Re: Lightweight yet more powerful bike?
 

If you've read what I wrote on here in another thread, I'm still getting at least 50+ mpg on my S50 depending on how I ride (it's very quick and that's fun so that may be why sometimes it's only 50). Suzuki website says the current specs are 3.2 gal for the tank, 478 lbs (a little heavier than the Vulcan), with a water cooled 805cc V-twin . The shaft drive on the S50 has had no problems, not like on the M50, and is almost maintenance free. There is no vibration or noise from it, and is very smooth. My transition to the S50 from the GZ was absolutely effortless and a great surprise in the difference in performance without sacrificing anything in handling. It's just another bike to seriously consider.

Re: Lightweight yet more powerful bike?
 

But the one problem is easily fixed before it causes major damage and big $. Yes I am defending the M with it's factory glitch because it isn't a big deal in my mind. The S-50 with carbs and different pipes is a neat looking bike with the least weight of the 50 series so it should be the most fun to tear around on. The M is also apparently the best handling of the 50's due to it's different forks. Lynda drags hard parts in the twisties now and again as it seems to corner like it is on rails. Any of the 50's are a good bang for the buck while being virtually bullet proof. My choice of the 50's would be the Canadian Special Edition C-50. It is just a bit nicer than the rest of the family.

Re: Lightweight yet more powerful bike?
 

Just a few points:

Even though I get close to 60 mpg on the Vulcan, I sometimes wish the 4 gallon tank was larger.

If you are interested in aftermarket parts.... it is TOUGH to find much. Not impossible, but not easy.

I'm not positive, but I have heard that they may phase the 500 out of production...which , if you are set on getting one might work in your favor price- wise. They'll want to get the 2009 s out the door.

The engine is awesome.... parallel twin... same as the ninja. Sucker has some POWER but does not overwhelm. I am a 54 year old "newbie" who moved from the GZ ( still have it... will never sell...) . LOVE the Vulcan!!

My .02 cents.

Re: Lightweight yet more powerful bike?
 

You will never go wrong with proven technology and design. These little verticle twins are great engines. Years ago I was looking at a Ninja 500 and the sales guys said I would need at least a 600 4 cylinder ninja to pull out and pass traffic. What ? 50 ponies isn't enough ?? Yup, just what I need, a more complex power plant with more moving parts. Factor in parts and service plus more insurance costs and riding gets expensive in a hurry. 2 cylinders are great for most of us.

Re: Lightweight yet more powerful bike?
 

A Suzuki Savage 650 (now the S40?) rides much like the GZ, at least from my memory. I rode the Savage 2 yrs. before buying my GZ and they feel comparable to me. Except the greater power of the 650 and the belt drive...

Re: Lightweight yet more powerful bike?
 

to throw my 2 cents in here the gz does good for me. yea a little limited in high gear speed but im 5'10" and 150 pounds and ive taken it around some nice curvy roads (2nd and 3rd gear curves) and just love the way it handles! :2tup:

Re: Lightweight yet more powerful bike?
 

i'm 5'11" and about 250. the geezer is a slug and i don't run it over 60 unless i'm going downhill. i love the bike, and can see myself keeping it or getting another even when i "upgrade."

Re: Lightweight yet more powerful bike?
 

A 600 cc Shadow rolled by StarBucks this afternoon. A nice looking quite recent model with a very nice set of factory pipes that sounded just right.

Re: Lightweight yet more powerful bike?
 

I think so. And the red ones are purdy too !!
Still gets 60 mpg on the highway too. :tup:
2007 was the last year.

[attachment=0:27o5i4pc]VLX1.jpg[/attachment:27o5i4pc]

Re: Lightweight yet more powerful bike?
 

That Shadow looks pretty nice actually. 2.9-gal tank? How many miles do you get before you hit reserve?