Would you agree with this opinion?

[totalmotorcycle]

I found this opinion on sptimes.com about the costs of owning a motorcycle not economical over that of a car... Would you agree?





Motorcycle maintenance costs dearly
Letters to the Editor
Published May 25, 2005

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Motorcycles popularity rising, diverse, May 23

Your article about the rising popularity of motorcycles indicated that the driving factor was economy. Yes, most motorcycles get better mileage than an automobile, but there are other factors to be considered. Tires, for example. A safe motorcycle tire is significantly more expensive than auto tires, and mileage is considerably less: 20,000 miles is about the maximum for a rear tire, maybe twice that for the front.

Unless you are mechanically inclined and can perform safety checks and maintenance yourself, maintaining a motorcycle in safe operating condition is another considerable expense. I would expect a thorough cost analysis would reveal the cost to own and operate a motorcycle having 1,000 cubic centimeters or more engine displacement would be close, if not greater, than that of a subcompact automobile.

There are many good reasons for riding a motorcycle, but economy is not one of them.


-- Bob Askew, Hudson

[poppygene]

I'd have to agree. Motorcycles aren't exactly cheap to operate and maintain properly.

I'd just like to know how anyone gets anywhere near 20k miles on a rear tire and 40k on a front! I'd be tickled to get 8!

[oldnslo]

The next time you get a chance, read the required maintenance section of your automobile owner's manual. If you actually plan to keep your car, as I do, for the long haul,[at least 250k miles] maintence costs can pile up. For example, on my Toyota Sienna, the required maintence costs, excluding oil changes and tires, for 100k miles, comes to about $2000. I am looking at a timing belt change in about 25k that costs $850-$1000 by itself. The recent 60k service cost $600.
It would be hard to imagine any motorcycle approaching those costs for the same basic items, exluding tires and oil changes. Even at the most thieving of dealers.
So, I would disagree that motorcycles cost more to maintain than a car. "A car" is a broad statement, however. GM and others make dozens of models offering 100k mile service intervals, but you might as well just set fire to them at that point, as by then they are worn out and valueless.

[High_Side]

I know that owning my motorcycle is more expensive than owning a car. Given valve adjustments(if you pay to get it done) and tires ($400 every 12,000km), it is just more expensive. But it's a toy, and I can live with that

[Keyoke]

Over here, at least (for me)it is a lot more economical run a bike. Although maintenence can cost a lot more, I do all of my own, so save a lot of money that way. Also, as petrol is so much more expensive (currently about 84p/L, about $1.94/L CND) it really is a major factor.

Also, the regular yearly costs of a car are a lot more - Insurance costs roughly twice as much for 4 wheels (ins. is compulsory)
Road tax is £160 for a car, £60 for a litre-class bike, (compulsor)
MOT - Car £25-30, Bike £15.... (compulsory)

By the time all of these have been taken into account, paying a little bit more for a rear tyre really seems a small price to pay!

[cb360]

Owning a bike is certainly not cheap, but my bike gets twice the mileage. Also, car insurance and licensing costs me about 5x what I pay on the bikes. Paying a pro to work on a bike isn't cheap, but the aforementioned reasons at least make it a close race. Bikes definitely take more maintenance, but I do most of it myself. Taking care of your chain, proper inflation, oil changes, swapping bulbs, battery charging, changing plugs... stuff like that is half the battle when taking care of a bike - no reason to paysomeone to do it for you. I'll get a pro to do a valve adjustment or swap a tire though...

[BuzZz]

I view bikes as more of a toy/sanity presevation device than a practical utensile. I am willing to pay for that.

[Psyco Diver 69]

I consider it cheaper because I can get 2 weeks to a tank a gas and insurance cost me less than 200 a year but my 442 gets 2 or 3 days to a tank of gas and insurance is 450 every 6 months for just liablity. I only get about 6 months to a set of rear tires at most (but rear tires wear out fast for other reasons than just driving around, I won't get into it)

[Scott58]

This is kind of an apples and oranges comparison. You really have to consider the bike (and the car for that matter). My rebel is alot more economical then a car. It's also alot more economical then a goldwing. i don't pay $400 for tires and rebels get alot more mileage out of tires then a CBR 1000 RR. There is probably an average CC range that is comparable to a car. (and that would change depending on cruiser or sport bike). Also i only paid $3000 for a new bike. I can buy alot of tires for the $10,000 I saved not buying a cheap new car. The devil is always in the details.

[red66stang]

Performance per dollar also is something bikes kill cars on. Considering my $3k bandit 600 will hang or beat a $40k corvette to 60mph I'd take that any day. And riding my bike compared to what I spend to keep my mustang working how I want it to (runs fine but I'm never satisfied) is much cheaper.