Comparison of Gen1, MK1/MK2; My thoughts

[luvmy40]

I just picked up an '86 Venture Royale after riding the '83 Venture Standard for 4 years or so. Aside from the cosmetic differences, here is what I see at first blush as far as performance comparison.

 

The '83 1200 is snappier with more aggressive acceleration and more agile.

The '86 1300 is more stable at highway speeds, though the '83 is far from unstable.

The '86 runs cooler, at least the temp gauge on the '86 stays much further down in the green than the '83. Maybe different temp range on the gauge?

 

The acceleration and stability may have as much to do with the fact that the '83 has a short wind screen and the '86 has the factory spec screen. I know the '86 is slightly heavier so that would have some slight effect on both.

 

Other than the displacement, are the engines identical? Cams, timing, valves, etc?

 

As far as the Royale amenities go;

 

I can take or leave a radio on any motorcycle. If it's there I'll use it sometimes. If it's not there, I don't miss it.

 

I love an intercom system for road trips. It remains to be seen if I will prefer the wired intercom over the Team Ride bluetooth system that I used to run.(batteries are done and not replaceable in that cheaper system) I need to transfer the head sets from the 33 year old matching helmets to our modular helmets. I hope the mic boom is long enough to work with them.

 

I'll likely never use the CB but it is a nice insurance policy for backing up the cell phones in emergency situations.

 

The CLASS is a major plus! I love being able to quickly switch from one up soft suspension to two up loaded settings.

BTW, the '86 either has progressive fork springs installed or the factory springs were better than those in the '83. The front end is much stiffer than the '83, even with little air pressure.

 

The larger capacity luggage is a major plus, but not being able to quickly remove the trunk or side bags is a major minus in my book. Not a deal breaker by any stretch but still a bit of a downer on what, in all other areas is a fantastic ride.

 

I miss having the stowage area in the main fairing but I'll get used to using the smaller bags mounted on the fairing. They are not waterproof, as it turns out! They may be improved with an application of Camp Dry.

 

Well, that's what I see at first. I'll see how different doing tires and other routine maint. is this weekend.

[cowpuc]

I know the carbs are different on em but not so sure on Valve or Ignition Timing or whether any of the top end parts are different. I also know the MK1's will turn 12's in the quarter, top 130 fairly easily and pulls solid from bottom R's to top R's and the need to stay in R's above 3 grand to make the smaller 1200 perform effeciently/effectively when two up and loaded is a myth (it'll lug at the bottom with the best of any Big Twin and slay em at the top), not sure on the MK2's?

I also got a hunch that come tire swappin time (especially at road side or in a dealership parking lot in the desert heat) you will miss the 20 minute wheel off time of the simplisity of the MK1 but will LOVE the advantage of top opening - much bigger bags. Hey Rich,, maybe devise a quick detach for the bags on the MK2?

I also got a sneaking hunch you are gonna LOVE the brake updating on the 2 as well as the clutch, the tranny (bye bye 2nd gear ??'s), the water pump, and the frame but maybe not the seat = oh gosh I LOVE the MK1 OEM seat!!

I am with ya on the hype of all the bling and add on's and am more of a "give me the simplisity of just two wheels and a motor" lop eared touring varmint myself Rich but definitely see why some folks like the stuff and glad they do = anything to keep our sport alive.. Being relocated to strickly local riding these days and a good mix of demo riding therein,, I am anxiously waiting for the chance to play on the new Wing with it's slimmed down MK1 sporty touring bike look to see if Honda is taking a shot at going back to slimmer days = sort of opposite of what you are having fun playing with.

Good thread brother! Looking forward to hearing what other club members have to say about it all! Also, all the very best in your Venture adVenture!! Keep em rolling my friend:biker:

[luvmy40]

I didn't mention the brakes in the OP because I did not want to compare them to the delinked brakes on the '83.

 

However, if memory serves, the original linked brakes on the '83 were better than what the '86 is showing me now. I'll wait to pass judgement on the '86 until I flush and bleed the current brakes. I have a feeling the brake fluid is as old as the tires, which are 18 and 19 years old. The pads are GTG and the rotors are pristine.

 

I will be delinking the brakes this winter. No question. I'll probably upgrade the clutch as well.

 

Also forgot to mention that the clutch pull is so light that i thought at first it was not working. It does work perfectly and she shifts through the gears nearly silently with no clunk at all at any speed up or down.

Edited July 19, 2019 by luvmy40

[Condor]

From my experience the '83's have more get, and the MKII's have more grunt... Even though they had 100cc's less displacement, they were Yamaha's 'beta' model and were tuned and cam'd more for performance. I know my low serial numbered '83 would haul my butt around into triple digits without even straining... When they came out with the '84's they had backed off on the performance issue a little, redesigned the choke which they dumped in '85, and gave it a bit more grunt. On the mark two's they became more of a pure touring bike instead of a sports tourer.... Hence the 1300cc displacement. More CC's equal more torque... My 2¢...

[luvmy40]

I know the carbs are different on em but not so sure on Valve or Ignition Timing or whether any of the top end parts are different. I also know the MK1's will turn 12's in the quarter, top 130 fairly easily and pulls solid from bottom R's to top R's and the need to stay in R's above 3 grand to make the smaller 1200 perform effeciently/effectively when two up and loaded is a myth (it'll lug at the bottom with the best of any Big Twin and slay em at the top), not sure on the MK2's?

I also got a hunch that come tire swappin time (especially at road side or in a dealership parking lot in the desert heat) you will miss the 20 minute wheel off time of the simplisity of the MK1 but will LOVE the advantage of top opening - much bigger bags. Hey Rich,, maybe devise a quick detach for the bags on the MK2?

I also got a sneaking hunch you are gonna LOVE the brake updating on the 2 as well as the clutch, the tranny (bye bye 2nd gear ??'s), the water pump, and the frame but maybe not the seat = oh gosh I LOVE the MK1 OEM seat!!

I am with ya on the hype of all the bling and add on's and am more of a "give me the simplisity of just two wheels and a motor" lop eared touring varmint myself Rich but definitely see why some folks like the stuff and glad they do = anything to keep our sport alive.. Being relocated to strickly local riding these days and a good mix of demo riding therein,, I am anxiously waiting for the chance to play on the new Wing with it's slimmed down MK1 sporty touring bike look to see if Honda is taking a shot at going back to slimmer days = sort of opposite of what you are having fun playing with.

Good thread brother! Looking forward to hearing what other club members have to say about it all! Also, all the very best in your Venture adVenture!! Keep em rolling my friend:biker:

 

My '83 had all the aftermarket chrome including the huge rear skirt and crash bars which adds considerable time to removing the rear wheel, so that will probably be a wash.

[cowpuc]

My '83 had all the aftermarket chrome including the huge rear skirt and crash bars which adds considerable time to removing the rear wheel, so that will probably be a wash.

 

There's a pretty quick fix for those future issues ya know

 

[CaseyJ955]

I've not ridden a MKI but I can confirm that the linked brakes on the MKII were in fact quite crappy. Delinking makes a world of difference.

 

The luggage space was the main reason I looked for the MKII and I use every bit of it sometimes. Oddly a MKII will hold a lot of groceries.

[luvmy40]

I forgot to mention the cruise control!

 

I'm not sure i like it. It's much more cumbersome to work with than a simple throttle lock. It also feels like it adds resistance to the throttle twist.

[SpencerPJ]

Bags, I've never even had my bags on, but then again I have never been out of state with it. My concern with my 83 at 42k miles is.. the dreaded upcoming 2nd gear issue.

[luvmy40]

Another difference made itself known this afternoon. I was aware but really hadn't thought about the fuel petcock having a reserve setting.

 

On the ride home from work at 70 mph on the freeway, she suddenly lost power and was bogging like she was fuel starved. I looked at the fuel level gauge and it was at half a tank. She never stalled, just wouldn't run over 3500 rpm. My fist thought was the fuel pump had died. Then I remembered the reserve petcock. I pulled over to check the petcock position. Sure enough, it was in the run position. I tried to switch it to reserve and it wouldn't budge. Then I remembered the factory tool kit in the right side bag had a pair of pliers in the case. Switched to reserve, started her up and waited for a break in traffic. When I hit the throttle, I almost cried. she bogged down and barely started to move. Then, all of a sudden I was hanging on for my life as the after burners kicked in!

 

Evidently the reserve tank is half the main tank.

 

I'll just leave it in the reserve position from now on. BTW, I got 36.7 MPG on this tank.

[RDawson]

There's just something about the feel of those burners. Guess that's why I never got over about 33 mpg on my 86. Not to mention short rear tire life.

[cowpuc]

Another difference made itself known this afternoon. I was aware but really hadn't thought about the fuel petcock having a reserve setting.

 

On the ride home from work at 70 mph on the freeway, she suddenly lost power and was bogging like she was fuel starved. I looked at the fuel level gauge and it was at half a tank. She never stalled, just wouldn't run over 3500 rpm. My fist thought was the fuel pump had died. Then I remembered the reserve petcock. I pulled over to check the petcock position. Sure enough, it was in the run position. I tried to switch it to reserve and it wouldn't budge. Then I remembered the factory tool kit in the right side bag had a pair of pliers in the case. Switched to reserve, started her up and waited for a break in traffic. When I hit the throttle, I almost cried. she bogged down and barely started to move. Then, all of a sudden I was hanging on for my life as the after burners kicked in!

 

Evidently the reserve tank is half the main tank.

 

I'll just leave it in the reserve position from now on. BTW, I got 36.7 MPG on this tank.

 

:clap2:!!!!

 

,, might not be a bad idea to pull the seat, remove the fuel sending unit on top of the tank and take a peek at whats laying in the bottom of the tank = be a shame to suck up a bunch of nasty stuff off the bottom of a tank that hasn't been used for a while!!

[Prairiehammer]

I know the '86 is slightly heavier so that would have some slight effect on both.

 

Actually, the 1986 Royale is substantially heavier than a 1983 Standard (the lightest of all the Ventures).

The advertised dry weight of the 1983 Standard is 670 pounds.

The advertised dry weight of the 1986 Royale is 732 pounds.

That is a 62 pound difference! About a 10% increase in weight!

[luvmy40]

Actually, the 1986 Royale is substantially heavier than a 1983 Standard (the lightest of all the Ventures).

The advertised dry weight of the 1983 Standard is 670 pounds.

The advertised dry weight of the 1986 Royale is 732 pounds.

That is a 62 pound difference! About a 10% increase in weight!

 

The odd thing is it's much easier to get the '86 up on the center stand than the '83.

[OutKast]

And being one who has stripped the intercom/radio in its entirety, most of the cruise system, and the Class air compressor system from a Royale, that box seems a lot heavier than 62 pounds. I bet the weight of the larger luggage is pretty much insignificant. I can feel the difference between it and my still stock Royale.

 

Actually, the 1986 Royale is substantially heavier than a 1983 Standard (the lightest of all the Ventures).

The advertised dry weight of the 1983 Standard is 670 pounds.

The advertised dry weight of the 1986 Royale is 732 pounds.

That is a 62 pound difference! About a 10% increase in weight!

[videoarizona]

Rich,

 

You will find the CLASS has another nice use....put the CLASS system in "auto".... crank up the rear, then front pressure... then go ahead and put her up on the center stand. She pops right up now! This comes in handy when you are traveling and are loaded. Just don't forget to let the pressure down once up on stand.

 

The cruise control "shouldn't" add drag to the throttle cables. Unless they are dirty or need lubrication. Of course, the cable movement may be easier on the mk1's simply due to a simplified system. The CC works very easily although there is a trick that makes it slick....when at speed...hit "set", then "resume". She usually comes on quicker with less loss of speed. Remember, this is a 1st generation "computer" controlled system...kludge is the word that comes to mind. But it does work well. I like it better than the 2nd Gen CC.

 

My 89's brakes are still linked. I like them, they work well. Suggest you try them out after you clean up the system then make your decision. I still have low speed stability with the rear.

 

You could make your own knurled knob covers for your side bags and use them instead of the screws/bolts. Makes it faster to get the bags off.

 

And yes, you can get quite a bit of stuff in those Mk2 bags. Much more than I can in the 2nd gen!

Edited July 22, 2019 by videoarizona
changed order of pumping.