I have a complete FJ reviews collection: from mags when the FJ appeared (Bike, MCN, Motorcyclist, Cycle World, Motociclismo, La Moto, Sports Rider, PBikes...) to last mags (Practical Sportbikes, Classic Motorcycle Mechanics...)
I´ve been reading in my reviews that when first appeared, FJ 1100s were measured around 112-115 CV at the rear wheel, most of them European models. Motociclismo even obtained 125 cv, after corrected with a Bosh dyno factor correction to 115 cv.
Last year Phil Hacker (British FJ club owner) bought 1 FJ 1100 completely STD to compete in the new British Classic series and he dynoed 109 cv rear wheel horsepower, very good in a 25 years old bike, but consequent with a 115 cv new bike
FJ 1200s have been always around 105-110 CV. In fact, when I changed my FJ 1100 for a new 1200 3 CV in 1991 I was disappointed because the new bike didn´t accelerate like my 1100. I sold it after only 2 years and 44.000 kms: even with the usual performance treatment (KN, Dynojet, Exhaust, ignition advancer...) the 1200 never run like my old 1100, and with a lot more vibes
Only after years of refinement and tricks I think I´ve got the 1100 feeling in my actual 1200: grunt, power and smooth and fast acceleration until the red line
I continue thinking that the 1100s were more powerful than the 1200s. In fact I think that I´m going to start to look for a good FJ 1100...
This is hard to believe, though it's interesting that more than one FJ11+FJ12 owner seems to feel this way. The reviews of the time seem to say that the 12 had more power everywhere, especially the midrange, with just a slightly higher top speed.
What did you do to your 12 to finally make it match your 11? What were these tricks and refinements?
IIRC The FJ1100 was first intoduced as a "Sports Bike" and therfore was slightly lighter & geared more for acceleration. Also different camshaft profiles.
Remember that upon early release the FJ1100 was raced in the World Superbike Series before the change to 500cc 2 stroke GP bikes.
In reality the FJ1100 is more of a "Sports Bike" and the FJ1200 a "Sports Tourer"
Kookaloo
TeeCee
Correction - FJ1100 raced in 1984 Production Touring Series.
TeeCee
My insurance company calls it sports touring also and that is fine with me. Saves me big $$$$$$$$$. 1200cc sport bike very expensive to insure. :drinks:
Kurt
Correction: All years FJ both 1100 and 1200 had the same part number camshafts.
Arnie
Going from an XS1100 to a FJ1100 was a massive jump. FJ1100 to FJ1200 won't be anything like that big of a difference, and won't impress in the same way.
Also look at the bikes they were compared to at the time. A GPZ900 was a top sportbike in 84. In 86, the GSXR1100 was stomping everything else flat in the performance world.
I have noticed in the Magazines, Ie. Cycle, Motorcyclist, Cycleworld. the 84 and 85 1100's had the lowest 1/4 mile et's. The engines mostly kept the same horsepower numbers. Not sure why the 1200 et's came out slower. I am going to taske a few WAG's. Transmission gearing changes, sprocket size changes, additional weight, larger fairings??? These are just my guesses as possibilities.
Fred
I agree with Andy. The jump from my XJ1100 to the FJ was huge. I like both of my FJ just about equally. The '93 is just as much fun to ride as the '85. The '85 provides a slightly more raw experience, but there's not much difference between them.
Comparing 1/4 mile times is a waste of time. Usually the times are "corrected" anyway.
The 1100 had the highest sprocket gearing with 17/42. That would probably account for any difference.
Plus, what does it matter? If I rode 1/4 mile at a time it would probably matter, but I don't. Just like the kid that asks "How fast will it go?" That doesn't matter either. It's how fast it gets there or how much fun it is that makes the only difference.
DavidR.
Quote from: fintip on September 24, 2012, 04:33:53 PM
What did you do to your 12 to finally make it match your 11? What were these tricks and refinements?
Take a look to my web. You have all the mods and tricks that I´ve tested in my 4 FJs that I´ve ridden for more than 300.000 kms
Quote from: andyb on September 24, 2012, 09:01:22 PM
Also look at the bikes they were compared to at the time. A GPZ900 was a top sportbike in 84. In 86, the GSXR1100 was stomping everything else flat in the performance world.
Every British mag rave about the GPZ 900 saying that FJs were left behind as a sport bike when the Kawa appeared. The reality is other: the GPZ failed in each European competition where run, the same that the special VF 1000 R... because in 84 there was a bike that won everything: the FJ 1100.
And in a open road in the real world, simply there is no way the GPZ could compare with the FJ. And if the road is tight and with a lot of curves the GSXR 1100 rider will see the FJ irretrievably stomping away
Quote from: SlowOldGuy on September 24, 2012, 10:20:13 PM
The '93 is just as much fun to ride as the '85. The '85 provides a slightly more raw experience, but there's not much difference between them.
Between my FJ 1100 with 165.000 kms on it and my 1st 1200 3 CV bought new just after the 1100, there were so much difference that I sold just only 2 years after without any tear, completely disappointed
A STD 1200 feel struggle and restricted passing 7.000 rpm, when the 1100 feel smooth and look for the redline like a pit bull... like my 1200 now, but after a lot of mods and 1 step front, 1 step back...
I think that I have to buy another 1100, restored it and testing again side to side ;-)
DavidR's right, in the real world, what's it matter.
It was only hair splitting differences when they were new and given the age of our bikes now and the amount of tinkering that's been done, you could fill a page with the variables that would affect performance.
Alf's view on the late model 1200 with the much larger fairing being a slug compared to his '85 is interesting.
When I ride the FJ without the fairing it goes like the clappers and can be thrown around like a 250, it goes from battleship to speedboat.
The fact is, it doesn't ride any different, it's psychological, but just looking out over a couple of instruments sure makes it feel different.
The silly thing is I KNOW this, but damn, it's fast and light without the fairing (which weighs very little)
Noel
Interestingly enough, "Doc" used an FJ11 for the base of his fjracer, and bored it up himself, instead of going with a stock 12, it seems. (You guys know about this, right? This was an amazing read, I went through the entire thing: fjracer.com). I wish he had commented on why he chose the 11 over the 12 for his base platform, might be revealing.
Maybe I'll send him a message, or go post on their board.
Hey Alf, is that collection digital or print? If it's digital, any chance you could share it?
Sorry, but it is print. In those years there were not too much internet speed or mags online. And it is a HUGE collection, so scan it its near an impossible mission (around 70 FJs comparatives, reviews and tests)
And like I work at the Stock Markets and stay a lot of time in front of my computers, I´m still an addict to the printed mags & real paper books (sorry, ipad fans)
Quote from: andyb on September 24, 2012, 09:01:22 PM
Going from an XS1100 to a FJ1100 was a massive jump. FJ1100 to FJ1200 won't be anything like that big of a difference, and won't impress in the same way.
Also look at the bikes they were compared to at the time. A GPZ900 was a top sportbike in 84. In 86, the GSXR1100 was stomping everything else flat in the performance world.
'84 FJ1100 won Motorcyclist magazine's Fastest Bike of the Year..... Last year they did the FBOTY. It just didn't handle quite as well as the GSXR.
Quote from: RichBaker on September 28, 2012, 07:58:19 PM
Quote from: andyb on September 24, 2012, 09:01:22 PM
Going from an XS1100 to a FJ1100 was a massive jump. FJ1100 to FJ1200 won't be anything like that big of a difference, and won't impress in the same way.
Also look at the bikes they were compared to at the time. A GPZ900 was a top sportbike in 84. In 86, the GSXR1100 was stomping everything else flat in the performance world.
'84 FJ1100 won Motorcyclist magazine's Fastest Bike of the Year..... Last year they did the FBOTY. It just didn't handle quite as well as the GSXR.
For clarity, I should have specified more to the point that the GPZ was
a top sportbike, not
the top sportbike.
The 1100 beat it, and for good reason. :)
Interesting! I did email "Doc" and he sent a response, though it wasn't as detailed as I would have hoped. (I have since sent him another response asking for a bit of clarification, we'll see if he'll deign to answer me.)
Quotedear mr 'no name'
thanks for your interest in both the club and the Yamaha FJ's
personally the FJ1100 is the best of the bunch
it will be the one that will be colectable and is the most sporty to ride
even as standard
if you want to have fun and upgrade parts to make it modern then this is fine
but me, i find a well set up standard one fine but you will need good rear shock and front fork springs as being 28 years old isnt good.
regards
doc
PS if you must go for FJ1200, go for early FJ1200 86-87
He responded to this, from me:
QuoteSubject:
FJ11 vs. FJ12
Message:
I'm a member over at FJowner.com, and I recently discovered your site. I've been researching FJ's pretty heavily and am interested in buying one, in which case I'd probably become a member on this site. I was wondering, though, in trying to decide which model to go for, why you chose an FJ11 as the base for your racer instead of an FJ12? A lot of members on the FJowners forum have mentioned that their 11 feels sportier than their 12 (once they've swapped front ends, for sure, but sometimes I think even without doing this), but I find that hard to believe. I do know the gearing was changed somewhat, and that the sprocket size is different--was that the reason, and is there truth to their claims?
The new email I sent him is this:
QuoteMy apologies! My name is Kyle, and I appreciate your taking the time to respond. I have to say, I went through your entire fjracer site, and am a great admirer of your work. Racing an '84 anything against an '01 and giving him a run... An impressive feat!
While I don't doubt your answer, could I ask what makes it the sportiest? The factors I can imagine are:
Lowest stock weight
Smaller, sportier fairing
Gearing differences?
Sprocket size?
Is it just the looks of the early ones (I agree they are the most attractive), or does it really actually perform better, and if so, why? I had thought about buying an 89/90 at first, eventually upgrading the forks to cartridge emulators, and then eventually finding an 86/87 and swapping the front ends and transferring the fuel pump, and parting the 89/90 out. (While the '84 looks the best, the '86 didn't look bad and had the 1200 engine, and a couple of things like a clock on the dash in the fairing, etc., so I thought that was better... Trying to learn why I was wrong. :) (Are there any other upgrades you'd make to an '84 or '86 that I'm missing?)
I just have a hard time believing an 1100 can be better than a 1200, and know I must be missing something. Would an '84 really beat an '86 on a track?
I really appreciate your taking the time to answer this, the answer matters a lot to me.
Lastly, if I may, what would say to starting with this as a restoration project: http://nh.craigslist.org/mcy/3205856069.html (http://nh.craigslist.org/mcy/3205856069.html)
Do you think it's a good candidate at a reasonable price (I'd probably get him down to $500 or so, I think).
And then, realizing I'd forgotten to 'sign' as apparently is expected (!), I sent another email:
Quote-Grateful,
Kyle
Okay Kyle, this is getting a bit tiresome.
WE can not make up YOUR mind for you. You solicit opinions then try to question their "technical" accuracy. Well, they are opinions and that's as good as it gets.
For instance, your question on will an '84 1100 beat an '86 1200 on a track. The answer is (as usual) IT DEPENDS! You put Valentino Rossi on a Honda Trail 70 and he will probably beat your typical squid on a CBGSXR1.
The answer you need to be asking is which one do YOU want. We have provided multiple opinions. You need to stop wallowing in the minutiae and go try to find and ride the different models and make up YOUR mind. You'll get as many varying "opinions" as questions you ask. We all like something different. You can read everything ever printed about FJs, but the ultimate conclusion on which is better will not be found in ANY article.
I agree with Doc that the 1100 model "might" be more collectable, eventually. But, I disagree that the '86/'87 is the "best" model you should be looking for. But, of course, that's just my opinion.
DavidR.
I agree with David on this. You are looking for the best answer but the truth is what is the best answer for you. If you ask a racer he will give you the best answer for a racer. If you ask a touring guy he will give you the best answer for a touring guy. The best answer for you maybe the one with low miles, in great shape whose owner wants it to have a person who will appreciate it. No matter what year and work with it from there. Just one mans opinion. Hope this helps.
Kurt
can ride the 11 and twelve here back to back, the 11 seems to go better, and handles better , stops ect ect but I've spent a lot of time sorting her out, , the 12 seems to have more torque and not as rev happy , handles like a 20+ year old bike should with standard suspension , but let someone else ride them I'm sure their opinion would be different
I had a '84 FJ1100 that was dealer prepped to run in the 1984 Production Series - was a great bike with a wicked power curve. Had it dynoe'd and it produced 137RWHP.
As many have mentioned the FJ1100 & FJ1200 '84 - '87 are the lighter in weight & therefore respond more easily to "tweaking" .
Below is a photo of the "Castrol" & "Marlboro" colors I discovered on my FJ1100 whilst rebuilding.
(http://i977.photobucket.com/albums/ae259/teeeeeceeeee/DSC00191.jpg)
Kookaloo
TeeCee
some own several FJ's, 1100's, 3Cv's, 3XW's and like each one for it's own little quirks and maybe like one a little less for the same reasons.
some own two of the same model and each one has a personality of its own, one is often the favorite.
geez I like my 92 because I own it , deal with it :yahoo:
Not intending to make this thread about me, just about the differences between the 11 and 12; I personally prefer a sportier bike that is still comfortable, and obviously he does as well, but I was more curious about what the actual differences were in regards to the 11 vs the 12. Didn't mean to be arguing. The emails obviously were a bit more personal and geared towards my specific interests, but I just thought I'd share them anyways because he's an interesting source to get feedback from.
In fact, he responded already, and I think (think, not sure, you guys tell me) that his response might be saying exactly what many of you said:
QuoteHi Mate
happy to answer members techincal questions etc
but have limited time to help out the 1500 members so sorry if answers are short
once member happy to bore you with details
if you can answer this, and this will be the answer
which is the best bike
RC30 or RC45
Z1a or Z1000
H1 or KH500
GPZ900 or 1000RX
hope your starting to work in out
regards
Doc
I don't know those bikes all off the top of my head, but I'm going to take a guess and say he's comparing touring to sport models from various brands... Though if I'm wrong, tell me, I haven't looked anything up on those yet so I find his email a little hard to decipher.
As for me, I personally feel that a bike that performs well shouldn't compromise comfort, and for this I love the FJ series; as Yamaha lost confidence and invested their performance elsewhere in a platform that cared almost nothing about comfort and cared only for performance, I (personally) feel they betrayed the FJ platform and made it only touring and forgot its performance side. Thus the upgrades only being in the fairing and hardly anything for suspension or frame (hell, the 91-later frame was the cheapest and heaviest, though least vibrating, no?), and nothing in the engine department other than boring it out. Just because it CAN be comfortable for miles and miles and is stable as a rock doesn't mean you have to call it a sport tourer, just a well designed sport bike!
But I'm just one consumer. And I'm clearly not the majority; the FJ sold well in its later incarnations, and they were very popular. Many here love it as a touring platform. The performance freaks skipped over it. I'm the weird guy in between. So don't mind me.
But if we're talking about the 11 vs. the 12, this is the issue we are talking about--a big bore sport bike vs a touring bike. The question is, did that touring role eventually compromise its performance, or did it only get better? And that's unavoidable. What you prefer is irrelevant; just, what are the differences?
(I sure hope I'm making sense, I had a fair amount of alcohol this evening as a disclaimer...)
The FJ1100 handles like a fat lady buxom babe and you won't care if your friends see you riding her.
You've got it WAY wrong.
Performance-wise, there is practically no difference in sporting ability between the years. Yamaha did nothing to take anything away from the performance of the later year models. In fact, when I got my '93, I realized what a turd my '85 handled like. Which led me to upgrade it to an '89 front end which totally transformed the bike.
Prior to that "upgrade" I had practically stopped riding the '85 because the '93 was such a better bike. Now they're about the same.
DavidR.
If you like blue, red, silver, pink or white, this is as good as any reason to buy one FJ over another. Quit over thinking this, find one YOU like and buy it.
Kurt
Quote from: SlowOldGuy on September 29, 2012, 10:44:27 PM
WE can not make up YOUR mind for you.
+1... and using reviews from 20 years ago is a bad way to make up your mind as well. I don't think you'll find an FJ today that performs exactly as described in those reviews for a variety of reasons, mostly related to age and upgrades/modifications.
You sound like you're trying to pick between first gen FZR1000, then '89, then Thunderace, then R1... now that's a decision with lots of differentiation between models, mostly weight in this case but with lots of other changes including EXUP. We got nothing like that going on between FJs (until you try to include FJR in the roster, but that's barely related). :gamer:
As has been said many times, go find a good one and buy it. You can target a year if you like the particular style or fancy a certain early review. Fact is getting an earlier model will necessitate the use of more modern parts to make it function at its best. Any FJ will benefit from use of some new parts (shocks, springs, brakes, tires, wheels, chains, seats, etc...), so think of the purchase partially as buying good bones (good cosmetics, straight frame, solid engine) and maybe some upgrades already done (careful here...). (popcorn)
Once you have made it yours through following your vision (sport, touring, hooligan, bobber, etc), you're in a great position to argue the value of your choices over the campfire. Arguing virtues over ancient reviews and historical racing choices isn't particularly valid anyway and distracts you from your actual mission... finding a FJ for sale out there to make your own. :good:
Frank
Quote from: SlowOldGuy on September 30, 2012, 09:33:40 AM
You've got it WAY wrong.
Performance-wise, there is practically no difference in sporting ability between the years. Yamaha did nothing to take anything away from the performance of the later year models. In fact, when I got my '93, I realized what a turd my '85 handled like. Which led me to upgrade it to an '89 front end which totally transformed the bike.
Prior to that "upgrade" I had practically stopped riding the '85 because the '93 was such a better bike. Now they're about the same.
DavidR.
In Spain we say: "para gustos, colores" that it could be translated to anything similar that for each individual there is a different preference
My 93 was bought only for touring duties because the handling is way off my modified 3 CV or the completely STD 86 1TX of my friend Mingo. Riding my 93 and trying to follow in a minimal way any of the 2 bikes could finish on the ditch. For me the 93 model is the worst by a mile
Yeah, I went through your website in depth Alf, lots of interesting information and perspective.
As far as noting the contrast between those two sentiments... That's what's killing me in my research. How can the subjective difference be so huge? I really just need to try for myself. But I have my opinions, and don't like the fairing, style, colors, etc. of the last generation... Other than that I look at the first three generations at this point and consider them on their own merits, each having pros and cons. As of now, I found two in the last week that were almost worth it to me to fly out and buy, but both were sold by the time I contacted the owner. (89's, one in rough shape cosmetically but supposedly a good engine and running for $650 in FL, and another that was pretty all around in Cali for $1350, both of the 89 white/silver/red color scheme I liked). But I'm keeping my eyes peeled, and when I find the right one I'll make it happen. And then I'll slowly customize it to be my own. I even tried to convince a friend to go in with me and fly to albany and buy these (http://albany.craigslist.org/mcy/3171061893.html) and drive them back, and he takes one and I do. He was tempted, but it's not the bike he's looking for.
For everyone telling me to stop overthinking it... The answer is both I have, and I can't. I dive in and get obsessed. I'm not stressed about it, I'm enjoying it. I ended my "FJ Hunting" thread because I found what I needed to know, or at least as much as I could without riding the bikes myself (though I am still interested in what Doc has to say on the matter, though it looks like he's given me the shoulder until I pay up... And I have to say, I'm not a big fan of the break in 'open source' free sharing of information and just helping for the sake of helping, and am a little put off by that.)
Anyways, the point of this thread is to discuss the differences between the 11's and 12's, so what's wrong with having that discussion here? Sure, to each their own as to preference, but this thread is primarily concerned with the objective differences between the 2. I'd love to see Alf and slowoldguy argue that.
As to them all being worn and different, maybe I'm wrong, but I'd imagine they're all pretty much worn the same... All down to just about bottom end of their performance in terms of suspension, so if stock, probably equally bad. Shocks are just disposable equipment. (Obviously the discussion is different if we're talking about mods.) As far as engines, these are slow-wearing/long-lasting engines (anyone else see that one that is at 500k+ miles?), so I would imagine that most engines between 20-50k miles, and that's where most of the ones for sale are, are mostly the same if they had at least basic maintenance performed. In other words, we're talking about compression quality. And that's not a huge factor unless the bike was handled by an idiot. So, excepting the ones that are on their way to needing a top-end rebuild because of a bad PO, I really can't imagine they'd be so different.
And then, what else is there but cosmetics?
Frank, that is very much how I'm viewing my personal buying decision, so I'm very much in agreement with you there.
Everyone, there's no reason to keep going back to how I'm choosing to buy a bike, since that's not the point of this thread, and I'm a little uncomfortable feeling like I've become the center of attention here. I was just trying to provide some interesting information I gained in the course of my research from an interesting source; don't mind my personal stuff, talk about the 11 vs. the other generations.
In that vein, something I've been wondering lately... How different was the 2nd gen fairing (1TX) from the 3rd gen(3CV)? Are the mirrors from the FJ11 considered superior in functionality (even if generally viewed as less attractive by most, I gather?)?
Quote from: fintip on October 01, 2012, 12:34:27 AM
Yeah, I went through your website in depth Alf, lots of interesting information and perspective.
Thanks mate :yahoo:
Quote from: fintip on October 01, 2012, 12:34:27 AM
For everyone telling me to stop overthinking it... The answer is both I have, and I can't. I dive in and get obsessed. I'm not stressed about it, I'm enjoying it. I ended my "FJ Hunting" thread because I found what I needed to know, or at least as much as I could without riding the bikes myself (though I am still interested in what Doc has to say on the matter, though it looks like he's given me the shoulder until I pay up... And I have to say, I'm not a big fan of the break in 'open source' free sharing of information and just helping for the sake of helping, and am a little put off by that.)
I left that forum because each time that I posted instructions to make any job or I gave my web like a reference with detailed instructions to performance the rims change my post was deleted :ireful:
Quote from: fintip on October 01, 2012, 12:34:27 AM
Anyways, the point of this thread is to discuss the differences between the 11's and 12's, so what's wrong with having that discussion here? Sure, to each their own as to preference, but this thread is primarily concerned with the objective differences between the 2. I'd love to see Alf and slowoldguy argue that.
As STD, FJ 11 weight less, the fairing is the easiest to put apart (good for the home mechanic) and don´t vibrate (and the lugs are not continuously cracking like 1TX or 3CV) and feel more sporty, with a brilliant high rpm acceleration. FJ 12s clearly don´t feel good above 8.000 rpm. The only really bad point is that with +20 years the rear suspension teflon bushing must be shot
A ggod intermediate point is the 1TX: FJ11 similar little fairing and as STD, the most powerful of the bunch until 8.000 rpm. After this mark, the STD FJ 11 clearly accelerates fiercely . All the STD 1TXs that I´ve ride (and I do usually with 2 of them) are more powerful than the rest FJ 12 models, side by side on the road. Bad points: the swing arm bushings, like the FJ 11
FJ 12 3CVs are more sedate and weighted than the 1TX, but the OE suspension is 20% stronger than before. The STD rear shock is near excellent with a couple of cheap tricks only fading a bit in a closed racetrack. The fairing is more protective and the rear swigarm-dogbones assy are much bettered
The last models clearly were made saving in production costs. The geometry is different, much more sedate, the bike weights clearly more and it is the best touring model, with no vibration at all and a pleasure to ride everyday.
Quote from: fintip on October 01, 2012, 12:34:27 AM
As to them all being worn and different, maybe I'm wrong, but I'd imagine they're all pretty much worn the same... All down to just about bottom end of their performance in terms of suspension, so if stock, probably equally bad. Shocks are just disposable equipment. (Obviously the discussion is different if we're talking about mods.) As far as engines, these are slow-wearing/long-lasting engines (anyone else see that one that is at 500k+ miles?), so I would imagine that most engines between 20-50k miles, and that's where most of the ones for sale are, are mostly the same if they had at least basic maintenance performed. In other words, we're talking about compression quality. And that's not a huge factor unless the bike was handled by an idiot. So, excepting the ones that are on their way to needing a top-end rebuild because of a bad PO, I really can't imagine they'd be so different.
The OE equipment is not bad. In fact, (and I feel that I´m heretic each time I say this) the STD FJ 11 & 1TX fork with Hagon springs are the best of the bunch. And the STD 3CV & 1TX shocks are excellent (and after 7 years of intensive using in those 2 bikes the shocks are in perfect nick, like myself and my friend Mingo can say. And I´ve tested a lot of shocks...) The last 3XW is the worst forks, with longer stroke and the only thing that seems that can solve this is the Randy valves and springs. And the shock is the most basic, without remote preload, an inconvenient when changing from solo to duo
And yes, the engine is a nuclear bomb. My actual engine has done 170.000 kms and counting and in my FJ 11 I rode 165.000 kms (and modded, so in theory less reliable)
Quote from: fintip on October 01, 2012, 12:34:27 AM
Everyone, there's no reason to keep going back to how I'm choosing to buy a bike, since that's not the point of this thread, and I'm a little uncomfortable feeling like I've become the center of attention here. I was just trying to provide some interesting information I gained in the course of my research from an interesting source; don't mind my personal stuff, talk about the 11 vs. the other generations.
don´t worry mate. Personally I have a lot of fun. And I think the other guys too, everyone wanting help you
Quote from: fintip on October 01, 2012, 12:34:27 AM
As to them all being worn and different, maybe I'm wrong, but I'd imagine they're all pretty much worn the same... All down to just about bottom end of their performance in terms of suspension, so if stock, probably equally bad. Shocks are just disposable equipment. (Obviously the discussion is different if we're talking about mods.) As far as engines, these are slow-wearing/long-lasting engines (anyone else see that one that is at 500k+ miles?), so I would imagine that most engines between 20-50k miles, and that's where most of the ones for sale are, are mostly the same if they had at least basic maintenance performed. In other words, we're talking about compression quality. And that's not a huge factor unless the bike was handled by an idiot. So, excepting the ones that are on their way to needing a top-end rebuild because of a bad PO, I really can't imagine they'd be so different.
Bought a car lately?
Compare a car that was used as a rental, then purchased by a teenager and run in total neglect mode to one that was bought by my mother, stored in a garage, properly maintained (with receipts, even), and driven carefully. They may have the same milage, they may be the same year, but they're in nothing like the same condition.
Bikes are very much the same way. I bought my 90 with under 10k on the clock, and it had blown fork seals, a broken HT lead, ridiculously bad jetting, air filters held in place with wire, dirty carbs, no brakes to speak of, a leaking clutch slave, a slipping clutch, an extra neutral between 4th and 5th, a torn seat, a bald rear tire of the wrong size, a front that was only worn on the right (!?), leaks from a number of places, and so on. They're certainly not all like that.
Also,
SCREW that bullshit pay-to-register forum.
Its a free forum. Only the payment is for get mechanical advice from Doc
Quote from: Alf on October 01, 2012, 03:02:18 AM
I left that forum because each time that I posted instructions to make any job or I gave my web like a reference with detailed instructions to performance the rims change my post was deleted :ireful:
I´ve just received a personal message from Richie, the FJ UK forum moderator. I think there was a terrific misunderstanding from my part on that issue, and that the problem was only then informatics gremlins. :dash2: If he gives me permission, I publish his personal message and mine
Quote from: Alf on October 01, 2012, 08:45:23 AM
Quote from: Alf on October 01, 2012, 03:02:18 AM
I left that forum because each time that I posted instructions to make any job or I gave my web like a reference with detailed instructions to performance the rims change my post was deleted :ireful:
I´ve just received a personal message from Richie, the FJ UK forum moderator. I think there was a terrific misunderstanding from my part on that issue, and that the problem was only then informatics gremlins. :dash2: If he gives me permission, I publish his personal message and mine
Please, read this
http://www.fjowners.com/index.php?topic=7561.0 (http://www.fjowners.com/index.php?topic=7561.0)
After a LOT of searching, I was able to find the link to the UK forums. This was my second time searching, I didn't find it the first time I was there.
And then, on the front page, you see:
QuoteThis forum is not run by the club. I (Pugwash) Bob, run this out of my own personal funds as a member of the club. If you wish to make a donation all are welcome to and there is no min limit required. As a bonus all those that do, get the award notice on their profile, but also if requested, a web based email address of [whatever]@fjfjrbiker.co.uk - this is a standard pop3 email that can be accessed from any web browser. Many thanks, Pugwash.
So again, no thanks to Doc for this one...
QuoteAs STD, FJ 11 weight less, the fairing is the easiest to put apart (good for the home mechanic) and don´t vibrate (and the lugs are not continuously cracking like 1TX or 3CV) and feel more sporty, with a brilliant high rpm acceleration. FJ 12s clearly don´t feel good above 8.000 rpm. The only really bad point is that with +20 years the rear suspension teflon bushing must be shot
A ggod intermediate point is the 1TX: FJ11 similar little fairing and as STD, the most powerful of the bunch until 8.000 rpm. After this mark, the STD FJ 11 clearly accelerates fiercely . All the STD 1TXs that I´ve ride (and I do usually with 2 of them) are more powerful than the rest FJ 12 models, side by side on the road. Bad points: the swing arm bushings, like the FJ 11
FJ 12 3CVs are more sedate and weighted than the 1TX, but the OE suspension is 20% stronger than before. The STD rear shock is near excellent with a couple of cheap tricks only fading a bit in a closed racetrack. The fairing is more protective and the rear swigarm-dogbones assy are much bettered
The last models clearly were made saving in production costs. The geometry is different, much more sedate, the bike weights clearly more and it is the best touring model, with no vibration at all and a pleasure to ride everyday.
I hadn't heard that the first generation had less vibration problems and felt a lot better above 8k--that's super interesting! And would definitely A) Make sense, as a touring machine wants to be able to pass other cars on the highway, not beat them in a straightaway, and might be the result/reason for the gearing changes between the 11 and 12, and B) explain the quarter mile times not getting better with the big bore engine and actually seeming to get a hair
worse in reviews of the day.
I think you just sold me on getting an 11 instead of a 12, personally.
Teflon bushing; is that something that would be replaced with Randy's new rear shock he's working on? I haven't ever had to mess with rear shocks except to adjust their preload settings (not the most complex maneuver...), so I don't know exactly what you're talking about.
In the end, I'll still give all the first 3 generations a shot, but I think I'd prefer an FJ11 to an 1TX as I did before reading this and hearing what Doc had to say.
QuoteThe OE equipment is not bad. In fact, (and I feel that I´m heretic each time I say this) the STD FJ 11 & 1TX fork with Hagon springs are the best of the bunch. And the STD 3CV & 1TX shocks are excellent (and after 7 years of intensive using in those 2 bikes the shocks are in perfect nick, like myself and my friend Mingo can say. And I´ve tested a lot of shocks...) The last 3XW is the worst forks, with longer stroke and the only thing that seems that can solve this is the Randy valves and springs. And the shock is the most basic, without remote preload, an inconvenient when changing from solo to duo
Well that's interesting. So if you could take any set of forks and put the RPM emulator in them, you'd take the FJ11 or 1TX? As far as the spring, shouldn't they all be worthless by now and need replacing? (Or are you suggesting that a Hagon spring be added to replace the stock spring?). Or are you saying that even without the emulator but with a new spring, the FJ11 forks aren't bad?
I don't know enough about internal design of forks to know any better.
QuoteBought a car lately?
Compare a car that was used as a rental, then purchased by a teenager and run in total neglect mode to one that was bought by my mother, stored in a garage, properly maintained (with receipts, even), and driven carefully. They may have the same milage, they may be the same year, but they're in nothing like the same condition.
Bikes are very much the same way. I bought my 90 with under 10k on the clock, and it had blown fork seals, a broken HT lead, ridiculously bad jetting, air filters held in place with wire, dirty carbs, no brakes to speak of, a leaking clutch slave, a slipping clutch, an extra neutral between 4th and 5th, a torn seat, a bald rear tire of the wrong size, a front that was only worn on the right (!?), leaks from a number of places, and so on. They're certainly not all like that.
You're right. I am not arguing with that. I'm saying that when you get all the maintenance items in order, the bikes from the same generation are going to have very similar feel. (Screwed up transmission puts it out of the running, of course, and counts as internal damage--also, I did say "excepting an idiot PO". ;)
Quote from: fintip on October 01, 2012, 03:59:28 PM
I hadn't heard that the first generation had less vibration problems and felt a lot better above 8k--that's super interesting! And would definitely A) Make sense, as a touring machine wants to be able to pass other cars on the highway, not beat them in a straightaway, and might be the result/reason for the gearing changes between the 11 and 12, and B) explain the quarter mile times not getting better with the big bore engine and actually seeming to get a hair worse in reviews of the day.
The gearing changes not explain the difference: it is only 1 th more at the rear than the 1TX and 2 more than the 3CV. I think the bike was more equilibrated when it was 1100. In fact, the usual collateral effect from fitting a big bore kit in any bike is vibration... just the 1200 is: a big bored 1100. Yamaha solved this problem with the last model, tweaking the chassis (and increasing weight)
Quote from: fintip on October 01, 2012, 03:59:28 PM
Teflon bushing; is that something that would be replaced with Randy's new rear shock he's working on? I haven't ever had to mess with rear shocks except to adjust their preload settings (not the most complex maneuver...), so I don't know exactly what you're talking about.
The inner dogbones bushes are made of teflon, less durable than the bearings on the following models, 3 CV and 3XW. And you can´t tweak the geometry changing the dogbones, even although with shorter dogbones, (more weight at the front), fork tubes protruding 1 cm of the top yoke and 5,5" rear rim in fact I ´ve got that my 3CV feel exactly with the same geometry than the completely STD 1TX of my friend Mingo, a world different from the 3CV std geometry
Quote from: fintip on October 01, 2012, 03:59:28 PM
QuoteThe OE equipment is not bad. In fact, (and I feel that I´m heretic each time I say this) the STD FJ 11 & 1TX fork with Hagon springs are the best of the bunch. And the STD 3CV & 1TX shocks are excellent (and after 7 years of intensive using in those 2 bikes the shocks are in perfect nick, like myself and my friend Mingo can say. And I´ve tested a lot of shocks...) The last 3XW is the worst forks, with longer stroke and the only thing that seems that can solve this is the Randy valves and springs. And the shock is the most basic, without remote preload, an inconvenient when changing from solo to duo
Well that's interesting. So if you could take any set of forks and put the RPM emulator in them, you'd take the FJ11 or 1TX? As far as the spring, shouldn't they all be worthless by now and need replacing? (Or are you suggesting that a Hagon spring be added to replace the stock spring?). Or are you saying that even without the emulator but with a new spring, the FJ11 forks aren't bad?
The STD fork springs are S***, except the 3XW model... And anyway, with 20 years on, those must be shot. Let me explain
All my friends and myself have fitted Hagon fork springs in our front forks. All of us own 1TX and 3CV models. I´m really tempted about Randy emulators and springs, but our forks works so nicely...
Different way the 3XW. In my group of FJ owners there are competent home mechanics, long range biker courier and very fast FJ owners (I include a pic of my friend Paco with his wife... and he is not the fastest!). And with all our knowledgement and testing a variety of things in a lot of kms, the 3XW never could be at the same level than the rest of the bunch. Maybe with the Randy hardware it could be solved, but it is better leave this model STD. It is a great bike for touring and for everyday use. Possibly the best for this use, nice, soft, with no vibration... but the other models even in STD form can live with much modern machines
(http://i1133.photobucket.com/albums/m589/fj1200alf/paco.jpg)
(http://i1133.photobucket.com/albums/m589/fj1200alf/paco2.jpg)
Take into account in your election the kind of rider that you´re. When I speak about the teflon bushes, i.e., I´m speaking from the point of view of a rider with a lot of use & abuse of the bike. If I remember well I changed 2 times the bushes in my FJ 11 for the 165.000 kms that I rode on. Now I´m changing the bearings in my 3CV after 175.000 kms for the 1st time. These were bad, but no so bad