1500/1600 vs. 1700

Sin City Stan · 10-30-2011, 04:50 PM

Someone suggested when I first got my 2004 Nomad that I should write a comparison between the saddlebags. Well, I have never been a person who was ever at a loss for words I wrote a comparison between both bikes.

1500/1600 vs. 1700

Saddle Bags
The 1700 saddle bags are some sort of plastic extrusion and are much lighter than the fiberglass 1500/1600 bags. The 1500/1600 bags feel more substantial; however the 1700 bags feel just as substantial when the bags are closed. We have not taken a trip yet but in everyday use I prefer the top-loaders. I know this is heresy but it’s the way I see it.

Handling
The 1500 surprised me when steering into a turn. Even with a 150 vs. the 1700s 130 front tire it turns easier into the turn to a point where I consider it over-steer. It takes a little getting used to. The 1700 is not as twitchy in a turn. This may be caused by the tires. I don’t really know (Metzeler 880s).

Suspension
The progressive shocks

bear no resemblance to the air shocks to make a comparison. The only drawback is that the bags have to come off to make adjustments. Other than the shocks the suspension is similar between both models.

Braking
I think the 1700 brakes better than the 1500 and have better feel. However, something I noticed is that I locked the rear wheel up

when I had to react to an idiot cager who decided to merge left at a traffic light. No big deal. I counter-steered to a stop. After some reflection I credited this lockup to my previous experience with a CT which will handle more braking pressure than a MT. I applied the rear brake as I did with my previous bike which had a CT and it locked up. I’ve adjusted my habits since and use a lighter touch on the rear brake.

Engine
The most significant difference and I mean significant is the amount of HEAT the rider is subjected to.

The best comparison I can come up with is the 1700 is like living in Las Vegas in the summer compared to living I northern Illinois in the summer. Hands down the 1500 is MUCH cooler.

Because of the engine modifications that were made to my engine there cannot be a fair performance comparison between the two.

Transmission
The 1700 trans was clunky, noisy and neutral was sometimes hard to find. The 1500 trans is smooth, quiet and neutral is always there. Kind of like comparing a big truck transmission to a car transmission. The 1700 has 6 gears though.

Ergonomics
The 1500 has the same wheelbase as the 1700 but somehow, someway it has more room. In fact too much room, although different highway pegs helped the legs. I’m looking for a set of 1700 handlebars to help the arms. Also, the floor boards on the 1700 were further forward.

I sat on the 1700 with my knees bent a little less than 90 degrees. On the 1500 my knees are bent well beyond 90 degrees. The shifter is tighter on the 1500. My boot barely fits between the front and rear pedals. I have to pivot my foot outward a little bit to comfortably shift. This was not the case with the 1700. I looking for a longer pedal. Front or rear, don’t care.

Gas Mileage
The 1700 on its best day got 41 MPG, 2 up from Silverton, CO to Gunnison, CO. That involved a 3000 foot drop in elevation. More often I would expect 32 MPG when 2 up and 37 MPG solo. The 1500, even with a heavily modified engine is getting 35-37 MPG when 2 up and 41-44 solo.

Speedo/Odo
The stock speedometer and odometer on the 1700 were both off by 4% on the high side with OEM tires. They were both dead on with the CT installed. The 1500 is 2.7% high on the odometer and 10% high on the speedo. This is really odd to me as it had to be done on purpose as both meters use the same pulse stream. For some reason MaKaw wanted the odometer and speedo to register at different rates.

Which is further puzzling as it’s just as easy to make them both accurate.

Rolling Resistance
Last Saturday I took a ride to Mt. Charleston. On the way back there is a mostly straight downhill grade nine miles long. It starts at 8300’ and ends a Hwy 95 at 2500’. With the 1700 I could hold the clutch in until the bike was going 65 mph. The limit is 55 MPH. I would let the clutch out in 6th four or five times on this road to slow the bike down. With the 1500 I got tired of holding the clutch. I was coasting 45-55 and with three miles to go I was down to 41. I let the clutch out and motored the rest of the way.
Based on this completely unscientific comparison I have to say the 1500 has considerably more rolling resistance. Maybe that resistance is from turning all those extra gears at the rear wheel.

Summary
I like both bikes and would be happy with either. However, I prefer the 1500 mostly because of the heat issue with the 1700. But I really miss the cruise control.

**ringadingh** · 10-30-2011, 05:01 PM

Thats a great report, Im sure just the kind of thing a lot of guys want to know about.

racinfan101 · 10-30-2011, 07:52 PM

Nice comparison! Thanks!!

**trip** · 10-30-2011, 08:02 PM

Nice report Sin......
I realize that you're not complaining about the 1700 bags, but many have. I'm of the opinion that Kawa has no plans to change the 1700 bags.... especially after talking to a few reps at the Dealers Show in Orlando.

I think the guys that want the side-open bags back on the Nomad and Voyager, need to give up and move on. The way I see it... it ain't gonna happen.

Just my two centavos worth.

toy4bob · 10-30-2011, 08:15 PM

what is it that people like about these side opening bags??? Having fallen in love with the Vaquero the first time I saw it, and finally just putting a deposit on one Friday (not picking up until Friday.... I kept thinking to myself can I live with a side opening bag, seems stupid to me LOL

**ray2** · 10-30-2011, 08:17 PM

Thanks for the report Stan.

redjay · 10-30-2011, 08:43 PM

My Comparison between my now sold 05 1600 Nomad and my 2010 Voyager.

Saddle Bags.
The side opening bags on the Nomad are my favorites. The top loaders are more difficult to latch.

Handling.
THe Voyager handles way better even with the stock Bridgestones. I find myself going into corners at speeds a lot faster than I would have on the Nomad.

Suspension.
The front forks on the Voyager actually work like they should. The forks on the Nomad were one of the worst I have experienced on the close to 30 bikes I have owned.
The rear suspension works well on both the Nomad and Voyager.

Braking.
I have ABS on the Voyager but have never been in a situation where the ABS has come into play. In every day riding the brakes are equal to the Nomad which were good.

Engine.
The 1700 motor seems to vibrate more than the 1600. The stock Voyager is definitely quicker even though my Nomad had a TFI and Caddman mod. I have only noticed the heat issue from the 1700 once. That was while stopped for a long time at a traffic light.
It runs hotter than the 1600 in everyday situations but not an issue to me when on the move.

Transmission.
The Voyager transmission is clunky, but I can live with it. There is some transmission slop similar to having a chain drive bike. I find myself being in too high a gear sometimes when coming to a stop. So many gears to change down now !!

Ergonomics.
The Voyager is okay when I am riding alone but with a passenger you are positioned closer together so it feels more cramped. Also after a day in the saddle I start to feel like I am sitting on the gas tank. I am going to get Daylong to alter my seat to put me further back. This will make it even snugger when riding with my wife on the pillion.
The stock Voyager seat is quite comfortable, better than the stock Nomad seat.
I just need to sit further back on the Voyager.

Gas mileage.
I am not sure if I am actually getting better gas mileage on the Voyager, but a tank of gas seems to take me further between fill ups.

Speedo/odo.
I dont know if the speedo is off on either bike, I dont lose any sleep over it.

Rolling resistance.
Dont notice a difference.

Summary.
Both bikes are good in different ways. If I were going out for a ride with the wife and still owned the Nomad it would be on the Nomad. If I were going for a ride by myself it would be on the Voyager.

**cnc** · 10-30-2011, 08:54 PM

Nice report Stan. You mention the saddle bags on the 1500/1600 being fiberglass. Perhaps they are on the 1500, but on my 1600 they are plastic, fairly stiff, but none the less plastic.

Toy4Bob, the side loading work fine for everyday loading and for traveling a lot of us have luggage bags from TLC shaped to fit the bags, about $40 for the pair.

toy4bob · 10-30-2011, 09:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cnc

Nice report Stan. You mention the saddle bags on the 1500/1600 being fiberglass. Perhaps they are on the 1500, but on my 1600 they are plastic, fairly stiff, but none the less plastic.

Toy4Bob, the side loading work fine for everyday loading and for traveling a lot of us have luggage bags from TLC shaped to fit the bags, about $40 for the pair.

Thanks for the note on TLC CNC.... was already eyeing up OEM bags but they are $100. I really didn't want to knock it until I tried it, but just seems a little odd. But also had seen others mention how much they loved the side openers.... wasn't going to stop me from buying the Vaq

**cnc** · 10-30-2011, 10:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by toy4bob

Thanks for the note on TLC CNC.... was already eyeing up OEM bags but they are $100. I really didn't want to knock it until I tried it, but just seems a little odd. But also had seen others mention how much they loved the side openers.... wasn't going to stop me from buying the Vaq

Congrats on the Vaquero, I rode one this summer, nice machine. Tad bit too windy for me compared to my Nomad. Full coverage helmet or taller windshield would be on my wish list.

Monkeyman · 10-31-2011, 04:08 AM

I like the concept of top loading bags but Kawasaki did a hell of a good job (looks wise) on the side loaders. The real issue I have with the top loaders is cosmetic. I think they look too rounded and bulky. If MaKaw made top loading bags to look like the side loaders, I'd be in for sure. (If I had any fabrication skillz, I'd modify my 1600 Nomad bags to be top loaders. That's right. I'm cool enough to use a "z" in "skillz". :) )

My '07 bags are definitely plastic. I didn't know the 1500 bags were fiberglass. Kinda cool, really.

madcow · 10-31-2011, 07:05 AM

i have a 98/99 1500 and my bags are plastic as well..

Loafer · 10-31-2011, 07:47 AM

Stan and Redjay, those were great write ups, and I thank you for taking the time to think it through then to post your thoughts.

highwayman2011 · 10-31-2011, 09:05 AM

I had this problem with my Voyager so I made adapters out of 1 1/2 inch perforated square metal tube to move the rear trunk up 1 1/2 inches and back 3 inches. I have room and my wife loves it.

Sin City Stan · 10-31-2011, 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trip

Nice report Sin......
I realize that you're not complaining about the 1700 bags, but many have. I'm of the opinion that Kawa has no plans to change the 1700 bags.... especially after talking to a few reps at the Dealers Show in Orlando.

I think the guys that want the side-open bags back on the Nomad and Voyager, need to give up and move on. The way I see it... it ain't gonna happen.

Just my two centavos worth.

I might add I found out this morning that I had to crowbar the top LH corner my computer bag into the sidebag. No such problem with the 1700 bags. Just dropped right in.

10-30-2011, 04:50 PM	#1
Sin City Stan Sr. Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Henderson, NV Posts: 3,746	1500/1600 vs. 1700 Someone suggested when I first got my 2004 Nomad that I should write a comparison between the saddlebags. Well, I have never been a person who was ever at a loss for words I wrote a comparison between both bikes. 1500/1600 vs. 1700 Saddle Bags The 1700 saddle bags are some sort of plastic extrusion and are much lighter than the fiberglass 1500/1600 bags. The 1500/1600 bags feel more substantial; however the 1700 bags feel just as substantial when the bags are closed. We have not taken a trip yet but in everyday use I prefer the top-loaders. I know this is heresy but it’s the way I see it. Handling The 1500 surprised me when steering into a turn. Even with a 150 vs. the 1700s 130 front tire it turns easier into the turn to a point where I consider it over-steer. It takes a little getting used to. The 1700 is not as twitchy in a turn. This may be caused by the tires. I don’t really know (Metzeler 880s). Suspension The progressive shocks bear no resemblance to the air shocks to make a comparison. The only drawback is that the bags have to come off to make adjustments. Other than the shocks the suspension is similar between both models. Braking I think the 1700 brakes better than the 1500 and have better feel. However, something I noticed is that I locked the rear wheel up when I had to react to an idiot cager who decided to merge left at a traffic light. No big deal. I counter-steered to a stop. After some reflection I credited this lockup to my previous experience with a CT which will handle more braking pressure than a MT. I applied the rear brake as I did with my previous bike which had a CT and it locked up. I’ve adjusted my habits since and use a lighter touch on the rear brake. Engine The most significant difference and I mean significant is the amount of HEAT the rider is subjected to. The best comparison I can come up with is the 1700 is like living in Las Vegas in the summer compared to living I northern Illinois in the summer. Hands down the 1500 is MUCH cooler. Because of the engine modifications that were made to my engine there cannot be a fair performance comparison between the two. Transmission The 1700 trans was clunky, noisy and neutral was sometimes hard to find. The 1500 trans is smooth, quiet and neutral is always there. Kind of like comparing a big truck transmission to a car transmission. The 1700 has 6 gears though. Ergonomics The 1500 has the same wheelbase as the 1700 but somehow, someway it has more room. In fact too much room, although different highway pegs helped the legs. I’m looking for a set of 1700 handlebars to help the arms. Also, the floor boards on the 1700 were further forward. I sat on the 1700 with my knees bent a little less than 90 degrees. On the 1500 my knees are bent well beyond 90 degrees. The shifter is tighter on the 1500. My boot barely fits between the front and rear pedals. I have to pivot my foot outward a little bit to comfortably shift. This was not the case with the 1700. I looking for a longer pedal. Front or rear, don’t care. Gas Mileage The 1700 on its best day got 41 MPG, 2 up from Silverton, CO to Gunnison, CO. That involved a 3000 foot drop in elevation. More often I would expect 32 MPG when 2 up and 37 MPG solo. The 1500, even with a heavily modified engine is getting 35-37 MPG when 2 up and 41-44 solo. Speedo/Odo The stock speedometer and odometer on the 1700 were both off by 4% on the high side with OEM tires. They were both dead on with the CT installed. The 1500 is 2.7% high on the odometer and 10% high on the speedo. This is really odd to me as it had to be done on purpose as both meters use the same pulse stream. For some reason MaKaw wanted the odometer and speedo to register at different rates. Which is further puzzling as it’s just as easy to make them both accurate. Rolling Resistance Last Saturday I took a ride to Mt. Charleston. On the way back there is a mostly straight downhill grade nine miles long. It starts at 8300’ and ends a Hwy 95 at 2500’. With the 1700 I could hold the clutch in until the bike was going 65 mph. The limit is 55 MPH. I would let the clutch out in 6th four or five times on this road to slow the bike down. With the 1500 I got tired of holding the clutch. I was coasting 45-55 and with three miles to go I was down to 41. I let the clutch out and motored the rest of the way. Based on this completely unscientific comparison I have to say the 1500 has considerably more rolling resistance. Maybe that resistance is from turning all those extra gears at the rear wheel. Summary I like both bikes and would be happy with either. However, I prefer the 1500 mostly because of the heat issue with the 1700. But I really miss the cruise control. __________________ Oldest Saloon In Nevada http://www.pioneersaloon.info/ "Sin City Stan" Henderson, NV VBA #01004 VROC #29365 2004 Nomad 1500L5 +100 "The Bike" 2009 Nomad 1700 (past) 2004 Vulcan Classic 800 (past) 2010 Cortez - 2011 Crescent City - 2012 Kanab - 2013 Estes Park Login or Register to Remove Ads
	0

10-30-2011, 07:52 PM	#3
racinfan101 Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Lewistown IL Posts: 301	Nice comparison! Thanks!! __________________ Randy aka racinfan101 VBA #01806 Central IL Vulcan Riders
	0

10-30-2011, 08:02 PM	#4
trip VBA Founder Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Lindale, Texas Posts: 6,846	Nice report Sin...... I realize that you're not complaining about the 1700 bags, but many have. I'm of the opinion that Kawa has no plans to change the 1700 bags.... especially after talking to a few reps at the Dealers Show in Orlando. I think the guys that want the side-open bags back on the Nomad and Voyager, need to give up and move on. The way I see it... it ain't gonna happen. Just my two centavos worth. __________________ Robert "Trip" Hilliard VBA/KawaNOW - Founder/Past President VBA # 00001 Trip's Website Custer 09, 18 / Maggie Valley 11 / Eureka Springs 09, 17 / Antlers 09, 10, 11, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18 Texas Hill Country / Deals Gap / Colorado / Wyoming / Montana / Utah / More trips for Trip
	0

10-30-2011, 08:15 PM	#5
toy4bob Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Warsaw, Indiana Posts: 371	what is it that people like about these side opening bags??? Having fallen in love with the Vaquero the first time I saw it, and finally just putting a deposit on one Friday (not picking up until Friday.... I kept thinking to myself can I live with a side opening bag, seems stupid to me LOL Login or Register to Remove Ads
	0

10-30-2011, 08:17 PM	#6
ray2 Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Minnesota Posts: 939	Thanks for the report Stan. __________________ Ray Minnesota 2010-1700-Nomad VBA#01525
	0

10-30-2011, 05:01 PM	#2
ringadingh Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Newmarket Ontario Canada Posts: 35,387	Thats a great report, Im sure just the kind of thing a lot of guys want to know about.
	0

10-30-2011, 08:43 PM	#7
redjay Top Contributor Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Ontario Posts: 6,982	My Comparison between my now sold 05 1600 Nomad and my 2010 Voyager. Saddle Bags. The side opening bags on the Nomad are my favorites. The top loaders are more difficult to latch. Handling. THe Voyager handles way better even with the stock Bridgestones. I find myself going into corners at speeds a lot faster than I would have on the Nomad. Suspension. The front forks on the Voyager actually work like they should. The forks on the Nomad were one of the worst I have experienced on the close to 30 bikes I have owned. The rear suspension works well on both the Nomad and Voyager. Braking. I have ABS on the Voyager but have never been in a situation where the ABS has come into play. In every day riding the brakes are equal to the Nomad which were good. Engine. The 1700 motor seems to vibrate more than the 1600. The stock Voyager is definitely quicker even though my Nomad had a TFI and Caddman mod. I have only noticed the heat issue from the 1700 once. That was while stopped for a long time at a traffic light. It runs hotter than the 1600 in everyday situations but not an issue to me when on the move. Transmission. The Voyager transmission is clunky, but I can live with it. There is some transmission slop similar to having a chain drive bike. I find myself being in too high a gear sometimes when coming to a stop. So many gears to change down now !! Ergonomics. The Voyager is okay when I am riding alone but with a passenger you are positioned closer together so it feels more cramped. Also after a day in the saddle I start to feel like I am sitting on the gas tank. I am going to get Daylong to alter my seat to put me further back. This will make it even snugger when riding with my wife on the pillion. The stock Voyager seat is quite comfortable, better than the stock Nomad seat. I just need to sit further back on the Voyager. Gas mileage. I am not sure if I am actually getting better gas mileage on the Voyager, but a tank of gas seems to take me further between fill ups. Speedo/odo. I dont know if the speedo is off on either bike, I dont lose any sleep over it. Rolling resistance. Dont notice a difference. Summary. Both bikes are good in different ways. If I were going out for a ride with the wife and still owned the Nomad it would be on the Nomad. If I were going for a ride by myself it would be on the Voyager. Last edited by redjay; 10-30-2011 at 08:46 PM.
	0

10-30-2011, 08:54 PM	#8
cnc Join Date: May 2009 Location: Montreal QC Posts: 12,034	Nice report Stan. You mention the saddle bags on the 1500/1600 being fiberglass. Perhaps they are on the 1500, but on my 1600 they are plastic, fairly stiff, but none the less plastic. Toy4Bob, the side loading work fine for everyday loading and for traveling a lot of us have luggage bags from TLC shaped to fit the bags, about $40 for the pair. __________________ Norm Ward 2008 blue / silver nomad kawanow / VBA #01136
	0

10-31-2011, 04:08 AM	#11
Monkeyman Top Contributor Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: North Wilkesboro, NC Posts: 6,289	I like the concept of top loading bags but Kawasaki did a hell of a good job (looks wise) on the side loaders. The real issue I have with the top loaders is cosmetic. I think they look too rounded and bulky. If MaKaw made top loading bags to look like the side loaders, I'd be in for sure. (If I had any fabrication skillz, I'd modify my 1600 Nomad bags to be top loaders. That's right. I'm cool enough to use a "z" in "skillz". :) ) My '07 bags are definitely plastic. I didn't know the 1500 bags were fiberglass. Kinda cool, really. __________________ Christopher "Monkeyman" Gray ---------------------------- Widows Sons "Overseers" Patriot Guard Rider USArmy 1987-1990 2021 Can Am Spyder RT 2018 Can Am Spyder RT Limited - SOLD 2014 Nomad - SOLD 2012 Victory Vision - SOLD 2007 Black Nomad - SOLD VMC #9367 VBA #1860
	0

10-31-2011, 07:05 AM	#12
madcow Advanced Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: echuca/moama. australia Posts: 603	i have a 98/99 1500 and my bags are plastic as well..
	0

10-31-2011, 07:47 AM	#13
Loafer Sr. Contributor Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 18,287	Stan and Redjay, those were great write ups, and I thank you for taking the time to think it through then to post your thoughts. __________________ Gerry Martineau / 802 VT / VBA #0892 /[email]glmjgm@gmail.com[email] Last edited by Loafer; 10-31-2011 at 02:27 PM.
	0

10-31-2011, 09:05 AM	#14
highwayman2011 Member Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: N Las Vegas, NV Posts: 364	Tight seating two up I had this problem with my Voyager so I made adapters out of 1 1/2 inch perforated square metal tube to move the rear trunk up 1 1/2 inches and back 3 inches. I have room and my wife loves it.
	0