new area of interest

[Metal_Militia]

Hey

Lately I have been drawing a rather large interest in motorcycles and it has been growing each day.

I am 19 years old so I do not have a career like budget just yet, just typical college funds aided by my parents.

Over summer is the only time I can get a side job and earn some money.

Now all that being said, I have been looking into getting my own bike and also the the course necessary for beginners. My main concern is getting the money to afford a bike and if it is possible to obtain within the next couple of years.

I have been looking into the Harley-Davidson XL 883 Sportster which seems like it would be a good match for me, seeing as I want a cruiser and something not too pricey, Sportster seems to be the lowest of the Harleys in price.

Is this a wise choice for a beginner to grab as a first bike? Also, for those of you who were in a similar situation back when you got into bikes, how did you go about saving up and being able to afford one? Did you just work a lot of hours and spent a couple years of just work to afford it?

Thanks

[Wrider]

Honestly I'd rock something else for a first bike. The Sportsters are considered Harley's entry level, but back in 1957 when they were introduced, they were the fire-breathing, skirt blowing, police outrunning bikes of their day!
I started off on a Volusia, which weighed less than the Sporty and was a good beginner bike for me. (6'2" 300 lbs) If you're smaller I'd recommend something smaller... And no matter what your H-D riding friends tell you, metric isn't bad! No one makes a bad bike anymore but you don't have to pay twice the price to get a Harley...
Wrider
P.S. Exception to the nobody makes a bad bike rule is Lifan.

[Captain Pete]

For your first bike, you want something used, preferrably with plenty of dents and scratches. This way, you won't feel bad when you've dropped it a few times your first year of riding. Later on, if you want to get a sportie, look for one used with lots of 'accouterments'. Your local HD dealer should have plenty. But, don't weigh down a 883 too much, and don't expect great things from one. They're good bikes, but there are quite a few metric bikes out there in the same price range (especially used) that provide greater reliability and handling. Go grab yourself a used Vulcan 500 or Suzuki Savage for a first bike. Either of these two, as long as you're not too tall, would be great. And, you could keep them as around town commuters if you upgrade to a big road cruiser in a few years.

[erbgottie]

Don't forget the Honda Shadow lineup, you can find a good used shadow for a good price and they are easy to learn on. Once you get your career started and are a little more experienced get that 883 but by then you might want a 1200 . Good luck bro!

[RhadamYgg]

I gotta say, right now, I love my Ninja 250. What I say in a few months, I can't answer.

But I do love making thing my own and that might hurt resale price enough for me to just want to keep this bike for a while.

I took it up to 70 on the Garden State Parkway a couple days ago and it didn't seem to have any problems.

Wind sucked - so I'm getting a custom windscreen.

RhadamYgg

[NewGuy]

No one makes a bad bike anymore but you don't have to pay twice the price to get a Harley...

I don't own a Harley, and probably never will, but I'm tired of seeing comments like this.

Let's make some comparisons:

H-D Sportster 883 MSRP is $6695. That's the 883cc Sportster in Vivid Black.

Suzuki M50B MSRP is $6899. That's an 800cc bike in Black.

Suzuki C50B MSRP is $6799. That's an 800cc bike in Black.

Kawasaki Vulcan 900 Custom MSRP is $7399.

Kawasaki Vulcan 900 Classic MSRP is $$7349.

Not only is the Harley not twice as expensive, it's actually cheaper than those two metric bikes that are similar.

Let's look at some bigger bikes.

H-D Dyna Super Glide MSRP is $11995. It's a nice cruiser with a 96ci engine, ie 1584cc.

Kawasaki 1600 Classic MSRP is $10699. Also a nice cruiser with a 95ci (1552cc).

Suzuki C90 MSRP is $10499. Again a nice cruiser, but only a 90ci engine (1475cc)

So can we now admit that these comments about H-Ds being so outrageusly expensive are simply BS?

[Wrider]

What I meant was technology per dollar.
The technology available per dollar is greater with other companies.
For example, the Big Twin 96 CI Twin Cam engine puts out an average of 75 HP and 83 TQ on the dyno.
That's in all of their larger models, from the Softail to the Ultra Classic Electra Glide.
That's an air-cooled, 45 degree pushrod activated V-Twin engine
Now take for example the Suzuki M109R
1783cc DOHC, Liquid cooled, 54 degree V-Twin producing 127 HP and 118 TQ also dynod.
Compared to the Super Glide, which has the 96 CI Twin Cam in it, the M109R is 400 dollars more.
With the Super Glide you do get another gear, according to my instructors it can't be utilized at anything under 85-90 MPH without lugging the engine. I wouldn't know that from personal experience, I haven't ridden one.
Belt drive on the Super Glide versus Shaft on the Zuke.

As for the Sportster 883. Engine size it's in the 800 to 900cc range.
HP for the stock 883 is 35.10 and TQ is 38 ft/lbs
Look at the other 800s you mentioned. Both of the Suzukis are liquid cooled, shaft driven, with stock dyno figures of 42HP and 43 ft/lbs of TQ.
The Kawasaki Vulcan 900 you mentioned is 53HP and 60 ft/lbs of TQ.

That's all I meant in paying for the name comments.
You are getting technology that was cutting edge back in the 50s and 60s, then the metrics were just babies, I agree, but that technology is old now.

I'm not saying Harleys are bad bikes, not in the least. There will always be a place for it, don't get me wrong, I'm just saying I'm not sure why you would pay the same or more for technology that is outdated.
Wrider

[NewGuy]

What I meant was technology per dollar.
As for the Sportster 883. Engine size it's in the 800 to 900cc range.
HP for the stock 883 is 35.10 and TQ is 38 ft/lbs
Look at the other 800s you mentioned. Both of the Suzukis are liquid cooled, shaft driven, with stock dyno figures of 42HP and 43 ft/lbs of TQ.
The Kawasaki Vulcan 900 you mentioned is 53HP and 60 ft/lbs of TQ.

Come on now, if you're going to debate this try to be honest about it. The 883 Sportster put out 53 hp and 51 lb-ft of torque on the 2004 engine. ( http://www.bikernet.com/news/specials/2004sporties.asp ) I haven't bothered to look for the numbers after 2007 when EFI was added, which should have given a modest increase in performance. If your 35hp claim was true, then no one would ever buy a Sportster when they could get a 32hp V-star 650 and save a ton on both initial cost and insurance.

As for comparing the high end touring bikes, it's not even reasonable to compare a 109ci bike to a 96ci bike.

[Wrider]

As for the Sportster, I only found an 02 version.
Looked it up for you, it's rated at 43 HP, couldn't find TQ, but you get the point...

As for the 109 comparison, it's a comparable price, 400 dollar difference instead of 1500 bucks.

Anyway, as I was saying earlier, you're paying a lot for the name, not for the tech... I don't mean to get into a pissing match, I'm just stating my point, for what you pay, you can get more technology...

Several of my friends are Harley guys, and every one of them admits you can get more performance out of a metric for less money.
Wrider

[Nalian]

Meh - I had the 883 as my first bike. I paid $6600 and rode it for a year and put about 3k miles on it. I then traded it in for $6000 and got my next bike. That worked out well for me. My '06 was rated at 53 hp/51 torque. I don't know where you're getting the 35/43 business, but it's incorrect. If you are in disbelief please feel free to check out all the dynojet charts on the harley forums. That's 53/51 stock, btw.

The Harley was a heavy pig but it was weighted well enough. Just be careful going slow/maneuvering on foot and you should be fine.