'99 Suzuki GSX600F review.

**James Deuce** · 24th January 2005, 20:14

Having done nearly 500kms on my "new" purchase, I'm feeling qualified to make a few observations about the "baboon-arsed banana".

The GSX600F, referred to by the motorcycle print media as the "Teapot", has been around since 1988, ostensibly as a competitor to the giant-slaying Honda CBR600. The GSX600F was never in the same sporting league as the CBR, being large and underpowered by comparison, though the stiff steel perimeter frame, and good quality suspension for a budget 600 model, meant it was never that far behind in the real world. 1997 saw the introduction of the GSX-R600, and the end of the sporting aspirations for the GSX-F.

The break from outright sporting pretensions allowed Suzuki to concentrate on developing a different personality for the GSX600F as a Sports-Touring model, complementing the GSX-R750's Sports-Touring partner, the GSX750F. In my hunt for a replacement for the beloved TRX850, I tried two GSX750F's: a '97 model, and a '98 model. The differences between the two were quite marked. The 750 lost 14HP between '97 and '98 form 106BHP (claimed) to 92BHP(claimed), and copped a complete style makeover into the bargain. The '98 gained smoothness, ride quality, improved styling, and the "Headlights of Doom". They look funny, but boy do they work! The 600 benefitted directly from this work, gaining the same running gear and a very similar style makeover. It also went from 80BHP(claimed) to 86BHP (claimed) - 6 short of the 750 while being 6kg lighter. I much prefer the styling of the later, more curvaceous GSX-F's, as compared to the "Buck-Rogers meets a Teapot and mates with it " looks of the earlier models.

1999 GSX600F Specs

Overall Length: 2,135 mm (84.1 in)
Overall Width: 745 mm (29.3 in)
Overall Height: 1,195 mm (47.0 in)
Seat Height: 785 mm (30.9 in)
Wheelbase: 1,470 mm (57.9 in)
Dry weight: 202 kg (445.3 lbs)
Engine type: Air/oil-cooled 599 cc inline-4, SACS, DOHC, TSCC, 16 valves. 86 hp (62.8 KW)/ 10,500 rpm, 58 Nm (5.9 kg-m)/ 9,500 rpm.

As you can see, it's no cutting edge sports 'bike.

Ride impression

1st comment: this bike needs new tyres! The currently fitted Metzler MEZ4s have been replaced by Metzler with the Z6, and the tyres on this bike show distinct signs of the 'bike's usage: Touring and weekend riding. The front is cupped on the right side indicating a lot of touring on straight-ish roads, and the rear is visibly squared. Now in my book, this isn't necessarily a bad thing, as the type of usage means that the bike has been used in a way that will prolong engine and gearbox life, rather than shortening it, as commuting and lots of short trips CAN do (not will but can possibly).

Why not demand that the previous owner replace them? Well, the purchase price is VERY fair for a five year old 'bike (first registerd 11/99) with a perfect service history and only one owner, and I picked it up Friday after an extensive service at the previous owner's cost, that included a new chain and valve adjustment. Plus I get to research the type of tyres that will suit my riding on this 'bike.

2nd comment: It is NO different to the '98 and later GSX750F. Suzuki obviously realised this (and judging by sales figures in NZ, BEFORE the general public did) and dropped the 600's BHP figure to 80(claimed). In the upper third of the rev range, the 600's top end is so similar to the 750 as to be indistinguishable. The '98 750 has more beef in the mid-range, but this can be countered on the 600 with a gear change or two down the box.

3rd comment: IT IS SOOOOOO NICE TO BE BACK WITH A SUZUKI GEARBOX. I'd forgotten how good they were until I tried these Suzukis out again. They are smoother going up the box in a clutchless fashion than the best shifts I could manage on the TRX using clutch, throttle, and gear shift, just "so".

4th comment: "You're leaning it waaaay over", said Mangell6 on my first decent ride on the 600. Unlike the TRX, angle of dangle isn't really apparent on the 600 in a way I can gauge accurately. I credit this mainly to a much lower CofG than the TRX. I was quite surprised to find I had used nearly ALL the rear tyre on my first decent ride, and 9/10ths of the front.

5th comment: Power delivery by faxed rubber band - The TRX had "go" instantly available at most road and engine speeds. I'd forgotten about making sure you were in the right gear on a medium capacity inline-4. Easily fixed - telegraph the engine room to go two gears lower please, number 1!

Summary

This 'bike enjoys a cult following in the US and Canada, and it's easy to see why. It handles well, it's comfortable (and less tiring to ride than the TRX), economical to purchase and run, and has a decidedly non-threatening character.

I'm enjoying the GSX600 immensely and the reservations about it's styling are diminishing with time and familiarity. Most of all, I'm looking forward to leveraging off it's increased versatility over the TRX, and doing a lot more touring while I have my greasy mitts on it.

http://www.suzukicycles.org/GSX-series/GSX600F.shtml

**Mooch** · 24th January 2005, 20:55

Thanks for buying the bike Jim2 , This has been the most ecnomical bike we've had in the household for both economy and servicing in fifteen years.These bikes can be run on a minimum budget and have lower insurance costs than most. Hope you enjoy it as Ang did . The bike has toured all corners of New Zealand and didn't let it's owner down once. I've seen post on KB talking about Suziki's low build quality , but I'd challenge most here to fault the GSX after 28,000 km's for body work and see how there on bike would compare.
Thanks again Jim2 , enjoy the bike.

Mooch

**Skunk** · 24th January 2005, 21:02

Good review Jim. :spudwave:

**Pwalo** · 25th January 2005, 07:46

Nice one Jim. The GS is the same. Always crap reviews in UK, but a bit of a cult bike in US, Europe, and even the Aussies like them. So just ride, enjoy, and know that it'll cost you a fraction of servicing costs of a lot of other bikes.

Mmmm, Suzuki gearboxes. I don't know how, but they always seem to feel better than other makes.

**dhunt** · 25th January 2005, 07:54

Good review Jim2, I've just been crusing round the south island and really enjoyed riding my one

.

**bane** · 26th January 2005, 15:31

nice review Jim

really enjoy my gsx750f - its a great allrounder

Heard it described as a "poor mans vfr", which I think should be considered a compliment

Have fun, and l'd be interested to know what tyres you decide on.

**James Deuce** · 26th January 2005, 15:36

Originally Posted by bane

nice review Jim

really enjoy my gsx750f - its a great allrounder

Heard it described as a "poor mans vfr", which I think should be considered a compliment

Have fun, and l'd be interested to know what tyres you decide on.

Avon Azzaro ST45/46. They go on on Saturday. I'll let you know how they go.

**vifferman** · 27th January 2005, 09:33

Originally Posted by Jim2

Avon Azzaro ST45/46. They go on on Saturday. I'll let you know how they go.

Jim, I had Azaros on the VTR - they were very good.

However, the 45/46 are 'ST' (sport-touring) tyres, so I opted for the 'SP' on the front (I think it's a AV49?), as it's a slightly softer compound, and may have a more sporty profile for quicker tip-in. Worked very well for me, and I chose this combo because I like the front to have more stick and it ensures the tyres both wear out at the same time (matched tyres generally have the front last longer.)

Did the same on the VFR750 - put a BT012 on the front, and BT020 on the rear.

**James Deuce** · 27th January 2005, 09:43

Originally Posted by vifferman

Jim, I had Azaros on the VTR - they were very good.

However, the 45/46 are 'ST' (sport-touring) tyres, so I opted for the 'SP' on the front (I think it's a AV49?), as it's a slightly softer compound, and may have a more sporty profile for quicker tip-in. Worked very well for me, and I chose this combo because I like the front to have more stick and it ensures the tyres both wear out at the same time (matched tyres generally have the front last longer.)

Did the same on the VFR750 - put a BT012 on the front, and BT020 on the rear.

45 and 49 have the same profile, same tread and different rain grooves, plus the 45 has a directional cntre groove. I was going to do a set of 45/46, then 49/50 for comparison. I figure the 45/46 will last through Winter and then I can go for the stickier ones for next Summer.

Thanks for the advice!

**James Deuce** · 30th January 2005, 21:32

Changing the tyres was almost like being given a new bike.

Please remember that while the MEZ4s on the bike were worn, they were still legal, and it was my choice to change them. The previous owner had a "B" service at WMCC that cost near $800 for which I am extremely grateful, so pointing at the tyres and going, "hmmmmm", wasn't an option, at least for me.

The Avon ST45/46 combo have transformed the bike from a "negative" steerer to a "positive" one, with almost no sense of transition from right to left.

By negative, I mean the GSX needed constant inputs to maintain an angle of lean on the MEZ4s, and variable force to either add or remove said angle. By positive I mean that a particular force generates a precise steering response.

By comparison the TRX on the Michelin Macadam 100X combo was neutral, not needing any apparent force to change tack. The TRX however had a real feel of transitioning from full lean to upright, to leaning in the opposite direction, which required a great deal of care in borderline traction situations. That's my excuse anyway.

Highway ride on the Avons is massively improved over the Metzlers, with less of the smaller sharp bumps being transmitted through the seat, and a nice smooth change of direction sensation when changing lanes or cornering at speed.

I'm still working on the twisty stuff. With today's beautiful conditions, the Avons gave me no cause for complaint, and never felt like they were even thinking about letting go, but then I was taking it pretty easy.

I'm still getting used to my week old purchase, so I'm not pushing too hard at present. Another excuse I hear you say, and I'd agree happily. I hate falling off, with all its attendant dramas and I need to work on my mental state before I go testing tyres properly.

**moko** · 31st January 2005, 08:35

Originally Posted by Pwalo

Always crap reviews in UK.......

Trouble with the U.K bike press is that they`re largely obsessed with acceleration,top speed e.t.c. and right enough the GSX dosnt cut it on a track against an R6.Of course it was never meant to but the macho hard-riding media blokes are too dense to realise that most of us ride on the road and dont circulate Donington 300 days of the year.The more sensible mags like RIDE say that the GSX is a bit slower than a CBR but then it`s a whole lot cheaper and most wouldnt notice the difference in everyday use.Biggest bugbear shouldn`t apply to N.Z. as it`s the way Suzi`s rust in our shitty climate.I actually quite like the looks,even if BIKE mag say the rear-end "looks like a dog`s knob" and they`ve been a steady seller for years over here.They`re the kind of bike people who`ve never ridden slag off and owners are fiercely loyal to.Good choice Jim given the criteria you had at the start,enjoy it mate.

**Krusti** · 31st January 2005, 08:50

I remember about 9 years ago I was getting back into road riding and I borrowed a GSX600 to go to Cold Duck rally. Rode with a group of guys who were rather fast. We did the 140km Napier / Taupo ride in 1 hour!

We were the only ones 2 up with gear and once I got used to using the gears I was rather impressed with the bike.

Guy riding with us on a NSR250 joked about no longer being at the back of the group as the oldies were riding with them now! (us)

On return trip he pulled out and overtook a car, we went round the outside of him at 180, wifey waving with middle finger, who's slow now!

Enjoyed the bike was a nice ride.