2014 Suzuki V-Strom 1000 Price Announced at $12,699

News -

By

2014 Suzuki V-Strom 1000

Its official. The 2014 Suzuki V-Strom 1000 has been priced at $12,699. A shockingly competitive number that brings it in under ever single big ADV bike competitor.

Compare that price to, say, the 2014 BMW R 1200 GS, which starts at a whopping $16,100 before you start adding the de rigeur options. Like the GS, the V-Strom includes standard ABS and Traction Control.

The 2014 Suzuki V-Strom 1000 Adventure, which gains hand guards, engine guards, a skid plate, and hard panniers, will retail for $13,999. That price is competitive to even the smaller, BMW F 800 GS Adventure, which starts at $13,550.

This new, 2014 V-Strom 1000 is fitted with a heavily modified version of the TL1000′s V-Twin in a new, aluminum frame. And, for the first time on a Suzuki, this V-Strom includes Traction Control.

The engine has increased in capacity from 999 to 1,037 thanks to a 2mm increase in bore. Suzuki says this has been carried out without upping the weight of the pistons. Despite debuting in the TL1000S superbike all the way back in 1997, the motor has now been thoroughly redesigned not only to meet modern emissions requirements, but to suit the unique performance requirements of a big ADV bikes like this one. New cylinders, heads, pistons, rings, connecting rods, crank, clutch and radiator combine to reduce weight and shift power and torque curves further down the rev range. It develops its impressive 76 lb.-ft. of peak torque at a very low 4,000 rpm.

2014 Suzuki V-Strom 1000
2014 Suzuki V-Strom 1000

That low-down torque is aided by a new single-canister exhaust fitted with a butterfly valve, something that combines with the new, two-spark-plug-per-cylinder design and advanced, 32-bit ECU as well as a comprehensive reduction in mechanical and frictional losses to up fuel economy to 49 mpg. That should be good for a 260-mile range from the 5.3 gallon tank.

Power is delivered through a new, wider ratio 6-speed transmission and a slipper clutch which will prevent the rear wheel from locking during aggressive downshifts and which is said to also decrease the effort required to operate the clutch lever. Suzuki is famous for its slick, positive, easy-to-use transmissions.

The new frame increases the wheelbase from 60.4 to 61.2 inches while shortening the distance between front axle and swingarm pivot and growing the length of the swingarm. These changes should make the bike more stable and the bike’s ability to put it’s power down without losing traction.

Traction will, of course, be aided by Suzuki’s first ever Traction Control system. That works by comparing front and rear wheel speeds to throttle and gear positions and crank speed, then limiting power via ignition timing and air delivery should a loss of traction be detected. The rider can switch between two modes of intervention or switch TC entirely off.

Safety will also be aided by a new ABS braking system complete with radial Tokico calipers and 310mm front discs. There is, however, no ABS “off” switch.

Which is one indication that this is a very road-oriented ADV bike. Front forks are upside-down 43mm items and fully adjustable, but the shock is only adjustable for preload. Wheel sizes remain 19-inch (front) and 17-inch (rear) and wheels are forged aluminum rather than the stronger-but-heavier spoked items you’d need for rugged off-roading.

But, V-Strom customers have been buying them for over 10 years not because they’re great off-road, but because they’re practical and versatile and comfortable and fast on it. That is where this new 1,000 will excel. The stock screen is adjustable through three heights and three angles; you can do so using no tools, with just one hand. Other convenience features include a 12v accessory socket located in the cockpit, a remote preload adjuster and an optional luggage system that includes hard panniers and top box. Other options include hand guards, crash protection and high and low seats, as well as a larger windscreen and a center stand — handy for adjusting the bike’s drive chain.

Four colors will be available, all classy and understated — red, white, black and even a stylish khaki.

All that adds up to a bike which is now 18lbs lighter, torquier, more fuel efficient and which should be more suited to two-up travel and carrying luggage. Stay tuned for review coverage in the near future.

Related Links:
Riding Its Latest Rival: 2014 BMW F 800 GS Adventure Review
The Little Brother: Suzuki V-Strom 650 vs Honda CB500X
The Latest Bike From Suzuki: 2013 Suzuki GW250 Review

  • http://metabomber.com/ Jesse

    Dear BMW. Take note.
    Hey Ducati, while we are at it, knock the price down on the Hyperstrada. :)

  • the antagonist

    Sweet. Now a new SV1000, Please.

    • Sentinel

      I wish!

  • Charles Quinn

    Suzuki deserves to clean up here. The problem for the 1000 was always that the 650 seemed like a better deal and a more practical bike but it sounds like they’ve addressed every point in that argument.

  • TP

    This is how the Japanese stay in business. The euro brands push so far upmarket that hardly anyone can afford them, and the big 4 mop up all the rational buyers’ dollars.

    • Vitor Santos

      And thats why i will probably will get one of these…

    • Thatmanstu

      If no one could afford them,they would not sell as well as they do. Calling someone irrational because they purchase a different MC than you would choose is not very rational. The GS is the standard.And if the GS only offered V-Strom capability,then a great many(but not all) GS purchasers would save the thousands and instead ride a V-Strom,or Tiger,or KLR etc…But they don’t…….The Japanese fill a niche with these bikes and the world is a better place for it,but this is not a GS,and it isn’t close…..(and no I have never ridden very latest versions of either bike)…..A couple hundred thousand miles on a variety of earlier GS’s(and another couple hundred on other Beemers) and and a few thousand here and there on various other Stroms,Tigers,KLR’s etc..Icky sticky vs. “commercial”…both work well,one is a mind fucker…..

      • Justin McClintock

        Mmmmm…..koolaid….yummy.

  • Jack McLovin

    Hey when you guys copy and paste a press release do you use hotkeys or right-click?

  • markbvt

    If I were still riding my V-Strom 650, I would seriously want to upgrade to one of these. But since I replaced the Strom with a Tiger, I’m mostly just happy to see that Suzuki is putting some intelligent thought into its new bike designs. I am curious though whether this bike will have any more character than the Wee-Strom, which was an objectively excellent but rather dull bike.

    • Stuki

      I never understood how the Wee could be considered dull in any other way than looks. That motor begs to be flogged, and can be ridden either as a high rpm screamer, or lugged around.

      I always felt the biggest issue with the Wee, compared to a GS, was the pipe placement making panniers too wide to be practical, and the anything but dull amounts of fork dive on the brakes.

      • David Magallon

        Agreed, I even rode an SV650 right before the wee and I immediately liked the engine better on it. Very flexible. Happy to just cruise and lug around but equally eager to be fun if you ride it hard and keep the revs up. Good noise too.

        Wish it wasn’t so top heavy though.

        • Stuki

          WRT top heavy, The Wee has a large tank in a common position, and decent ground clearance. Aside from the tank, there isn’t really all that much that can be done about lowering weight up high. So, reducing top heaviness could only really come from adding weight down low, say, by fitting a larger/heavier engine……. Cue the new 1000.

          Taking a radical approach to engine design/placement, like the NC or the K1600 (or the S10), does lower COG, but it’s not as if the Suzuki 650 is an unusually top heavy engine design. Rather, it is just that lifting all non engine parts of the bike to simultaneously provide decent ground clearance and a spacious riding position and a good range, does make the end result more top heavy than a lower slung bike.

          So, unless I’m crazy or stupid, I simply cannot see any way to build a light weight adventure styled bike with a large tank in a traditional manner, without ending up with a bit of top-heaviness.

          • dinoSnake

            Why would someone downvote you for speaking about physical truth?! If you raise a motorcycle’s chassis, and increase the fuel capacity in the tank mounted to the top of the frame, the COG is going to raise. Simple law of physics.

          • David Magallon

            Thanks for the reply, it all of course makes sense. Just a wish. An under seat fuel tank like the GS would be nice, but I realize with a V twin there isn’t much room to work with back there.

            Still, love the bike. You get used to the height and weight very quickly anyway or work around it. I consider where and how I park much more carefully because of it. Sometimes I just have to get off the bike and push it to avoid dropping it while backing up.

  • Tiberiuswise

    Wait, no dame Edna headlights or three spoke wheels? Is this really a V-Strom?

    • Stuki

      The lights concern me. Stroms headlights are supposed to light up a zip code or two at night, not look cool by applying the age old tall, dark and handsome formula.

      • DucMan

        Stuki, nice. As the owner of a 2004 V-Strom 650 I can attest that the first gen ‘stroms have the greatest headlights ever made. They light up the road better than you can imagine. If I know my day’s ride will last into nightfall, I take the v-strom.

        • Stuki

          I once spent a day in court, waiting to be cited for “blinding” a motocop, after pulling out of a friend’s driveway on his 650, without realizing the highbeams were on………

          So yes, I am aware that bike has powerful lights….. In practice adding the additional $1000 a set of PIAAs cost for the GS, to get to the realistic difference in price between the two……

  • dinoSnake

    You list torque ratings. You list fuel tank capacity and expected cruising range. You list precise wheelbase specs. You list front and rear wheel diameters and you even list such minutiae as front brake disc diameters.

    But you leave out the two most IMPORTANT specs: final weight and seat height(s)??

    • the antagonist
      • Stuki

        cycle-ergo has the seat around half an inch higher than the Wee

        • dinoSnake

          Boy, I certainly hope not! The 650 is officially listed as 32.9 and, if 1/2 inch taller, ties with or makes the 1000 just about the tallest in its class.

    • http://RideApart.com/ Wes Siler

      It’s a conspiracy. 502 lbs, I’ve forgotten the seat height (shoot me, i’m tall) and it makes 100 bhp.

      • Brett Lewis

        Well, the price is one of the top three most important specs… Good article considering it’s all from memory, I may have a spare notepad lying around…

      • dinoSnake

        Thank you for the info!! :)

        Yes, we (motorcycle publication readers) seem to be under a conspiracy…of tall reviewers :p Modern American average is 5 foot 9.5 inches, was 5 foot 8, yet most reviewers seem to be 6 foot and even over. Bikes are getting heavier and taller but I’m not :D I’m exact average for my generation but it seems that, with the exception of Harley, many companies aren’t making bikes that easily fit the people with the money to afford them! I note that BMW just lowered the seat height of the R1200RT by 20mm…

        • Goose

          That is really funny, I can’t name a single motorcycle reviewer
          (other than Clem Salvatore of Rider) who is over 6 feet tall. I always
          thought it was a conspiracy of short people against us tall riders.

          Goose (6′ 4″)

          • dinoSnake

            With all due respect: Excuse me??!

            Let’s go over some numbers. The average height of for both America’s Baby Boomer and GenX generations is 5’8 for males; current average American male height is 5 foot 9.5 inches / female height 5 foot 4 inches.

            From just a few of the biker rags I read, some of the major players:

            - Timothy Carrithers, Executive Editor Motorcyclist Magazine, male, 6’2″
            - Jamie Elvidge, formerly editor Motorcycle Cruiser now with Motorcyclist, female, 5’10″
            - Mitch Boehm, former editor Motorcyclist currently publisher Moto Retro, male, 6′
            - Christa Neuhauser, publisher RoadRUNNER, female, 5’10″
            - Kevin Ash (deceased), publisher Ash on Bikes writer The Telegraph and contributor to numerous publications, male, 6’3″
            - Peter Egan, long-time contributor to Motorcyclist, Cycle World and other publications, male, 6’2″
            - Mark Hoyer, Editor-in-Chief Cycle World, male, 6’2″

            plus Clem Salvatore and RideApart‘s Wes Siler here, and all this is just off the top of my head!

            If you can’t find motorcycle reviewers taller than the median average…you aren’t looking hard enough!

            Only in the past 4 years or so have some of the magazines intentionally included alternate opinions from shorter riders in their reviews, sometimes even from guest writers just to get the perspective (Motorcyclist, for example, pressed one of their shorter office copy editors into service to get [her] viewpoint from shorter riders). I am exact average for my generation, 5 foot 8, and many new bikes simply feel uncomfortable in their height and they seem to be getting worse – the trend of the “tallrounders” has really hit home in the terms of raising average seat heights across the industry. One of my prior bikes was a 1984 GPz900 and it has a LOWER seat height than today’s 2013 Ninja 1000, regardless of the fact of newer technology and a more compact engine!

            • Goose

              First, calm down. Jeeze, my comments was made with tongue in cheek.

              Second, I’m sorry but I find your list it be amazingly unimpressive. I’ll give you Mark Hoyer, he is EIC of the largest circulation motorcycle in the world. We both forgot Zack Courts at Motorcyclist, he is also 6′ 2″.

              The rest of you list shows how hard you are working to be offended. The two woman at 5′ 10″, tall for a woman but I don’t really care what bathroom a road tester uses. The rest are dead, semi retired, fully retired or irrelevant. Really, I’m sure all six people reading Moto Retro care how tall Boehm is.

              Far more important, look at the rest of the staff at Hoyer’s magazine, John Burns is around 5′ 7″, everybody else is under six feet.

              The same for Motorcyclist, after Courts I don’t think there is another six footer currently working full time.

              Goose

              • dinoSnake

                Really, Timbo Carrithers and Kevin Ash “irrelevant”???! Is that the best you can do?

                Ash just died this very year and, somehow, that makes his commentary irrelevant for the motorcycle models currently in production. Really?

                And Timbo? Exactly HOW MANY YEARS did his reviewer influence speak to the market?

                Yes, Motorcyclist finally has some shorter / average riders in the masthead…EXACTLY AS I MENTIONED. Only in the past few years. Courts is now commented on in Motorcyclist as “NBA reject”, rather than Burns’ height of “midget”.

                How things change. *Way* over a decade of Carrithers, Salvatore, Ash and Boehm and now things are a bit…different…and yet you can’t find any commentary for tall riders?!

                You want to know WHY Harley is selling almost 50% of the bikes in the American market while all the other players fight for the leftovers? Just go to one of the International Motorcycle Shows and hang out for a bit. It only takes 10 minutes to see a pattern: ALL THE BIKERS LOOKING AT HARLEY ACTUALLY FIT THEM.

                So, let’s learn a bit about the science of demographics:

                - greatest market for expensive motorsports products in United States: middle-aged professional, 28 to 55

                - gender with largest proportion of motorsports market: male

                - physical stature of average American male that fits the market demographic, according to U.S. Census bureau statistics: 5 foot 9

                So, if the average biker in the United States is 5 foot 9 and you make bikes that have seat heights higher than 32 inches (just about the average inseam length of the average U.S. male)…you are going to lose sales. Interesting that historical writers wrote that about Triumph, back in the 70′s when they introduced their new chassis and buyers said “No!”, but they haven’t learned anything apparently.

                If you want a large market, you have to play to the middle of the market. I don’t ride Harley but I understand their marketing: target the buyer with the money to spend. From exclusive collector’s editions to “lifestyle” accessories, they are selling to the people with the money to buy into their goods.

                I know this is unpopular here on Ride Apart, which seems to have a large contingent of somewhat hard-core sportbikers judging from the reply comments. But the *fact* is that sportbike sales, especially in America, have been on their face for YEARS – look up the sales charts. Why? Comfort – or, precisely, lack of same. The average American biker is aging – now in the mid-40′s – and the Japanese are only making many of their motorcycle designs MORE hard core. Too bad many of us, especially the ones willing to spend the funds on new gear, are playing the “I’m getting too old to bend over like a pretzel all day” card. To prove this point all one has to do is go onto an internet forum and read the rider comments on the VFR1200 – game, set, match.

                This is why “tallrounders” are so popular – seating comfort with some performance, too. The ‘perfect’ solution for those not into the Harley scene but not wanting to be folded up like a crumpled newspaper, either. The happy median.

                So this is *completely* me:

                as much as I want to join up with the “comfort + utility” crowd I find the seat heights just out of my realm, once weight comes into play. I have an ‘athletic’ frame versus average Americans

                http://www.businessinsider.com/body-measurements-of-average-american-man-2013-9

                I have what is considered an ‘athletic’ frame and when I sit on most modern bikes the suspension doesn’t even sag under my weight – bikes are now being made for the larger average weight, an average that I no longer fit into. So I have to be very aware of how these things fit.

                I don’t understand how you can say you can’t find reviews for tall riders – all the tallrounders are practically begging for your purchase money. The internet forum are FULL of tall riders commenting on the comfort of tallrounders as far as the eye can read. But with the popularity of tallrounders – the GS is 50% of BMW sales alone – average riders have either adapted or chosen to look elsewhere.

                • Goose

                  OK, I’ve been on this site a week and the two conversations I’ve been in are with either idiots or Trolls.

                  Over and out to Ride Apart, you all have fun, I will not be back.

                  Goose

  • Bruce Steever

    Good job Suzuki, this is exactly where this bike needs to be!

  • DucMan

    Hell-to-the-F-Yeah!!!!!!

  • DavidyArica Freire

    That good sirs is how you build an ADV bike. All you need is some off road oriented tires and your in business.

  • Vitor Santos

    I was beginning to get a little mad with rideapart. There i was, waiting for some news about the new wee storm and nothing… Honda news… Bmw news… and nothing about suzuki. But now you are forgiven :P.
    The thing that iam loving about this bike is the ZERO bullshit philosophy they applied creating, marketing and pricing the bike. Dont get me wrong, i absolutely love bmw’s, one of the main reasons that got me into this biking thing was the long way round (cheesy i know…) and i just love the look of those boxer engines but good god they are getting more and more obnoxious. And its not just bmw, ducati and ktm follow the same rules and you simple couldn’t get a good high capacity adv bike without spending lots of cash. Until now i hope.
    Suzuki aimed for whats really important like torque on mid and low revs, a lightweight package, traction control and a very good mileage without trying to create the ultimate, best of all, most powerful, biggest amount of settings, most advance electronic suspension bike, that everyone else seems trying to create…
    Kudos for suzuki, if reviews are favorable and if i like it when test drive it, suzuki might get my money, really really excited about this bike. Please can someone from Ride apart tell me when will it be the press launch ??? Any time frame on a future review?

    • Stuki

      I’m concerned that the extreme over squareness of the engine will make it less than tractor like at sub 3000rpm, which actually matter on a bike with a liter worth of torque. Other than that, it looks good.

      • Vitor Santos

        Hmm i not that worried, max torque is at 4000 rpm so… Over squareness is good, less friction, more fuel mileage :D

        • Stuki

          Honda seem to think otherwise, judging by the NC……

      • Goose

        Bore to stroke ratio has nothing to do with an engine’s power delivery. This is a myth with no basis in fact. The Suzuki with have a power band set by the engineer’s choices for port and valve diameter and port shape, cam timing, ECU tuning, etc. The bore to stroke ratio will not be part of the “etc”.

        Goose

        • Stuki

          Good to know. Isn’t it still true that one of the biggest issues with extreme over square engines, is getting complete and even combustion? Or is that problem now solved once and for all, with multiple computerized spark plugs et al?
          My experience with over square engines, is that they don’t fuel/burn well at all at lower revs, which in high compression engines can easily lead to very finicky low rpm performance, where you’re either surging forward, or feel like the engine just died and you’re bearing the full deceleration weight of compressing these highly geared cylinders. Part of that may be caused by the fact that over square cylinders for obvious reasons tend to go hand in hand with lightened flywheels, so the latter may be more responsible for the finickiness than the former.

          • Goose

            In extreme cases all kinds of things come up. I’ve read F1 motors have ratios of 2.5 to 1, e.g. a 100 mm bore with a 40 mm stroke and need to run as much a 40 degrees of advance, even at full throttle.

            But doesn’t change the fact that the bore to stroke ratio has nothing to do with power curves. A small bore may not have room for big enough valves to let the engine rev above a given level or a long stroke may limit RPM because the piston reaches levels of stress the shorten its life. But if you bored the engine to the point where it was over square it would still have the same, or even lower due to the larger piston, maximum RPM limit. It isn’t the bore to stroke ratio, it is the length of the stroke than causes the RPM limitation.

            But that is all out in the edges of things. In the practical world bore to stroke has nothing to do with the shape of an engine’s power curve. If you want to get over the idea completely, ride a Triumph Rocket 3 tourer. At 1500 RPM this over square engine will pull your arms out of their sockets. AT 3000 RPM the fun is nearly over. The Trumpet makes my very long stroke Harley big twin feel like a rev happy sewing machine.

            Goose

            • Stuki

              Not saying you’re wrong or anything, but how come the ultra fuel efficient, all-power-down-low nc700′s engine layout, stand out primarily due to an unusually long stroke for a motorcycle engine?

              And why do car engines, which are held to much higher efficiency requirements than most bikes, pretty much all eschew the short strokes common to MC and race car engines?

              • Goose

                Your changing the subect. You said the bore to stroke ratio effects the shape of the power curve. I told you it didn’t. Now your talking about fuel milage and emissions, a different subject.

                Goose

                • Stuki

                  Increasing fuel mileage and lowering emissions at lower rpm is done by achieving a more complete burn, as long as compression is held constant and the mixture is correct. And, a more complete burn results in more torque per revolution, for the same cylinder volume.

                  At higher rpms, the ability to actually fill the cylinder becomes an issue, but at low rpms, it’s mainly about getting what’s there to burn cleanly and completely, and turning as much of the burn’s energy into forward motion as possible. So, the three (power, emissions and mileage) aren’t orthogonal.

                • Goose

                  Your Quote: “I’m concerned that the extreme over squareness of the engine will make it less than tractor like at sub 3000rpm”

                  My response: “Bore to stroke ratio has nothing to do with an engine’s power delivery”

                  I see nothing about emissions or fuel mileage in your statement or my reply, only power delivery.

                  If I’ve missed it please point of what I’m not seeing.

                  Goose

                • Stuki

                  I brought up the NC and cars as examples of engine designs that DO deliver unusual for a bike of it’s displacement and compression power and tractability at sub 3000 rpms. AND that simultaneously are unusually, again for a bike, undersquare. The assumption being that the two are not entirely unrelated.

                  At the other end, the new Ducs, which I have never ridden, are often panned for being gutless at the bottom for twins their size; and are distinguished by extreme oversquareness. Again, perhaps not entirely unrelated….

                  I may be wrong, and it is in fact perfectly possible to build an engine with NC700 like characteristics down low despite having Panigale proportioned cylinders; but empirically, it does not seem like how things normally turn out.

                  Which is why I am a bit concerned that the new 1000, which has bore/stroke more like a Panigale than an NC, may in fact have power characteristics below 300 more like a Panigale than an NC. That’s all. I’d love for You, or Suzuki to prove me wrong. It’s just something I would be on the lookout for.

                • Goose

                  OK, I give up, the earth is flat, over 100 years of research into IC engines and practical experience with them is wrong and all the engineers who did the research are wrong, you are right. We should make all our decisions based on ignorance instead of researching facts and empirical evidence.

                  Over and out,

                  Goose

            • Piglet2010

              Carpenter Racing will fix that problem with the Rocket III engine – ~244 HP at ~7300 rpm: http://www.carpenterracing.com/r3_240_graph.htm

    • Piglet2010

      No, the 650 is the “Wee-Strom” and the 1000 is the “Big Strom” (and not “Storm”).

  • Corey Cook

    Oh and don’t forget, it’s going to sound effing amazing once you get rid of the big wonky stock exhaust! Move over Ducati, someone else sounds really good too.

  • David Gasser

    Are you 100% sure that the shock is adjustable for Preload only? This close-up pic appears to have a rebound damping adjustment as well.

  • John

    Meh. More expensive and heavier than a Tiger 800, which I consider to be a big ADV competitor. Once you hit that size, especially with a triple, you’re in the big leagues and I don’t see how it could pull me away from that one in the over $10K category.

    • Stuki

      TC, slipper clutch. Sane can placement for those who need/want panniers. Wider, more wind-protecty front bodywork. Dealers everywhere. And a built in audience of very happy owners of a getting a bit long in the tooth previous model, plus an even bigger group of Wee’ers wanting some additional kick for passing on fast uphills in the Rockies and Sierras.

      Unless the extreme oversquareness of the cylinders make the bike surgy and clumsy at low revs, this looks to be one heck of a complete machine for those wanting a larger adv bike primarily for road use.

      • John

        Yeah, that doesn’t do it for me especially since there isn’t much extra body work from what I can tell. The Triumph is prettier, lighter, less expensive, a triple, will likely be a sportier performer if you go with the street version, and almost absolutely outperformed off road by the XC with it’s more appropriate wheels. To me, the 800 nails what a big ADV bike should be, and less.

        • Guest

          For some reason i never thought about the triumph. It is indeed a good option too. I am not sure if its a better one. For 700 dollars more you get tc, the slipper clutch, more torque sooner, a more fuel efficient engine and 12 v plug (not sure about this one). Yes the triumph maybe more capable off road, the question is do you really need it. The only clear advantage for the triumph is the weight difference, 211 kg wet is a very good number indeed. And i am not discussing aesthetics, its pointless.

        • Stuki

          I do conceptually like inline engines (can be placed further forward) for tall, aerodynamically topp’y bikes that are likely to haul weight in rear mounted boxes/panniers. Heck, I do like inline engines, period, as the just package better. But I still prefer the Wee to the Tiger 800 as an all around, city and touring bike. Just seems more refined than the Triumph, and has an infinitely better seat.

          • John

            My budget totally maxes out at about CB500x and that’s with some unforeseen giant project dropping on me.

          • John

            Although my favorite engines are V4s, they’re just too heavy. The I3 is my next favorite. My Suzuki dealer disappeared, though all the cops ride Wees.

        • Justin McClintock

          The 800 is also more likely to suffer “replace the bike” kind of damage in a fall. Check the subframe and the passenger peg mounts. Those don’t scream “offroad friendly” or even “fall tolerant” at all. Besides, as others have mentioned, more torque and a slipper clutch aren’t things that should go unnoticed.

          • John

            What kind of fall are you planning exactly?!? If I’m in the kind of crash that damages the subframe, I’m really not that worried about what happened to the bike at that point.

            • Justin McClintock

              Any kind of fall. The rear passenger pegs stick out past the exhaust on the Tiger. They’d likely be one of the first things to hit the ground in a fall. Their mounts are permanently attached to the subframe, which in turn is permanently attached to the frame. Meaning if you damage the passenger mounts in an fall (something that many have pointed out as not only possible, but likely), you’ve effectively damaged the entire frame as you cannot take them or the subframe off to fix them. Now you’re looking at major repair work because of a minor fall. That’s a horrible design for anything with offroad pretenses and a plain old poor design in general.

  • Goose

    Sorry to be out of sync but I can’t see why anybody is pleased with this price. $12,699 is over 20% more than the last 1000 CC V-Strom. I was excited by this bike, I’m no longer interested. Comparisons to shaft driven 1200 CC bikes don’t impress me, chalk and cheese. At this price it better be a great bike.

    Goose

    • Justin McClintock

      The V-Strom’s subframe screams “replace if damaged”. The Tiger’s screams “replace the whole bike if damaged”. Not something to overlook, especially if you’re thinking about going offroad. On road….I’ll take the torque of a big twin.

  • noah leger

    I got an ’04 V-Strom 1000 two years ago and its been the most perfect distance/camping trip bike ever. Even better than a VFR800 which I considered for many years to be the perfect all-arounder. With the V-Strom I can get a tent, sleeping bag, rain gear, snacks, a six pack, lantern and mini stove AND three bundles of firewood to the camp site. Incredible fun.

    • Don Silvernail

      I’m sure the ability to haul a stove and bundles of firewood on a bike is important – in Slovenia. I need to know how the suspension on the new bike handles broken pavement. My wife’s 650 V-Strom was pretty good but my 1000 V-Strom – not so much.

  • Shawn McDermott

    ID rather get a Multistrada still. This bike looks souless.

  • John

    Sweet!

  • Mark Trimmer

    How about that! Great news for Suzuki and all of us.

  • Eric

    Wow.. I am on my second Strom.. I now see a third in my future.. :-)

  • Kevin Riedl

    About $1,500 more than I was hoping. I think they got too close the Tenere pricing.

    • Stuki

      From the looks of it, completely different bike, The Strom looks optimized for quick backroad riding with or without a load, while the S10′s mission is tilted more towards soft surfaces and straight ahead droning. Purpose built for going around the world one or twoup, with less concern for how much riding excitement is provided during the trip.

      • Riedl

        The consensus of all comparisons I’ve read was that the S10 is much better off road despite being heavier. We will see how it compares with the new Strom. Don’t get me wrong I think the new Strom looks like a great bike and is a good value, I was just hoping the price was a little close to the old model.

        • Stuki

          I’ve ridden a 1st gen Wee extensively and owned an S10 for over a year and 8000 miles. They may both be “adventure bikes”, but the Wee is a sport tourer with added ground clearance and travel; while the S10 is a dirtbike made of lead with barely enough ground clearance to keep it’s engine case from sparking on flat pavement when hard on the brakes.

  • Justin McClintock

    It’s got good torque. Terrific. Now tell me how much HP it has. I
    have a SV1000S, and I wouldn’t mind replacing it with a V-Strom as long
    as I’m not giving up a crapload of HP to do it (like I would have with
    the previous V-Strom).

  • William Connor

    I really like this motorcycle. Cruise control option would be really nice, even if it was a paid add on. I hope and assume it will come later.

  • charlie

    I know the Tiger 800 has a smaller engine but wouldn’t that be a better choice than this? I’m not too familiar with the ins and outs of adventure bikes.

  • Jeffrey Adams

    The exposed control cables that drive the exhaust system variable valve are a total turnoff. I was seriously thinking about buying my fifth V-Strom (this new litre bike) until now. That thing is going to jam up with rocks, mud, and all sort of debris, then it’s going to break. Faghetaboutit.