1700cc Nomad Power questions

[ponch]

Originally Posted by majeff

I don't know why Kawasaki didn't keep the Nomad with the 1552 cc setup and offer what they have presently. I know of quite few bike riders that still want the old Nomad because the new designed bikes are lacking. I know some of the people that belong to this forum that still have the old Nomad to keep in line with the Bagger rules but have bought better bikes like BMW, Goldwing and Harley. Kawasaki needs to pay attention to the complaints and listen to the suggestions offered by the riders. I sure wish that Kawasaki would bring back the 1552CC Nomad but add a bigger fuel tank.

For me it was two things: I always had a hankering for a beemer and I wanted something with a little more refinement. There's nothing wrong with the 1600 I had, just wanted more and something different. That said, Kawasaki isn't marketed as a premium bike, so they have limitations as to what will go on the bike and what won't. Even the C14 doesn't have cruise control, which is nuts and the Vaquero and Nomad don't have ABS in this country.

That said, the must haves for me in any bike I get after this one is: Cruise control, ABS (I prefer the partial integral to the linked system), on board computer and: fuel range of at least 250 miles, power to weight ratio of no worse than 6:1 and a suspension that can give a smooth ride on more than just smooth blacktop.

Not everyone has the same requirements and I'd bet Kawasaki is just aligning with the requirements they believe are for prospective buyers. If they don't make a bike someone would buy, they'll never know and not care really. Believe me, there is plenty of bitching and moaning by beemer owners and BMW doesn't give a crap or so it seems. It makes you wonder if any manufacturer listens to people that already bought their products.

[Top Cat]

Originally Posted by ponch

That said, the must haves for me in any bike I get after this one is: Cruise control, ABS (I prefer the partial integral to the linked system), on board computer and: fuel range of at least 250 miles, power to weight ratio of no worse than 6:1 and a suspension that can give a smooth ride on more than just smooth blacktop.

Jim, does anyone make a bike with those requirements at this time?
Just curious. I still haven't decided what my next bike is going to be.

[ponch]

Originally Posted by Top Cat

Jim, does anyone make a bike with those requirements at this time?
Just curious. I still haven't decided what my next bike is going to be.

Yes, but it won't be a cruiser.

A few models of BMWs (K1600GT(L), R1200R, RT, GS and GSA), Honda ST1300, C14 would if it had cruise control, but it can be added, may be the Moto Guzzi Norge, may be the FJ1300. Yamaha has the Super Ténéré, and Triumph has the Tiger Explorer and they are coming out with the 1200 Trophy, which is a lot like the BMW RT. So you have a few choices. Considering you aren't short, a few of these would work well.

[dank]

Originally Posted by ponch

That said, the must haves for me in any bike I get after this one is: Cruise control, ABS (I prefer the partial integral to the linked system), on board computer and: fuel range of at least 250 miles, power to weight ratio of no worse than 6:1 and a suspension that can give a smooth ride on more than just smooth blacktop.

And if you have those you don't end up always moaning and griping and looking for better acceleration. (Although I would have said Power to Weight Ratio of 1:6. 6:1 would be hard to hold onto if you really rolled the throttle on.)

[Gandalf]

Look at the shift points in the owners manual: They want you in 6th gear by 40 mph if I remember correctly----Good luck on that.

I don't really agree with that "easily accelerate" statement unless you call easily meaning shake and shudder eventually to a faster speed. 70 mph is fine for a somewhat smooth roll-on but certainly not 50 mph.

I don't remeber my cousins 2007 (?) Vulcan 1600 acting like that but it was only a 5 speed.

I like a HIGH overdrive for extended cruising so I suppose I could get used to it and just downshift to pass.

I'm not dissin' anyones ride just sharing my experience with the Vaquero.

Sam:)

[R_W_B]

Originally Posted by Sin City Stan

Welcome from Sin City, Nevada.

By your own admission there is a 200 lb. difference with only 100cc additional displacement. The 1700s can be made to go as demonstrated by Ray however, the weight difference is almost like riding two up and trying to keep up with a single rider.

You have to decide what type of riding you plan on doing. The stock 1700s don't sound like they're for you unless you're willing to modify.

Good Luck on your quest.

This is true, but even with my wife on the back of my Bob it does not feel anywhere near the 1700 sluggishness of the one I rode yesterday.

Originally Posted by ponch

loud≠power. There are plenty bikes out there that are quiet that make plenty power. It's a question of design and engineering. Sure you can add air kits, fuel controllers, port heads and add aftermarket exhausts, but after all is said and done, sometimes it's better to get something that has what you want out of the box.

That said, I have ridden a Voyager and an Ultra with a 96. Damned if I could tell the difference in power.

My guess is that Kawasaki wanted to build an engine that is reliable first and foremost, especially after the issues with the V2K. There's a guy on the Delphi forum that has a 2009 Voyager and he's put close to 200K miles on it. I imagine Kawasaki did something right.

I hope you are right. I've got an appointment to ride a New Road King Saturday so I will see for myself (even though I don't think I can afford it either way)

Originally Posted by gnomad

Just who is "they"? Certainly not Kawasaki engineers. Unless you like to act like you are riding a race bike, the Voyager/Vaquero/Nomad will run all day at 50-70 in sixth gear and easily accelerate in that range, unless you feel the need to blow around a slower moving vehicle as fast as possible then you would need to downshift.

Originally Posted by Gandalf

Look at the shift points in the owners manual: They want you in 6th gear by 40 mph if I remember correctly----Good luck on that.

I don't really agree with that "easily accelerate" statement unless you call easily meaning shake and shudder eventually to a faster speed. 70 mph is fine for a somewhat smooth roll-on but certainly not 50 mph.

I don't remeber my cousins 2007 (?) Vulcan 1600 acting like that but it was only a 5 speed.

I like a HIGH overdrive for extended cruising so I suppose I could get used to it and just downshift to pass.

I'm not dissin' anyones ride just sharing my experience with the Vaquero.

Sam:)

In response to the two above posts, I was going on what the Kawa dealer told me when I road the 1700 Nomad. So if the manual says that then I was in error (and the dealer also).

However I can tell you this, my Harley is a six speed and if I put it in 6th gear at 50 mph and roll on the throttle, it won't vibrate or struggle, but it won't really go much either. Drop it down to 5th and that's another story.

I don't usually shift into 6th gear on my Harley (96ci) until I'm at 60mph or above. If I roll on "2nd " gear hard, I'm approaching 60mph as I hit 3rd.

[ringadingh]

You got a find a gal that was happy with 3 inches and really impress her.

[Monkeyman]

I'd have to give it to her twice. Not sure I'm up to that.

[Gandalf]

Funny! I'm still laughing!

Sam:)

[Monkeyman]

As long as my infirmity can make someone laugh, I guess it's worth it.

[R_W_B]

Ha, well speaking of "length" and more of it. I rode a used pre-2009 Nomad Saturday and it had more stretch to the bike. Being 6'-2" tall I could feel the extra stretch and it was nice. It was pretty banged up though with a lot of miles on it and ran kinda rough.

I'd really like to get a new bike at this time (I'm 62 yrs old) and (want to) put quite a few miles on it before I have to start thinking about repairs. This will be my 5th bike in my lifetime and my 3rd New one.

The New 1700 Nomads sit a little more forward and the bars are at you more. Guess Kawa wanted to make them better for the average height and shorter folks, not sure. But it's not real uncomfortable even for me, I still like the way it rides and the shorter wheelbase seems to handle in tight slow U turns better. I could change out the bars to get less pullback, " IF " I can mod a way to tilt the shield forward a bit. It comes back tight on the stock bars.

Anyhow gotta get to work right now, later guys.

[Pitchinguy]

Tilting the shield forward is an easy fix. I tilted mine forward for my apes. The shield is held on by 4 screws. The 2 top screws (1 each side) screw into a chrome horizontal flat bar. That flat bar is anchored to the bike by 2 other screws. I took one of the bar anchor screws to Lowes & picked up 2 1" ferrells and 2 1" longer screws. Put the ferrels behind the flat bar to shim it forward. Had to reem the bottom shield anchor holes just a little but not much. Worked like a charm & shifted the top of the shield forward 2 1/2 -3". Easy fix!

[Sin City Stan]

Originally Posted by R_W_B

still like the way it rides and the shorter wheelbase seems to handle in tight slow U turns better.

FYI, everyone seems to overlook this but the older Nomads have the same wheelbase as the new Nomads. I'm still not sure where all the room went with the newer models but it was not the wheelbase.

[ponch]

Originally Posted by Sin City Stan

FYI, everyone seems to overlook this but the older Nomads have the same wheelbase as the new Nomads. I'm still not sure where all the room went with the newer models but it was not the wheelbase.

May be http://cycle-ergo.com can help figure that out.

[Sin City Stan]

Originally Posted by ponch

May be http://cycle-ergo.com can help figure that out.

Interesting, however it tells me nothing other than the following.

1500 - 107 degree knee angle
1600 - 108 degree knee angle
1700 - 101 degree knee angle

The 1500 & 1600 are virtually the same for a person my size. You knees are bent substantially more on the 1700. Still it's the same wheelbase. On my 1700 my wife was always in contact with me when riding two up. On the 1500 there is no contact. Again, the same wheelbase.

Somehow, someway the seat on the 1500/1600 has to be positioned further back on the frame although it is not obvious. We're talking maybe an inch difference.

I needed risers on the 1700. The 1500 had risers and I added new handlebars to keep my shoulder blades from complaining.

So I have to say that they are exactly the same only different.