using the space "inside" left happy trails su rack
-
eclipsed_thought
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2002 3:56 pm
older klr's
Hi all,
I'm considering the purchase of a KLR650. I've been looking around
for a used bike, and I'm debating whether I should go for a late model
(say 99 and up), or an earlier one.
I found a nearby 92 model with 9100 miles in great cond for $1900.
On the other hand, I also found a 99 with 14000 miles with an asking
price of 3 grand. The 92 is in slightly better condition
cosmetically.
Is there any practical reason I should go for the late model vs. the
92? I read somewhere that these bikes have changed very little since
their inception in 87. Aside from, what in my opinion is a nicer
color scheme on the 99, I think I'm leaning toward the 92, but I
thought I'd see what you experts have to say.
Thanks,
mikko
-
Mark St.Hilaire, Sr
older klr's
I'm certainly no expert, but I'm pretty sure that 1996 and earlier models were thoughtfully equipped by Kawasaki with a significant badness. I'm sure that someone who DOES know what they're talking about can be more specific... Wise men still seek Him... Mark St.Hilaire, Sr A15 HomePage: http://home.adelphia.net/~msaint/index.html KLR650 Pages: http://klr6500.tripod.com/ Valve Check & Adjustment Guide: http://klr6500.tripod.com/valves.html> Is there any practical reason I should go for the late model vs. the > 92? I read somewhere that these bikes have changed very little since > their inception in 87. Aside from, what in my opinion is a nicer > color scheme on the 99, I think I'm leaning toward the 92, but I > thought I'd see what you experts have to say.
-
Zachariah Mully
- Posts: 1897
- Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2000 7:50 am
older klr's
Nope no badness in the On Thu, 2002-01-03 at 17:15, Mark St.Hilaire, Sr wrote:
> > Is there any practical reason I should go for the late model vs. the
> > 92? I read somewhere that these bikes have changed very little since
> > their inception in 87. Aside from, what in my opinion is a nicer
> > color scheme on the 99, I think I'm leaning toward the 92, but I
> > thought I'd see what you experts have to say.
>
> I'm certainly no expert, but I'm pretty sure that 1996 and earlier models
> were thoughtfully equipped by Kawasaki with a significant badness. I'm
> sure that someone who DOES know what they're talking about can be more
> specific...
>
>
> Wise men still seek Him...
>
> Mark St.Hilaire, Sr
> A15
>