[56279]

The published status certainly bear out what you've observed-- a 50lb. weight gain.



The 2008 Ducati Hypermotard is only 8lbs heavier, but of course will leave your wallet significantly lighter.



Perhaps refocusing the KLR650 on the street and urban environment where many of them spend their time necessitated some weight gain.



Perhaps most real-world users will find the extra weight an asset rather than a liability? Somebody lace up a set of 17"s and let us know!

 

[sachiwilson]

I have no clue whatever, personally, but the KLR is a cult bike over at AdvRider (http://www.advrider.com). Head over to that site and check out the forums, and you will surely find out whether the inmates there think the new bike is better, despite the weight gain. You might also find out what to remove!

 

[acecycleins]

I'm sure you will hear this more than once. It did gain weight but it also gain better flexibility for adventure touring, as well. Every review that I have read, so far, says it's a much improved bike in EVERY way from the previous bike. The bike boast better brakes, better handling, better prtotection from the elements, better power, better power delivery, better suspension (even though the travel was reduced)- it's a better bike than the prevoius generation and it's still wads of cash cheaper than everything it competes against. And it STILL plays in dirt. You want real opinions on this bike go to one of the KLR owner's forums and ask. Bet they say the same thing I am saying.

 

[36234]

As an owner of a 2002 KLR I can tell you the stated weight of the older KLRs at 347lbs is way off ,they are at least 25-30 lbs more. I think Kawasaki is just being more honest this time around.

 

[48337]

I've always heard the 335 number was crap and the real difference between the 07-08 is < 20 lbs. Still in the older models favor, but a far cry from the spec sheet 50 lbs.



like someone said.. go to advriderthumpers forum and get more info than you ever wanted to know. Those guys personally know every nut and bolt on a KLR.

 

[iamz]

DR650. You won't be disappointed.

 

[50357]

I'm not disappointed....got my 06 KLR with 350 miles for 4k. The 08 may be the greatest thing ever, but with the money I didn't spend, I'm pipmping it out.

 

[JoelReiter]

I find this very shocking -- you mean anyone actually reads the weight in the manufacturer's spec sheets? I learned almost 40 years ago that brochure claims were meaningless, and haven't paid any attention to them since. I don't know what the new model weighs, but for what it's worth, the January 1995 issue of Motorcyclist magazine reported the actual weight of the KLR650 as 401 lbs. with a full tank of gas. Since gasoline weighs just over 6 lbs per gallon, depending on temperature, that means the old "lightweight" KLR weighed about 365 lbs. dry. I can see how the new model might have gained 20 lbs. from the larger wind protection, heavier forks, larger brakes, stronger wheels, redesigned rear end, plusher seat, etc.



What I wish Kawasaki had done is up the target price by $1500-$2000 to pay for the widest 6-speed gear spread in motorcycle history, and an all up wet weight of 350 lbs. But they have done their marketing research, and they apparently have concluded that what they have done is what the market will stand. My guess is the changes are well worth the extra 20 lbs., and for anyone who feels otherwise there is always the Husqvarna TE610, the KTM EX/C 525, the Honda XR650L, etc.

 

[32772]

I bought my 2001 new and will probably keep it forever. Given all the mods I've made, I couldn't sell it for anything near the investment. That's not the point, though. The KLR is a great platform for doing almost any kind of real world riding you might want to do. It works on the street. It works in the dirt. It works on reasonable trails. I've been all over and it has never failed. In fact, I rode 800 miles last weekend. I've read the tests and most of the mods seem to be close to what we've all had to do anyway (not the forks, but I did add a brace). It's not about the weight, no matter the accuracy. It's too heavy for technical stuff and for the rest the weight is moot. If you're even thinking about it, you'll probably be happy. It's a great ride!

 

[mscuddy]

Re: 401 lbs?!?!

Jeez, does a truss come in the tool kit?

That's about what my ex-XB9SX weighed (give or take a few).

Oh well...

 

[19741]

My 2008 is my third KLR. It certainly does not feel heavier than my old ones. It does however take crosswinds way better than the old model, stops better, goes better and is more comfortable. That being said I sold it after one month cuz I don't go off road much and my 07 Tiger is a much better road bike.

 

[54842]

I recently test rode a new '08 KLR. The suspension and brakes are now worthy of their names and the saddle felt ok, but........ I also tested a DR 650 and the difference in feel amazed me. The old, stoneage DR felt positively lively, quick and responsive compared to the new, somewhat improved KLR. Yup...I bought the Suzuki. Also, the simplicity and virtually bulletproof reputation of the DR versus several known problem areas (one of which may still be there in the chain driven counterbalancer-gear driven in the DR 650) added more reasons to go with the DR 650. DFO

 

[seruzawa]

Anyone who has been really following motorcycles has figured out by now that manufacturers (or the importers) lie about "dry weights" regularly. While most people think of dry weight as a bike without gasoline or oil in it I think that the "dry" stated weight is actually the shipping weight sans the crate. Bikes are shipped from the manufacturers without batteries or tires. So what American Honda or Kawasaki calls the "dry" weight is more likely shipping weight.... or just some figure that comes into their heads out of the blue.



I remember when Ducati's 250s increased in horsepower each year back in the 60's while no changes were being made to the engines. Magic! Those bikes eventually had 30hp according to Berliner Motors' ad copy... so it's gotta be true.

 

[seruzawa]

Enough of the real world experience of owners. That carries no weight here. Magazine statistics only, please.

 

[hutch312]

I think the weight gain on the KLR would be a plus. I road a 2001 on a 3 day trip and it was too light on the highway and vibrated so much the boys downstairs were on the verge of suicide. If you want a more dirt worthy, lighter weight Dual sport go for the DR650 or the XR650L. Not as comfy on the highway but off road they blow the KLR away.

 

[gas_pig]

I tend to like KTM's ready to ride published weight measurement (no fuel). I'm not saying whether it's accurate or not... it just seems to be a good real world method of comparing bike weights.

 

[KLRer]

The prior model was listed at 337 lbs dry, this one at 386 lbs. Dream on that the old one was listed low and the new one high.



It might still be a good bike but 50 lbs heavier? Less manueverable, harder to pick up, slower.

 

[KLRer]

Most of the supermotards in the 650cc range, like Husqqvarna and KTM, weigh in in the 325 to 340 range as I recall.

 

[KLRer]

Every review Ive read indicates its slower than the old bike as one might expect. They say something like "not any peppier" or "no noticeable improvement in performance" which probably means the results of adding 50 lbs to the same old torque curve are about what the laws of physics demand.

 

[JoelReiter]

"Dream on that the old one was listed low?"



That's what I'd say too if I bought a 2007 KLR and didn't want to deal with the reality that I just paid full retail for an obsolete motorcycle.