> Many of ya'll have 10k+ on your bikes and still going. Bottom line:
> would ya'll get a new KLR or get a used one. If a used bike
> recommendation how old?
I guess it depends on what you intend to do with said bike, and
how poor you really are (vs what you say in the message). A
new KLR is not *that* expensive, compared to most bikes on
the market. OTOH, a used KLR is even cheaper...
I used to think that buying new bikes (or cars for that matter) was
better, since it came with that warm and fuzzy "warranty" cushion
to rely on. These days, with few exceptions, most bikes will do
tens of thousands of miles without any major problems, often
without any problems and with minimal maintenace.
I bought my KLR used. It was (still is) cosmetically challenged.
Looked like it had the minimum maintenance, but no more than
that in it's first 9k. Changed the oil, filter, spark plug and
adjusted the valves, and it runs as well as any KLR that was
babied since new. I use it to ride off-road (something I had very
little experience with before I bought it), so the appearance
wasn't a concern. It was almost a given that I will be dropping it
often, so a cheaper bike hurts much less when you drop it...
Almost 5k later, it still runs without a problem.
KLRs are almost identical save for a difference in the can chain
tensioner that happened in '96. So, if you worry about that (and
many here say you should), buy a '96 or newer. Others will tell
you their pre-'96 KLR has run fine since they got it. Check the
classifieds and Cycle Trader to figure out what the going prices
are, then decide how much is a new bike worth to you.
Good luck,
Gustavo