The Voyager has landed!

[gtem]

And now for something *completely* different:

Just trailered it home last night from Coal City IL. It's a 2000 Kawasaki Voyager XII with just under 22k miles. Got a particularly good deal on it, because when I went to pick up this bike that was advertised as running/riding well, it was obviously running on only 3 cylinders with an occasional "pop" from the fourth. With a 99% likelihood this is a case of clogged pilot jets. Looking at the immaculate condition of the rest of the bike, I decided to take that gamble. Besides that it needs some tires and fork seals, but I take that as more or less a given with an older bike. It will also be treated to a full fluid/filter/preventative maintenance service to baseline everything. I've got all winter to knock this stuff out.

IMG_1906.jpg

[Pewpew82]

Nice rolling loveseat.

[bwringer]

I love this whole crazy project, and can't wait to see it up close.

It actually looks like there's not much of a "project" there, honestly. You'll have to ration out the few tasks needed so you can get through the winter sane.

[rphillips]

Always wondered what Kawa.'s idea was with the Voyagers. Back then most all bikes kept getting lighter and more HP. Kawa. went opposite, heavier and less HP....1984 Voyager- 6 cyl., 1286 cc, 130HP, 698 lbs. vs. 2000 Voyager- 4 cyl., 1196 cc., 97HP, 715 lbs.

[craz1]

I had a friend who owned one. Used to *@%^$*@%^$*@%^$*@%^$ him off that my fully loaded (Vetter) 1980 Gold Wing 1100 would outpull his Voyager up a hill and get better gas milage. The Voyager is a great bike however.

[gtem]

I had a friend who owned one. Used to *@%^$*@%^$*@%^$*@%^$ him off that my fully loaded (Vetter) 1980 Gold Wing 1100 would outpull his Voyager up a hill and get better gas milage. The Voyager is a great bike however.

Something must have been mechanically wrong or maybe he was pulling a pop-up camper behind his? The 86+ 4cyl Voyager XIIs are supposedly the "sort of" hot rods among the 80s big tourers, well them and the 1st gen 83-85 Venture 1200s. The older 6 cylinder models I know a lot less about, aside from the fact that I would assume a 120hp 6 would easily outgun an older 1100 GW?

[gtem]

Always wondered what Kawa.'s idea was with the Voyagers. Back then most all bikes kept getting lighter and more HP. Kawa. went opposite, heavier and less HP....1984 Voyager- 6 cyl., 1286 cc, 130HP, 698 lbs. vs. 2000 Voyager- 4 cyl., 1196 cc., 97HP, 715 lbs.

From what I've seen, you got part of that right part of that wrong: the Voyager XII was notably lighter than the big 1300 six cylinder model that preceded it, and while claimed HP was perhaps down, the new 1200 4cyl pulled harder down low and overall the bike was a fair bit quicker: 12.6 quarter mile for an 800lb (wet) fiberglass ensconced road going liner was pretty darn swift for the 80s!

From Cycle World's '1989 review:
"What's most interesting about the Voyager XII is that even though it has two less cylinders, even though it weighs 150 pounds less, and even though it has half the cubic stuff that the 1300 had, it seems to give away nothing. In fact, the 1 200’s engine is noticeably stronger than the I 300's. It produces more bottom-end power and revs out to a healthy mid-range."

[rphillips]

You're right gtem, I got the wgt. backwards. from motorcyclespecs.com. According to them, the 1200 is 16 lb. lighter than the 1300 The earlier model 6 cyl. was the 715 lb. dry wt., max. power 130HP., max. torque 87lb-ft The later 4 cyl.. 699 lb. dry wt. max. power 97HP, max torque 79.5.... The 6 cyl. 1300 ran the 1/4 mi. in 13.1 sec @ 100mph. funny thing nowhere I looked showed any 1/4 mi time nor speed for the 4 cyl. 1200. If the 12.6 1/4 mi is correct, that's a full half sec. faster than the 1300..... I read that Cycle World article and it did say the 1200 didn't give up anything to the 1300. I can't say, I've not ridden a 1200, but I'd have thought the 1300's 33 more HP and 8 lb-ft more torque would promptly took care of the extra 16 lb. wt., but I guess it doesn't.

[craz1]

Nope his was a brand new bike, 1st year 1986 with a few thousand miles on it. Roll on throttle going up a fairly steep grade in 5th gear. Didn't out pull by much but did. He was a Las Vegas motorcycle cop so he did know how to ride so no excuse tbere I also had an 85 Venture Royal and yes that bike was fast. Fooled a lot of Harley riders with that one.

[gtem]

A the 5th gear roll on makes sense craz1, apparently 5th gear (top gear) on these ZG1200s is geared very tall for laidback highway cruising (iirc 2500rpm @60mph, to a GL1100's 3700rpm at 60), but would put it at a torque disadvantage against the GW for sure.

[gtem]

You're right gtem, I got the wgt. backwards. from motorcyclespecs.com. According to them, the 1200 is 16 lb. lighter than the 1300 The earlier model 6 cyl. was the 715 lb. dry wt., max. power 130HP., max. torque 87lb-ft The later 4 cyl.. 699 lb. dry wt. max. power 97HP, max torque 79.5.... The 6 cyl. 1300 ran the 1/4 mi. in 13.1 sec @ 100mph. funny thing nowhere I looked showed any 1/4 mi time nor speed for the 4 cyl. 1200. If the 12.6 1/4 mi is correct, that's a full half sec. faster than the 1300..... I read that Cycle World article and it did say the 1200 didn't give up anything to the 1300. I can't say, I've not ridden a 1200, but I'd have thought the 1300's 33 more HP and 8 lb-ft more torque would promptly took care of the extra 16 lb. wt., but I guess it doesn't.

Re-read the Cycle world piece, it's not a 16lb disparity but apparently a 150lb difference: "even though it weighs 150 pounds less"

[Rob S.]

From Cycle World's '1989 review:

Genuflect when you say that!

I miss Cycle World. I remember how sad I was as it got skinnier each month; when it went quarterly a few years back, I felt like I was sitting at an old friend's deathbed.

I'm so glad I still have my first one (Nov '71), as well as some other notables ('77 KZ1000, 2012 ZX1400R). And of course the July 1982 issue that raved about my newly redesigned 11E.

RIP Cycle World

[gtem]

I love that they have their whole archive uploaded online and accessible to all (for now?) without a paywall though a pop up prompts me to log in every time I visit. I'm only 34 so a lot of the vintage bike reviews I read are before my time, but even I get wistful reading the old stuff, reading about the relatively low traffic roads out in CA at that time.

[Jedz123]

Congrats!!! I was wondering if your were going to get the Voyager. Glad you did! Nothing like riding around on a vintage touring bike. Be wary of mice trying to move in, I trapped a few trying to move into my Goldwing already this fall. Best!

[gtem]

Congrats!!! I was wondering if your were going to get the Voyager. Glad you did! Nothing like riding around on a vintage touring bike. Be wary of mice trying to move in, I trapped a few trying to move into my Goldwing already this fall. Best!

Thanks! Actually the Voyager you're thinking of was down in Durham NC (a final year '03 with 14k miles as I recall), and I had passed the deal along to a friend who was much more local to the area. But the seed had been planted apparently. This one was "only" a three hour drive NW to a small town called Coal City IL, Chicago-ish vicinity. This one wasn't free, but for $1000 I think I got a great bike.