98 900RR vs. 1999 SUZUKI TL 1000
#1
10-28-2007, 10:18 PM
#2
10-29-2007, 08:33 AM
RE: 98 900RR vs. 1999 SUZUKI TL 1000
I would go with the 900 ALL day long. Are you talking the TL-R or the S? Either way the 900 will mop one up all things being equal. It's lighter, makes as much or more power and handles WAY better. They R has a tendancy to run wide in corners for some reason. I couldnt tell you why but all of them i've seen do it when pushed hard. There are FAR more parts available for the 900 too.
You might think one is biased, based on where you asked this but I own a Suzuki and still say go with the 900. It's hard to beat the RR man it's a great bike. If you put a 17" rim on front you'll never need another bike. (unless you want 140+hp and dont want to spend a fortune)
If you went to a TL site they would likely tell you different so.........
I vote 900RR.
You might think one is biased, based on where you asked this but I own a Suzuki and still say go with the 900. It's hard to beat the RR man it's a great bike. If you put a 17" rim on front you'll never need another bike. (unless you want 140+hp and dont want to spend a fortune)
If you went to a TL site they would likely tell you different so.........
I vote 900RR.
#3
10-29-2007, 11:31 PM
#4
10-30-2007, 07:33 AM
RE: 98 900RR vs. 1999 SUZUKI TL 1000
1". LOL.
They put a 16" rim on in 93 because it weighs less and even the higher shoulder height of the 16" tire did not add enough weight to off set the weight savings. Less rotational weight means it handles quicker (sometimes at the expense of stability as in the earlier models) but it will do everything quicker. Unfortunately the RC-45 was the only other bike to take the 16" rim to the street while all others stuck to the 17 meaning that tire manufacturers eventually stopped making their hi performance tire in the 16" size. You can still get the BT-56 (OEM Tire for 99) and the Dunlop Q and both are pretty good tires for track days etc, but if you swap to the 17 you have MANY more choices. That is about the only benefit to swapping.....more tire choices. Some say that it handles better but it's hard to say if that is true or not. I never did it to mine so I couldnt say for sure.
They put a 16" rim on in 93 because it weighs less and even the higher shoulder height of the 16" tire did not add enough weight to off set the weight savings. Less rotational weight means it handles quicker (sometimes at the expense of stability as in the earlier models) but it will do everything quicker. Unfortunately the RC-45 was the only other bike to take the 16" rim to the street while all others stuck to the 17 meaning that tire manufacturers eventually stopped making their hi performance tire in the 16" size. You can still get the BT-56 (OEM Tire for 99) and the Dunlop Q and both are pretty good tires for track days etc, but if you swap to the 17 you have MANY more choices. That is about the only benefit to swapping.....more tire choices. Some say that it handles better but it's hard to say if that is true or not. I never did it to mine so I couldnt say for sure.
#6
10-30-2007, 08:44 PM
Senior Member
#7
10-30-2007, 09:39 PM
Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 2,609
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: 98 900RR vs. 1999 SUZUKI TL 1000
Sorry, I didn't realize we were going on about wheels in here. The 17" front wheel on the 95-96 600F3 is a dead match to your 900RR, with no modifications. I can't confirm or deny that 97-98 F3 fronts will work also, and I've heard that 94-97 VFR750F front wheels work also. The part numbers are really close, but those are famous last words. If someone tries to sell you a 17" wheel and it has a star-shaped hub--don't buy it, it's not the right one and most likely came from an F2 or pre-94 VFR, especially if it's white. I don't think any F3's came with white wheels, maybe, but your best bet would be to find a clean 17" 600F3 front wheel, take your rear off, and have these TRG guys on the Forum powdercoat them white. They seem professional and their rates are not ridiculous.
I forgot to mention that this wheel swap will only work without modification to 93-97 900RR's. If you have a 98-99, you need shims for the wheels and some bore-work to extend the holes for your bigger brake discs. Don't ask for exact details on that, cause I don't know.
I forgot to mention that this wheel swap will only work without modification to 93-97 900RR's. If you have a 98-99, you need shims for the wheels and some bore-work to extend the holes for your bigger brake discs. Don't ask for exact details on that, cause I don't know.
#8
10-31-2007, 04:05 AM
RE: 98 900RR vs. 1999 SUZUKI TL 1000
Thanks for the info everyone.... I have to agree with gixxereater the only benefit that can be seen is about the multiple choices of tyres
I'm not very sure of crazyhorse death wobble of the 16"; hence I never did track but for street wise I didn't have any problem so far even I go hard in twisties.
Correct me if I'm wrong; technically when the front rolling diameter is smaller than the rear, it will give a slight edge of the machine to move quicker because when the rear made 1 full turn, the front would have done slightly more than 1 turn.
I'm not very sure of crazyhorse death wobble of the 16"; hence I never did track but for street wise I didn't have any problem so far even I go hard in twisties.
Correct me if I'm wrong; technically when the front rolling diameter is smaller than the rear, it will give a slight edge of the machine to move quicker because when the rear made 1 full turn, the front would have done slightly more than 1 turn.
#10
10-31-2007, 07:32 AM
RE: 98 900RR vs. 1999 SUZUKI TL 1000
Well, regarding the death wobble.............
The early models 93-95 were known to handle pretty quirky. 96-97 got better and 98-99 better yet.
I have taken the 99 to many track days and not experienced any kind of stability issues at all, even when exiting 2nd gear corners at WOT. Turn one at BIR is as fast as you have ***** to take it and at 140mph at full crank it never once upset anything so I can't say i experienced anything bothersome on the 99. All I did was set up the suspension to me, no stabalizer. I have landed wheelies a little crossed up and not had any kind of issues. Maybe I got lucky, maybe I'm too slow to upset the chassis enough to notice it? But I can say Ihave notexperienced any kind of issues on my 99 set up for me specifically.
The early models 93-95 were known to handle pretty quirky. 96-97 got better and 98-99 better yet.
I have taken the 99 to many track days and not experienced any kind of stability issues at all, even when exiting 2nd gear corners at WOT. Turn one at BIR is as fast as you have ***** to take it and at 140mph at full crank it never once upset anything so I can't say i experienced anything bothersome on the 99. All I did was set up the suspension to me, no stabalizer. I have landed wheelies a little crossed up and not had any kind of issues. Maybe I got lucky, maybe I'm too slow to upset the chassis enough to notice it? But I can say Ihave notexperienced any kind of issues on my 99 set up for me specifically.