Voyager vs Nomad

[bdeavours]

I have a 2007 1600 Nomad and am considering the 2012 Voyager. I would like all input as to likes and dislike of the Voyager and any problems with it. Is the belt drive the better setup or did Kaw change because it is a cheaper way to mfg. Kaw says they have made changes to the 2012 model as far as the transmission and heat freom the engine. Is the stock seat comfortable?

Thanks, Hammer

[Top Cat]

I don't have a Voyager but I rode one at the National.
I didn't like the clunky shifting and the 6th speed in the trans was useless as far as I was concerned. At 70 mph it felt like it was lugging.
I'm a fan of shaft drive and will not own a bike that doesn't have it.
If you can get by those quirks I would say it is a nice bike. But I will be buying another Nomad when this one wears out. One with shaft drive.

[AlabamaNomadRider]

Can't answer much but for me a drive shaft is more expensive than the belt system. One of the reasons I purchased my Nomad was because it had the drive shaft. I know others will probably disagree but for me the shaft is the best setup.

[twowheeladdict]

Love the Voyager. I tried to buy a 1600 Nomad 3 times, but all 3 bikes has vibration issues that my wife and I could not live with. They were all newer bikes with around 5000 miles on them. One put my feet and my wifes back to sleep within 10 miles. Ended up buying the 1600 Mean Streak.

The 1600 Nomad is definitely roomier than the 1700 Nomad/Voyager, which is good or bad depending on how tall or long legged/armed you are.

I like the Voyager enough to add a 1700 Nomad to the stable this past fall.

No issues with the belt drive and it is not in the way when changing the rear tire. Love the 6th gear for riding on the interstate or loping along on a flat road at 60 MPH.

I believe every bike is an individual, and I believe that break in exercises are important to the longevity and performance of a new bike. The 1700s also get better with some miles on them. I have over 25,000 miles on the 2010 Voyager and love the sound and ride.

Kawasaki is doing their demo tour againg this year, but they are not doing the Vulcan Nation tour. They will have Voyagers in the demo lineup. Also, if you go to Kawasaki's website you can find dealers near you that have demo models ready to test ride.

Good Luck.

[collinr]

This is a seriously small world if you live in AR, and are planning to go to Sturgis with a guy named Todd who may be riding your current Nomad.

[cactusjack]

Originally Posted by collinr

This is a seriously small world if you live in AR, and are planning to go to Sturgis with a guy named Todd who may be riding your current Nomad.

Okaaaaay. Thanks for that advice.

[bdeavours]

Hey Bro, It is a small world afterall ------- where have I heard that before???

[cactusjack]

Belt drive is lighter, less expensive and requires less maintenance than a shaft drive. A shaft drive is not as efficient as some power is lost due to the mechanics of shaft drive.

I'm not saying one is better than the other, but my Harley is belt drive and I didn't think twice about buying a belt drive bike.

[Sin City Stan]

I've put a number of miles on the 04 1500 and 09 1700 Nomad. They both have the same wheelbase but the 1700 is more cramped. It was most noticable riding 2-up.

The 1700 seats IMO was very comfortable and we put 500 mile days down without any real discomfort. I can't comment on the stock 1500 seat as it came with an Ultimate seat. IMO the 1700 stock seat is just as comfortable as the Ultimate.

As CJ said, the shaft needs more maintenance and I can say I had almost 18K miles on the belt without any problems.

The transmission on the 1700 is clunky and loud but I never had a problem with it.

I missed the 6th. gear and cruise control the most when I moved to the 1500. But what I don't miss the HEAT . I had the exhaust & ECU upgraded by factory recalls however, it was the hottest bike I ever rode.

[ponch]

Originally Posted by cactusjack

Belt drive is lighter, less expensive and requires less maintenance than a shaft drive. A shaft drive is not as efficient as some power is lost due to the mechanics of shaft drive.

I'm not saying one is better than the other, but my Harley is belt drive and I didn't think twice about buying a belt drive bike.

I'd bet a lot of the power loss is making that 90˚ turn in power distribution. For instance, I have seen dyno reports on R1200s that are usually 100hp rear wheel and it's rated at 110hp at the engine. That's pretty good and I have to wonder if it's because the engine is inline with the shaft.

As far as belts go, they should last a long time...but they aren't inexpensive either. What do they run for the HD?

[jestephens]

Can someone elaborate on the "shaft requires more maintenance" comments?

The Vaquero is my first belt-driven bike, and was quite honestly a hurdle for me overcome in the decision making process. I've always ridden bike with drive shafts, always ridden a LOT of miles, and never had to do more than change the rear end oil. Normally that was just because I had some extra time and thought it wouldn't hurt to do.
My dad grew up on Harleys, chains and belts, and since his first BMW, has sworn off anything but shaft drives. After I raved about my '05 Nomad, he's now a proud owner of an '08. No oiling, no adjustments, not affected by dirt or rocks.

Now I ride the Vaquero, a belt driven bike, but won't say I didn't wish it was still a shaft. I haven't had any issues, but don't look forward to adjustment or replacement costs (compared to the drive shaft = $0)

[cactusjack]

Originally Posted by jestephens

Can someone elaborate on the "shaft requires more maintenance" comments?

The Vaquero is my first belt-driven bike, and was quite honestly a hurdle for me overcome in the decision making process. I've always ridden bike with drive shafts, always ridden a LOT of miles, and never had to do more than change the rear end oil. Normally that was just because I had some extra time and thought it wouldn't hurt to do.
My dad grew up on Harleys, chains and belts, and since his first BMW, has sworn off anything but shaft drives. After I raved about my '05 Nomad, he's now a proud owner of an '08. No oiling, no adjustments, not affected by dirt or rocks.

Now I ride the Vaquero, a belt driven bike, but won't say I didn't wish it was still a shaft. I haven't had any issues, but don't look forward to adjustment or replacement costs (compared to the drive shaft = $0)

You have to periodically disassemble the driveshaft assembly and lube the gears and inspect the u-joint. Also, there are seals that can leak and need replacing. That's a lot more work than checking/adjusting belt tension.

[jestephens]

Originally Posted by cactusjack

You have to periodically disassemble the driveshaft assembly and lube the gears and inspect the u-joint. Also, there are seals that can leak and need replacing. That's a lot more work than checking/adjusting belt tension.

I still feel it's debatable. Not the comparison of any potential costs, but rather their frequency of occurrence and necessity, and the affect they may have on overall ease of use, day-to-day maintenance, and lifetime cost of ownership.

My first 3 bikes were all 15-18 years old when I rode them. All shaft drives, all 50K-80K miles when I got them and added 35k-50k myself, then a brand new Nomad ridden to 55K miles. Never once had a problem with a drive shaft. My belt-driven buddies have replaced multiple belts, and one had to replace a rear pulley when a rock got stuck and trashed it with the belt. And I notice many won't ride down a gravel road for any reason. (not that it's a regular habit for me either, but I didn't used to think twice)

[twowheeladdict]

Originally Posted by cactusjack

You have to periodically disassemble the driveshaft assembly and lube the gears and inspect the u-joint. Also, there are seals that can leak and need replacing. That's a lot more work than checking/adjusting belt tension.

Originally Posted by jestephens

I still feel it's debatable. Not the comparison of any potential costs, but rather their frequency of occurrence and necessity, and the affect they may have on overall ease of use, day-to-day maintenance, and lifetime cost of ownership.

My first 3 bikes were all 15-18 years old when I rode them. All shaft drives, all 50K-80K miles when I got them and added 35k-50k myself, then a brand new Nomad ridden to 55K miles. Never once had a problem with a drive shaft. My belt-driven buddies have replaced multiple belts, and one had to replace a rear pulley when a rock got stuck and trashed it with the belt. And I notice many won't ride down a gravel road for any reason. (not that it's a regular habit for me either, but I didn't used to think twice)

Yes, there are good and bad things about both the shaft and the belt drive. If you properly maintain a shaft drive you are supposed to disassemble and inspect and lube the drive shaft as well as changing the fluid in the drive and maintain your seals.

With the belt you do have to be careful not to get stones up in the driveline because bad things can happen.

I like both better than the chains I have on my other bikes. Having to lube every 500 miles and adjust and replace. What a pain. Definitely prefer belt or shaft.

[Top Cat]

Originally Posted by cactusjack

You have to periodically disassemble the driveshaft assembly and lube the gears and inspect the u-joint. Also, there are seals that can leak and need replacing. That's a lot more work than checking/adjusting belt tension.

Good one CJ. 72,000 miles on my 07. Had the dealer grease the u-joints once at 40,000 miles. Boy what a pain in the ass that was.
I change my own rear gear oil when ever I think it needs it.
Shaft drive is the way to go. The only reason the manufactures went to belts, in my opinion , is they cut manufacturing costs.