1996 Suzuki Dr650
1996 SUZUKI DR650
CYCLE WORLD TEST
HITTING THE DUAL-PURPOSE NAIL DEAD SQUARE ON THE HEAD
BATHED IN A SWIRLING SEA OF LIGHT AT Suzuki's annual dealer meeting last fall in Las Vegas, the all-new GSX-R750 repli-racer stole the show, drawing oohs and ahhs from enthusiastic shop owners and media types alike. Response to the electric-start DR650SE dual-purpose bike, likewise redrawn from the axles up, was somewhat less impassioned.
You needIn’t criticize show attendees. After all, the previous DR650 appeared capable of conquering the Paris-Dakar Rally, what with its powerful single-cylinder engine, capacious fuel tank, Euro-enduro styling and long-travel suspension. In use, though, the bike proved more cushy street machine than rip-roaring trail blazer. Suffice to say, the new model is much, much better. In fact, it’s a quantum leap over past large-bore DRs, on and off the pavement.
At the heart of the DR650SE is an engine that’s not a complete break from the past. Rather, it’s a much improved and refined version of the sohc, air-cooled Single that powered past models. Don’t expect many parts to interchange, though; the alterations are substantial, all aimed at boosting performance while trimming size and weight.
Externally, the new package looks more like a wet-sump DR350 motor than the lumpy, mid-Eighties SP600 engine upon which the previous DR650 was based. Crankcase dimensions are thinned, thanks to the use of a single gear-driven counterbalancer. The cylinder head, with its pent-roof combustion chamber, narrower valve angle, larger intake valves and smaller sparkplugs, is more compact. And the iron cylinder liner is gone, replaced by high-tech nickel-siliconecarbide plating said to reduce friction and wear, and improve heat dissipation.
Cool running is further enhanced by Suzuki Advanced Cooling System (SACS), long a mainstay of the company’s top-line sportbikes.
In the DR, oil passes first through the filter and cooler before flooding the passageways above the combustion chamber. Then it’s channeled through an external line that branches off to the crankshaft and transmission.
In any case, the new engine performs admirably. Horsepower and torque are up and acceleration significantly improved. Compared to our last DR650 testbike, a 1992 model, 0-to60 mph times dropped half a second to 5.0 seconds. More importantly, top-gear roll-ons plummeted from 5.4 seconds to 3.9 seconds (40-to-60 mph) and 7.0 seconds to 4.5 seconds (60-to-80 mph). That’s quicker than Honda’s XR650L, Kawasaki’s KLX650 and KTM’s 620 R/XC. (The more powerful KTM is swifter 0to-60 and in the quarter-mile, but not by much.) The engine is also exceptionally smooth for a big-displacement four-stroke Single, particularly at highway speeds. Some quaking prevails off idle, but otherwise, it’s mostly smooth going right up to maximum rpm. As with the 1994 and ’95 models, kickstarting is a thing of the past; an electric starter combined with an internal mechanicaldecompression system, CDI ignition and a maintenance-free battery make starting a no-nonsense affair.
Cold starts are a snap: Full choke, no throttle, squeeze the clutch and punch the button. Nothing more is necessary. The engine warms quickly, and carburetion is very good, particularly under full-throttle acceleration. Some surging during steady-state cruising is apparent, though. Clutch action is very smooth and linear, even when subjected to the rigors of dragstrip duty. Transmission ratios are nicely spaced (third
gear is changed, as are the primary and final-drive ratios), and shifting is light, smooth and quiet. It’s worth noting, however, that our testbike occasionally popped out of second.
Not content solely with an all-new engine, Suzuki conceived a fresh frame, pairing rectangular and round steel tubing in a package that is not only more compact, but a claimed 13 percent more torsionally rigid. Weight was a factor here, too. The triple clamps, steering stem, rear suspension linkage and engine-mounting components are aluminum, as is the inch shorter box-section swingarm. The latter helped reduce the bike’s wheelbase to 58.7 inches. Hollow axles with larger outside diameters and a more compact rear-hub assembly are also used.
Suspending the DR is a Kayaba fork and a single, reservoir-equipped Kayaba shock. The non-adjustable fork is a conventional damper-rod design, but the sliders, which are pressed and bonded to cast axle clamps, are extruded from Duralumin (like the RM motocrossers) and anodized for reduced friction and wear. Thinner-wall stanchions measure 43mm in diameter and boast improved rigidity. There’s 10.2 inches of travel at either end, and adjustments for spring preload and compression damping out back.
On the road, the firmed-up suspension flat works. Both ends are very compliant and do a good job of keeping the bike planted on the pavement. You’d expect this in flat, smooth comers, but toss in frost heaves and potholes and the balance is still evident. Even two-up, the suspension responds well to high-speed dips that would likely cause the old bike to bottom.
But wait, there’s more to the DR than meets the eye. At the expense of suspension travel and ground clearance, seat height can be lowered about 1.5 inches to better suit less experienced and/or shorter riders. Although the two-hour job is relatively simple (you must remove the damper rods in the fork and partially disassemble the shock), Suzuki recommends taking the bike to an authorized dealer-you’ll be there anyway to purchase the obligatory shorter sidestand ($43). In lowered form, the DR is an even better streetbike, hugging curves with real tenacity. There’s less tendency for the bike to pitch around on its suspension, too, giving a greater feeling of control.
Like most original-equipment dual-purpose tires, the Bridgestone Trail Wings are a compromise. They offer plenty of stick on the pavement, but venture off road and grip slips considerably. DOT-approved knobbies make a big improvement; with better traction you still feel the bike’s mass, though not nearly as much as in previous years. Even so, you won’t want to attempt the “A” loop at a nationallevel enduro; the DR is no KTM, after all.
Based on the bike’s reduced weight, Suzuki fitted a smaller, 11.4-inch floating front disc and a more compact twinpiston Nissin caliper. While strong and progressive, the brake faded and was smoking hot (yes, smoking!) after a handful of all-out dragstrip stops. Allowed to cool, the brake worked fine again on the street with no indication of warping. Out back, a solid-mounted rotor and a single-piston caliper offer reasonable feel and control.
So, this remodeled DR650SE is a remarkable roadbike and-compared to its predecessor-a pillar of proficiency in the dirt. Will it sell at $5199? Hard to say. For the record, that’s an $800 increase over last year, which puts the bike’s price on par with that of Honda’s XR650L and Kawasaki’s KLX650, but many hundreds less than that of an ATK 605 or a KTM 620 R/XC. What we do know is this: The DR650SE now offers a very appealing mix of athleticism and refinement. For many riders, it may well be the ideal dual-purpose street/dirt mix-and the factory lowering kit means that anybody, regardless of inseam, can get in on the go-anywhere, do-anything fun.
Which, come to think of it, is precisely the point of the exercise.
SUZUKI DR650
$5199
EDITORS' NOTES
I HAVE AN ’89 YAMAHA XT600 WITH 18,000 miles on it. I liked this bike for its smooth torquey motor, its low, comfortable seat and its ability to function without maintenance. But I hated its grease-pumper shock and severely underpowered brakes, so I hacked in an XR500 shock and have yet to figure out a cheap fix for the brakes. But I have fun riding this bike; it has a sentimental value.
And of all the D-P bikes I’ve tested, there’s not one that could replace my of XT. I’m not saying that the Honda XR650L or KTM R/XC aren’t better performing bikes, for me they’re just too dirt focused to function as effective everyday mounts. On the flip side, current Yamaha XTs, Kawasaki KLR/KLXs and the former DR650 are biased too far on the street side.
So, out of the blue comes this DR650, all the things I like in a D-P bike, and brakes and suspension that make my Yamaha feel like an old pile. Thank God I’m not married to the XT. —Jimmy Lewis, Off-Road Editor
I LOVE NEARLY EVERYTHING ABOUT THIS new DR650SE, from its smoother, more powerful engine and beefed-up suspension components to its compact, DR350-like proportions. But I particularly admire the fact that it’s transformed my daily commute from a mild-mannered romp through the gears to an exhilarating adventure. Really, riding this bike is more of a rush than a Starbuck’s Caffé Americano.
Truth is, I’m not the only one who feels this way: The condition seems to have also affected my co-workers, especially Road Test Editor Don Canet. Just the other day, he strolled into my office and casually revealed he’d spent the morning sliding around an enticingly undeveloped housing tract. Addictive things, these DRs.
Suzuki, I beg you, can we please hang onto this one for a while, if only to study the long-term durability of its highzoot cylinder plating? The mere thought of the bike’s departure causes me to twitch uncontrollably.
-Matthew Miles, Managing Editor
OKAY, HERE’S THE DEAL. IT ALL COMES down to compromise, that watchword of dual-purposedom. If you take your dirt riding seriously, clomp on into your local KTM emporium and pony up for the 620 R/XC, a marvelous machine that has swept all before it in CWs Ten Best Bikes balloting for the past two years. A notch below the Katoom on the dirtabilty scale comes Honda’s XR650L, Best Dual-Purpose Bike in 1993, close second to the R/XC in ’94 and ’95. The L almost matches the Austrian bike in handling and power, and brings the convenience of electric starting to the table.
Suzuki’s new 650 will not outroost either bike on the trail, but spoon some decent knobs onto its rims, keep doublejumps to a minimum, and there aren’t too many places the DR won’t take you. Plus, back in civilization, the Suzuki’s street manners outshine both the KTM and Honda. No, it’s not as good a dirtbike, but I’m not so sure it isn’t the better dual-purpose machine. -David Edwards, Editor-in-Chief
