Cruiser Motorcycle Mentality

Got rid of my Speed triple and got an R3, never owned a cruiser and didn't really enjoy the Spd Triple, loved it but for some reason I just could not stop myself breaking the law on it. When I got the R3 I thought this is great, I can comfortably go long distance, its quiet, good power delivery (my fiance' thinks it great because its not always trying to tip her off the back, so everyones happy), and best of all I seem to manage to be able to ride at the speed limit. What more could one ask for? Then I got an aftermarket exhaust....starting looking at a Tuneboy.....

Think its in most motorcyclists nature to mess with their bikes, it all starts with that modded exhaust, every time.....

m109

azbbqer said:

I had 2 VL1500's Before my R3T. They kicked but over most other bikes in their class, and had the most classic styling. Now Suzuki has the C109 and it is putting out some "SERIOUS" horse power. I still hang out on the Suzuki Forum and I'm impressed with the numbers that G'man is getting out of a cruiser that is $6k-$8k cheaper than our bikes. Their biggest problem is lack of aftermarket. Both of mine were bulletproof.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/RLCMC/messages?msg=49507.1

Click to expand...

we dragrace a SUZUKI M109 and have run 10 sec times at 125+mph in the1/4 and have beaten quite a few ROCKET3s and it will run 155 mph top speed

Just curious, was this "drag racing" Suzuki 109 stock? Were the Rockets that were beaten stock? Not trying to minimize the 109 "wins" but we have several on this forum with "modified" Rockets that would probably eat the Suzuki's lunch rather easily. Mine is not one of them, mine is stock, is fast but I'm not the drag racing type so I look for different qualities in a bike and when I looked at the Suzuki back in 2006 and 2007 it just didn't "have it" so to speak. However stock to stock the Suzuki may have a better cost enjoyment factor as the Rocket is just a "tad" more expensive. It all depends what you are looking for in a bike.

I had a 2006 Gold Wing that ran right up to 131 mph with out even trying (adjusting for speedometer error...probably more like 122 mph) and it was a great bike, definitely more of a "tourer" than the Rocket Tourer (R3T) but some look at it as overloaded and an old man's bike, I thoroughly enjoyed it (but at the time, age 55, probably qualified as an old man, but the bike could run), but with my wife not really riding with me I kept the Rocket when I traded it (the Gold Wing) in on a 2008 Mustang GT/California Special and now I have both the car I wanted and the better bike for my purposes.
Dennis

31 dtg Dubai
32 dtg Home

The biggest problem I have always had with the Jap cruisers is they try to look like a harley. The get big numbers for HP and some even handle well but I have never really likes the looks that much. What I really like about the Rocket is that it is definately not a Harley and anyone with eyes can see it. Up until this year the Suzuki was not as powerful as the Rockets and didn't handle as well. Everything changes in this business because of the competition and I am sure Triumph has something in mind in the next couple of years that will smoke eveything else right out of the box. You have to ride what you like and can be proud to own.

I own a 2002 VTX 1800 C, 2003 Goldwing, 2007 Suzuki M109, and a 2007 Triumph Rocket III. All are stock with the exception of aftermarket pipes on the 109, intake and pipes on the VTX, and TORs on the R3 (still w/ cat.). The R3 is clearly faster than the rest of them.

P.S. - Never cared about any of them looking like a hardly. If I wanted a HD, I'd buy one...

not bad for a v-twin

JDuke1980 said:

according to this article

http://www.paramuspost.com/article.php/20070819215403296

the 109 has 127 horsepower and 118 foot-pounds of torque

Click to expand...

not a bad looking bike.
thought about getting one but i would have to slow down
and that is not an option

The 109 is indeed slower but actually not all that much slower than the R3.
Remember, it weighs 100 lbs. less than an R3 and handles quite well.
They are distinctly different bikes.
That's why I own both.
Each has it's own attractions.

IMFASTTOO said:

we dragrace a SUZUKI M109 and have run 10 sec times at 125+mph in the1/4 and have beaten quite a few ROCKET3s and it will run 155 mph top speed

Click to expand...

As you already know, when you get into racing faster bikes, the difference is often more about the riders than the bikes themselves

hombre said:

I can only answer for myself, of course.... but riding a highly modified R3 makes me feel like Slim Pickens on an H-bomb.

Click to expand...

amen to that!!!!

is that weight right

Xchoppers said:

The 109 is indeed slower but actually not all that much slower than the R3.
Remember, it weighs 100 lbs. less than an R3 and handles quite well.
They are distinctly different bikes.
That's why I own both.
Each has it's own attractions.

Click to expand...

my stock r3 before add ons is about 695 lbs dry
that would make the 109 about 500 lbs
ive seen the bike many times and i cant believe its
that light.

but in any case your right about the rider there is no
supstitute for expierience!!!
right now my r3 weighs in about 800 lbs
and i still can raise the front wheel in 2nd at about 50 mph
and in 3rd at close to 90!
i dont know about you guys when i want to play,
i want to play.
and nothing go's through the gears like an r3