Go Back   Motorcycle Forum > Motorcycle.Com General Discussion > Motorcycle News > Old News > Misc News

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 09-28-2005, 02:53 PM   #21
sliphorn
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 200
Default Re: Bike prices: ''Too high''? Factored properly in comparos?

The new scrambler has the 270 degree crank. Wonder why they did that?
sliphorn is offline   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links Remove Advertisements
Motorcycle Forum
Advertisement
Old 09-28-2005, 02:54 PM   #22
seruzawa
The Toad

 
seruzawa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: 8501 ft.
Posts: 17,461
Default relive the past....

You can relive the old days by dropping a handful of old rusty nuts and bolts on your garage floor, drip some old oil on them and park your bike over it. Nostalgia! Leave a full gas can next to your bike with the cap off the add to the nostalgic "atmosphere".
__________________
"Make no mistake, Communism lost a big argument - one we know today as the 20th century."
seruzawa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2005, 03:14 PM   #23
sportbikebandit
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,072
Default Re: Ya but..

Good point forgot about those taxes. Thanks...
sportbikebandit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2005, 03:15 PM   #24
TomSmith
Founding Member
 
TomSmith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Rancho Palos Verdes, CA
Posts: 265
Default Re: Bike prices: ''Too high''? Factored properly in comparos?

My 1973 H1E (Mach III 500cc triple) cost $1,073 out the door new. It was the fastest 1973 bike (tied with the 900cc Z1). The stock Mach IV (750) was tuned for more torque and lower end, not for more speed - it had, of course, more potential than the Mach III or Z1 and was a lot easier to ride than the H1. I still have the Mach III and can attest that it feels like it has rigid suspension and you have to be brave to go around a corner on it.
TomSmith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2005, 04:19 PM   #25
triplesguy
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4
Default Re: Bike prices: ''Too high''? Factored properly in comparos?

I cannot believe I FORGOT the winner of Cycle Magazine's first Superbike test!!! I have the magazine, purchased new and cherished for 36 years. My very, very sincere apologies to everyone who has ever loved a Norton. My only excuse is that I could never consider buying a Norton at the time because there were no dealers nearby; sad excuse, but it's the best I can think of on short notice. Of course the REAL reason is that I'm old and my memory's failing. What were we talking about again?
triplesguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2005, 04:34 PM   #26
triplesguy
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4
Default Re: Bike prices: ''Too high''? Factored properly in comparos?

A 73 RD350 might sell for $1,800 today (or more if in looks-near-new condition), but it was far less "in the day". I bought my 72 R5 for $795 + sales tax, and the 73 wasn't much more. So I think your first comparison needs revision.



I agree completely with the 240Z price, though - it was one of about three cars I had ANY interest in; I was and remain a bike guy. $3,500 is exactly right.



As far as gas prices go, I'm the last to defend price gouging, but I'm with you. Until this year, gas in this country had not broken $2.00/gallon, which is less than 7 times what it cost BEFORE the 73 shock. If you compare to after-73 shock prices, gas was up only about 3-to-1. The Z-car price you quoted is 8-to-1, so if a new car is a good deal, gas was (until the hurricanes) better. Today's prices are another issue, of course, but this web site isn't about politics.



And I'm also with you on mid 90's and even mid 80's bikes as riders - my main is a 90 Ninja and my wife's an 83 Suzy GS1100. Both are just fine for what we do. Neither will outrace a Ninja 636 or out-comfort a Wing. Fine. Either can be had on through Ebay or locally near any significant city with patience and no more than $3,000, more likely $2,000.
triplesguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2005, 04:45 PM   #27
Buzglyd
Founding Member
 
Buzglyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 10,904
Default Re: Ya but..

Once I'm done selling you flood insurance you won't have a pot to pi$$ in.
Buzglyd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2005, 05:39 PM   #28
Aero_Mongoose
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 29
Default Can't resist the airplane reference...

I don't think your analogy is disparate enough on the airplane side. There's not a real huge difference between an F-4 and an F-18 E/F. They're only one generation apart (which makes you wonder why we're spending so much to buy 'new' Hornets). I'm one of them-thar whippersnappers that wasn't around for Triumph's first heyday, but I'm pretty sure that we're more than one generation removed. I'd venture a guess that a better comparison would be F-86 vs. F/A-22.



Sorry to nerd out on you, but you drew out the aero-geek in me.
Aero_Mongoose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2005, 06:00 PM   #29
pplassm
Founding Member
 
pplassm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 3,875
Default Re: Can't resist the airplane reference...

Kudos from another aero-geek. How about a TA-183/F-86E comparo?



LOL!
__________________
Mongo just pawn in game of life.
pplassm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2005, 07:46 PM   #30
Aero_Mongoose
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 29
Default Re: Can't resist the airplane reference...

Ha! The wheelbase on the 183 is so short you'll need a good steering damper, but it should be fun on canyon roads. I wonder who'll win in the 1/4 mile... watch out for those wheelies!







Now I'm picturing the two taxiing after each other around Willow Springs! LOL!
Aero_Mongoose is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off