FJ hunting.

[FJmonkey]

Sorry, just to clarify... I am thinking you mean: '89 and up FZ forks are best, as they will accept Blue Dot calipers bolt on. (What are blue dot calipers?)

Or are you saying '89 FJ's accept the FZ caliper as bolt-on? (And are the forks bolt on to the 89 and later, or even to the earlier ones?)

How hard is it to find the 17" wheel with forks (or both separately)? Are there any other options other than 89 and later bikes being parted out? How much do they run for?

What are you referring to by 3", OldGuy? Is that width of the tire? I wasn't aware that the tire had more than one change, I thought they just switched in '89 to narrower, taller tires, and left it at that. Or are you talking about something else?

Any chance you can comment on the difference in feel between those two bikes? Both in regards to performance as well as fairing effect.

89' and up means FJ year forks, blue Dots are more modern era brake calipers (also bolt on are nearly identical Gold Dots, slightly better). FJ  (sport touring) parts, 3" wide were offered as standard wheel (rim) width, Sport bikes like FZR had 3.5", 87/88 years are bolt on. Wider tire gets more rubber on the road, better traction. As far as feel..... like the first time.......

[Flynt]

Here you go...

http://sfbay.craigslist.org/eby/mcy/3295989428.html

Nice looking, good running '89 for $2,150 obo.

Frank

[FJmonkey]

Here you go...

http://sfbay.craigslist.org/eby/mcy/3295989428.html

Nice looking, good running '89 for $2,150 obo.

Frank

And the hits just keep coming..... Good find Frank...

[SlowOldGuy]

The '89+ front wheel can be used on the early FJs.  You will need the wheel and brake discs, axle, and lower fork sliders.  This will allow (require) you to use the monoblock calipers from an R1, R6, FZ1, Warrier, FJR. 

3 inch is the width of the FJ wheel.  Later FZ wheels are 3.5 inch.  The 3 inch wheel is a good enough upgrade to start with on an early model.  The overall diameter of the old 16 inch wheel/tire combo is practically identical to the newer 17 inch wheel/tire.

My '85 1100 is stronger than my '93 1200, but it's got some enhancements (Wiseco 1188 pistons, degreed cams).  Both bikes are fun to ride, it a toss up as to which bike I choose on a given day.  The '93 fairing has a little more coverage.  Nothing radical, not worth excluding the later models from consideration.

There's no such thing as a bad FJ, just a bad owner.

DavidR.

[fintip]

I thought the narrower wheel conveyed an advantage to the FJ? From the reviews I read, the problem with the 16 in wheels is that they were quite wide, and the 17 inch wheels were much narrower, which solved its tendency to want to right itself coming up out of corners.

That excellent stability results in part from replacing the old 2.75 by 16-inch front wheel with a lighter, cast-aluminum hollow-spoke 3.00 by 17-inch wheel and lower-profile tire. The rear is also a hollow-spoke design, but in the same 3.50 by 16-inch size as before.

The diameter of the low-profile, 70-series, 17-inch Dunlop K330 front is within millimeters of that of the 80-series 16-incher it replaces. Rake and trail remain the same at 27.5 degrees and 4.4 inches, as do the Kayaba fork's 41mm stanchion tubes. But the bike feels more stable, at least partly because the 70-series tire has less sidewall to flex.

Tire choice greatly affects a sport-bike's feel. The FJ was originally designed around 16-inch Pirellis purpose-built for Bimota. The front tire, although designated a 120/80, was actually 128mm wide. That tire's width and profile created steering torques that tried to stand the previous FJ up abruptly when braking into corners. It also contributed to the bike's unwillingness to change lines in mid-corner.

The new 17-inch front Dunlop, though also designated a 120, is considerably narrower at 117mm, and helps the FJ's steering considerably. The tendency to stand up under braking while leaned over is much less pronounced, and the bike changes headings in mid-corner more readily, although it still requires more effort than do modern superbikes. Overall, the new tire makes the bike feel more precise, and minimizes its handling quirks at the bargain cost of a minor increase in steering effort.

So I'm confused. I see 3.00 by 17 in tires, but I also see 117mm width (which equals 4.5 inches). Is the 117 actually a measurement of sidewall width, and I was getting that confused?

That would make sense, actually, and would explain everything. I think I just answered my own question again.

The problem with the later fairings is the shape looks bad to me--large and unsporting--and I dislike all of the color schemes. Also, I wonder about the sporting effects of making the engine no longer a stressed member, though I haven't ridden either so it's just speculation. The steel frame instead of aluminum. It just seems like Yamaha had finally completely given up the sport side and gone further and further to the touring side. They just all look kind of dorky to me. It's really just a matter of me not being able to fall in love with those bikes; it's gotta be the inside and the outside, you know? To each their own. I'm sure they're still wonderful bikes, since they're 95+% the same. Just not what I'm in love with.

Right, so, the ideal front end setup is 89/later forks, blue dot/gold dot brakes (just, modern brakes off an R1/R6/FZ1/FJR/Warrier) (can I not use the brakes off an 89/later FJ? Aren't those fine? If/when I start taking the bike to a track, I could understand the need for higher grade brakes, but with three discs I can't imagine finding the upgraded from previous year stock brakes inadequate or anything), and either a 3in 89/later wheel (better) or a 3.5in later FZ wheel (best)

As for me, I'm banging myself over the head... Found a great choice at an amazing price from all three gen's tonight:

85 for $1500: http://boulder.craigslist.org/mcy/3251931313.html
86 for $1800: http://madison.craigslist.org/mcy/3238384496.html
90 for $1300: http://chicago.craigslist.org/nwc/mcy/3292035695.html (silver, unfortunately, and not straight white... Wonder if I could just paint the silver parts red easily enough...)

All within 1.25k miles of Austin.

[ribbert]

Found this page: http://fjclub.co.uk/#/buying-a-fj/4546920434

I really wish I could test drive the different models so I could get a feel myself for which is better. I'm totally baffled by some people saying the FJ11 feels better than the 12's as far as performance. The fairing thing is also a bit difficult to decide without trying out for myself. 

I'm banging my head against the wall trying to figure out what is best. Right now I think I'd go for any of the first three generations. I *think* the ideal right now sounds like:

-One of the first two generations for fairing--the original FJ11 sounds like it had the most attractive 'sporty' fairing, but 2nd gen fairing had a lot of functional upgrades: the mirrors, the clock, the movement of the choke location, the fuel reserve switch... The third generation might also be fine, I just need to see in person. Vastly prefer the white/white+red color schemes in whatever generation. How hard would repainting the fairing of a different color to a factory scheme be? Looks a lot trickier than doing one color.

-Undecided on which engine of the first 3 generations for performance, as I find contradictory opinions and am just baffled. Anyone have some good dyno graphs they can point me to?

-Fuel pump from the 3rd generation (can this be installed onto the first two generations? Does it make a difference when you do so?)

-Front end (shocks, no anti-dive, calipers, 17in narrow wheel) from the 3rd generation

-Gas tank from the first generation (largest, size decreased from second generation on apparently; does this just fit without any mod onto the later generations? Does it look at all out of place?); however, the 2nd generation introduced a flat gas cap, for fitting on tankbags. Will the gascap from later generations fit into the gastank for the FJ11?

-Aftermarket rubber mounts for the earlier generations (do these exist? in the first three generations the engine was a 'stressed member', not so in the last gen; does that matter?)



How does this sound?

It sounds like you're over thinking it a bit. What minor differences there were when new no longer apply as these bikes are all now around a quarter of a century old and have been subjected to all sorts of treatment, servicing, tinkering and tuning. As I said the other day, there is an endless list of variables that effects how each bike now runs, and unlike when they were new, every FJ out there would now feel different in some respect to ride, and that includes power delivery.

Like any vehicle with a decade long production run, improvements are picked up along the way and the later model you buy the less you will have to upgrade.

You do sound a little like someone choosing a new bike from a catalogue and deciding on options.

Given the age of these machines, finding a good clean example with the right credentials of any model will be challlenge enough, locking yourself into a particular year is only going to make the search that much harder.

If you want a nice bike, that will probably decide the year model.

As someone said today, they're 95%  the same, don't ovet think it, just go out and find the best one you can and enjoy it.

Noel

[fintip]

Haha. I'm the one who just said they're 95% the same.

And yeah, I completely agree with you. This is my way of handling the long wait to 'christmas'. I'm FJ obsessed and I've got no outlet. I spent the better part of yesterday researching it. (I get kind of crazy into researching things when I'm hooked; I didn't know anything about motorcycle mechanics until I started late last spring. Now I feel comfortable considering putting a motorcycle together from pieces, and tuning it to boot. If that's any indicator of obsessive research...)

But anyways, I feel like I can be a smart buyer now when I finally get around to it. I think I've finally kicked the horse until it died. I just need to figure out what the price and difficulty of adding a fuel pump & front fork set up would be, what putting a different year's fairing would actually entail (I read that actually none of the gens bolt on to each other),

But I think I understand the balance between the three generations I'm looking at to consider them with their pros and cons pretty fairly at this point. Thanks so much for answering my questions, guys. Promise it'll pay off when I have the bike and am answering the questions for the other newbies, as I will surely become a wealth of information, haha.

Best,
Kyle

[fintip]

Though, as an interesting closing: Which of those three I listed would you (anyone here) buy/consider the best deal/think was best for me?

[Flynt]

If that '90 has been run for long without the scoop on the side, it is possible the engine has been cooked a bit...  those scoops send most of the cooing air to the center of the head.  Even if the engine is OK, the lack of understanding that the scoop should be there casts doubt on the owner.  I'd look elsewhere and have seen much nicer '90s.


The '85 is a big project...  every mod you can find here will need to be done to get it up to snuff most likely.  It may be a challenge getting it to even run decent, so no immediate Kookaloo for you on this path.  Unless you want to restore and perfect an original (talk to Pat), I'd run from this one.


The '86 looks well cared for and has several hundred $$ of newer parts...  I think you'd get a chance to ride and fall in love with it before needing to do much of anything mod wise.  Then the stuff Monkey has done can be worked on piece by piece for years of modding fun (maybe months for us obsessive types).  I know what I'd pick.

Frank