Suzuki-AX100

[Curious_AJ]

hey people,

AJ has been looking into bikes.

I found one on trademe that screamed "THIS IS SO AJ!!!"
It was a suzuki Ax100 1989 model.

What are your oppinions on this bike?
and would you recomend it for commuting?

I personally like the bike, there is something about it that caught my heart, as I'm sure many of you have found with certain bikes over the years.

[Skunk]

I got one to go bucket racing. Actually I got two. One was road legal.

Impressions:
The brakes ain't much if they're not adjusted right (cable operated single leading shoe).
The power doesn't live there anywhere (to paraphrase a song). 110kph was about it. Easy to hot up though. Cost me $500 in parts and labour to do.
Fun easy to ride. Get some Vee Rubber for it.

(It's the red one in my sig. Kawasaki AR80 wheels, '87 TZR250 chamber, RG50 forks and disc brake.)

[Virago]

First of all, it's not a cruiser, so I've shifted the thread to GBR.

I've seen a few around but never ridden one. They look like a good basic commuter.

Sure looks better than a scooter.

[xwhatsit]

AX100, I rode one, I wouldn't want to take it over the Harbour Bridge lol. The one I rode was relatively recent, and seemed in reasonable nick, but it seemed to have rather excessive `two-stroke lag'.

I would say it's more than adequate for punting around town. But don't take it on the motorway, it'd be a liability I'd say. Remember, being a two-stroke, it's going to be more expensive to run than an FXR150 for instance.

It does have a certain charm, though. If you like it, try a CB125 -- about the same amount of poke, similar styling, but it's a four-stroke so it'll be a bit more... four-strokey

[Skunk]

Where on earth and the universe does this "it's a two stoke so it'll be more exspensive to run" come from.

With the recommended maintenance a two stroke is cheaper. It's just a four stoke will go longer without regular maintenance before going bang and costing heaps more to fix.

[Pwalo]

Where on earth and the universe does this "it's a two stoke so it'll be more exspensive to run" come from.

With the recommended maintenance a two stroke is cheaper. It's just a four stoke will go longer without regular maintenance before going bang and costing heaps more to fix.

Yep, two strokes are a doddle to look after and reliable enough. However I'm not too sure I'd be keen to ride a 100cc bike other than as a round town commuter, and I'd be pretty careful looking the bike over.

[Skunk]

Yep, two strokes are a doddle to look after and reliable enough. However I'm not too sure I'd be keen to ride a 100cc bike other than as a round town commuter, and I'd be pretty careful looking the bike over.

Very true.

[xwhatsit]

Where on earth and the universe does this "it's a two stoke so it'll be more exspensive to run" come from.

With the recommended maintenance a two stroke is cheaper. It's just a four stoke will go longer without regular maintenance before going bang and costing heaps more to fix.

I didn't say she's going to have to be doing rebuilds, mate. I'm just saying that it's going to use way more fuel than a 125cc 4T, and you'll have to keep buying two-stroke oil for it all the time. Running costs will be higher, even on a very mild little AX100. A friend with an RG150 uses 50-75% more fuel than my 250, with the added cost of oil on top of that.

Not often you hear about a stock-standard CG125 blowing up.

[Skunk]

My experience with the AX is that it's a solid motor and very frugal. Even when racing it a tank lasts several meetings! And my GL145 was quite thirsty given the same treatment. And it dropped a valve. Don't think one would under normal use though, eh.