Kawasaki Voyager....1 persons review

I found this on another message board and thought i would share it with you all.

Went to Daytona yesterday anxious to see the new Kawasaki Voyager 1700.

Kawi had one bike to show and it seemed to be the center of attention. Kawasaki seemed to have done a pretty good job on the styling and the frame mounted fairing was nicely laid out, though I didn't much care for the 1969 Chevy Camero style analog gauges. Would have like something a little more high tech but hey, that's just me. As everyone was looking it over, one guy popped open the rear trunk and commented that it was plastic and not fiberglass. Thin plastic. Also, when I sat on it, I felt like the seat was pushing me into the gas tank. I had my brother with me and he agreed that it was a good looking bike. Still no price or delivery dates.

While I went there with the intent that I wanted to buy one, after seeing the real thing, I changed my mind. The manufacturing quality of this bike can be summed up in one word - cheap. Even though assembly workmanship looked good, chrome was very low quality and most likely would pit or dull in a short time. The general quality of materials was low and had a very "made in China" look. The bike was never started while I was there, so can't comment much on the engine.

My personal opinion is that while the Voyager is a great looking bike and most likely would pass as a low cost alternative to a Harley or Goldwing , I would still choose a Star Venture instead for one reason - build quality.

__________________

I'm not going to comment on the build quality till I see one in person.

The thing that jumps out to me is the comment on the seating position. If Kawasaki has built the bike with the same dimensions as the old Harley Ultra then it's too cramped for taller riders. I got that impression from the pictures I've seen of people riding the bike.

It's pretty hard to build a motorcycle that will fit the majority of riders out there. Short wheelbases and low seats are nice for shorter folks. That's why I like the Venture so much. It's the only one that I've sat on that allows me to stretch my long legs out.

Well said Mariner. I'm not ready to jump ship until I see what Yamaha is going to come up with in the next year or two. I had one of the old Voyager 12 (1999) and was happy with it except it was out dated. The biggest problem I had was no one made any accessories for them except Markland and you had to buy all them through the Kawasaki dealer. And they were not cheap! I hope the new Voyager is not that way.

It looks nice, at least in pictures. I would never own one because I don't want a V twin engine - no power.

It looks nice, at least in pictures. I would never own one because I don't want a V twin engine - no power.

hmmmmmmmmm.... well, even though I can beat my son's Sporty 1200 with my '87, that scoot has plenty power. When you crank that thing on, you really have to hang on tight. So, some V-twins DO have power ... and lot's of it. I'd "venture" a guess that this new Kaw will have lot's of power....plenty for the average person and frankly, I can't wait to find out just exactly how much but if it's anywhere close to my '87 then that's good enuf for me ;-)

Altho I like the looks and features of the new Kaw I'll be content to stay with my Venture until I see what Yammy does with the Venture over the next 2-3 years. My Warranty don't run out until 2011 so I have lots of time to decide what I'm going to spend my money on regarding a new scoot.

Back in 71 I had a new Kaw 500 which was a V Twin.....not too many bikes out there at that time could even come close to the power that bike had.

I saw the Voyager in Daytona yesterday and I felt the build quality was fine. The trunk and bags are made of material similar to the 2nd gen Venture. The pieces were plastic and had some flex in them but so do the Venture's. I can't comment on the chrome or how long it will last but it was shiny.

Dennis

I saw the Voyager in Daytona yesterday and I felt the build quality was fine. The trunk and bags are made of material similar to the 2nd gen Venture. The pieces were plastic and had some flex in them but so do the Venture's. I can't comment on the chrome or how long it will last but it was shiny.

 

Dennis

the 1st and 2nd gen's use ABS plastic if I'm not mistaken. Not sure what Harley uses (ABS or Fiberglass). Either one or the other on the Voyager.... both Harley and Venture stuff has some "bending and flexing". In fact, it almost scares me the way the Harley trunk material flexes but they seem to be pretty strong nevertheless.

the 1st and 2nd gen's use ABS plastic if I'm not mistaken. Not sure what Harley uses (ABS or Fiberglass). Either one or the other on the Voyager.... both Harley and Venture stuff has some "bending and flexing". In fact, it almost scares me the way the Harley trunk material flexes but they seem to be pretty strong nevertheless.

fiberglass is old school. abs is high tech and more affordable. i think the new kaw is really sharp but it ain't no wing. got to say the wing sets the touring standard. ps. not just saying that cuz i have one, but if you own one and get to be a part of it there's no where else to go. got to put some miles on a wing to appreciate the total package. around the block don't cut it.

For the most part I would have to agree with you, if you can get comfortable on one. I ride 4 guys that have GL1800s and they all tried to get me to buy one when I bought my 07 Venture last fall. I rode them several times and the wide fairing and peg position just would not let me get a comfortable with my bad knees. I also don't care for the toe shift and brake pedal. If I had been comfortable on one I would surely have one now. My Venture has led all four of those wings on cross country, 4500+ mile trips twice. The Venture is still a fully capable machine.

Dennis

hmmmmmmmmm.... well, even though I can beat my son's Sporty 1200 with my '87, that scoot has plenty power. When you crank that thing on, you really have to hang on tight. So, some V-twins DO have power ... and lot's of it. I'd "venture" a guess that this new Kaw will have lot's of power....plenty for the average person and frankly, I can't wait to find out just exactly how much but if it's anywhere close to my '87 then that's good enuf for me ;-)

You're dreaming if you think that Kaw will hold a candle to your current bike. I thought first gens were supposed to be fast.

Well said Mariner. I'm not ready to jump ship until I see what Yamaha is going to come up with in the next year or two. I had one of the old Voyager 12 (1999) and was happy with it except it was out dated. The biggest problem I had was no one made any accessories for them except Markland and you had to buy all them through the Kawasaki dealer. And they were not cheap! I hope the new Voyager is not that way.

It seems to me we have the same situation with the Venture! Who makes something for the RSV except Yama - and I wouldn't call it inexpensive! although, occasionally, cheap....I do see your point about "out dated" after all who but Yama has such state of the art cassette players!

The Kawi Nomad has been arround since 99, If you want an exhaust system or chrome doo-dads "virtually every accessory manufacturer will have something for it" . Almost the same can be said for the RSV by changing just one word "virtually every accessory manufacturer will have nothing for it". And It's been around a looong time.......

You're dreaming if you think that Kaw will hold a candle to your current bike. I thought first gens were supposed to be fast.

Well, according to the specs, the horsepower is just under what my '87 is (89 vs 97) and the torque is considerably more and at a lower RPM (108 @ 2750rpm) so, it would seem to me that it will be very close if not more powerful. Not to mention that a lot of "power" is lost in a shaft drive whereas it isn't so much in a belt.

No, I don't believe I'm dreaming...but, the truth will be in the ride and I'll be the first one to admit if I am dreaming when that time comes.

And yes, 1st gen's are fast....anyone here who knows them will attest to that fact.

Bottom line is, I'm looking for a new scoot next spring and frankly, the newest version of the Venture is not in the running. Now, If I was looking for a "newer" scoot..say about 3 years old or so, then it would be a 2nd gen no questions asked.

Just under? Eight horse is a lot when the vehicle only weighs 800 lbs. And being a V twin it had to have what, 400 more cubes to even get that close. It doesn't make a significant amount of power or it wouldn't be a belt drive. Torque sells motors, horsepower wins races.

Just under? Eight horse is a lot when the vehicle only weighs 800 lbs. And being a V twin it had to have what, 400 more cubes to even get that close. It doesn't make a significant amount of power or it wouldn't be a belt drive. Torque sells motors, horsepower wins races.

oh well...guess my racing days will be over then ...

Interesting debate we have going here.... shaft vs belt... why are bikes moving to belt drive? .... could it be so there is less HP loss at the wheel allowing for lower HP engines to have as much "power" as higher HP ones with shaft drives? Why are so many "higher powered" bikes running belts (or chain)? .... could it be that a shaft would have to be so "beefy" that it would be impractical? Why do most touring bikes have shaft drive?... could it be simply because they are so low maintenance and that's a big feature for touring?... could it be that a touring bike running a shaft drive requires more engine HP just to get a decent amount back to the rear wheel?... could it be...could it be... there are so many pro's and con's that we could sling back and forth...

I wouldn't be opposed to a belt drive. It loses less hp than a shaft drive. Shaft drive eats a lot of ponies.

Considering your statement above...could it be that the Venture @ 97HP with a shaft has roughly the same at the wheel HP as the Voyager @ 89HP with a belt??..if that's the case, then it would feel pretty darned good to me, especially with all that torque and who gives a rat's ar$e if it has 400 more cc's.

An interesting thought just entered my mind... wouldn't a lot of folks be upset if the next gen Venture came out with a majorly de-tuned '09 Vmax engine and a belt drive...a BELT drive on the new Venture!!! OMG!!! I think I just swore!

here is my take on the matter the kaw is a great looking bike and i'm sure it performs as designed kaw would not have invested in making it if it was going to be a p.o.s so i'm sure it will be great for some riders. my rsv is paid for and will take me any where i want to go in comfort and style. besides i never buy anything in first year production i'll let the kaw riders work out the bugs and we know there is going to be some. so a few years from now i'll worry about what i'll buy next just my two cents

You can just look at the Specs and say those Engines have similar Number, so they are nearly the same.

A V2 Motor will always have a good Torque at low Revs and it FEELS fast, a V4 will have a very broad Torque Range with a Peak somewhere and more Power(hp-wise) than a V2 Engine and IS fast.

I'm willing to bet that your first Ride with the Kawi won't make you happy seen from Power and Torque Point of view. I've ridden big V2 Engines and they can't hold up MY Expectations from them. So are the Inline4, they have lots of Power, but no Torque. That's why i'm sold on V4 Engines and nothing else. I'd rather buy the new Aprillia V4 Racer and smooth that Bike out with big Money than buying a V2 and try to squeeze additional Power out of the Motor. You can't tune those Motors enough to be satisfied without ruining the Long Term Reliability. Call it Stage Kit, Screaming Eagle or whatever.

As for Belt Drives, yes a Shaft Drive will allways cost you some Horses, where a Belt isn't that costly. But the True Reasons for the Belt is manufacturing Costs in first Place. They are build fairly cheaper than U-Joints, Drive Shafts and final Drives. Period.

A Chain Drive has 4 to 6 Percent Loss, a Belt around 5 to 7 Percent, a Shaft Drive around 13 Percent. A unmaintained Chain Drive has up to 15 Percent Loss, a poor (worn) Belt Drive can cost you up 11 or 12 Percent, a poorly maintained Shaft Drive will cost still 13 Percent.

here is my take on the matter the kaw is a great looking bike and i'm sure it performs as designed kaw would not have invested in making it if it was going to be a p.o.s so i'm sure it will be great for some riders. my rsv is paid for and will take me any where i want to go in comfort and style. besides i never buy anything in first year production i'll let the kaw riders work out the bugs and we know there is going to be some. so a few years from now i'll worry about what i'll buy next just my two cents

That's true about the bugs -but- ... seems to me they still haven't gotten the bugs outta the RSV (I refer to the "whine")...what's it been now...10 years? With every new version of something, there are going to be bugs...that's why there are warranties and recals and updates....and as each newer model comes out, something new is added or something is changed resulting in more bugs...except of course in Yamaha's case with the RSV... they basically changed nothing in 10 years and the new ones still have the same bugs. Correct me if I'm wrong.

If a person is going to buy a new scoot and there are 3 choices, the '09 Ultra, the '09 RSV, and the '09 Voyager (Voyager being entirely new and Ultra being re-designed and RSV being the same as the 1999 model essentially), which one would a person rule out first? ... Speaking for myself, I'm ruling out the '09 RSV simply because it's out dated and virtually nothing's changed since 1999. Except for the color differences, I might as well buy a 1999 for 1/4 the price. I'd have the same bike. No, that's not correct either coz a 1999 would have had all the bugs fixed

If I was going to wait for the next generation RSV, that's a whole different scenario. Having said that, maybe I'll trade in my '09 scoot on the 3rd gen RSV....

Now, I'm not knocking the RSV at all...in fact, if I was going for a newer (used) scoot, the RSV is the ONLY one I'd be buying...and, that may well still happen.

• I like the looks of the Voyager, though I won't see one in person till Feb. at the IMS in Chicago.
  
• Like what others have said, the seating and comfort will be my deciding factor. The VTwin vs. V4 means nothing to me. Matter of fact, I'm hoping the new Venture is built on the Roadliner platform and NOT the VMax.
  
• I WILL be getting a new bike in 2010, so that will be when I start seriously comparing. I really hope Yamaha has a new touring machine out by then, if not it will be between the Wing and the Voyager.
  
• My biggest concern with moving away from the Yamaha is the Dealers I would have to work with around here. The Kawi and Honda Dealers close are idiots and any decent ones are just too far to be feasible for Service. I WILL Not do my own service. My Yamaha Dealer is fantastic and always treated me fairly and I TRUST them.
  

You can just look at the Specs and say those Engines have similar Number, so they are nearly the same.

 

A V2 Motor will always have a good Torque at low Revs and it FEELS fast, a V4 will have a very broad Torque Range with a Peak somewhere and more Power(hp-wise) than a V2 Engine and IS fast.

 

I'm willing to bet that your first Ride with the Kawi won't make you happy seen from Power and Torque Point of view. I've ridden big V2 Engines and they can't hold up MY Expectations from them. So are the Inline4, they have lots of Power, but no Torque. That's why i'm sold on V4 Engines and nothing else. I'd rather buy the new Aprillia V4 Racer and smooth that Bike out with big Money than buying a V2 and try to squeeze additional Power out of the Motor. You can't tune those Motors enough to be satisfied without ruining the Long Term Reliability. Call it Stage Kit, Screaming Eagle or whatever.

 

As for Belt Drives, yes a Shaft Drive will allways cost you some Horses, where a Belt isn't that costly. But the True Reasons for the Belt is manufacturing Costs in first Place. They are build fairly cheaper than U-Joints, Drive Shafts and final Drives. Period.

 

A Chain Drive has 4 to 6 Percent Loss, a Belt around 5 to 7 Percent, a Shaft Drive around 13 Percent. A unmaintained Chain Drive has up to 15 Percent Loss, a poor (worn) Belt Drive can cost you up 11 or 12 Percent, a poorly maintained Shaft Drive will cost still 13 Percent.

Good info Squeeze...thanks for that input and I don't necessarilly disagree. It all comes down to an individual's preferences, what works for that person and if, after road testing the Voyager, it works for me, I'll be having one. Now, as for that bet.... how much do you want to loose?? or better yet, how much do you have?? (care to put up yur new '09 V-max?)

I like the idea of a belt drive. How many of us have had problems with the shaft drive on the Ventures? My VR has had recurring leaks at the engine drive point, and the rear pinion bearing went out last year. I would welcome a belt drive on my next bike!

As for V-twins not having power, my wife's Shadow Ace Tour has an 1100 V--twin that is a really entertaining scoot. I am a big guy, and other than the smaller windshield not protecting me much, I really enjoy riding her bike. It has PLENTY of power compared to my VR and she keeps up just fine.

I just don't like the "Harley" style of bike, which is why I am not crazy about the Venture. The new Voyager also looks too much like a Harley, but at least it has a frame mounted fairing I will want to take one for a ride as soon as possible.

And y'all like to poke at second gens for being slow (which is another whole debate and myth itself). You want to really be slow, get something with a V twin in it. Our V4s are just starting to wake up right about the time a V twin is signing off. A V twin has to have 400 more cubes to make eight less horse. I call that a weak engine design, and outdated too. I don't ever want to own anything with a V twin in it. I'd rather have an inline four. But hey, to each his own. "It's not about the speed, it's about the style." That's what some say, those who don't have any horsepower.

"A V twin is the most efficient machine ever made for turning gasoline into noise, without the side effect of producing any horsepower." That's what I say.

Good info Squeeze...thanks for that input and I don't necessarilly disagree. It all comes down to an individual's preferences, what works for that person and if, after road testing the Voyager, it works for me, I'll be having one. Now, as for that bet.... how much do you want to loose?? or better yet, how much do you have?? (care to put up yur new '09 V-max?)

 

The '09 Max won't be mine, i can't put it up on a Bet. But i'm willing to put up the latest Bike i have, a 2005 YZF-R1. Very low Mileage, Showroom Condition, absolutely like new. What would you be willing to put up against that ?

:080402gudl_prv::witch_brew:

The '09 Max won't be mine, i can't put it up on a Bet. But i'm willing to put up the latest Bike i have, a 2005 YZF-R1. Very low Mileage, Showroom Condition, absolutely like new. What would you be willing to put up against that ?

 

:080402gudl_prv::witch_brew:

well, do I have a deal for you!!! .....

here it is....

(but, considering what the bet is, you can bet I will lie thru my teeth just to WIN!)

And y'all like to poke at second gens for being slow (which is another whole debate and myth itself). You want to really be slow, get something with a V twin in it. Our V4s are just starting to wake up right about the time a V twin is signing off. A V twin has to have 400 more cubes to make eight less horse. I call that a weak engine design, and outdated too. I don't ever want to own anything with a V twin in it. I'd rather have an inline four. But hey, to each his own. "It's not about the speed, it's about the style." That's what some say, those who don't have any horsepower.

 

"A V twin is the most efficient machine ever made for turning gasoline into noise, without the side effect of producing any horsepower." That's what I say.

now there's an unbiased, informed statement if I ever heard one. Guess I have no further comeback to that.