Total Motorcycle Community Forums

The local dealer by me in North Jersey has 3 brands, Yamaha/Star, Kawasaki and Suzuki.

I was looking at the VStar 650 Classic, (see my post HERE), but they also had the Suzuki C50 and M50 next to the Stars and the Vulcan 900 next to those.

Aesthetically they're all pretty similar, but the weight difference is obvious from a 650cc, to an 800cc to a 900cc. On paper, the star is a great buy for a rookie like me, but the c50 felt bigger and more substantial. I could flat foot it on both sides, and could easily hold 'er up with my legs only. The C50 had nice wide bars and you've jumped from roughly 40hp to 52hp, and from carb to efi for very little $ difference. Then we saw the Vulcan and went up again from shaft to belt drive and from rear drum to disc brakes on the Vulcan.

My wife and I are not small people so now maybe the 650 isn't enough if we're 2 up. I really thought I knew what I wanted and now I'm unsure again. My wife and I both really liked the looks of the C50 in the red/black combo best. Damn multi-brand dealers!!!!!!!!!!

Ummmm.....so what's your actual question? Nobody here can tell you which bike suits you best. We can only point out differences between models, and you seem to be doing a pretty good job analyzing the various models already.

I say go for the Vulcan 900. But then again, I'm slightly biased because that is the bike I have and think it a damn fine motorcycle.

jstark47 wrote:Ummmm.....so what's your actual question? Nobody here can tell you which bike suits you best. We can only point out differences between models, and you seem to be doing a pretty good job analyzing the various models already.

I don't know that I have an actual question. It's more of a rant, really. The c50 was nicer in person than in pictures. The pictures don't do it justice.

I have the '01 version of your C50... Other than the fact that it's carb'd and not FI, it's basically the same bike. I'm not a small guy, 280 lbs. and it takes me up and around just fine. I haven't ridden two up yet, but I'm sure it'd be no problem, as I have had another 100lbs worth of stuff in the saddlebags and in my backpack, didn't even feel the difference, except in cornering. I do like the shaft drive though, very little maintenance, smooth, and soundless even at high speeds. Good luck with your choice!
Wrider

CycleNewb wrote:the c50 felt bigger and more substantial. I could flat foot it on both sides, and could easily hold 'er up with my legs only. The C50 had nice wide bars and you've jumped from roughly 40hp to 52hp, and from carb to efi for very little $ difference.

Exactly. I fail to see the appeal of the V-Star 650 at its current price point. Drop the price by $1000.00 or more and it would make sense, but the cost difference makes the C50 a no-brainer. You get a bigger bike that is better equipped for just a few hundred dollars more. It'll do 2-up just fine, as I've taken a passenger on my Dad's '05 more than once.

Stepping up to the Vulcan 900 is pretty much more of the same justification. You now have a more efficient belt drive and a disc brake in the rear, all for just a few hundred more.

I agree with the other folks. Bypass the 650 and look at the C50 or VN900. MotorcycleCruiser actually has a very good comparison on the C50/Vulcan models. Head out to your newstand and check it out. In the comparision they mentioned that the C50 had a better suspension and better suited for jaunts closer to home, while the VN900 was better suited for 2up riding and longer rides. The C50 was the best selling metric midsize cruiser last year so that says a lot so we'll see how the VN stacks up next year.

If I'd buy another Cruiser bike today, I'd choose the VN900. I've sat on both at the dealership and I prefer the VN900. Also the specs are better on paper. You get about 100cc more for not a lot of money. Disc brakes in the rear. Bigger gas tank (albeit lower MPG than the C50).

ZooTech wrote: Stepping up to the Vulcan 900 is pretty much more of the same justification. You now have a more efficient belt drive and a disc brake in the rear, all for just a few hundred more.

OK - what's the difference, or should I say benefit of a belt drive? You mentioned efficient, so can I assume it is less parasitic in terms of power robbing than the shaft giving more real power to the pavement? I've read that the benefit of the shaft drive is it's very "low maintenance"

How much real driveable difference is the rear disc over the drum, if the front brake does most of the work anyway?

Belt drive doesn't require any lubing, or any maintenance really except for checking it for wear and ensuring it is at the right tension during maintenance cycles.

CycleNewb wrote:OK - what's the difference, or should I say benefit of a belt drive?

It's a more efficient means of power transfer than a shaft drive, and it is lighter. I would consider it maintenance-free because whatever tensioning would be necessary over the life of the belt (25k-40k miles) ends up being addressed during each rear tire change, so you're never wrenching on the bike specifically for the purpose of tightening the belt.