Is the 1980 16 valve GS1100L Hard to Find?

[RustyTank]

Hey guys. I'm no where near being in a position to purchase one right now, but I've recently become very intrigued with the GS1100L.
I'm curious if anyone has any idea if the 1980, 16 valve version is a difficult one to come by? As I understand it they were a one year make.

[zuluwiz]

The 1980 GS1100L was in fact only built for the 1980 model year. Suzuki built GS1100L s for 1981, 1982, and 1983 as well, according to the model information tab on the GSR home page.

[RustyTank]

The 1980 GS1100L was in fact only built for the 1980 model year. Suzuki built GS1100L s for 1981, 1982, and 1983 as well, according to the model information tab on the GSR home page.

Right. Zuluwiz, I just took a look at the chart you referenced. I'm talking specifically about the GS1100L with the TSCC, 16 valve engine.

[Rob S.]

Right. I'm talking specifically about the 16 valve, TSCC engine GS1100L.

You are correct, sir. Later L models had the 8 valve engine, which was just an enlarged version of the previous liter bike. 1980 was also the only year an L model had chain drive.

[RustyTank]

You are correct, sir. Later L models had the 8 valve engine, which was just an enlarged version of the previous liter bike. 1980 was also the only year an L model had chain drive.

I'm curious what the differences in performance are between the 16 valve, TSCC engine and the 8 valve shafty? I read that the 16 valve engine produced about 10 more HP. Any other pros to that engine or are both engines close enough in performance that it's negligible?

[zuluwiz]

I'll admit I didn't know that Suzuki went to the 8-valve engine for the rest of the GS1100L run. Learn something every day, I guess.

[RustyTank]

I'll admit I didn't know that Suzuki went to the 8-valve engine for the rest of the GS1100L run. Learn something every day, I guess.

I learn something new every time I log into this site

[Nessism]

The 16V engine is a performance engine. The 1100 8V came out in 1982 and was more torque oriented. It's also a much heavier bike due to the shaft drive.

[RustyTank]

The 16V engine is a performance engine.

To get into the weeds a bit, do you mean that the 16 valve, chain drive engine was more designed for high performance and high speed vs the 8 valve was more designed to...oh I don't know be a smooth tourer? I'm trying to understand what you mean by "performance engine".


And can anyone tell me why on some websites it's referred to as a GSX and not a GS? Is it a regional difference?

[RustyTank]

It's also a much heavier bike due to the shaft drive.

What is "much heavier"? Like 50lbs? 100lbs? I'm havin a hard time finding the info on the difference between the chain drive and the shaft drive versions.

[Rob S.]

Suzuki's claim for the GS1000 was 90 HP. For the 11E, it was 108. Of course the claim is less than the rear wheel, real world number. The 11E was only 5 pounds heavier than the 1000E.

[RustyTank]

Suzuki's claim for the GS1000 was 90 HP. For the 11E, it was 108. Of course the claim is less than the rear wheel, real world number. The 11E was only 5 pounds heavier than the 1000E.

That's interesting info Rob. Thanks.

I guess from my perspective, I'm trying to figure out whether, when looking for an 1100L, it's even worth looking for an 80 model, and what the pros and cons are between the 1980 and the later years. It sounds like the 1980 engine is gonna have better "performance", which I imagine means more torque, faster engine, etc. The shaft drives are gonna be a bit heavier...if that even makes a difference on a bike that big anyway...and make slightly less power...again, I'm not sure that makes much difference, I'm no HP snob. They seem like super nice touring bikes. I'd love to ride one.

[Rob S.]

The thing is, not only is the 16 valve (TSCC) a higher performance* engine, non were available with shaft drive.

*11E vs. 1000E (chain vs. chain), at least a half second better in the quarter mile, and 142 vs. 136 top speed.

The restyling in '82 not only produced a much better look, but a considerably lower seat height.

[RustyTank]

The restyling in '82 not only produced a much better look, but a considerably lower seat height.

I'm sure that's all in the eye of the beholder but I hear what you're sayin Rob. I do like the idea of the shaft drive vs. the chain.

11E vs. 1000E (chain vs. chain), at least a half second better in the quarter mile, and 142 vs. 136 top speed.

That difference is interesting. It doesn't seem like much.

[Rob S.]

...11E vs. 1000E (chain vs. chain), at least a half second better in the quarter mile.

That difference is interesting. It doesn't seem like much.

In the quarter mile, a half second is a world of difference.