooshee]

They reviewed the VFR because it's the newer bike, not because it fits the company.

 

[Sticky Throttle]

Which model of FJR were they using for their comparison? The paint color looked light enough to be an '03. That doesn't seem to be a fair comparison with the much newer bikes.
Then, did you read what was on the page after the ride report? They talked about the bike that came along for the ride and ended up being the #1 choice of all four riders.

It was a '10 model. Which is the same color as the 03 model. Do try and keep up, eh?

I thought it was a good review. I still love Gen I FJRs, but it sounds like the C14 really got better with the updates. Even though you'll never see me on a C14, it looks like the FJR really is in need of an updated Gen III version.

I've still got the MCN test of the 2003 FJR from March '03. The '03's performance stats (0-60, 0-100 and 1/4 mile as well as 60-0 braking) are significantly better (per MCN) than the tested 2010 C14 stats, let alone the 2010 FJR. With suspension mods and good tires, the FJR gets even better.

Needless to say, I'm an '03 Gen I fan. :thumbsup:

 

[ndivita]

Which model of FJR were they using for their comparison? The paint color looked light enough to be an '03. That doesn't seem to be a fair comparison with the much newer bikes.
Then, did you read what was on the page after the ride report? They talked about the bike that came along for the ride and ended up being the #1 choice of all four riders.

It was a '10 model. Which is the same color as the 03 model. Do try and keep up, eh?

I thought it was a good review. I still love Gen I FJRs, but it sounds like the C14 really got better with the updates. Even though you'll never see me on a C14, it looks like the FJR really is in need of an updated Gen III version.

I've still got the MCN test of the 2003 FJR from March '03. The '03's performance stats (0-60, 0-100 and 1/4 mile as well as 60-0 braking) are significantly better (per MCN) than the tested 2010 C14 stats, let alone the 2010 FJR. With suspension mods and good tires, the FJR gets even better.

Needless to say, I'm an '03 Gen I fan. :thumbsup:

This is really useful information. I have a 2005 FJR with which I am very, very happy. Your information just confirms that maybe the latest is not the greatest. You may want to consider dropping an e mail to the editorial board of MCN with that comparative data. I would love to see what they say. I subscribe to MCN and, honestly, I thought it was a very balanced, detailed and well written review.

The follow up article on the GS1200 BMW left me scratching my head. I have great respect for that bike but it makes you wonder if that bike would be rated a superior sport tourer to the BMW bikes which are their "true" sport tourers. If so, what does the sport tourer genre actually mean? I could not figure out why they ST1300 or Triumph ST was left out either. The MCN bike selection methodology seemed a bit sketchy this time around.

Sometimes I am tempted to buy a BMW but then I remember how great my FJR is and has been, the sparse BMW dealer network, the exorbitant acquisition and ownership costs for BMWs, and the final drive failure rate (which BMW denies) and which even MCN has written about. (I admit owning a ten year old BMW automobile which I am in love with).

Bottom line on the article, Kawasaki has responded directly and tangibly to the complaints made about the 2008 model. Good for them. The MCN commentary on the current FJR and the hoped-for upgrade and update to the current FJR was spot on. Even if Yamaha releases an updated Gen III FJR, it is going to have to be pretty damned significant to make me part with my rock solid and lighting fast 2005 edition.

 

[charismaticmegafauna]

Motorcycle Consumer News is not an unbiased, detatched, publication -- it is owned by its readership who has bought and paid-for articles that they want to be in agreement with (in this case -- Beemer-philes...).

The new R1200's cylinder-head, alone, is a prime engineering example of how far wrong the German engineers can go in an effort to keep an antiquated design (air-cooled boxer twin) alive. Bias ground (compound angles) cams operating angled followers -- all pushing at odd angles -- are just begging for developing wear problems (all rubbing surface friction items...argghh).

Let alone, all the 'stretch', 'heroic', engineering ('funky' suspension, no frame, feet of chain in the engine, engine built-up of pieces bolted together, 'far-out' electronics, etc.); all on what is essentially a 2-wheeled truck -- they really can't be serious, can they...?

 

[zorkler]

Read the reviews .The MCN people really think yamaha is going to step up to the plate and compete with the KAwie. I own a 05 with a couple of mods . Penske reaceing rear shock, larger windscreen, risers , and the bike is great ,First yamaha i ever bought, was a old kawaie man for years 1975 z1, 1977kz. And if yamaha ups the ante any time soon (i like the 5 speed ) i will stay with the 05

 

[na1g]

The article didn't make me want to swap for a Kaw. I had that option last summer when I bought the FJR. The small gas tank, seat and looks worked against the Kaw, but the killer was that stupid Kipass system. Jeesh, what's wrong with a key, copies of which cost about $2 and can be carried as spares and hidden. Lose your Kipass or fob and you are stuck, as in d-e-d, and for a long time, too. But folks have their own opinions and that's just mine. I agree that the BMW is over-engineered and over-extended with a motor that has been pushed to the limits of its basic architecture. It's great on a test ride (the RT model) but I would wonder about its durability with the unique valve train (and maybe its suspect final drive). I wish MCN had thrown a Honda ST1300 into the mix; it's the same age as the FJR and still a great sport-tourer, too.

So, while the FJR is long in the tooth, it is still at the top of my list. The write-up was fair and un-biased, I thought, and they didn't insult my intelligence as sometime happens with these comparos. Guess I wouldn't be happy if I had just bought a VRF1200, tho.

pete

 

[Phugedaboudet]

Loved the article.

three things killed any interest I might have had in the C14. First, I'd been waiting and finally just bought a FJR barely a year before the C14 released.

Second, the KiPass thing. bad idea on many levels, even according to a new C14 owner. And it was this owner that let me sit on one and determine the ultimate desire kill for the C14-

it's too damned tall. Like BMW GS tall. And heavy. I went from a 92 Ninja 600 to the FJR-I couldn't get both feet flat on most road surfaces until the suspension broke in, and with all the ruts and ignored road infrastructure in CA, most places that is still the same. I dropped it in a parking lot a week after bringing it home, trying to walk it down the driveway and got over a drain grate that meant I couldn't touch a foot to the ground until the bike was already on the way down.

Sitting from the FJR almost a year later to the C14 was about the same leap as from the Ninja to the FJR-I couldn't even put one foot flat on the ground before significant weight and lean angle was present-this in a very nice flat driveway. In any sort of "need to put the foot down" stop, if there was any road imperfection, the Connie would have dropped.

At least the FJR was close enough to let me learn now to plan ahead. the C14 wasn't going to allow that at all.

No idea why a street going only motorcycle needs to be that tall. KLRs and GS's I understand.

 

[wfooshee]

No idea why a street going only motorcycle needs to be that tall. KLRs and GS's I understand.

Ya wanna sit above the motor or in the motor . . . . ?

 

[Sticky Throttle]

Which model of FJR were they using for their comparison? The paint color looked light enough to be an '03. That doesn't seem to be a fair comparison with the much newer bikes.
Then, did you read what was on the page after the ride report? They talked about the bike that came along for the ride and ended up being the #1 choice of all four riders.

It was a '10 model. Which is the same color as the 03 model. Do try and keep up, eh?

I thought it was a good review. I still love Gen I FJRs, but it sounds like the C14 really got better with the updates. Even though you'll never see me on a C14, it looks like the FJR really is in need of an updated Gen III version.

I've still got the MCN test of the 2003 FJR from March '03. The '03's performance stats (0-60, 0-100 and 1/4 mile as well as 60-0 braking) are significantly better (per MCN) than the tested 2010 C14 stats, let alone the 2010 FJR. With suspension mods and good tires, the FJR gets even better.

Needless to say, I'm an '03 Gen I fan. :thumbsup:

Repeating this post for clarity and emphasis.

In other words, the new and improved C14--which looks like a great bike--still hasn't caught up with the Gen I FJR. Granted, there are many other factors to consider in an overall review, but if engine performance is important to you and you're a Gen I owner, you should be quite pleased by this.

 

[ndivita]

Which model of FJR were they using for their comparison? The paint color looked light enough to be an '03. That doesn't seem to be a fair comparison with the much newer bikes.
Then, did you read what was on the page after the ride report? They talked about the bike that came along for the ride and ended up being the #1 choice of all four riders.

It was a '10 model. Which is the same color as the 03 model. Do try and keep up, eh?

I thought it was a good review. I still love Gen I FJRs, but it sounds like the C14 really got better with the updates. Even though you'll never see me on a C14, it looks like the FJR really is in need of an updated Gen III version.

I've still got the MCN test of the 2003 FJR from March '03. The '03's performance stats (0-60, 0-100 and 1/4 mile as well as 60-0 braking) are significantly better (per MCN) than the tested 2010 C14 stats, let alone the 2010 FJR. With suspension mods and good tires, the FJR gets even better.

Needless to say, I'm an '03 Gen I fan. :thumbsup:

Repeating this post for clarity and emphasis.

In other words, the new and improved C14--which looks like a great bike--still hasn't caught up with the Gen I FJR. Granted, there are many other factors to consider in an overall review, but if engine performance is important to you and you're a Gen I owner, you should be quite pleased by this.

Any chance you could be persuaded to scan and upload the 2003 MCN article on the Gen I FJR?

 

[03HiYoSilver]

Found the March 2003 FJR MCN Review here:

https://www.mcnews.com/mcnews/articles/Mode...uation03033.pdf

 

[blueman]

They should have used a Gen 1 FJR in the comparison. It would have won!

 

[Sticky Throttle]

No doubt the Kawasaki is a great motorcycle with more going for it than just a powerful engine, and one ought to be careful about how much stock to place in magazine comparos, but this info brings the mighty C14 back into some humbling perspective.

Notwithstanding MCN's conclusions, I don't think the FJR owes the C14 any apologies--certainly not the Gen I. It was the [self-proclaimed] first Super Sport Touring bike, and may still qualify as the standard all others are judged by according to these measures. :thumbsup:

 

[DaveD]

Last summer when I was thinking I wanted something shiny and new after 5 years with my '04, I thought the updated Connie was the way to go.

But then I went and sat on one and looked it over in the flesh. Too tall, too heavy, too ugly. What's with that freakish rack on the back?

And, since at that time D+H had a couple of '09s ready to go for a buck under 12 grand, the C14 was also too expensive. The 3 year warranty is a nice thing, but for under $400 you can get five years of coverage with YES.

I also think the traction control system is a nice thing. I'd bet a lot of money that the next Feej will have traction control.

 

[harpo]

Which model of FJR were they using for their comparison? The paint color looked light enough to be an '03. That doesn't seem to be a fair comparison with the much newer bikes.
Then, did you read what was on the page after the ride report? They talked about the bike that came along for the ride and ended up being the #1 choice of all four riders.

It was a '10 model. Which is the same color as the 03 model. Do try and keep up, eh?

I thought it was a good review. I still love Gen I FJRs, but it sounds like the C14 really got better with the updates. Even though you'll never see me on a C14, it looks like the FJR really is in need of an updated Gen III version.

I've still got the MCN test of the 2003 FJR from March '03. The '03's performance stats (0-60, 0-100 and 1/4 mile as well as 60-0 braking) are significantly better (per MCN) than the tested 2010 C14 stats, let alone the 2010 FJR. With suspension mods and good tires, the FJR gets even better.

Needless to say, I'm an '03 Gen I fan. :thumbsup:

I like what you say. I got a 03 and love it. I like the fact that it is the strongist off the FJRs.