Anyone Run With A Suzuki M109 Yet

[Mav68]

Saw one at a local dealer today. It has a fairly modern individual look. A bit plastic looking for my taste. Found the handlebars pulled me forward, The seat is a bit more sculptured like a corbin but quite firm. Footbrake lever was at a horrible aqngle and looked hard to adjust. High rear fender shows off rear wheel.
I prefer the more classical stocky Rocket. Its been quoted as the most powerfull Vtwin built todate. Has it got the goods on the road too justify the claim???????????????????????? :hammer:
A M109 rider on another forum states he easily does Rockets.
Fact or Fiction??? :???:

[ This message was edited by: Mav68 on 2006-06-12 01:00 ]

[R3T]

It's a fact!
........................Suzuki.................... .Rocket Classic
0-402m............12,45/180,59..........12,87/180,74 Sec/speed
0-100km/h.......4,21.........................4,71 sec
0-160km/h.......9,20.........................9,73 sec
70-120km/h.....5,91.........................4,75 sec
in top grear

Test made in Sweden by "Allt om MC"



[ This message was edited by: R3T on 2006-06-12 01:55 ]

[RocketEd]

MCN has the Rocket quicker 0-60 and in the 1/4 (11.45 vx 11.62). On the street it's going to come down to the rider. Roll ons likely a different story however.

[vonbonds]

Interesting. The dealer I got my bike from only sells Suzuki's and Triumph's. The head service guy there has ridden both bikes. He said his rear end dyno tells him the Rocket feels much quicker. I have no numbers to back anything up.

Of course there will come a day when one of the Big 4 or even HD put out a bike that is quicker than the Rocket, that is inevitable. I do think if Triumph still wants to be the big boy on the block this engine can probably easily be bored and stroked to a much higher output. Personally I could careless if they do. I tour on my baby and she has more than enough power to do what I want.

[Jamie]

On 2006-06-12 09:19, vonbonds wrote:
I tour on my baby and she has more than enough power to do what I want.

Same here, after 19 months and 19'000 k's of baby-sitting. And I would not want more power at the expense of torque... or of long-term trans/drive train reliability Jamie

[cyclerider]

On 2006-06-12 10:38, Jamie wrote:

Same here, after 19 months and 19'000 k's of baby-sitting. And I would not want more power at the expense of torque... or of long-term trans/drive train reliability Jamie

very good point! plus, there are so many more faster/quicker bikes out there compared to the rocket or 109 so speed for a cruiser is kind of mood for me.

[sbljr]

On 2006-06-12 17:32, cyclerider wrote:

Same here, after 19 months and 19'000 k's of baby-sitting. And I would not want more power at the expense of torque... or of long-term trans/drive train reliability Jamie

very good point! plus, there are so many more faster/quicker bikes out there compared to the rocket or 109 so speed for a cruiser is kind of mood for me.

If you're willing to sacrifice torque for power and accept a Suzuki instead of a Triumph...why wouldn't you just get a Hayabusa? (After years of thinking the EyeAbuser is ugly, it's actually starting to look good compared to some of these refugees from a juvenile video game the Japanese are coming up with!)

[vonbonds]

On 2006-06-12 19:09, sbljr wrote:
...why wouldn't you just get a Hayabusa?

There is a new big dog in town, the Kawasaki ZX-14! .

[Pig9r]

I couldn't imagine wanting to go any faster than the 'busa already goes. I came across this clip.... the narrator says it all "190 mph indicated when the 'busa flies past."

http://media.putfile.com/panta-iparxi-pio-grigoros

[ This message was edited by: Pig9r on 2006-06-12 21:12 ]

[vonbonds]

Wow, that was actually a close call!