MotorcycleDaily.com – Motorcycle News, Editorials, Product Reviews and Bike Reviews

Motorcycle News, Editorials, Product Reviews and Bike Reviews

Turbocharged Suzuki Recursion Entering Production?

010615top-i1

The last few days have seen some buzz centering on the Japanese magazine Young Machine, and its rendering of a possible production turbocharged Suzuki Recursion. The Recursion concept was first displayed by Suzuki at the 2013 Tokyo Motor Show.

Suzuki has continued to release images of the concept, some of which hint at production tooling. The expected specifications are mouthwatering, including 100 hp from a 588 cc parallel-twin with huge torque, i.e., 74 pound/feet at just 4,500 rpm.  In other words 600 cc supersport performance (with much stronger low end power). Suzuki says fuel consumption will be half that of a 600! If the dry weight discussed (just 384 pounds) is part of the package, we can’t wait to ride it.  Let’s hope the rumors prove true, and a production version of the Recursion appears next Fall.

010615bottom

136 Comments

  1. lazarus says:

    Please ditch that ugly Katana/Retro-look. It’s ugly!

  2. Al Pinaweiss says:

    There’s one crucial change introduced into motorcycling technology
    since the last generation of Turbo-bikes: electronic selection
    of ‘riding modes’ (a.k.a. ‘Adjustable Bike Character’ button (ABC)).

    If Suzuki manages to keep the pricing of this one close to the
    (traditionally crazy-good-value) Kaw Z750, and IF this Turbo-600 Suzuki
    has a REAL ‘ABC’-button that actually makes it character tameable for
    daily-commuting (should be a ‘piece-of-cake’ nowadays technologically
    at least, if not financially?), I’ll be the first to tell Suzuki ‘shut up
    and charge my credit card’.

    Just imagine how wild it would be to have a ~650cc-sized machine that
    would offer silly, sizzling Turbo-torque in full-attack mode (eg.for
    part-time ‘trackday’ duty with proper rubber), and to be able to use
    a nice, smooth, fat-torque powerplant (with a properly tamed-down
    power delivery and a lazyish throttle-response) as a relaxed
    daily-commuter, all in one same bike.

    The real challenge (tricky) would be to manage such frame geometry
    and suspension settings in order to be able to cover all of the above
    huge “range of character” that such a Electronically-controlled, “mode”-switchable
    modern Turbo engine could offer (and do this WITHOUT exotic and costly
    suspension-electronics ‘a la DUCATI’, which would raise the price to levels
    that would render this marketing exercise utterly pointless).

    All Suzuki has to do is check tenfold that the suspension/frame offer
    a ‘range of competences/character’ that would competently cover what
    that Turbo-engine is obviously capable of :

    1) daily semi-relaxed ‘sport-flavoured’ commuting (+ “cafe-posing” duty –
    for those target groups that need that)

    2) occasional short-distance touring ability,

    3) regular weekend sport-bike duty (canyon carving), and

    4) occasional ‘trackday’ duty (with dedicated tyres).

    (point 1) and 2) to be able to return impressive MPG as well, as announced).

    If the above materialises, I don’t see why this wouldn’t be a crucially important turning point in the medium-priced ‘do-all’ naked-bike category.

    Just forget BLOODY ALL you know(knew) about Turbo’d bikes from the past, as Turbo-engine design and engine-management are the single most advanced technological
    progress in motoring in the last decade.

    If this sells well, be certain that soon there’ll be similar bikes introduced
    for different “rider-build” profiles (a Touring verion (same engine) and a “Big naked”, with eg.700-800cc Turbo for real street cred).

    Basically, after a deafeningly “loud” year that 2014 was in terms of motorcycle offerings, this seems as a perfect start to what 2015 has in store.

    In engine-technology terms, the recent amazing progress of Turbo engines was driven
    almost SOLELY by the ‘growth’ of automotive ‘sizing’ and weight (gargantous cars/SUVs etc.). The development of these huge vehicles was, in turn, driven by greed and general consumer ignorance (subconscious need to buy cars that are so wide/tall that they don’t fit into many garages/doors, and generally cars that you CANNOT open their doors if parked in a normal parking ‘slot’ – so stupidly wide…) – my point here being that, as a result of this massive hysteria of dumbness and stupid consumer culture, we now have small-capacity turbo-engines that are pure technological (and lightweight) marvels, therefore, as a side-effect, we have inherited means to develop
    such engines for motorcycles too.

    And that couldn’t be a better reward for the appalingly stupid automotive reality that this last 12-15 years have been in 4-wheel terms.

    To sum up: I just can’t wait to ride one of these.

    Al Pinaweiss

  3. DB says:

    I think we are going to see more of these turbo bikes. I had a 1982 CX500 turbo back then and loved that bike. While on boost it had big bike power, trouble was, it also had big bike weight. The turbo lag never really bothered me, I was young and didn’t know any better. I just got used to it. Where this bike was really impressive was riding in the mountains. The canyons, that was a different story, quite challenging, all that accelerating and stoppping with all that weight, it was a handfull!

  4. Doug H says:

    This will be the next new bike I will buy if Suzuki makes it.

  5. John says:

    I am envisioning this with a 19″ or 21″ front wire wheels. Actually, shrink that puppy down even more.

  6. Replaced the oil sucking turbo on a 750 Kaw with the turbo/adjustable waste gate out of a Buick Grand National to save some money for a customer. Dialed the boost up to all the Kaw ECU would allow and holy cow.

  7. Frank says:

    It’s early and I just got up…did someone mention Kate Upton and breasts in the same sentence? How about getting to work on showing us a possible new release from one of the big 4? You know, something else for us to drool over.

    Oh OK, I see it now. Nice bike.

  8. mickey says:

    I am certainly not interested in this style or motor configuration so I am neither pro nor con, but let me ask the motor heads a serious question. Other than styling, how is this different than the CX500/650 turbo twin, the GS650 Turbo, the Seca 650 Turbo or the Kaw 750 turbo 4 cylinders of the 80’s? Has the technology improved? Why would we even want to visit this again? Secondarily, do think the average shop mechanic can now work on these(cause they couldn’t in the 80’s). I even wonder what mechanic will be able to diagnose a problem with the myriad of electrics on a new R1 Yamaha?

    If..big if, this is truly break thru technology that will be bullet proof, make more power, weigh less and make a lot better gas mileage, I can see going thru the effort. But history suggests those claims will not come to fruition.

    • Curly says:

      “Has the technology improved?”

      Yes, a lot. The turbo systems now are much more advanced and in many ways simpler than those of the 80’s. The Seca Turbo for instance had blow through carburetion and analog controls for controlling boost and fuel flow. I’m not at all concerned with turbo use on bikes if it makes the riding experience a good one. This new Suzuki seems to be a good shot at that.

      To your other question, the electronics on the new R1 and other new bikes are largely self-diagnostic and the manufactures train dealer techs how to deal with the diagnostics. Can you fix it in your garage? Probably not but dealer techs will be able to and that’s what warranties are for.

    • Jeremy in TX says:

      Electronics is the big thing with respect to turbo improvements.

      I suspect the good fuel economy numbers Suzuki is promising are primarily the result of what I expect will be a relatively low rev limit on the engine. Time will tell. Assuming it goes to market.

      • Norm G. says:

        re: “I suspect the good fuel economy numbers Suzuki is promising are primarily the result of…”

        …controlled laboratory conditions.

        once you take that engine off it’s stand and mount it into a chassis, with the rolling resistance of those wheel/tires, with that final drive, with that aerodynamic profile, and with me a fat human (oh boy) straddling the works…?

        all those variables add drag that must be overcome.

    • Norm G. says:

      Q: “how is this different than the CX500/650 turbo twin, the GS650 Turbo, the Seca 650 Turbo or the Kaw 750 turbo 4 cylinders of the 80’s?”

      A: we didn’t know from properly designed compressors, compressor maps, and housing ratios.

      re: “do (you) think the average shop mechanic can now work on these(cause they couldn’t in the 80’s)”

      yes, it’s not as complicated as you might think. if there’s a problem with the turbo, they’re not going to do much in the way of diagnosing, they’re going to go right to “part swapping” the unit wholesale.

      the engineers at the top have done all the heavy lifting so we at the bottom may now bask in the luxury of “fire and forget”.

    • SquidProQuo says:

      Has technology improved?
      Consider the difference between an 1982 GS1100E and a 2014 GSXR1000 lierally twice the horsepower, alnmost half the weight, It’s got to be 4 times better in every way.

      • Starmag says:

        1982 GS1100E 550lbs wet 2014 GSXR1000 450lbs wet not 275lbs

        1982 GS1100E 108hp claimed 2014 GSXR1000 185hp claimed, extra 75 hp never used on the street without dying/losing license.

        Certainly not 4 times better in every way. For my taste the GS1100E had far superior comfort, practicality, and beauty. To say nothing of the fact that it had screw valve adjustment which is easier and cheaper for the the home mechanic. No doubt the GSXR1000 has superior suspension, brakes and tires. Also no doubt it’s a better track-day bike but that’s not where the majority of motorcyclists ride.

    • WaterBuffalo69 says:

      I had the pleasure of being the original owner of a 1983 Honda 650 Turbo and it had rudimentary computer mapping (compared to today) but got it job done. In fact, it was pretty seamless, compensating for temperature, barometric pressure, altitude and such. That was 32 years ago (yikes) and technology and computing power have risen exponentially since then. Consequently, I think that now is probably the BEST time to introduce turbo/super – charging on motorcycles for the tremendous increase in torque alone.

      The thing I miss the most about my turbo was the arm-stretching roll-ons. The associated turbo-lag was the only real drawback but with variable-vane turbos, ceramic blades and other cutting-edge developments, turbo-lag will be a non-issue. The turbo on my ’83 CX650T was placed just between and below the forward-facing exhaust headers on the transverse V-twin. The Recursion’s seems to be similarly situated but lower with the direct benefit being sitting squarely in the wind stream for better cooling. Detrimentally though, that placement would expose the turbo to cold water from puddles that may thermally shock the turbo unit.

      In any event I am really looking forward to this machine, if Suzuki is brave enough to bring it to market… but then they are the creators of such illustrious designs as the Katana, the ill-fated rotary, and the ground-breaking GT750 water-cooled 2-stroke triple. The signs are good…

    • jim says:

      “Secondarily, do think the average shop mechanic can now work on these(cause they couldn’t in the 80’s).”

      I tune my FI with my cell-phone, they didn’t do that in the 80’s either.

    • John says:

      It must be improved, because every time a new turbo product comes out, it has practically no lag, not like last year’s model!

    • DaveA says:

      People said the same things about steam engines when horses were the only option, and they’ll say the same thing when Audi releases the first fusion-powered car. the more things change, etc.

      That said, that doesn’t mean there isn’t a valid point to be found in your post Mickey. One important area that I feel will be trouble will be found when these modern machines are older and ostensibly purchased well-used, by those of lesser-than-new-buying means.

      My son will be (hopefully) finishing college maybe 12 years from now. If he were finishing this year, he might buy a 2003 R6, and oh what fun he’d surely have with such a fine motorcycle. And, if it breaks, he will most likely be able to fix it. How will that scenario look if he were to buy a 2015 R1 12 years from now? Probably mostly ok, until the 6-axix missile guidance system fails, and we find out that the replacement box is a $2800 part.

      This situation is already happening now with cars. In years passed, one of my many hobbies was buying nice examples of previously-unaffordable Euro-snappy performance sedans. Over time I’ve owned several big Audis, a really cool Peugeot 505 STX (ya I’m going back a bit), and others. Such cars when new were _way_ out of range, but add 10-12 years and 70,000 miles to them and they became quite wallet-friendly.

      A pal of mine recently went this route when he bought a 2003 BMW 745il. It was a very nice example with maybe 65k on it, and I think he paid $13,600 for it. The MSRP new was over $70,000 I’m pretty sure. To make a long story short, the computer that runs the iDrive (central all-controlling do-daddery) failed, and even used ones were getting over $2000, because new from BMW it was over $4000. I forget if this was for one part or two, but either way you see my point. A $4000 repair on a $13,000 car is not appetizing in the least.

      Will this be a problem with hi-tech bikes in years to come? I hope not, because I’d love to watch my kid riding a clapped out 2018 GSXR1000 on the track while I sit back and enjoy retirement. And, that retirement won’t be as enjoyable if I’m pitching in to cover the repair when the $3700 Dynamic Everything Control goes out.

  9. Louis says:

    Regarding some of the bikes coming out these days and many of us readers stating what we wish it were instead of what is presented, perhaps some of us need to put ourself in the mindframe of a 25 year old. My priorities and needs/wants have changed since 1985. Back then I lusted for an Interceptor but settled for a Nighthawk S. The 25 year old version of myself may have liked something like this, Or at least settled for it. Actually, if I were 25 now I would love the new Yamaha R1!

  10. Kosher Kracker says:

    As a former tractor-trailer drive, I don’t consider a turbocharged bike to be much more complex than a NA bike. There is a lot of potential in this size and displacement. Electronics will tame what a variable vane turbo cannot. I too would like to see a touring version. I ride an NT700V (Dullsville, to some of you) and I wish it weighed 150 pounds less…and had a turbo. Say…I just thought of a project bike: Marry the CTX650 turbo with the old Silver Wing touring bike…hmm.

    • Norm G. says:

      re: “As a former tractor-trailer drive, I don’t consider a turbocharged bike to be much more complex than a NA bike. There is a lot of potential in this size and displacement.”

      see, the diesel guy gets it.

  11. Gordon Haight says:

    The production version will be expensive, probably over $10,000. It’s not going to fit easily into any category. With no competition (yet) it will not be easy to compare to other bikes. I hope the turbo lag is non-existent as we all know what that would be like in the twisties. Perhaps Suzuki will surprise us with this bike and create a whole new category. Anyone own a Suzuki XN85? Anyone?

  12. Alberta Bootlicker says:

    I think this is a creative leap for Suzuki with some homage to past designs in the styling. Turbo, single sided swing arm, belly pan exhaust. I see Hans Muth lines with a Wes Cooley paint scheme in a very modern package. Not sure if the demographic that would buy this bike could appreciate that.

    I’d like to see them do this with a sport touring package, 1200-1400cc twin without the turbo, running about 135hp/95ft-lbs, 59in wheel base….no more than 525 lbs wet. Something that would have Motorcyclist Magazine saying something like “Suzuki eats BMW’s lunch”

  13. paulysr says:

    That *could* be one of the best looking and most fun bikes to come from Suzuki in a loooong time!

  14. HS1-RD-CX100-VF says:

    The challenge I see for this bike is finding enough appeal in a specific market to make sales. It sort of has sport-touring ergos without any touring functionality. It would be hard to ride to work in even a small city as where do you carry your lunch and electronics. It really isn’t a sport or track bike. It is mostly a modernized cafe bike with lots of technology. For college-agish riders it would do what the old school cafe bikes do very well. This is zipping around town and to the nearest beach to see and be seen. Can it fit this role at a price-point that is feasible?

    • todd says:

      Your electronics fit in your pocket and you walk with your co-workers to lunch.

      • HS1-RD-CX100-VF says:

        Walking out to lunch every workday will cost you about the same per month as a payment on an FZ07. It will also cost you about a half hour a day of being able to ride it if your employee has flexible work/lunch schedules. Work supplied Laptops or BYOD tablets don’t fit so well in pockets. In many locations, packable raingear is also good to have onboard for day commuting.

        • Dave says:

          This is a sport bike, not a utility bike. If it’s intended owner needs to carry stuff more than a backpack) or there’s rain in the forecast, they drive their car.

  15. relic says:

    The turbo/small engine format has not resulted in real fuel mileage gains for the auto world. Semis use turbos only because a NA engine truck would be so wide as to need two lanes

    • MGNorge says:

      Not sure of your “width” statement concerning OTR trucks without turbos. However, as relates to NA diesels, they don’t produce very good horsepower unless they are boosted. Turbocharging those engines also mitigates the effects of driving at higher altitudes.

    • iliketoeat says:

      True – with turbos you can get either power or good mileage, not both. The use of turbos in cars is mostly just a marketing exercise, so car makers can say without really lying “you can get lots of power and great gas mileage”.

      Turbos are exciting on motorcycles for other reasons, though.

      • Chris says:

        My 333d has power and good mileage. I’ve only had it for about 3 months now, and I am getting a little over 32 mpg combined. I’d estimate that I do about 50/50 city vs. highway driving. The mpg will probably get better once I stop playing with the 425 ft/lbs of torque. 🙂

    • Norm G. says:

      re: “The turbo/small engine format has not resulted in real fuel mileage gains for the auto world”

      correct, turbos on car side aren’t there for fuel mileage so much as they are there to allow consumers to keep their performance and fun for a “given” fuel mileage number while saving OEM’s money. the use of direct injection is what’s had the greater impact on fuel economy and it just so happens turbos and gas DI are complimentary technologies (once again you can thank truck world). as you can imagine, V6’s and V8’s are both heavy and costly to build.

      for all but your die hard muscle car enthusiast, a turbo 2.0L i4 with VVT and DI combined with today’s state of the art, lightweight chassis (many aluminium bodied now) offers all the power most could want.

      • Blackcayman says:

        IN the automotive realm, Turbos give manufacturers a vehicle that gives a more beneficial cafe rating…but in the real world, people “get into” their turbos more than they do during testing.

        I don’t think turbos do “much” of any real world reducing fuel economy or emmissions.

        Who can resist the midrage rush of performance???

        • Norm G. says:

          re: “in the real world, people “get into” their turbos more than they do during testing.”

          precisely. who knowing their car is turbo-charged stays out of boost…!? 🙂 LOL once you’re in boost, any fuel economy benefits using gas are out the window. or is it out the tail pipe…?

      • Karlsbad says:

        “The turbo/small engine format has not resulted in real fuel mileage gains for the auto world”

        I might argue with that statement as my Diesel Passat continually gives me 4.5 – 6 Litres per 100KM (depending on how hard I drive it) in a small displacement turbo engine format.
        As far as the power performance well lets just say I think the engineers were after fuel consumption when then designed the diesel engine for the Passat.

        • Jeremy in TX says:

          Not sure comparing a turbo diesel to a normally aspirated gas engine is a fair comparison. Frankly though, there are a lot of normally aspirated gasoline engines that can come fairly close to those fuel economy figures while managing to make 20%+ more power.

          • Norm G. says:

            re: “Not sure comparing a turbo diesel to a normally aspirated gas engine is a fair comparison.”

            #2 also notice, nobody’s comparing like to like on gas side either…? they keep comparing 2.2, 2.4, and even 3.0L n/a gas engines to 1.8, 1.6, and 1.4L turbos…? these are MASSIVE displacement differences. just sayin’, it’s weird.

            I mean, is there a revelation in a ninja 250 getting better gas mileage than a ninja 1000…? it even accomplishes this WITHOUT the expense of a turbo or DI, that’s crazy innit…?

    • John says:

      Maybe not in America, but they, in fact, DO increase fuel mileage for a given power, all things being equal.

      For one thing, the big power is generally in standby for the most part, but also, the allow a smaller, lighter motor that has less friction. The real motors that are doing it are the 1.0-1.4L 3 and 4 cylinder turbos.

      So, less enertia, less friction, standby power = better fuel mileage.

      Americans just want to go faster so the turbos we get are geared towards speed, not economy.

      “Powering the European Union versions of the Eos, Golf, and Tiguan, the 1.4-liter engine delivers impressive fuel economy gains over its stateside 2.0-liter counterpart. In the U.S., a VW Golf equipped with a 2.5-liter 170-hp engine gets 22/30 mpg, whereas a Golf with the 1.4-liter TSI Twincharger boasts 45.5 mpg.”

      • Dave says:

        A big part of the mileage gains in the EU are the more sensible way they measure emissions compliance. You could devise the most fuel efficient I.c.e. engine but US emissions requirements would wreck it because we require certain pieces of hardware regardless of whether or not they’re necessary for the engine to arrive at the required emissions output.

        Another is recognizing that 200hp is unnecessary in cars that only need 100hp, thus making smaller engines that run much closer to optimum efficiency/power settings. A good example of this is Honda’s NC700x motorcycles achieving 70mpg when almost any othér bike of the same size & weight achieves barely half that ridden at the same speeds with engines that make over 100hp.

        • John says:

          That’s why I like the idea of the NC. Who knows where gas prices will go. It’s amazing that Triumph was able to retune the Tiger for a massive leap in fuel mileage with no loss of power.

          I assume no one is using direct injection on motorcycles yet? VW’s systems improve power by as much as 10% OR fuel mileage by as much as 10%, depending on how it is being driven.

          A VW TSI or even TDI for a motorcycle would be pretty sweet.

          • Norm G. says:

            re: “I assume no one is using direct injection on motorcycles yet?”

            not so much.

            re: “VW’s systems improve power by as much as 10% OR fuel mileage by as much as 10%…

            …in a car.

            re: “A VW TSI or even TDI for a motorcycle would be pretty sweet.”

            well I don’t know about sweet…? but it would definitely be COSTLY and nothing seems to make people “sour” quite like having to pay for stuff.

      • Norm G. says:

        re: “In the U.S., a VW Golf equipped with a 2.5-liter 170-hp engine gets 22/30 mpg, whereas a Golf with the 1.4-liter TSI Twincharger boasts 45.5 mpg.”

        well i should hope so, it’s a whopping 56% smaller.

        • Dave says:

          Is displacement a fixed value when variable atmospheric density is introduced? It may be 1/4L, but can it breathe 2.5L’s worth of air with it’s turbo?

          Same as comparing 2 and 4 stroke at the same displacement. One fires 2x as often per minute.

          • Norm G. says:

            re: “It may be 1/4L, but can it breathe 2.5L’s worth of air with it’s turbo?”

            the value you’re talking about is known as v/e (volumetric efficiency). the target is 100%. when you turbocharge, v/e EXCEEDS 100% so theoretically yes, you could have 2.5L’s worth of air (perhaps even more) at atmospheric pressure.

        • John says:

          It can put out as much power. That’s the point. There’s no need to have big, high friction pistons in a heavy engine. The turbo allows you to get the power that you only sometimes need while reducing friction and inertia.

          It’s like the switch to Class D amps. Just as much power, less waste.

    • Snake says:

      “The turbo/small engine format has not resulted in real fuel mileage gains for the auto world. Semis use turbos only because a NA engine truck would be so wide as to need two lanes”

      Absolutely not true. Every car I’ve owned – EVERY car – since 1987 has been a TURBO. I love turbo cars, the cruising gas mileage of a 4-banger but the power of a small V6.

      For example, let us compare the MkIV generation VW Golf / Jetta models. The 1.8L turbo Golf was only 0.4 seconds slower than the VR6 in 0-60MPH as per Car and Driver, yet the 2.8L VR6 was reported by owners to get about 23MPG highway….while I, in a 1.8T Jetta, got 32MPG. And this was common knowledge and OFTEN discussed on the vwvortex.com forums.

      My turbos have ALWAYS gotten better gas mileage than my neighbor’s / coworker’s cars. Id I sold my VW Jetta to a coworker who owned an Audi V6 which was sold not long after getting my Jetta once he started to realize what a HUGE MPG difference he was experiencing between the cars, saving him a bundle. He was averaging about 14MPG city / 20MPG highway with the Audi V6, while the 1.8 turbo gets 24MPG city / 32MPG highway.

      If you think that a turbo isn’t efficient nor fun, it is because you haven’t owned one yet!

  16. Seth says:

    Some R&D money to upgrade the DR650 and DRZ400?

    • todd says:

      Interestingly enough, those are two bikes that don’t need updating. Their Boulevard series, however…

  17. John A. Kuzmenko says:

    Curious about engine longevity if the claims are accurate.

    And, yeah, a production version would probably not look as tidy and probably also weigh more.

  18. Gary says:

    Warning: don’t expect the production version to look this smart. It would be out of character, and against current trends, for a Japanese maker to not junk-up the looks with disjointed, superfluous, stylistic features.

  19. Treg says:

    80’s Honda Intreceptor…..

  20. Pete says:

    mmmmm ’82 Katana is a nice looking bike – was my first bike as well. This looks cool. Hope they sell it

  21. VLJ says:

    Everyone deriding this thing as just another 100-hp 600cc sportbike is missing the key figure from the report: Seventy-four foot-lbs of torque. Folks, your average 600cc supersport only makes forty-five foot-lbs of torque. An FZ-09 is in the low-mid sixties. Same with a CB1100. Seventy-four foot-lbs places this thing squarely in Ninja 1000/Boxer 1200/GSX-R1000 territory. The reason most literbikes feel so satisfying isn’t the stratospheric top-end hp as much as it’s the huge grunt derived from all that torque, which is what the average streetrider uses 95% of the time. The 850cc FZ-09’s true power advantage over something like a 675cc Street Triple isn’t felt through its ten extra hp. No, it’s the additional fifteen-twenty foot-lbs of torque.

    Even allowing for the usual fudging of the manufacturer’s claimed hp/torque numbers, this Recursion looks to offer previously unheard of real-world engine performance from a 600-class package. Add to that a massive increase in fuel mileage and, yes, this little parallel twin ‘Zook is something decidedly different.

    • Dave says:

      74 lb/ft @ *4.5k rpm*.
      They should ship this with a 4-speed transmission.

      • Jeremy in TX says:

        But then you would only be able to wheelie through 4 gears. Where’s the fun in that?

      • Gordon Haight says:

        I guess that’s why they sell so many Harley’s? 103 cu. inches @ 95# of torque? That must be why they are the #1 selling bike in the world. (Flame suit on – I’m ready…

        • Chris says:

          #1 in the world? You are kidding right? Harley sells maybe 300k per year while Honda sells at least 10 times that many.

          You probably meant #1 in the US.

    • Chris says:

      +1

      Well said

    • John says:

      I get what you’re saying but I can’t remember a time when I’ve ever said to myself “Gee, this bike would be so much more fun if I had more torque” while riding my CBR600.

      • Jeremy in TX says:

        Maybe that’s because you’ve never ridden a CBR600 with 74 ft-lbs of torque?

      • Norm G. says:

        re: “I can’t remember a time when I’ve ever said to myself “Gee, this bike would be so much more fun if I had more torque” while riding my CBR600.”

        fairplay, but when’s the last time you rode a Daytona 675…?

  22. Sam says:

    Why not put all of that nice technology into a “Universal Japanese machine” design, with ergonomics for we mature people (Old and Fat) that just need to be comfortable: Low footpegs, High and comfortable seat, High handlebars and while we are at it, a big 6 plus gallon gas tank and not one of these very common 3 point something, inadequate ones.

    Someone in Japan needs to develop a line for American export only that takes into consideration what they should have known for a long time, that we are predominately not all 5 ft tall and 120 lbs wet, nor are we Quarter horse Jockeys!

    • VLJ says:

      “We” also don’t purchase enough new motorcycles to make it worth Japan, Inc’s time to cater to the dead-as-a-doornail U.S. market. On top of that, “old and fat” U.S. riders typically take a pass on 600s, regardless of their performance.

      The Recursion is clearly aimed at a very different, much younger demographic. In fact, it’s likely intended more for the European and Asian markets.

    • George Catt says:

      Sam, you can’t get over the old but you can get over the fat. I’m 68 and still under 180, and I like the looks of this bike.

      Agree the US market is too small for the designers to cater to us beyond the usual cruiser carp. I prefer smaller, lighter, and better gas mileage.

      This part isn’t original, but fits this bike: HP is what ya buy, Torque is what ya drive. 😀

    • oldjohn1951 says:

      Sam, I agree with you 100%. At 64, I want a “Gentleman’s Motorcycle” with power to spare. I don’t a “Transformer’s Wet Dream” that’s going to have me double up on the Melloxicam after an hour’s ride.

      • Gordon Haight says:

        “Old and Fat” is one group that they certainly don’t market to. They prefer to sell to the “young and sexy” if they can. They look much better on their machine and are quicker to spend money they don’t have on products they don’t need. Everyone benefits from this system as we can buy it on the secondary market for half price in a couple years.

    • Mr.Mike says:

      I believe there’s already a company in Milwaukee that specializes in designing bikes for the old and fat. I hear they do pretty well too.

  23. Denny says:

    Now, this is the way to do it. Not stretched ad maximum specs and over litre volume, but some ‘smarts’ and common sense. I wish to see this machine in sports-touring guisse.

  24. Dan says:

    This is like reinventing the wheel all over again! Didn’t we see a the turbo bikes in the early 80’s from the major manufacturers that were all basically techno wonder bikes, but expensive sales failures? Of course 30+ years of ECU design & development would solve most of the old turbo problems, but I think the beautiful Suzuki Stratosphere six engine would be a much better answer. If you’ve ever ridden a six cylinder bike, you know what I’m talking about. If you haven’t, you wouldn’t understand. And 30+ years of engine, chassis design, and manufacturing techniques would remove probably 75 lbs of weight from the old CBX design to make the modern Suzuki Stratosphere a truly “Silk Road” machine. I have no problem with turbos, but for a road bike I would prefer the six cylinder route.

    • iliketoeat says:

      Turbos these days are VERY different than in the early 80s. Turbo bikes from those days were a sales failure because turbo lag is the last thing you need when accelerating out of a turn. Better turbo design and especially electronic controls (like traction control) changed the game.

      Six-cylinder engines are too smooth. Maybe some people like that, but I’d never want a motorcycle that feels so smooth and boring.

      • Gordon Haight says:

        Turbo lag still be present. Just read an article on the Porche Turbo and though the lag is minimal, it’s still there (and that’s on a technically sophisticated car costing well over $100,000).

  25. Curly says:

    Looks nice. I like the new CanaTuna styling but I’ll bet the seat area will change. At 100hp (170hp/L) it must have an intercooler hiding up under the tank. Add in 26 pounds or so for fuel and other equipment like signals and a plate holder and it’s at 410 pounds wet which will put it right with the FZ-09 that’s making 115hp. That will be a tough comparison nut to crack unless the price is really low. I’d just as soon have an NA version of it minus the turbo weight and complexity making 65hp and 384pounds wet for a lot less money.

    • Dave says:

      Re.: ” I’d just as soon have an NA version of it minus the turbo weight and complexity making 65hp and 384pounds wet for a lot less money.”

      An SFV650, Ninja 650 or FZ07 already fills that space. The value adder here is a unique engine character with mix of low-end torque, peak power usually only found in larger engines.

      • Curly says:

        But the SV and Ninja 650 are 445 and 465 pounds wet respectively. Piggies! The FZ-07 is the target at 394 pounds wet and 74hp so it would need to undercut the FZ price and look good as it does to gain market share.

        • Dave says:

          Those are the bikes that are available in your chosen space. Pick one and enjoy it.

          If this comes to market it will be something completely new, with a torque spread that’s never existed below 1k/cc.

        • Jeremy in TX says:

          “so it would need to undercut the FZ price and look good as it does to gain market share.”

          I completely disagree. 33% more power, 70% more torque and better fuel economy (assuming Suzuki’s claims are accurate) put this bike in a completely different league than the FZ-07. It should be priced more along the lines of the Interceptor, Ninja 1000 and F800GT.

    • Norm G. says:

      re: “I’d just as soon have an NA version of it minus the turbo weight and complexity”

      give me complexity or give me death…!!! (sporting chainmail Norm swings hammer at release pin on trebuchet)

  26. Jeremy in TX says:

    This bike is really interesting to me. Powerful, lightweight, torquey and efficient. Seems like a gem of an engine.

  27. Denny says:

    As previously mentioned – the ergos are not right. Not for me anyway. Give me this engine/weight setup in a “standard” configuration – feet under me with a nice big flat seat – and I would have found my next bike.

  28. Kiwi Mike says:

    Finally a light weight powerful engine for an adventure bike!

  29. Randy says:

    Actually the ergos don’t look bad. The bars are taller than you might think and the pegs don’t look seriously rear set. Serious torque, sub-400 pounds, minimalistic styling on a midsize frame, great gas mileage? I’m all for treading into these waters and see who else dives in.

  30. VEGA says:

    Suzuki REALLY needs something to stir-up the motorcycling world and to save its future… Like what FZ07, FZ09, R1, and Star Bolt did to Yamaha. Right now, Suzuki is a ‘ME TOO’ brand. Look at all the bikes Suzuki made in past 5 or so years and you’ll get the idea. Gladius, GW250, a refreshed DR200 & TU250X, GSX-R1000 and The newer GSX-F/S… Cheap and practical, Yes. But None of them is class leading or particularly mouth watering to be honest…
    Now THIS RECURSION is something!
    If it EVER sees production and live up to the claims and priced reasonable (unlike Ninja H2), it’ll sure punch a HUGE hole in FZ09’s, Ducati Monster and Street Triple’s sales… Hopefully few NC750’s too which are a great success in Europe!
    THAT THING IS A GAME CHANGER IHMO. Like The Legendary CB750!
    P.S 6-Cylinder Naked Bike? Fascinating, yes. Practical and cheap? No…

  31. HS1-RD-CX100-VF says:

    The turbo is the only part of this bike that seems remotely interesting. Without the device it is just a low to mid-displacement parallel twin with wretched ergos. For me, adding it to this package isn’t enough of a “boost” to compensate for the glaring shortcomings.

  32. Provologna says:

    I want Suzuki’s inline-6 cylinder naked chain drive show/concept bike shown several years ago.

    • KenHoward says:

      I truly can’t imagine why you’d want the complexity and weight and width of an inline-6 (though I’d take one in a heartbeat in a car!). I can’t even imagine wanting an inline-4 over a triple’s power band for street riding. It just doesn’t make any sense, unless you simply cannot bear any amount of vibration.

      • Tim says:

        I felt the same way until I tested the BMW 1600 GTL. It turned into a very expensive test ride, but the sound alone is worth the expense.

    • Randy Singer says:

      I’d like to see that bike too, but I suspect that Suzuki remembers Honda’s CBX, which was a six that couldn’t outperform other manufacturer’s fours, and it cost more on top of it. It was out of production after only a few years.

      • Random says:

        There’s also another six-cilinder from Honda, just not inline… And someone could argue the Goldwing has been somewhat successful. Sometimes the buyer is not only interested in performance.

  33. Montana says:

    The lightweight, high torque, vertical twin concept is brilliant, but really, another uncomfortable, impractical sport bike! That’s so ’80s!
    Translate the stunning aesthetic theme to “standard” ergonomics and offer a truckload of handlebars, fairings, set-backs and other options for those wishing to “personalize” the bike.
    Then watch the line-up form at the dealers (unless the turbo-lag issue goes unaddressed).

  34. hh says:

    100 hp, not heavy, good torque, good gas mileage, what’s not to really like a lot. If the handling is on the upside of 600 good and looks like the picture then the overall package will not be a mind blowing, OMFG, all conquering devastating machine, but it will be a seriously good to great 600 cc bike.

  35. Tank says:

    I guess the guy that came up with the name Gladius is still working at Suzuki.

  36. GT08 says:

    It look like the 86-87 Katana. Great looking bike.

    Dirck, do you know what have happened of the prototype inline 6 from Suzuki a couple years ago with apparent looking ? (Suzuki Stratosphere)
    Could you ask Suzuki if there some hope to see one some day ?
    That would be awesome !

  37. todder says:

    Wonderful time to be a motorcycle dreamer. Can’t believe all these great designs in the last year. Awesome to see a parallel twin turbocharged….Triumph is going have to play catch up soon. Great job Suzuki, please make it so.

  38. oldridertom says:

    Ooooh. 600cc supersport performance from 588cc. I’m all aquiver.

    • Dirck Edge says:

      Seriously? You don’t understand the performance differential of a parallel-twin versus an inline four? I’m all “aquiver”.

      • oldridertom says:

        Just saying that all that complexity to get what we already have performance-wise in the same displacement category does not look like progress to me. In the real world my insurance company cares about displacement not cylinder count. And anyone who chooses this bike and boasts about the great mileage (supposedly) does not represent any motorcyclist I know.

        • Jeremy in TX says:

          You are not getting the same. You are getting way way more horsepower than a 600cc sport bike everywhere else in the rev range south of the peak hp RPM.

          And I think it is long past due for manufacturers to start focusing on fuel economy. Honestly, I don’t care so much what the fuel economy is so much as I care about extending the time and distance between needing to stop and fill up.

        • Fred M. says:

          A turbo seems a lot simpler mechanically than doubling the count of cylinders, connecting rods, pistons, rings, valves, cam lobes, ignition coils, spark plugs, rod journals, etc.

          There’s more to an engine than displacement. There’s the width of the engine, the rotating mass, the engine weight, the torque curve, the maintenance costs, and the reliability and longevity.

          This may be a much better engine for street sport riding than one from a 600 supersport. Since very few street rides end with a tech inspection tear-downs and disqualifications, I want the bike that works best. I don’t need to conform to rules penned by the FIM or AMA for racing.

      • John says:

        To me the key point will be the MSRP, if the turbo twin produces similar power to an inline 600 but costs significantly more, doesn’t the inline 600 still make more sense?

        If Suzuki can build this bike with an MSRP of less than $10,000 it will be impressive, if it comes in at over $15,000 as I suspect I am not sure who will buy it…

        • Jeremy in TX says:

          I don’t think $10K is realistic. $12K – 13K might be possible, and I would certainly buy one at that price so long as I like the look of the bike. $15K? There are a lot of compelling competitive offerings once that line is crossed. I agree that it might become a tough sell at that price point.

        • Dave says:

          Re: “To me the key point will be the MSRP, if the turbo twin produces similar power to an inline 600 but costs significantly more, doesn’t the inline 600 still make more sense? ”

          It is not similar power. It is completely different power, sharing only peak hp in common. 600cc SS bikes barely run @4.5k rpm, where this pulls strongly. Completely different.

          • todd says:

            Sure, so you keep the 600SS above 4500 rpm. Why is that so hard for people to do?

          • John says:

            It’s true that only the peak power numbers are the same, but as Todd points out you can get to those peak numbers pretty quickly with a modern I4.

            I own an I4, a V-twin, and a parallel twin and each engine behaves differently, of course, but I can’t say that any one is better than the others. I can easily keep the engines in the meat of their powerbands on any of the 3.

          • Norm G. says:

            Q: “Why is that so hard for people to do?”

            A: ’cause it’s hard for racers to do. all of this presumes one has motoIQ enough to even know what they’re supposed to be doing to begin with.

          • Jeremy in TX says:

            todd says: “Sure, so you keep the 600SS above 4500 rpm.”

            The 600 SS needs about 7K – 8K to make 60-ish hp.

            todd says: “Why is that so hard for people to do?”

            The fuzz, man. The fuzz.

            John says: “I can easily keep the engines in the meat of their powerbands on any of the 3.”

            The appealing thing about this particular engine is that it is always in the power band. That isn’t everyone’s cup of tea, but a lot of people dig that.

            Honestly, I suspect the engine won’t be terribly exciting. With the peak torque coming in so low and the fuel economy promised, I’d wager the rev ceiling on this thing is going to be pretty low.

          • Dave says:

            Re: “With the peak torque coming in so low and the fuel economy promised, I’d wager the rev ceiling on this thing is going to be pretty low.”

            And it’ll be awesome. My VTR1000’s max rpm is 9.5k, power comes on pretty strong @ 4.5k, but I must say again, if this engine delivers, it will deliver the same torq as the VTR’s *peak* at 4.5k/rpm. And get good fuel mileage?

          • Jeremy in TX says:

            “My VTR1000’s max rpm is 9.5k”

            By “low”, I am thinking 7000 rpm or so. One of my bikes, a Buell, makes power specs very close to what is being proposed here (and also redlines around 7K). It is an extremely practical but relatively dull engine. If this little turbo engine can rev to 9000 rpms or so, I would be elated.

    • Norm G. says:

      this might be under $10k…? but we’re talking one of those psychological “feel good” MSRP’s of $9,999. hey, you said under $10k.

  39. todd says:

    Lovely. This thing would probably spank the H2 in every way except on the drag strip.

    • TimC says:

      Yeah, to me this is a far more interesting motorcycle. The H2 is “excess with more excess” – like the ZX-14 isn’t already excessive? This is more a radical departure in a useful direction (performance PLUS efficiency).

      The only thing that concerns me is turbo lag – the progression with cars has been you read a review of a new turbo car and it’s “finally no lag” but then the next gen comes out “unlike the last one this really has no lag” – so I’m not sure it ever fully can go away (physics says no of course)….

  40. ABQ says:

    It is beautiful. I can only hope to see this one produced and brought here.

  41. Gary in NJ says:

    Good looking concept bike, especially from Suzuki. I really like the emphasis on the mechanicals as well as the single-sided swingarm. No doubt, they’ll hit that thing hard with the ugly stick before a final release.

    • TimC says:

      Could go either way, but a valid fear. As someone else mentioned I like the 80s Katana in there…please keep the guys that hit the bath salts and drew the B-King away from this project!

      • Tom K. says:

        Now that’s funny. I’ve been waiting for a review of Suzook’s new naked/semi-naked 1000’s, they must have been on the board during the bath salt guy’s vacation.