Earlier today, Suzuki announced pricing and availability for the 2017 SV650 and SV650 ABS models. Both bikes will be in U.S. dealers next month with the Standard model priced at $6,999 and the ABS model priced at $7,499. Pricing and specifications are similar to a Yamaha competitor, the FZ-07, with slightly lower engine displacement and an additional 30 pounds curb weight. The Yamaha FZ-07 is one of our favorites, so we will be interested to ride the new SV650 at the U.S. press launch next week.
Follow this link for full specifications on both SV650 models. Here is the press release from Suzuki:
BREA Calif. (May 10, 2016) – Delivering V-Twin fun for all riders, Suzuki Motor of America Inc. announces the highly anticipated 2017 SV650 and SV650 ABS motorcycles will be available at Suzuki dealers in June at suggested retail prices of $6,999 and $7,499, respectively. Recreated and updated, the early-release 2017 SV650 and SV650 ABS elevate the performance standard for V-Twin street-sport bikes, and for motorcycles priced below $7,500.
The 2017 SV650 (both standard and ABS models) features a 645cc liquid-cooled, 90-degree V-twin with dual overhead cams and four valves per cylinder head. Fed by Suzuki’s Dual Throttle Valve (SDTV) fuel injection system the new SV650 engine features more than 60 new parts to create a more powerful and cleaner-burning V-twin.
The SV650 features Suzuki’s new one-push easy-start system, first introduced on the 2016 GSX-S1000, an automatic idle speed control and a new Low-Rpm assist feature that lets the rider accelerate the motorcycle effortlessly from a stop while reducing the chance of a stall.
The bike’s updated chassis incorporates 80 new parts and components, resulting in a slimmer and lighter overall package. The 2017 SV650 weighs 15 pounds less than the SFV650. The trellis frame is constructed of lightweight, high-strength steel and it exposes the beauty of the updated V-twin engine.
The new SV650 uses a pair of large 290mm front brake rotors and a 240mm rear brake rotor for incredible stopping performance and control (with *ABS available). The front suspension system uses 41mm telescopic Showa front forks, plus a link-type rear suspension. Together, the SV650’s suspension system ensures consistent and sporty handling performance. Radial tires run on stylish and lightweight 17-inch five-spoke cast aluminum wheels.
The new Suzuki SV650 will be available in in two colors: Pearl Mira Red, and Pearl Glacier White at a suggested retail price of $6,999. The SV650 ABS will be available in Pearl Mira Red for $7,499. Riders can find both models in Suzuki dealerships beginning in June, 2016.
*Depending on road surface conditions, such as wet, loose, or uneven roads, braking distance for an ABS-equipped vehicle may be longer than for a vehicle not equipped with ABS. ABS cannot prevent wheel skidding caused by braking while cornering. Please ride carefully and do not overly rely on ABS.
Note 2: ABS is equipped only with SV650A.
See more of MD’s great photography:
what cw said . . . we’re waiting on the MD review! I mean seriously, how hard can it be to rave about flick ability while bemoaning lack of bite.
It’s next week Dirck. Get on it.
I find it amazing that these new 650 twins put out more horsepower than the original CB750 which was dubbed a superbike and just a few less than the Kawasaki 903 Z-1 which was called the King of bikes, while weighing far less, handling better and having far better brakes with no carbs to tune, no points to adjust, no spokes to true, no tubes to replace, and still being as relaible as a stone. And some people say we haven’t made any progress in motorcyling.
You are totally correct.
However just as in cpus (or tech field overall) seems like we hit the point of dimishing returns and we would not see drastic changes or improvements (hey the GS500 is still being sold).
However… if government push for more strict environment laws we could see new designs, I read somewhere that even when the H2 it’s not more powerful than the ZX10R it’s way more efficient (don’t quote me on those “facts”).
So maybe stricter laws are what we are missing from getting supercharged bikes?
I don’t have much experience with motorcycles before the late ’90s (lol, yes, I know – pup.) But having ridden a few from the ’70s and ’80s, I personally can’t believe people don’t think we have made much progress either.
That said, there are still a few holdouts that shouldn’t be out in the market. Heck, I rode around on a pretty “new” DR650 not long ago and find it hard to believe that a Japanese company would still try to sell that to people. I mean come on… The Japan of Mr. Miyagi would have fallen on the sword in shame before peddling that off as a 2016 product offering.
^what Mickey said
It is V- engine. Pricey in production. Not enough pricey in terms of force calculation.
But, what about that ugly pegs in VFR 1200.
…
Huh?
The more I look at it, the more I want to talk about it… so I guess it’s growing on me. I know it’s one of the downsides of the V2, but still hate the plumbing wrapping around everywhere, but they did a good job, except for the canister…
In looking closely… like the frame… just which it stood out more, but not pink like the gladius. 🙂
All said, a fresh pipe and a few other things… and we’re probably pretty good. The colored wheels really help. Make the silver / blue the color to have!
I don’t mind that can, but I guess I’m a bit conditioned from the really bad Gladius can and all those previous years of massive Suzuki cans.
Plus the new can has a pretty decent sound.
I dont know why some people regard the new SVs frame to be a budget frame.
Steel trellis frames have lots of welds and are time consuming to produce so are not so cheap to produce.
If Suzuki really wanted to cut cost on the frame they would have gone for something like a back bone frame or a double cradle frame.
I read in an article back when the Gladius was release that Suzuki conceded that the steel trellis is cheaper to produce than the previous aluminum SV frame and added 14 lbs to the bike, but they claimed that the primary reason for going to steel was not cost reduction but rather it allowed them to drop the seat height by over an inch which they thought was the more important quality relative to the bike’s mission.
That’s interesting. It looks like they now reduced the weight back to that of the alum-framed gen-2 model. Magazines listed the wet weight of my ’03 as approx. 430 pounds, if I remember correctly, which is about what the ’17 will be (probably due to the more-expensive, high-strength steel). And, I’d thought the lowered seat height of the previous generation (‘hate the name, Gladius) resulted from the wafer-thin seat padding.
Yes, they are back to the ’03+ SV wet weight, though the original ’99-02 SV is still the weight champ for the lineage (I think it was 410 wet.)
Total seat height drop from the SV to the Gladius was something like 1.8 inches in total, so some of it probably came from the seat padding as well.
Re: “Steel trellis frames have lots of welds and are time consuming to produce so are not so cheap to produce.”
True, but the alloy frame’s cost goes up as volume goes down. If they’re making fewer, the steel gets to be cheaper from a lower tooling investment, which would be absorbed by a presumably high volume.
The first Suzuki SV frame was really ugly.
Thought to by that thing for a money.
If I were in the market for a new middleweight, this would definitely be the one I’d get! Now they need to bring back the SV1000; that I would be in the market for right now!
yep…still have my 03 SV1000 N
a great all around roadster….if only they hadn’t messed with the steering geometry. Its just not as quick turning as my 650’s were. The thrust of power is great!
Can we have an R version with a red frame, USD fork, quality shock, and another few horsepower? Triumph does this successfully with their Speed models. IF Suzuki could do that with a price premium of around $1000 I believe it’d be a hit.
man, now that would be a great idea!!!
You might be on to something there. Although many, many SV buyers like to pick/choose their improvements, which is half the fun. This new SV is a worthy “Base” for personalizing. Watch the aftermarket, they will respond to this model.
for me I’d rather have the $6995 base model and let me fix what I deem needs fixing, which may be nothing at all.
However having a base model and an upscale model couldn’t hurt and choices are almost always good.
From the First Ride review I’ve watched, it looks like Suzuki has fixed the previous standard SV’s overly-soft fork springs (heavy brake-dive), and jerky throttle response at lower revs (drove me crazy around town, trying to maintain a steady speed). Other than those two things (and the terrible standard seat), I was very happy with the bike’s power, handling, and sound. I’m happy to see it return at a reasonable price.
At the very least, I think you’ll be pleased with the change in the stock seat.
Can’t speak for a long run, but felt goo the two times I got to sit on it. Hopefully they’ll finally have a ’17 to ride at the Demo Days in June!
Only the price differential between the bottom-feeder units that Suzuki uses (and has always used) on the SV for brakes and forks and decent stuff would account for a damn sight more than $1000! You’d be looking at closer to a $9000 bike.
This is a *budget* bike. Tarting it up will just result in an expensive, “underpowered” bike for the price class it moves up to. Suzuki is wise to keep it this way, and let people that want to fix its shortcomings do it how they want – usually with cheap front-end off a crashed-out GSX-R. As it’s always been. 🙂
People have been asking for that bike since the SV was first introduced in 1999. Suzuki hasn’t seen fit to do it over the past 17 years, so I wouldn’t hold my breath. I think it would be a hit as well, though.
The good news is that 17 years worth of aftermarket development (most of which I bet still bolts right on to the new bike) means one at least has a lot of options to build your own “R” without breaking the bank.
I agree with you. USD forks, polished box frame, LED lighting, bump the lump’s size, power modes only in the right wrist and have ABS.
I like it. But I liked the original, as well. To my eyes, it’s basic shape looks better than the latest Monster, which has gotten way too over styled. Expensive Italian bikes, like many Hondas, do tend to look very spiffy once you get closer, though. If the frame is anything like the original, it will be stiffer than the FZ-07s.
Hey Stuki Moi, I agree. I have an 08′ naked and to my eye, this looks better. It has very pleasing lines, I like the softer tank profile and the trellis frame fits the style well. Good job by Suzuki here.
SUZUKI: “GET EXCITED ABOUT NOTHING!”
It is amazing and refreshing that a manufacturer like Suzuki can be this honest about their products. “Get excited about nothing” is on Suzuki’s website. How was this statement approved, as accurate as it is?
I have predicted the collapse of Suzuki for a long time. I cannot understand how racers, stunters and tools of all stripes still buy this tired product line. Has Suzuki performed the greatest Jedi mind trick ever? “These are the bikes you are looking for” “Buy one, and move along.” This is the same re-skinned crap from 10, 15 and 20 years ago. The Suzuki DR650 (1990) has continued in perpetuity for over 25 years! Is that a pigeon (peregrine) trying to fly the coop? The Suzuki Hayabusa is officially 17 years old! I can still remember the year 1999 when it came out. The bike’s copper-ish silver hue was a beautiful bike at the time, now bloated and aged, I think the same paint pattern is still being used!
I am not saying the bikes are not good; I am saying that the product is stale. If the biggest decision is what color and graphics to put on this year’s models, then something has gone awry. Suzuki tell us what the plan is. Where are you going with this?
Let me illustrate my point. The Suzuki SV650 you see here is the perfect example of having a great initial bike (1999), screwing it up by going angular (2003), then girly (2009), and then bringing it back around to this year’s version (2016) (back almost to where you started). Well, that only took 17 years. Progress is making advancements and this is not Suzuki’s strength.
Suzuki is very good at prodding the public with amazing concepts and then making sure, they never see the light of day like the (Recursion) turbo bike. This window dressing is illusion, not a business plan. They are very good at stringing the public along; the motorcycle magazines and websites have been complicit in this nonsense. Where is the next advancement?
If you have no answer for me and my homies (tools, duchebags, A- holes of all kinds) I suggest a boycott of Suzuki. They say nothing lasts forever. Well Suzuki’s 1990’s lineup is the veritable cockroach of the motorcycle industry. I will be excited when this lineup evolves, or is stepped on and killed outright. “Nothing to get excited about.” Suzuki you are always right! Time after time, after time, after….
On the one hand I’m thinking, Wow! That was quite the tirade!…
But then it kinda hits me – geez, he’s not too far off, is he? Not a whole lot of innovation going on there lately…
Sad but true.
I think it’s refreshing to know that the bikes were more than good enough then (and more than most people’s capabilities) and that still hasn’t changed. Change for the sake of change is what bankrupted the auto industry – Suzuki being a player in that arena too.
Pre 1996,in Australia, you could pick up a Suzuki Motorcycle franchise for next to nothing for all then obvious reasons very similar to what Sam has said.
Then they had a master stoke with the GSXR750 SRAD and then YAM, kAWA & Honda lost a lot of market share. So till the Yamaha R1,ZX7R, FireBlade arrived as renewed product in 1998, it was all Suzuki and the SRAD GSXR750 dragged interest back in the other Suzi bikes by getting bodies to come into the shops and look again.
As Sam said, the SV650 is not that product this time, but it has served it’s purpose in have Suzuki on the News Stand Magazines front page.
It is true the new SV650 coming about has barely changed. Yet, at 75hp it will still be the most powerful bike in the class despite the 17-yo architecture, its brakes and suspension will be on par with everything else, and it will potentially get better fuel economy than its competitors as well.
No, the 2017 doesn’t have USD forks or the latest Brembo brakes, but then neither does the FZ-07, Ninja 650 or the CBR650R (despite being priced way outside of this class.)
I think it is a testament to just how good the original bike was.
right on Jeremy. This is a lot of motorcycle for $6995.
“Lighten up, Francis.”
Personally, here’s what I see – Suzuki makes a lot of great motorcycles that are a bit overpriced relative to their competition. As a result, you can find them marked down drastically, and what you end up with is sort of a bargain shopper’s brand. I can buy a brand new V-Strom 1000 for under $8000 here. A GSX-S750 for $6500… GSX-R600s for $8000.
And, really… for many, many riders, there’s nothing on these bikes that really *needs* a whole redesign. If you add features and higher-end components, you add expense, which would compound whatever issues Suzuki already has. What’s the imperative for re-hashing the Hayabusa? Even the SV here – it’s an inexpensive, fun bike… what else does the market want?
If you don’t like it, there’s nobody forcing you to buy it. I’m just one that doesn’t understand anybody’s want/apparent need to seee every product re-designed every 15 minutes. It doesn’t make any sense – nor does it really lead to “advancement”, especially at a time when smaller manufacturers are concentrating their time and budgets on Euro4, not placating the 30-second attention spans of comment section posters…
Dear Selecter,
A re-design is not needed every 15 minutes, just every 15 years.
sam
Or…maybe it doesn’t that. If there were other bikes in the 650/700 class that made 80 or more horsepower, with a broad spread of power, weighed well under 400 lbs, came with advanced suspension, and maybe cost around $6700 or less, I’d say that this latest SV650 was outdated and uncompetitive.
Yet there aren’t, and it isn’t. The SV650 was once one of the most popular bikes around. If U.S. magazine tests show the latest SV650 to be comparable to its main competition, the Yamaha FZ-07, I’m betting that it will be again. It’s exactly the bike that a broad cross-section of motorcyclists are likely to want.
I’m willing to bet that a lot of folks will purchase the new SV650 just because of its looks and its 90-degree V-twin engine. I know that both of those things strongly make me prefer it over an FZ-07.
To be fair, the offerings in this class by the other brands aren’t exactly setting the world on fire either. The only reason Yamaha has a clean sheet design is that they never had a competing product to begin with. You could argue that the ER6 motor is essentially a hotted up GPZ500 in new clothes!
I’d also argue that this also demonstrates Suzuki as being ahead of their time, and understanding their market. The 17 year old Hayabusa has outlived and outsold two Kawasaki (ZX12, ZX14R) and two Honda (Blackbird and VFR1200) hypersport bikes. They’ll keep making them if people keep buying them.
a lot of truth there azi
+1
Oh relax and just ride it. It’s a terrific motorcycle.
Well said PN! I keep thinking, I still ride the same roads that I did back in the 90’s and I still like a simple, well-designed motorcycle. Some folks don’t ever get the sheer joy of riding. They seem to need innovation-meets-art (and a large price tag) to be satisfied. I’m happy that we all have choices, it’s a pretty good time to be a motorcyclist.
Apparently the priority was cost and not improving on the competition. A warmed over design may be good for short term profits but I would buy a used FZ-07 before I would spend the same money or more for this bike.
Apart from ABS why would you buy this? There are endless lightly used SV650 at bargain prices out there. Guess if you must buy new.
The low speed and easy start features could very well appeal to a noob. The lower seat height could appeal to one of lesser stature compared to Gens 1/2 (although il Gladiusso is lower, too).
I’ve seen people ask “why should I upgrade from my old SV”, but it’s not intended to be an upgrade. It’s an update. If your old bike is old and you want something newer – here’s this. If you want to upgrade, Suz likely wants to point you toward a S1000.
(I’d so S-750, but I’m suspicious that bike will disappear from at least some markets after this year).
It was a great bike universally loved. Probably still is a great bike but it probably says something about Suzuki’s situation that a bike which required almost no money to develop is no cheaper than more modern competitors. Hell it might be as good or better than them, but not as a butt naked I’m thinking. That price with some fairing, some optional bags perhaps, would make sense.
I love my new NC700. It’s great that 700’s pack the wallup of liter bikes of yore.
Looks like Suzuki is cutting corners Aprilia or even the new Benelli thats coming is more bang for the buck!!!!!Check out the CF Moto NK nice unit for 5k…..
I’ll have what you’re smoking
Lord, one CF Moto / Hyosung die-hard fan is enough. Just say “NO!” to whatever he is smoking.
ROFL
How about that new Benelli thats coming for 6999.00 with Brembo brakes and inverted forks 4 cylinder?????
Are you _trying_ to make me spray my beverage on the screen?
There’s a sliver of truth here, despite sounding like Hyosung Guy. I’ve test ridden a Benelli BN600 and I thought it was pretty good. It felt just like a Honda Hornet with better brakes and suspension.
I’d still buy an FZ07/MT07 if it was my own money though.
so you like the SV over the Benelli?? The suspension is dated on the SV?? Agree or disagree??
I think the Benelli is an attractive bike at an attractive price. I admit I’d still go with the Suzuki, though. It makes just as much power, weighs a lot less, has a great aftermarket and is a proven entity.
On top of that, the SV has four cams while the Benelli only has two!
Plus, I don’t even think I can buy a Benelli BN600 in the US.
That said, I think QJ is finally starting to figure out its Benelli acquisition, and I have a lot of optimism for the brand. One day in the not too distant future, I might be able to say I’d take the Benelli over another more established player. Just not today.
3 words: after sales support. There’s only one Benelli dealer in the whole state where I live, and they happen to be the national distributor. It has to be a pretty special bike for me to gamble on such limited support – and currently the BN600 isn’t special enough to take the risk. It’s competent, but not special.
Mel Harris who ran the show @ Suzuki is now VP Operations with SSR !!Myself sure will be nice to be riding a bike that creates its own catergory rather than fitting into the same bland bike Suzuki has introduced here.The sweet sound of a 4 cylinder 82hp to 72 and Brembo stopping power.The bikes will be available in a few months to dealers and if marketed right might be a good start for the US market
Turboman it’s back…
Our local BMW/Aprilia/Suzuki/Kawasaki dealer carries/carried CFMoto. Honestly, the “quality” of the welds and assemblies on the CF series of bikes was frightening. I’m willing to bet if you toned the frame out with a weld analyzer, the results wouldn’t be encouraging.
I would love to see an SV350 someday.
I loved my old SV, but I have to say a 30 lb. weight difference compared to the FZ-07 is huge. That will be hard to overcome.
This rider won’t care. They generally don’t shop spec-sheets, they shop price and capability (this may be why the Kawi EX500 held on so long?). From the saddle that 30lbs will be all but invisible. What is more noticeable is the FZ’s cramped cockpit dimensions (very short bar-reach, forward peg position), which some riders will like, others won’t.
I agree. Some bikes mask their weight far better than others, and I wouldn’t be surprised if the weight of SV and FZ are indistinguishable to anyone without a scale. Only a ride can tell the rider if the 30 lbs is truly a qualifying issue.
Yes, the FZ is too dinky. It is best for girls and small dudes.
(gasp)!!!
THE FZ IS GIRLS BIKE!THE FZ IS A GIRLS BIKE!!!!
[runs to be the first to tell all the forumzz]
🙂
I agree, 30 lbs wouldn’t mean squat to me. Ergos, power delivery, handling, braking ability are things that would out weigh 30 pounds of weight.
If 30 pounds meant anything to me, I’d halve my portions at lunch and dinner and start walking every day.
I have a 2003 SV 650 S. I love the style. I put on superbike bars to make it more comfortable for all day riding,steel braided brake line and new pads,upgraded the suspension, taller windscreen and custom saddle,power commander with custom fuel map and Yoshimura slip on.I love it and plan to keep it for along time.
The SV1000 S was never as popular. It never seemed to have the synergistic blend of the SV 650S .I’ve wondered why Suzuki never went with a SV850 S. That would give the FZ-07 and FZ-09 some real competition.
I have been clamoring for an 800 class SV for a couple of years now. (could be 850 or 900) seems like a no briainer to me…3 versions, sport tourer, naked and adv model
I think naked bikes always look good with a trellis frame… Liked the first edition and the second was ok even though Square, it was nice as they lengthened the stretch to the bars which was nice for 6 footers.
This cheap bike like all the others these days is a good base… is great for beginners and begs for MODS!!! Even if they were cheap… USD forks would have been a huge update to the styling… The forks on it look long and about like the ones off of my mountain bike. 🙂 But I do understand the intended target here…
did I mention I LOVE my Street Triple R
“…But I do understand the intended target here”
I think a certain part of the intended target will be previous owners who regret having sold theirs. I’ve spoken to a number of them who would be happy to have their old SV back.
“I think a certain part of the intended target will be previous owners who regret having sold theirs. I’ve spoken to a number of them who would be happy to have their old SV back.”
Yup.
#goodpoint
I think a certain part of the “intended target” will be previous owners who regret selling theirs. I’ve spoken to a number of them. This new one, at a competitive price (and offering the option of ABS) should fulfill that desire nicely.
I own an 08′ SV650 naked. The only mod is a Two Brothers can. I have 3 other bikes, including an FJR1300 and 900ss SP Ducati. When I have a couple of hours to ride, I always grab the SV. It’s light, powerful enough, comfy and handles good. It’s just one of those simple bikes that is easy to ride and let’s me just enjoy myself. It’s not leaving my garage anytime soon.
This latest offering looks to have the same formula as the 1st and 2nd gen models and should be a success.
I also found the SV650 a very satisfying ride, just love that L-twin engine!
The Gladius was a short thrusting and hacking sword used by Gladiators. Just saying.
Joey, do you like movies about gladiators?
Have ya’ ever been in a Turkish prison?
I am Spartacus!!
Lots of comparisons with the FZ, but the things that first jumps to mind is ABS – not an option on the Yamaha.
Am I the only one that prefers the trellis frame to the aluminum one?
Me to, big time.
There’s at least one more.
I like the look of the trellis frame more, but I don’t at all care for the extra weight that it adds over the old aluminum frame.
Also, the plastic frame beauty panel that was silver (to look like an aluminum plate) on the Gladius, is still there. It’s just black now. It covers up a seriously ugly part of the lower frame (a metal bar rather than a tube). Suzuki should have just cleaned up that area of the frame, rather than trying to hide it.
I think that Suzuki did a really good job of mixing modern looks with traditional style to make this bike appealing looking to everyone. It’s great that they avoided the Transformers look. I think that lots of folks will purchase a new SV650 over an FZ-07 based on looks alone
albeit a much smaller frame cover now.
I personally like the look of that part of the frame without the cover.
I do also like the new cover.
I too think steel trellis frame is much cooler than the aluminum one.
I disagree with people who say the new SV’s frame is a budget frame.
Steel trellis frames have lots of welds and are time consuming to produce and are not so cheap to produce.
If Suzuki really wanted to cut costs on the frame they would’ve gone for something like a back bone frame or a double cradle frame.
Looks worse than either of the first two models before the gladius. What did they update by the way… The gauges, the non stall feature? Really? Slower and heavy than the competition…. Way to go Suzuki… Way too bring back a classic winner with a ho hum.
Yes I’ve owned and upgraded many of the originals for track day and still have an original 99 with Penske and race tech forks and a full two brothers. This new one is not an upgrade but to those who don’t know about he old ones… And the price you can get one for… Go support the local economy and get you one… It’s a great bike I’m sure. 😉
I get the impression here that some people here think this motorcycle was “designed” just for your US market. You are getting the overflow from what is sold around the world. This bike will be pitched as a cheaper large bike in SE Asia, India, South Africa,and in the third world markets.
In Australia, we appear to be getting only a restricted ‘learners’ model that is limited to 35 KW where you will get the full biscuit 59 KW one. And waiting for a November summer time release date as well.
The price you pay for year-round riding and pet wallabies.
You had me until the specs said 3.8 gallon gas tank, 3.6 in California.
Then the word “Gladius” came into my mind. THAT’s where I saw this bike before.
This is a Gladius with a ROUND HEADLIGHT. We’ve been duped.
it’s an SV650…the Gladius was an SV 650 and by all accounts a fine little bike just bizarre name and paint scheme. This SV iteration matches up very favorably to an FZ07 in price, HP, 1/4 mile ET and top speed. It does weigh more, but it doesn’t look like a transformer. I’ve ridden both a Gladius and an FZ-o7 and frankly liked the SV more. It was smoother, and sounded better. Hard to go wrong with either one. Both have junk suspension, I think the FZ’s brakes were a tiny bit better. Tough choice. If it came down to weight only I guess the FZ would win.
btw the FZ-07 has a 3.7 gallon tank
Fie upon your blasted logic and prior, real-life experience!
The interweb forumZZ tell me the Gladys/Gaydius/(otherwise “feminine” epithet) suKkz so it must suck!!
WHY AM I NOT TYPING IN ALL CAPPPSSSSSS!?!?
The old SV had a 4.5 gallon gas tank. when they put the small one on the Gladius it killed it…
Having more gas capacity would be a good thing, I agree. Still it holds more than the competition (barely).
Fuel capacity (range really, not mpg) is a sticking point with me too. There is a ‘Strom 650 rider that rides with our sport-touring group from time to time that claims he routinely gets 57 – 59mpg without even trying. If that is the case with the SV, then I consider the range to at the “barely acceptable” rating with this tiny tank.
But more would definitely be welcome.
I’ve got a 2012 DL650 with a 5.2 gallon tank. I get in the upper 45-48 mpg, depending if I’m bucking stiff winds. The tank capacity should always exceed bladder commitment. I do carry an extra gallon of gas because the “trail boss” (Ramrod), tends to pick desolate areas to ride in. For the type of riding that I do – cross country riding, exploring and camping- this is damned near a perfect bike for me.
I don’t know who, exactly, you think was “duped.” Look at the 1st-generation SV; that is what this looks most like. This is the 4th generation SV. Time to let go of the Gladius name you and others are tightly clinging to. It’s meaningless. It’s gone. My 2nd-gen SV easily got 55 mpg, so a 3.8 gallon tank will take most far enough to be squirming on the thin seat.
I owned a 2000 model, it was a great bike. I sold my SV to upgrade to a Ducati Monster 1100. I hope Suzuki once again finds success with this SV model. Suzuki should have never given us the Gladius as a replacement.
I owned a SV650S, back in 2003. It’s great bike. Now, i own a FZ-07. For sure i will demo ride this new SV. I’m wondering wich bike will be the better one.
This bike sounds great with an aftermarket exhaust. It might not sell as well as the FZ-07, but it will sell and probably be more durable and reliable than the FZ-07 as it has been around for years and is well sorted. Very smooth engine with lots of aftermarket support. Definitely worth taking a look at if your in the market for a 650 twin.
The ’17 sounds just fine with the stock can, too.
Throaty without being obnoxious.
Unless one wants obnoxious…
It is hard to believe will be a serious competitor for the FZ07. I rode one 15 years ago and . care for it all that much then. It was always ugly but now it seems dated and heavy as well.
Had the original SV650S with the curvey fairing. Loved it.
I do quite like the looks of this one (the round headlight helps). Less of the Japanese manga effect, though there is a very ugly shroud to hide the tank seam. It looks like a grown up Honda VTR250. Whether it retains the high rev power depends on how much they have boosted the low end. Some of the scrambler options mentioned might be worth trying, to expand the market into the fashionable arena. For how to make a good looking motorcycle, refer to Triumph. Nobody else seems to get it.
“…to make a good looking motorcycle, refer to Triumph. Nobody else seems to get it.”
I wonder how they’d design a liquid-cooled V-Twin engine within a trellis frame? I own a Bonneville and love the looks of the new Street Twin, but this is a very different engine/chassis configuration.
I think Suzuki would to better to look at the Ducati lineup for V-Twin inspiration.
You think the new water-cooled Monsters look good? Well, they DO look good – on one side. The other is a total, hideous mess. The older, air-cooled models were gorgeous, I agree, but this new SV looks a lot better to me than the new Monsters.
Well, yeah, I thought the air-cooled Monsters were gorgeous, but the new liquid-cooled Ducati models look good on one side, but not very “inspiring” (i.e., a terrible mess) on the other. Suzuki kept their liquid-cooled engine relatively clean, by comparison.
Want to see a review for it? Just look up any Sv650 review from 10 years ago.
…or watch this:
http://www.visordown.com/road-tests-first-rides/suzuki-sv650-video-review/31055.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxUm56GU7f0
for those who doesn’t have flash player.
I saw two examples of the bike on display in Suzuki’s tent at Bike Week. I’m sorry to say, as a former Suzuki fan, they were disappointing. They had a cheesy, cheap look and feel (we could sit on them but no rides). It was little things like spaghetti handlebars, mediocre paint, cheap fasteners, etc. I hope they sell well because I’d like Suzuki to succeed, but I’m afraid that a buyer looking at an SV next to a competitor like an FZ is going to pass on the SV.
Can we get some centerstands and passenger grab handles on some of the standards 🙂 Thanks. SV looks nice.
I think it would have been in Suzuki’s best interest to do a little more such as give it a more modern USD fork and better brakes to modernize the look a bit. Returning to the SV’s aluminum frame vs. the Gladius’s steel one would probably go a long way to reviving the fanfare around this bike as well. Really, this is more of a re-styled Galdius than the return of the SV650.
But those are just nitpicks… I still think it is a very appealing bike that will do well against the competition. I like the makeover.
“Really, this is more of a re-styled Galdius than the return of the SV650.”
Why would this not be considered a re-styled 1st-gen SV? I just looked at photos of the first generation model, and, IMO, this ’17 is the best looking SV yet. I owned an ’03, and while fun to ride, I was never happy about its squared aluminum tubes and weirdly-shaped tank. The frame, this time around, is high-strength steel, and the bike is stated to weigh (wet) the same as my 2nd-gen aluminum version. I wonder why people are so hung up on the name, Gladius? Drop it already, guys. It has always been an SV, regardless of the temporary name change.
I have no issue with the name “Galdius”, and I am one of the few people that also thinks the Gladius was an attractive bike, more so than the SV650 it replaced. Like you, I think this 2017 bike is the best looking of the lineage.
The steel frame works for me personally and is preferable to the blocky aluminum one: it has a smaller, more attractive profile and probably absorbs vibrations better. (The aluminum tube frame from the original SV was pretty boss, though.) However, I still think a return to aluminum would help drive some sales as that was always a selling point of the original SV, and the changeover to the Gladius’s steel frame was perceived as a step backwards by consumers.
Again, not really a criticism of the bike itself, just thinking out loud about what would make the bike most successful. The SV also had a strong trackday/club racing following due in part to its bolt-on subframe, and it would have been nice to see that feature return though at least one can remove the passenger foot pegs again on the 2017.
I predict this will be a popular model based on my personal guideline. Is the tail light attractive? Laugh all you want and then look at the tail lights of popular models compared to the tail lights of not so popular models and suddenly I don’t seem so crazy.
It’s like a baby babboon’s
Always liked the SV. My nephew has had two of them and if he couldn’t destroy one, no one could, but they just keep on running. Only wish the back end was more passenger friendly. Looks like the bike has been rear ended by a truck. Sat on a new DL 650 the other day, when I was looking at a new Versys 650LT. Both were too tall for me. Hope this one is a little lower. I like the blue and white one.
30.8 inch seat height. Supposed shortest of its class.
I have been on the ’17 SV and the Wee and an definitely say the SV is considerably lower.
All the new Suzuki naked type bikes, like the GSX-S, seem to have the stinkbug look going. This one’s actually not too bad, mostly just looking like a sports bike, rather than something that’s been damaged in an accident.
Compared to the FZ-07, I predict the SV has a little less peak performance, displays it’s 30 lb greater mass, and its motor is a little smoother, with a wider/flatter torque curve.
The FZ-07 shall still own the street bike market in this price range, and that’s unlikely to change in the near future.
The 30 lbs. sure doesn’t help. Might make more torque than the FZ, we’ll see, but I’m afraid I probably still lie on the FZ side of things.
Amazing how much that twin 650 engine can be sold…
They should make that engine the “stick this engine everywhere” like Honda parallel 500cc twin and sell the
TL650RR for those who want a track tool with better suspension and brakes
SV650 the sweet standard
DL650 the “”adventurous”” one
DR650 the “my scrambler is faster than yours” one
VLD660 Very Long Distance
gee this is the day when the Hyosung reference was actually appropriate…. oh well
Dealers don’t have the room or bandwidth for so many models. We get the SV and the DL, those more specific models won’t sell in large enough numbers to warrant their existence, they’ll just eat into Suzuki’s and the dealer’s profits in carrying costs and closeout pricing.
Well, that’s true.
OTOH the diferent CB500 models aren’t that different.
I still don’t get why companies refuse to create some interchangeable pieces (Maybe issues registering them? vehicle goverment institutions?)
While not a true touring bike (like in 1600cc touring bike) a bigger fuel tank, adjustable wind screen and paniers could make it a tourer.
And a different subframe could easily change a lot of the bike spirit in the cafe racer or “look mam, 2nd level race bike passenger seat” direction.
going the other way around from a very specialized bike could be more difficult (check for example the mess of cables below the ST1100 fairings).
Modularity.
Ditto.
I agree, lots of potential and possibilities. Suzuki lacks the reach and volume of Honda (also, Honda really didn’t have any bikes in this displacement class for a long time). They’re coming out from under their economic downturn much more slowly than the other Japanese brands and I hope they do well. I still own a 1st gen SV520s and I like it a lot.
How about a TL650?
http://images.mcn.bauercdn.com/upload/290323/images/SUZUKI%20SV%20650%20TRAIL%20CONCEPT.jpg
That Bezzi draws some interesting motorcycles.
Bingo!
great styling concept to bad it would only hold a half gallon of gas
even betta
http://a38898d4011a160a051fb191.gearheads.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/ConceptSV.jpg?dc1e0f
I think the DR is a single unless you know something I don’t.
I used the DR moniker to “evoke” the dirt serious (pun) intentions, but you are right they are singles.
On the curious side note I thought the DR800 was a twin but it was an 800cc single geee.
I was really expecting for this bike to be nothing more than nice new styling on top of a bike that otherwise hasn’t been truly updated (other than styling and a cheaper frame) in over a decade. To the eye it has the same outdated suspension and the same brakes that one wouldn’t expect to provide modern braking performance.
But so far the foreign motorcycle magazines have been raving over this bike. I can’t wait to see what the U.S. press has to say about it, and how it does in comparison tests with the Yamaha FZ-07.
Suzuki desperately needs a bike that is a hit right about now. This bike could appeal to beginners, re-entry riders, and even experienced riders alike.
It’s already got the FZ-07 beat in the clean-‘n’-classic looks department, not that my opinion counts for much on that front. And while parallel twins have grown on me (I’m pretty fond of my CB500X), old SV650 experience tells me I’d probably take the V-twin instead.
One thing’s for sure: Nobody can complain about oil filter access!