2008 Triumph Street Triple 675 Review

[longride]

I would suggest going to the gym, but I won't!!

[sarnali2]

If he doesn't look like Mike Douglas, why bother.....

[12er]

Originally Posted by longride

I would suggest going to the gym, but I won't!!

but the roid rage...

[supecoop]

Meanwhile, back on topic---
Great review Pete, and the Street Triple looks like just the bike for me, except for the cost. Yikes! The SV650 is only $6600 with ABS; even less with ordinary good brakes. This bike could be a big seller in Europe, but the dollar's falling value will keep it from being a big seller here. Too bad.

[newagetwotone]

Originally Posted by supecoop

Meanwhile, back on topic---

Topic? What the hell is wrong with you this is MO not some fancy schmancy (is that how you spell it?) professional message board, BWA!

[ihawkeye]

I had the chance to ride both the Speed Triple and Street Triple. The Speed Triple was great, but I'd riather have the Street III. It feels lighter, and more tossable. It does everything its larger brother does, and 95% of all riders can't ride the Street III up to itt limits, so the extra ponies and costs of the Speed III isn't necessary. Another reader wrote that you can get a Suzuki Bandit 1250 for about the same price. The Bandit is another great bike, but just because it has a larger displacement, doesn't make it a better value. If you didn't know the size of the Street's motor, you'd think it was much larger. Toss the spec sheet and ride this thing. It's just flat out fun to ride like you stole it.
Hawkeye

[ericrosten]

Ok, I'm going to compare it to the SV650S. I'm well aware in 5 years of motorcyle research that the SV650 is tossed for the Gladius, and the SV650S comes only in the SVSF version. Ok, got that out of the way.

The SV runs less expensive tires. The SV eats less fuel, and lower octane to boot (87 vs 90). The SV will not eat chains or sprockets as quickly. Suzuki dealerships are abundant and parts less expensive / more available. The SV caries roughly the exact same torque curve numbers. The SV just works....and works a long, long time.

The ST675 is about $2K more. Triumph dealers in the US are less available and parts cost is higher. Are these extra up-front costs, more expensive aftermarket, and higher operating costs really worth the increased performance gained? Is "fun" measured in money? I bet insurance is more too.

Any SV knucklehead will realize the performance potential with the SV chassis. Suspension is why it's less expensive, but easily upgraded for less than OTD cost of the 675. Perhaps the 675 should be slotted in a entry level +1/2 category.

Take a used SV1000S, put it on an extreme diet and beat the snot out of the others, and do it with more character than the B1250 and for less than the price of a ST675.

In the end, "fun" is what takes the throne....above shiny and costly.

[seruzawa]

Originally Posted by ericrosten

Ok, I'm going to compare it to the SV650S. I'm well aware in 5 years of motorcyle research that the SV650 is tossed for the Gladius, and the SV650S comes only in the SVSF version. Ok, got that out of the way.

The SV runs less expensive tires. The SV eats less fuel, and lower octane to boot (87 vs 90). The SV will not eat chains or sprockets as quickly. Suzuki dealerships are abundant and parts less expensive / more available. The SV caries roughly the exact same torque curve numbers. The SV just works....and works a long, long time.

The ST675 is about $2K more. Triumph dealers in the US are less available and parts cost is higher. Are these extra up-front costs, more expensive aftermarket, and higher operating costs really worth the increased performance gained? Is "fun" measured in money? I bet insurance is more too.

Any SV knucklehead will realize the performance potential with the SV chassis. Suspension is why it's less expensive, but easily upgraded for less than OTD cost of the 675. Perhaps the 675 should be slotted in a entry level +1/2 category.

Take a used SV1000S, put it on an extreme diet and beat the snot out of the others, and do it with more character than the B1250 and for less than the price of a ST675.

In the end, "fun" is what takes the throne....above shiny and costly.

You left out the fact that at over 100hp the ST will simply shred an SV650. They really are two entirely different things. In no fashion is a ST any sort of beginner's bike. Remember that it is built and marketed as a hooligan bike. The Japanese models you compare it to are just completely out of its league.

[pushrod]

Supposedly Triumph offers an asbestos wallet with a velcro Driver's License holder for Street III owners...

I tell ya, I rode one (with the Arrow exhaust!) at Barber, and it was more fun than that time in the hayloft with the Swenson twins!

[Kenneth_Moore]

Originally Posted by ericrosten

The SV runs less expensive tires. The SV eats less fuel, and lower octane to boot (87 vs 90). The SV will not eat chains or sprockets as quickly. Suzuki dealerships are abundant and parts less expensive / more available. The SV caries roughly the exact same torque curve numbers.
In the end, "fun" is what takes the throne....above shiny and costly.

I'm wondering about some of your comments. Tires: really just a choice isn't it? Both bikes have 17" rims, so the rider can pick from a wide variety of compounds, treads, and prices. Is the ST known to "eat chains and sprockets?" I've noticed a direct correlation between riding style and chain/sprocket life. That and how well maintained the bike is, especially the cush drive, bushings and bearings. Lastly, yes, Triumph isn't as widespread as Suzuki, but we're not talking about a Moto-Guzzi or MV Agusta here. Triumph has a lot of dealers in the US.

BTW: I ride a DL1000, the cousin of your SV's. It's a great bike and I like the dealer. But I wouldn't hesitate to buy a Triumph for any of the reasons above.