Need input: 1st gen MKI vs 2002 RSV

[Great White]

So here's the story:

 

I've got a 1983 Venture.

 

Ive bought a 2002 RSV transmission (complete).

 

I was looking to buy a used (new design) shift sector to replace my "bent tab" style sector and ran across a complete 2002 transmission for what it would have cost to just buy a new sector, so I scooped it all up.

 

From what I've read, the RSV and teh 1st gen MKI look pretty close for weight and HP (both around 800-ish lbs and around the 98 HP mark). The MKI is perhaps a little bit lighter and a little bit more HP.The final and middle drives are the same ratios.

 

I'm considering dropping the entire 2002 RSV transmission in to my 83 MKI cases. I have to open it up either way to do the split/thrust washer fix.

 

The RSV has a bit taller gearing and I'm wondering if anyone who has ridden both a GenI and an RSV (the 98HP version) can give me their impressions of the differences between the two in normal riding?

 

I mainly use my 83 for bopping around town and going back and forth to work. I don't want to drop in too high a ratio gearset and ruin its good around town manners.

 

I figure if the 800 lb 98 HP RSV can pull it's self around in decent fashion, my 83 engine with slightly more HP and slightly less weight so do just fine. I just don't know how a RSV behaves around town.

 

I don't have the money to buy a VMax final drive right now either (to pull the overall ratio back down a bit), so that's not an option. At least until next winter or so...so that means two riding seasons with the RSV transmission and MKI final drive if I decide to swap in the RSV transmission.

Edited June 3, 2015 by Great White

[videoarizona]

(The RSV has a bit taller gearing and I'm wondering if anyone who has ridden both a GenI and an RSV (the 98HP version) can give me their impressions of the differences between the two in normal riding?)

 

I wouldn't do the swap for the reasons you gave of just riding around town. The 1st gen is about 50 pounds lighter and a whole lot more nimble. The 2nd gen gearing is really made for touring the interstates over 65mph. I own both scoots and really enjoy the 1st gen for town and hills touring. On 2nd gen around town I'm never higher than 3rd gear...and in hills ... I'm shifting or leave it in 4th.

 

I personally think the 1st gen is really geared perfectly and as such, is truly a sport touring bike. The 2nd gen is geared to high in 5th. If you pull a load or a trailer, 5th gear is useless unless you are hitting 80 all the time...straight and level.

 

Bottom line for me: I'll use the 1st gen for camping in the hills...more storage and far better gearing for those kind of loaded rides. I'll use the 2nd gen for long interstate stuff.

 

If you decide to go with a VMax rear end at some point in future...then the 2nd gen tranny may make a nice combo for you on the 83. But you need to be able to live with the 2nd gen tranny until the VMax rear becomes reality for ya.

 

Last thought...if you don't mind zipping to work in 4th gear..then that will work if you run around 45 to 65 mph. I've found my 2nd Gen mpg's goes up cruising at 55 to 65 in 4th gear...never shifting to 5th. If you can handle those additional rpms, then this argument could be a moot point.

 

david

call me if you want to discuss...

 

Edited June 3, 2015 by videoarizona
spelling - hope I caught them all!

[Wizard765]

personally I think you will be happy with it.. I went from an 84 to a 2000 and it took a season to really get use to it.. The only thing that I miss is rolling through small towns with my feet up on the hiway pegs at less than 35 mph and be able to roll on the throttle at the end of town. 2nd gen needs to gear down if you get that slow.. BUT I like the gearing on major hiways.. like traveling along at 70mph is very nice with the 2nd gen gearing.. Most of my riding is back country roads and it works fine for me.. In town I never get above 4th..

[Great White]

(The RSV has a bit taller gearing and I'm wondering if anyone who has ridden both a GenI and an RSV (the 98HP version) can give me their impressions of the differences between the two in normal riding?)

 

I wouldn't do the swap for the reasons you gave of just riding around town. The 1st gen is about 50 pounds lighter and a whole lot more nimble. The 2nd gen gearing is really made for touring the interstates over 65mph. I own both scoots and really enjoy the 1st gen for town and hills touring. On 2nd gen around town I'm never higher than 3rd gear...and in hills ... I'm shifting or leave it in 4th.

 

I personally think the 1st gen is really geared perfectly and as such, is truly a sport touring bike. The 2nd gen is geared to high in 5th. If you pull a load or a trailer, 5th gear is useless unless you are hitting 80 all the time...straight and level.

 

Bottom line for me: I'll use the 1st gen for camping in the hills...more storage and far better gearing for those kind of loaded rides. I'll use the 2nd gen for long interstate stuff.

 

If you decide to go with a VMax rear end at some point in future...then the 2nd gen tranny may make a nice combo for you on the 83. But you need to be able to live with the 2nd gen tranny until the VMax rear becomes reality for ya.

 

Last thought...if you don't mind zipping to work in 4th gear..then that will work if you run around 45 to 65 mph. I've found my 2nd Gen mpg's goes up cruising at 55 to 65 in 4th gear...never shifting to 5th. If you can handle those additional rpms, then this argument could be a moot point.

 

david

call me if you want to discuss...

 

 

Thanks for that mini review.

 

Interesting that you run the RSV in 4th, which is virtually the same as the Gen1 ratio 5th.....0.906 vs 0.960

[videoarizona]

(Thanks for that mini review.

Interesting that you run the RSV in 4th, which is virtually the same as the Gen1 ratio 5th.....0.906 vs 0.960)

 

 

Hmm..didn't know that. I feel better about being in 4th all the time. Thanks!

david

[Great White]

(Thanks for that mini review.

Interesting that you run the RSV in 4th, which is virtually the same as the Gen1 ratio 5th.....0.906 vs 0.960)

 

 

Hmm..didn't know that. I feel better about being in 4th all the time. Thanks!

david

 

Here's some info I have gathered if you'd like to look it over:

 

83-98 (Ventureriders.org)

[TABLE=class: MsoNormalTable, width: 501]

[TR]

[TD=width: 290] Transmission [/TD]

[TD=width: 372] Constant mesh 5 speed[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=width: 290] Primary reduction system [/TD]

[TD=width: 372] Spur gear[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=width: 290] Primary reduction ratio [/TD]

[TD=width: 372] 87/49 (1.775)[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=width: 290] Secondary reduction system [/TD]

[TD=width: 372] Shaft drive[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=width: 290] Secondary reduction ratio [/TD]

[TD=width: 372] 21/27 x 33/10 (2.566)[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=width: 290] Operation [/TD]

[TD=width: 372] Left foot shift[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=width: 664, colspan: 2] Gear ratio:[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=width: 290] 1st gear [/TD]

[TD=width: 372] 39/15 (2.600) - 11.88[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=width: 290] 2nd gear [/TD]

[TD=width: 372] 39/22 (1.772) - 8.09[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=width: 290] 3rd gear [/TD]

[TD=width: 372] 31/23 (1.347) - 6.17[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=width: 290] 4th gear [/TD]

[TD=width: 372] 31/29 (1.068) - 4.89[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=width: 290] 5th gear [/TD]

[TD=width: 372] 29/32 (0.906) - 4.16[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

 

99 (1999 service manual)

[TABLE=class: MsoTableGrid, width: 504]

[TR]

[TD=width: 319] Transmission: [/TD]

[TD=width: 354, colspan: 3] Constant mesh 5 speed[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=width: 319] Primary reduction system [/TD]

[TD=width: 354, colspan: 3] Spur gear[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=width: 319] Primary reduction ratio[/TD]

[TD=width: 354, colspan: 3] 87/49 (1,776)[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=width: 319] Secondary reduction system[/TD]

[TD=width: 354, colspan: 3] Shaft drive[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=width: 319] Secondary reduction radio [/TD]

[TD=width: 354, colspan: 3] 21/27 _ 33/10 (2.567)[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=width: 319] Transmission type[/TD]

[TD=width: 354, colspan: 3] Constant mesh 5-speed[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=width: 319] Operation[/TD]

[TD=width: 354, colspan: 3] Left foot operation[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=width: 445, colspan: 2] Gear ratio [/TD]

[TD=width: 96] OEM Final[/TD]

[TD=width: 132] VMax final[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=width: 319] 1^st[/TD]

[TD=width: 126] 43/17 (2.529) [/TD]

[TD=width: 96] 11.530 [/TD]

[TD=width: 132] 12.805[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=width: 319] 2^nd[/TD]

[TD=width: 126] 31/19 (1.632) [/TD]

[TD=width: 96] 7.440 [/TD]

[TD=width: 132] 8.263[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=width: 319] 3^rd[/TD]

[TD=width: 126] 30/25 (1.200)[/TD]

[TD=width: 96] 5.471 [/TD]

[TD=width: 132] 6.076[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=width: 319] 4^th[/TD]

[TD=width: 126] 24/25 (0.960)[/TD]

[TD=width: 96] 4.377 [/TD]

[TD=width: 132] 4.861[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=width: 319] 5^th[/TD]

[TD=width: 126] 22/28 (0.786)[/TD]

[TD=width: 96] 3.583 [/TD]

[TD=width: 132] 3.980[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

 

Seems that without redesigning hte box, they wanted to drop highway rpm. It looks like they essentially made it a 4 speed and used 5th as a 25% overdrive. This is why I was wondering how a RSV ran compared to a Gen1.

 

Would you say your RSV is comparable to a gen1 as a 4 speed (ie: not using 5th around town) or would it still be, what could be considered, "lazier"?

Edited June 3, 2015 by Great White

[Great White]

screw it. I'm all in.

 

Bought an 86 VMax final drive off ebay for 70 bucks plus shipping and it included the drive shaft.

 

Wife is not going not be happy with me.....I'm definitely done buying parts now.

 

I may be afraid to go to sleep after she sees I put it on the visa card......

Edited June 3, 2015 by Great White

[videoarizona]

I think you will be happier with scoot...for sure!

Let's hope that helps with the visa card issue! (know that feeling well - with wifemate)

david

[MiCarl]

The 2nd gen has a smaller diameter rear wheel which has the effect of making the rear ratio taller. You need to figure that into your reasoning.

 

Of course the taller ratio in the V-max final will compensate for that.

[Great White]

I manned up and told the missus. She said no worries, she understands.

 

Keep your distance men, she a keeper and she's mine!

 

[Great White]

The 2nd gen has a smaller diameter rear wheel which has the effect of making the rear ratio taller. You need to figure that into your reasoning.

 

Of course the taller ratio in the V-max final will compensate for that.

 

I get your reasoning but it's not a factor here.

 

The rear wheel will not be changing (stock 1983) so the effect on the bike (ie: rpm, acceleration, etc) will be all in the drivetrain.

 

Wheel size will be a factor for consideration when I machine the center out of the 86 wheel I have for a 17" radial conversion though...

[MiCarl]

My point was you're asking for impressions of 2nd gen vs. 1st gen. The 2nd gen has a smaller rear wheel which increases the ratio a bit. In other words, a 2nd gen tranny in a 1st gen results in a lower overall ratio than a 2nd gen has.

[Great White]

1983 = 140/90 16 = 20.96 overall dia

 

2002 = 150/90 15 = 20.31 overall dia.

 

Difference?

 

Yup.

 

Significant?

 

Not really.

 

Definitely not for purposes of "butt dyno" comparisons

 

 

 

 

(those are tire sizes I pulled off the net by googling the year, all bets are off if the tires are not stock sizes)

Edited June 4, 2015 by Great White

[videoarizona]

((Would you say your RSV is comparable to a gen1 as a 4 speed (ie: not using 5th around town) or would it still be, what could be considered, "lazier"?))

 

 

BJ, apologies...missed your last question. Yes...good way to put it. All the gearing seems a bit lazier on 2nd gen.

[cruiserlover]

I have owned 2 83's and now an 01 rsv.My impressions are the second gen bike handles just fine in town as long as you dont have to stop.Its a bear at low speeds,like less than 5 mph.I try to avoid rush hour.Both bikes are top heavy, feel about the same to me.I think my first gen with only 38,000 miles on it handled better than my second gen, but its got 87,000 miles,probably due spring upgrade.I do feel 5th gear is like an overdrive.But both bikes have so much torque.On both bikes there is a long ramp pulling onto the interstate where I live.Both bikes I have reached down countless times to shift into 5th only to find it there already.My second gen has cruise control.Number one improvement for me.I think the powerbands feel the same.On both bikes I had to shift down to second gear going around a corner in the heighborhood.Its bad to lug any bike in my opinion.The first gen seat is 10 times more comfortable.If I was going to buy another venture it would be one that doesnt exist with all the features we have written about here on other threads.As far as handling and overall comfort , first gen wins on handling and comfort, but ah that cruise control.Plus the first gen styling is very old looking,not appealing to me.

[Great White]

No worries on the cruise control. My 83 is getting venturecruise and CLASS from an 86 royale this winter.

 

 

I wasn't really looking for how the RSV handles, just how the gearing felt, but I'm sure some one will read your mini review and benefit from it.

 

Edited June 9, 2015 by Great White

[cowpuc]

I have owned 2 83's and now an 01 rsv.My impressions are the second gen bike handles just fine in town as long as you dont have to stop.Its a bear at low speeds,like less than 5 mph.I try to avoid rush hour.Both bikes are top heavy, feel about the same to me.I think my first gen with only 38,000 miles on it handled better than my second gen, but its got 87,000 miles,probably due spring upgrade.I do feel 5th gear is like an overdrive.But both bikes have so much torque.On both bikes there is a long ramp pulling onto the interstate where I live.Both bikes I have reached down countless times to shift into 5th only to find it there already.My second gen has cruise control.Number one improvement for me.I think the powerbands feel the same.On both bikes I had to shift down to second gear going around a corner in the heighborhood.Its bad to lug any bike in my opinion.The first gen seat is 10 times more comfortable.If I was going to buy another venture it would be one that doesnt exist with all the features we have written about here on other threads.As far as handling and overall comfort , first gen wins on handling and comfort, but ah that cruise control.Plus the first gen styling is very old looking,not appealing to me.

@cruiserlover, I would be one of those that has benefited by your response. THANK YOU for taking the time to respond!! They you for including a good overall perspective of the differences between the two bikes including both responsiveness to gearing differences and handling thoughts.. My friend, you even touch on something I have been wondering about for a long time = comparing seating comfort!! Very well done Cruise!!

[cruiserlover]

thanks my friend.

[cowpuc]

thanks my friend.

 

YOU BETCHA CRUISE!!!

[videoarizona]

((On both bikes there is a long ramp pulling onto the interstate where I live.Both bikes I have reached down countless times to shift into 5th only to find it there already.))

 

Funny...I'm the opposite. On a similar situation...both bikes...long uphill ramp to freeway, I find myself accelerating to merge...then realize I'm way over the speed limit (75mph) and STILL IN 4TH! Especially the 2nd gen. There have been a few times I've forgot that I wasn't in 5th with 2nd gen until a few miles down the road. Since GW posted the above gearing info...I now understand why.