Sport touring motorcycles used to be quite popular, but things eventually shifted in the way of adventure style motorcycles. In 2022, Suzuki introduced a heavily redesigned sport tourer known as the GSX-S1000GT. The + version we tested comes stock with color-matched saddlebags and related hardware.
The engine in this motorcycle is based on a 1000 cc superbike motor developed more than a decade ago, and constantly refined by Suzuki over the past few years. Performance is smooth and refined, but offers a strong kick at the same time.
The GSX-S1000GT and GT+ include a number of features we have come to expect on modern motorcycles, including selectable ride modes, a full color TFT screen, adjustable traction control settings, cruise control and, of course, ABS. The bike also comes standard with Suzuki’s Easy Start System (one push of the start button does it), lower RPM assist when leaving a stop, and a slip/assist clutch. Missing is an IMU, so ABS and traction control are not lean sensitive.
Behind the non-adjustable windscreen, ergonomics are pretty comfy. Not quite as upright as an adventure motorcycle, the bars are nevertheless high enough and pulled far enough back to relieve pressure from the wrists. The seat offers long distance comfort for the rider, and the slightly rear set foot pegs, although a bit higher to offer improved ground clearance, did not pose comfort issues for our 5’11” test rider.
Our bike, the GT+, came standard with color matched saddlebags, which are surprisingly large (big enough to hold a size large full face helmet), and nicely integrated onto the bike. They are easily removable, as well.
The engine is smooth, as stated earlier, and pulls with a very linear, progressive delivery with excellent fuel injection tuning. Crack open a closed throttle just about anywhere in the rev range, in either of the three power modes (Active, Basic and Comfort), and the rider is greeted with smooth, snatch-free delivery. Peak power comes on at approximately 10,000 rpm. We have seen dyno charts showing well over 130 horsepower at the rear wheel. The bike is plenty fast.
The smooth throttle response is accompanied by excellent handling. The fully adjustable fork and the shock, adjustable for rebound and spring preload, are dialed in nicely for sport riding. Dare we say, they would even work reasonably well at a track day. Although firm, small bumps are absorbed reasonably well, and the bike remains comfortable on less than perfect roads.
Side–to–side transitions on twisty roads are relatively easy despite the size of the motorcycle and it’s claimed wet weight of 521 pounds. The Dunlop Roadsport 2 tires also communicate their grip levels well to the rider.
The only complaint we have about the handling concerns a slight tendency to understeer. This is something that could probably be solved with a taller rear section tire – the stock tire is a 190/50 and we would like to try the bike with a 190/55. In any event, this is not a big issue and we essentially forgot about it after putting several miles on the bike.
A non-adjustable windscreen is becoming a bit unusual in the sport touring category these days, but the screen proved reasonably comfortable for our rider as it directed wind flow onto his upper chest and kept helmet level flow clean and buffet free.
Suzuki has always had good gearboxes, and the 6-speed unit on our test bike was outstanding. The quick-shifter system works about as well as any other we have tested.
The brakes, including the four-piston Brembo calipers up front (squeezing 310 mm discs) offered good power and feel. They are not the latest and greatest from Brembo, but they do their job well and contribute to the excellent value offered by the pricing Suzuki has set for this model and it’s sibling.
This bike isn’t just about twisty roads, of course, and the touring amenities make long distance travel a clear option. Aside from the saddlebags, there is a cruise control function, good seat comfort and wind protection. Our time spent on Southern California freeways doing 70+ mph are a testament to this.
In summary, Suzuki delivers a compelling sport tourer with the GSX-S1000GT and GT+. Excellent peak power and power delivery are coupled with good comfort, excellent handling and all the rider amenities you might want for longer trips. Suzuki keeps its price under the direct competition from Yamaha, Kawasaki and BMW with a suggested U.S. MSRP of $14,199 for the GT+, and $13,449 for the standard GT (which only lacks the side cases and related hardware).
Take a look at Suzuki’s website for additional details and specifications.
STILL running literbike gearing on a ST bike. NO THANK YOU SUZUKI!!!
I guess Mick’s comments (13 of 84 currently, and generally more verbose/opinionated than those of others) keep the dollars and cents coming in that support this site. I for one am getting very tired of him!
He’s a tiresome rere I’ll grant you that.
When you live and ride around twisty mountain/canyon roads, you find that the number one driver for performance from a motorcycle is weight (second, after skill). My favorite road within just a couple blocks from my house is a forest road that is 10-1/2 miles with 150 turns. This spits me out into Oakland half way to work or out onto miles and miles of more roads just like it. Bikes that are heavier and more powerful with wider tires are actually slower through these roads. You’ll consistently go much faster more easily through here on a 50hp supermoto (or a 690 Duke) than you could ever hope to go on a 190hp, 500 lb bike. I understand Mick’s comments whereas people that ride the freeways and long boring straight roads can’t.
Fair point about twisty mountain roads but the thing is, relative to the greater population, virtually nobody lives there. For the vast majority of full size motorcycle riders, things like highway stability, capability and general comfort are much too high on the list for a converted dirt bike to be a viable option.
The KTM Duke 690 is brilliant and unique in what it offers but they’re not selling it anymore because the twin cylinder 790 is more appealing to a greater number of street riders so they’re hoping the 690 SM catches some of those who have to have the lightest thing.
No centerstand? No sale.
I’ve owned one of these for 2 years now and put 22,000 miles on it. I’m 5 feet 7 with 28″ inside leg. For me it’s a comfortable riding position although my rear end gets uncomfortable on the seat later in the day 🙁 Maybe a seat refurb with memory foam this coming winter.
If you stay off freeways / motorways it has a range in excess of 200 miles and will easily return 55mpg(UK), and we don’t dawdle. I fitted the Suzuki accessory touring screen which seems fine, can’t really see much difference over the standard. I agree with the other comments, it would be good to have screen adjustment available. This year I’ve been from home in England to south of France (2,500 mi) and more recently just returned from a trip to Spain (3,600 mi), neither time have I needed to adjust the (still original) chain, although I do have a chain oiler fitted.
It’s certainly not the perfect bike, I’d like better brakes, more lightness would be good, and adjustable-on-the-move electronic suspension, but it does tick a lot of “sport-touring” boxes.
Very nice bike, but what I don’t understand is why the handlebars are so straight, for me it is not a natural position for the wrists. This is something that I have been noticing for several years on sport touring motorcycles.
Looking at the left side shot, the handlebar seems to have a good amount of back sweep, guessing about 20 degrees or so? A “flatter” bend (relative to the ground) is usually the progression as the hand position gets higher.
I mean straight respect to the vertical axis
I’m not sure I follow. The good news is, it’s a tubular handlebar so it’s both adjustable and possibly even replaceable.
I surfed up a cockpit photo. The bend is pretty high and has what looks like an old school Yamaha amount of sweep. Were I to swap something on there I would probably go for the bar bend that came on a 2002 CR250 that I bought from a guy about twenty years ago. It was some rider’s freestyle bend I can’t remember the guy’s name. Anyway, it was about that tall with less sweep.
I think the adventure craze it half fashion and half ergos. So you’re going to see a lot of tall bend dirt bike style bars on more bikes. They are also good for maintaining firm command of the bike during hard braking. Particularly if you brake hard and fast and stack your passenger on your back.
Great review! The 2024 Suzuki GSX-S1000GT+ really seems to hit the sweet spot for sport touring. The balance between comfort and performance, along with features like the color-matched saddlebags and smooth throttle response, make it a standout. It’s impressive that Suzuki offers all this at a competitive price. Definitely a bike I want to check out for my next long-distance adventure!
This is a great bike at a great price. I have the Kawecki 1000SX, which is a direct competitor.
What I don’t like is the cyclops headlight. I would hope heated handgrips are also available.
I also would like to see an IMU, and an adjustable windscreen. These are items that would raise the price, but IMO also make it worth buying.
All my life, i have ridden big sport touring bikes, usually not owning them, but doing service work on them as a Honda BMW Suzuki technician. Now late in life, I have 3 of them and see I should sell them and get something smaller, lighter. Talking to one of my salesman buddies who buys and sells for a living, he said the Adventure bike market is hot, and sport touring bikes are old hat, many of them already on the used bike market with no buyers, he said it would be tuff to off them. So now, I see, Suzuki finally comes out with a nice sport touring bike, but will there be buyers for this? maybe just a few. Suzuki does also have adventure models, yes. if you ask me, Suzuki ship is sailing the wrong direction. the GSX8S looks promising and looks to be adaptable, to sport, touring, and adventure model changes. Sad to see the venerable inline 4 reach its zenith,
For me the “adventure” category is just as silly as the “SUV” on the cars, neither one are the best on any use. If you want fast and comfortable touring on a good road, a big four like this Suzuki is better that any “adventure” bike, but trends are trends, no matter how illogical can be.
In all classes of motorcycles “Weight is your enemy” I recently purchased a Moto Guzzi V100 Mandello. It is an amazingly capable Sport Touring bike and the only thing that would improve it is losing Weight. Take off 100 lbs and it would be a perfect Sport Cruiser. Underway the Weight disappears but pushing it around reminds you that “weight is your enemy. Unless i have a 100 mile trip i hop on my Triumph 400 Scrambler and enjoy its light nimble balanced design.
I do the same sort of thing. The neighbor calls for a bit of a ride and I grab the key for the 289 pound 650 supermoto. Why ride any more motorcycle than you really need.
It’s sad that the industry still doesn’t make any truly light off the rack street bikes. From all the dirt bikes to MotoGP they prove that they can do it every day for decades on end. They just won’t. Not for any price. Bizarre. Dig the MV in the next article. $60k and change. Is it light? Well, no. If you want that you’ll have to build it yourself.
Mick, say it with me:”Dirt bikes and race bikes aren’t street bikes.”. The bike you’re imagining has never existed and probably never will. Just enjoy your dirt bike and let this go.
Mick, listen to Dave, he is correct, you are beating a dead horse.
Now – if you could find a restored 66 Yamaha 305 Catalina, or 66 Suzuki X-6, they would be fine and fun.
Say it with me: “There are legitimate engineering reasons 4-strokes won, not just emissions bullshit” – let this go!
Dave, yours is one of the best replies I’ve ever seen on this site.
The point is, simpler times made for lighter bikes, not 4 strokes vs 2 strokes.
Simpler times didn’t really make for lighter weight bikes. IF you look at the weights of most of the bikes in the 60’s and 70’s that moved the meter in ridership, you’ll see they’re not any lighter than equivalent modern bikes and while there are more fringe examples of lighter bikes, like a dirt bike with street tires, they never became mainstream because of other serious shortcomings.
Do tell Dave, what were the serious shortcomings in the late 60s ? What was mainstream then, Harleys, Triumphs, Honda 750 in 69 ? There were a lot of bikes sold for around $600 – $700 instead of $1250 Twin BSAs and Triumps.
Those were good times for most motorcyclists.
The point is, I was rebutting Mick in general, the 2-stroke thing is another of his favorites like this comment we’re replying to.
Flex, flimsy suspension & brakes, poor reliability and generally porter safety than more responsibly engineered bikes.
My only complaint into the 70s was ribbed conventional bias tires instability on groved freeways at serious speeds. There were only a few bikes that had your listed problems, when operated within normal riding parameters, and conditions.
An RD350 was 345 pounds wet. There are not many street bikes now days in that weight category. But I’m not much of a fan of two stroke street bikes. Street biking is a mundane task IMO and four strokes are good for that. They seem to work well for dirt track and supermoto as well. But when they got all hostile about promoting four strokes for everything I sold all my off road four strokes. They are such a pain to maintain.
If you guys want to pretend that I’m all militant about two stroke street bikes that’s fine. Kawasaki is working on one right now. I guarantee that I won’t have any interest in it. They want to turbocharge the darn thing.
Be the Kool-aid. Live the Kool-aid.
I alway say that dirt bikes are the way that they are because the buyers demand it and that street bike are the way they are because the buyers make excuses. And here you guys are. Right on cue.
And Tim. Four strokes lost hard and were dead and buried. They were then brought back from the grave by rules favoring them. End of story. It was done in such a hostile fashion that I stopped attending, following or even watching racing on TV and have never returned. The only races I go to now and the ones that I am competing in. I even sold all my off road four strokes. Ram something down my throat and you’re sure to get puked on.
Dirt bikes are the way they are because that is what their use case allows for. Buyers of street bikes are no less discerning or demanding than buyers of dirt bikes. That’s ridiculous.
Lightweight is universally desirable in motorcycles. The lightest bikes in a given class almost always sell the best now. If lighter street legal multi-cylinder street bikes could be made for a reasonable price, it would be an insurmountable advantage to the manufacturer that achieved it. They all know it. Where are they?
Two strokes are fine for dirt bike use out in the unpopulated boonies. As well as mid Pacific. But in dense, urban environments they spew too many nasties if ridden by thousands to millions of riders. Something no endless reams of perpetuum mobile “inventing” simpleton cranks will ever change.
You theoretically _can_ make them clean, but they’d be much heavier, more complex and less powerful than an equivalent four stroke.
Also, on the street, with grippy rubber, you need stiffer everything. Bigger brakes adding weight, bigger tanks, heavier radials, stiffer frames to support cornering loads and staying stable at higher speeds etc.
Much of that weight not being in the most ideal locations from a ride and handling POV. A bit of added weight right at the roll center, where the engines on sportier bikes are situated, does virtually no harm at all to handling, while making for a more comfortable and predictable ride by, having some other sprung weight than the rider to brace the suspension against.
Dave, who says? If a motorcycle has whatever legal requirements it needs to ride on the street, it is a “street bike”. Who are you to say that some street legal motorcycles shouldn’t be ridden on the street? Is Mick’s bike not a street bike because it’s not heavy?
I don’t feel that the street bike market is nearly as decerning as the dirt bike market with regard to the overall quality of the machine as a piece of equipment. If it were there would be at least a few genuinely light bikes with good brakes and top notch suspension. Right now all you’ve got are the EXC models from KTM and the like. And those are just legalized dirt bikes. If the street bike market were decerning you would be able to buy something like a naked Kramer with lights replacing the weight of the bodywork. 285 pounds for the single and 308 for the twin. You can’t get even close to that.
Mick’s bike isn’t a street bike because it’s a dirt bike with street tires. They’re different bikes for different purposes and the practical differences are inescapable when you use one in the other’s intended environment.
Ride a dirt bike back to back with a street bike on the street and then ride them again in the opposite environments. You won’t miss the difference, even if the dirt bike works better on the street than the street bike does in the dirt.
Dave clearly looks down his nose at dirt bikes and that’s not going to change. Kramers are road race bikes with street bike engines supplied by KTM and a reputation for shrugging off crashes. The engines KTM supplies are made more robust for road racing purposes by KTM at the factory. Dave doesn’t like to go there. He can’t just say that road race bikes aren’t street bikes and have the street bike crowd sit there and nod. Never mind that racing a street bike at a supermoto is called losing and very likely breaking. It’s much harder to discount a road race bike as being unsuitable for street use. So simply ignore their existence and stick to disrespecting dirt bikes and the Neanderthals who ride them.
Some people tend to think that sreet bikes are heavy because there so special. I don’t buy a single letter of that line. Some guys at a motorcycle salvage yard weighed all the parts of the 600cc sport bikes from the various manufacturers and found that one bike containing all the lightest parts would weigh about 100 pounds less. Of course you can’t just reassemble a working motorcycle from a bunch of incompatible parts. It’s not that they can’t make lighter street bikes. It’s a simple fact that they won’t make lighter street bikes.
Cool. Now make one with the 800 motor and I’m listening.
I think that road version of the V-Strom that Dirk reviewed a few weeks back is as close as we’ll get. The 8r is close but probably doesn’t have a big enough gas tank for some, though it probably gets better mpg’s thank this 1k does.
I have a beautiful Triumph 955 RS with Ohlins shock, GSXR forks, Staintune pipe, and about 32k miles. Looks almost new. I think I have your dream bike and would part with it for a mere $3000.
Give me an 800 KannaTuna including the big, goofy dual headlights (both on in low and high, if possible).
I, too, would like to see an 8GT. I just wonder how they’ll be able to down-spec it enough to justify it’s presence and still keep bags and cruise.
However, I wonder if a V-Strom 800ST might be in the offing instead (base DL800 w/a different front fairing and smaller cases than the 1000GT/GX.
Wow! What a blast from the past. A sport touring bike with a 1000cc in-line four sold as an open class bike. Now days when so few bikes have in-line fours and bikes with over 900cc are sold as middle weights. I think you an probably get a can opener now with at least 1200cc. 1000cc is plenty in my book.
Odd that the bike doesn’t have a center stand. One quick look at the photo with the bike on a side stand kind of shows you why. There is a substantial exhaust can down there that already hangs pretty low. Some repackaging would have to occur to accommodate a center stand.
Reading the article was really pegging my nostalgia meter. Then in true MD fashion some guy chimes in saying that a motorcycle ain’t a motorcycle unless it has an automotive drive system and, of course, the bike needs a larger gas tank. BMW just launched your dream bike pal.
I get a kick out of the ride mode names. Active must mean that the ECU tries to do what you tell it. Basic for basically operating in the expectedly infuriating way a ride by wire system operates. And of course comfort for those times when you’re really hung over and would rather be riding something smaller and quieter. It’s sad that just about everything now days comes equipped with a nanny between you and the throttle. Not in my garage you don’t. Throttle cables or bust baby!
I like it in red too. It’s silly adventure tourers are so popular. No one goes off-road with that stuff; it’s too expensive. If you did and dropped it, without a friend you’re SOL.
Well, yes, just as with many trucks and SUVs in the 4-wheeled world. But they’re a choice that happens to be a trend now for some years. Obviously, a visual trend rather than one brought on by an increased desire by riders to go off-road. Many AB riders like the added suspension travel, even on-road. ABs also allow for on-road touring without the added weight some full-blown touring bikes carry. But Adventure Bikes also do tend to leave those short of inseam out. As long as there are enough other choices then I don’t really care what others ride. Take a look at the auto world and how SUVCs/Crossovers have decimated the sedan and coupe selections from dealers.
I wish they still made a decent pickup. The darn things they make now are for the car people who want something to go with their cowboy boots. This latest bit with the huge grills is absolutely clown car level ridiculous. A pickup is supposed to be a utilitarian vehicle with good sightlines that is devoid of easily damaged parts. And it’s box should be a minimum 8 foot long. Now days if you want an 8 foot box you are probably going to have to order the truck and wait a few weeks for it. Even then you’ll get some dainty losermobile that you can’t see out of that has whimpy plastic pieces tacked on all over the place. All for about two to three times the money that a truck used to cost. Funny they still market me. “Hey come on down and check out the new trucks.” Hey. Make one.
I was convicted by your comment. Just bought a $67,000 2025 Ram Rebel. It’s too nice to go offroad. The 5.5 foot bed is of limited use, so I spent another $3000 on a 10′ utility trailer to haul plywood. And then there’s the fuel economy… I’m the guy who gets 26 MPG in a Jeep Wrangler. Driving 98% on the highway at 65-70 MPH, the best I’ve gotten in the Ram is 18.5 MPG. This is with the new 3.0 Hurricane Straight Six Turbo. But…it sure does drive nice. lol
When I moved back to America from France I bought a used 2012 GMC 3500 crew cab diesel with the required 8 foot box. The original owner had the DEF system deleted and returned for economy. On my trips to and from Minnesota from New Hampshire I get between 20 and 22MPG depending on fuel quality. I got 17.5 pulling my Ski Nautique, a 3000 pound boat and trailer combo. I get 12.5 pulling my toy hauler full of kit, about 9500 pounds. My 2009 GMC gasser got 8 or 9 pulling the same toy hauler. That darn thing barely made it through the mountains on dirt bike trips to Colorado and Utah. Hense the diesel.
I bought six extended cab gas half tons with 8 foot boxes new between 1993 and 2009. They ranged in price, because I knew a fleet sales guy, between 21k and 35k. Then the car people destroyed the truck market while I lived in Europe driving vans. Now you can’t even buy an extended cab half ton with an 8 foot box unless you buy a Ford. That’s not happening. So I bailed and buy used. Same deal with street bikes. The last off the rack street bike that I bought new was a 916 Ducati in 1994. My newest street bike is a 2012 1100 Hypermotard Evo SP Corse. If I ever buy a new “street” bike again I’ll probably buy a Kramer, lose the fairing and make a proper hooligizer bunny. Still shredding.
If you think that Ram drives nice, you should go and test drive a Honda Accord or Toyota Camry. You’ll be blown away.
I don’t know why they still make and sell 58mm, 100+ durometer skateboard wheels on these little popsicle blanks. We need at least 65mm with 83-90 durometer for skating in the real, old school world.
And oh yeah, Suzuki is out-Honda-ing Honda with staple category defining bikes and reliability.
Mick, please act your age.
Sorry pal. The only reason I ever went to a Harley dealer was because they had a race gas pump and they don’t even make Oldsmobiles anymore. Your results can vary all you want.
Very nice bike for sure. But it is not a true sport/touring machine. The moment a manufacturer states a machine is for touring the bike must be shaft drive. There are and have been plenty of sport touring motorcycles that are shaft drive and are remarkably competent in the sport riding mode. Touring means a lot of long-distance rides. Who wants to deal with a chain whilst out on a long ride? Next up. The windscreen. The advantages of a power windscreen cannot be understated. Need wind protection? Simply press the up button. Now in the sport bike riding mode? Drop the wind screen all the way. Next, fuel range. Once again long rides possibly in remote areas. Nice to have a 250-300 mile range. What this very nice motorcycle is a less expensive alternative to a true sport touring motorcycle. Classic example of getting what you pay for.
I accidentaly pushed report instead of reply – sorry about that…
I understand these comments about a shaft drive BUT: Some people actually like the simplicity of a chain drive along with the possibility of an easy final drive ratio change. Most bikes are under-geared especially if you don’t plan to use them two-up with luggage. I geared up most of my bikes in the past (Blackbird, ZX12 and GSX-R 1100 being the exceptions)
After 25 years of riding I started using Scottoilers. That rendered chain maintenance non-existent and chain lifespan about double if not triple. Wish I had done it earlier… Just my 2 cents.
t.
Touring means more than a day ride. Sport means shredded knee pucks and many stops to rest in the same day. Sport touring is all day ( one ) comfortably engaging all street types and happy moods, with few stops.
This bike and others like it are more practical than lumbering kitchen sinks or almost race ready 7-11 parking lot monuments to courage.
Exactly!
“The moment a manufacturer states a machine is for touring the bike must be shaft drive.”
Harley Davidsons (arguably the most “toured” brand) have never offered shaft-drive. Modern motorcycle chains can go tens of thousands of miles with minimal maintenance.
It is more fair to say that if the word “sport” is implied, shaft drive is out, because of what it does to the dynamics of a motorcycle under acceleration. This depends on how “sporty” one rides, of course.
This bike is the definition of a sport-touring motorcycle. If it has fatal shortcomings for your ride type, you’re not sport-touring.
Most Harleys and other big cruisers have used belt drives for decades. Why not on bikes like this Suzuki?
BMW did this with some sport-touring bikes for awhile. I wonder how those have worked out.
Belt is harder to package. They’re wide and require larger diameter sprockets, especially problematic for the counter shaft sprocket. All of this difficulty increases with engine width.
Belts place a constant and heavy load on output shaft bearings. Nowadays the bearings are designed for that, but still not a problem for chains.
Do you think that load is significant in comparison to the primary load of transmitting power to the wheel?
This load will also is much lower with a spring loaded idler tensioners common in the motorcycle application.
Yes Dave, the constant output shaft bearing load of a belt is significant because it is a cumulative force to normal power loading, a load that does not exist with a chain. Now, if a bike has an idler roller, probably not a problem. HD or Buel did blow some shaft bearings years ago for this reason.
Indubitably.
And the Flux Capacitor might get overloaded.
The Flux Cap will be OK if run in series with a Phantastron / dual wall Solid state gas filled rectumfier.
I figure “Touring” and “Sport Touring” are completely different. People who tour generally ride Harleys and Goldwings. People who “sport tour”, in my ever-humble opinion, are older sportbike riders who realized a few years back that riding a bike designed for race tracks is fun for about an hour, or until the po-po gives you a hickory massage.
“…must be shaft drive…”
Nonsense. I put 600,000+ Km’s on my Wing, Connie, and FJR before I switched to a CBR1000RR for touring ( age pushed me to a lighter bike.) Yes, a chain creates issues that you don’t have with a shaft drive but those issues are minuscule. Certainly nowhere near enough to make me choose one bike over another just because it has shaft drive. My riding is touring only and average 400-500 mile days for several weeks at a time. I’m quite content to have a chain drive even with all of its relative flaws.
Getting the balance between Sport and Touring has always been controversial. If you add Touring options such as center stand, shaft drive, large tanks, etc then you add weight and the Sport people get pissed off. When you leave them out then the Touring people get pissed off. Striking that balance is hard but I think Suzuki has come up with a great Sport Touring bike at a reasonable price. I think this will be my replacement for my venerable VFR 800 soon, especially now that it comes in red.
There is a credible theory (in my opinion) that the VFR 800 was driven to extinction by the Kawasaki Ninja 1000. That might be one that’s worth comparing to this also.
You could write a book on how Honda screwed up the VFR line starting with the 6th Gen VFR and then the VFR 1200. If Honda had simply gone with a 1000cc V-four 150+ HP with no VTEC and upgraded the suspension, they would have had a winner that would sell like hotcakes and sound good.
I did look at the Kaw 1000 for comparison as it is also a solid Sport Touring option. It leans a little more to the touring side than the Suzuki so a little harder to throw around in the SOCal canyons near me. I need something that does a 1000 mile trip AND goes well around corners.
Do you think the Kawi leans more touring? Based on riding position/bar height? It’s lighter weight than the Suzuki by a few lbs.
Agreed on the VFR. While I love mine and feel no need for any more power, it’s pretty clear that by the time they could’ve made that choice they just didn’t have the stomach for the necessary investment in tooling a larger V4. I think the relative failure of the 1200 was the last straw. Heck, even if they’d done an I4 bike on a version of the CBR engine it could’ve played well in this space.
Based on the feedback from Ninja 1000 riders who have sampled the Suzuki, the general comments are it takes a little more work in the turns. But the Kawi has other strong points so it just depends on your preferences.
The V4 is more expensive to produce than an I4 so the VFR was always going to cost more than the CBRs. But there is no other engine that sounds as good or delivers the traction for the track like a V4. There is a reason why 20 of the 22 MotoGP race bikes use a V4 and the 2 Yamahas use a firing order that mimics the V4. Sounds like the Honda accountants won over the Honda engineers.
My 5th gen VFR has been sitting for the past 2 years, and I think the cost to get it back on the road exceeds it’s value at this point. So, I am also looking at getting back on the road and this looks mighty tempting. I’ll give it a try when demo days roll into my town.
I also have a 5th Gen VFR. You should look at values. The G5 is widely regarded as “peak VFR” and they’re trading at pretty good prices. A royal PITA to work on anything beyond oil changes, unfortunately.
Agreed, the 5th Gen w/ the gear cams was definitely “peak VFR”. Imagine if Honda had dropped a 1000cc V-four w/ gear cams and new suspension as an update?
Well, there was the VF1000R. My brother owned one and it was quite fun exploiting its boatloads of torque down low and through the midrange. So effortlessly it projected you.
Interesting that this article evokes comments from from VFR owners. I’ve owned a 4th gen VFR for over 25 years and have always felt it to be one of the best all-around bikes ever built. Approaching my 80th birthday, I started looking for a more comfortable long distance ride. After much deliberation, and believe me I researched everything, I settled on a BMW R1200 RT. It was a tough decision since I’ve ridden nothing but Hondas since my first 125 cc Benly, but I’ve been extremely happy with the Beemer, chain or no chain. Still ride the VFR too. Just go with what you like and f**k the naysayers.
This post has been haunting me. I don’t understand how a guy who rides a VFR for 25 years arrives at a R1200 RT after much deliberation. One of my dirt bike buddies has one of those. He just did a lap around Lake Superior with it. He rented one for a trip down the west coast of South America as well. I kind of wonder how he arrived at it too. To my eye it’s such a physically large motorcycle. Well, that and any time I ride any Boxer it beat the heck out of my shins on the cylinders.
Mick – Hope I can explain my deliberation process, and maybe your friend can confirm. I was looking for comfort for distance riding, luggage capacity, a large tank for range, as well as performance and reliability. The BMW promised all. After a test ride, I was amazed by its capability – nimble, quick to turn in, lots of grunt – and you’re cruising at 100 mph before you know it. Yes, it’s 100 lbs heavier than the VFR but nowhere near Gold Wing, K1600 or HD heft, which I couldn’t handle anyway. It looks large but it doesn’t ride large. Plus it has the tech that was non-existent 25 years ago, e.g., cruise control, dynamic ride adjustability, etc., etc. And I don’t have a problem with ride-by-wire, it’s seamless on the BMW. Again, to each his own.
The nice thing about a centerstand when it comes to touring is the ability to quickly/easily lube the chain. So if a bike is marketed as sport-touring, I’d expect this capability – particularly as chain drive offers advantages for the sport vs touring side of things.
It also gives you way to remove wheels without carrying a pit stand.
Unfortunately, #ScrewsHappen.
I did a double-take when I saw the pic of this bike as it reminds me so much of my beloved Ducati ST4, a model (with it’s family) that the Italians abandoned because they saw no future for genuine sport-tourers. More likely, they realised owners of these models were not serial new-bike purchasers desperate for the latest fad. It took the Japanese to see a continuing market for the ST genre.
Looks great in red.
If I were in the market for another liter class sport touring bike, it would certainly be in consideration
Looks good, but why is it so porky at 520 pounds? A liter sport bike weighs around 430. Okay saddle bags with hardware add 30 pounds? Where is the additional weight? To my mind, this should not weight over 500 pounds.
521Lb is not heavy for a GT/Sport tourer, even without the side cases. If you look up other bikes in this category and adjacent (think adv touring style) you’ll find they all weigh in the 500-550lb range.
The added weight is more durable and less expensive materials and components. Supersports in this displacement class are typically $2,500+ more expensive and far less capable as road bikes so that weight savings come at more than one kind of cost.
Understand your comments and you are correct in your assessment. But, I have a problem, my size 5’6″ tall and weigh 138 pounds, on the slender size. Love long distance touring. Owned a 2003 Yamaha YZF600R, 485 pounds and when I dropped it once was able to bring it back up. Owned a 2007 Suzuki GSX-R600 and actually placed a heavy carpet next to the bike and laid it down. Was able to bring it up with little effort. But out in the middle of nowhere trying to lift a 500+ bike, if dropped? I have my doubts. Yes, most of my bikes have been in the 600-650 cc range. I’m a person that looks at all possibilities and plans accordingly. Love this bike but it’s not for me.
And I better understand your position and commend you for thinking about it. Can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen old guys on big HD full dressers who weren’t strong enough to push it backward on flat ground, let alone lift it if it were to fall.
Here’s a good technique for a small person to pickup a large motorcycle: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dw05_6nZqAA
Thomas, aware of this technique. This is how I lifted my 485 pound Yamaha YZF-600R In Oregon, in a deserted campground. Stupid me trying to get closer to the picnic bench on uneven grass at a very low speed. You do dumb things at the end of a long ride. Barely lifted it up. If it weighed 35-40 pounds more, not so sure. A big factor is the slope of the ground. I’ll stick to bikes under 500 pounds.
This one time in SF, a rider zoned out and rear-ended a car stopped to turn left. While a couple people attended to the guy (he was fine, just shaken), I went to pick up his bike and move it out of the road, using this technique. These 2 dudes ran up and said I’d “throw it over” (!) and took over from me and struggled to get the thing moved. I was like, whatever dudes, I’ve actually practiced this just in case with my own bike, but you do you….
It’s frustrating. For decades I have watched the individual components of street bikes get nothing but lighter while the finished bikes either don’t change or actually get heavier. It’s not an accident that the last time I bought a brand new street bike, one sold street legal, was thirty years ago.
I still buy new dirt bikes. They do the opposite. They might not get much lighter. But when KTM made the same dirt bike with and without electric start the difference was seven pounds, even though the electric start bikes still came with the kick starter. They worked hard and eventually the finished electric start bikes lost those seven pounds and weighed the same as their kick start competition. The dirt bikers demand technical excellence and they get it. The street bikers make excuses and they don’t. Somehow they get lighter engines in lighter frames with lighter wheels and suspension in heavier motorcycles. It makes no sense at all.
dirt bikers are doing different things than street bikes.
street bikes have comparatively more components to offer features that street bikers want that dirtbikers, seemingly, don’t…they are different activities.
there are not enough street buyers willing to pay what it costs to continually minimize weight the way you seem to desire. The sportbike craze has left us.
engine size creep means more metal, no?
there seem to be other things of greater importance to the majority riders than absolute minimization of weight. You can make a super-light frame out of titanium…but does the one made out of steel feel better? Does it give the rider of this bike something they want (storage, more passenger room) at lower price than if it were made from lightweight unobtainium?
There seems to be a resurgence of under 1000cc bikes. Maybe there’s your chance for less weight.
KTM, BMW and Ducati seem to have managed weight reductions. Maybe you need to be willing to spend more for less weight.
In the meantime, I am pretty sure this Gt+ has more fairing and more hard bags while still weighing a bit less than Bandit 1250. (granted: no sidestand, though)