Suzuki Burgman USA Forum banner

1 - 10 of 10 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Have researched both the 400 and 650 looking for carrying capacity or gross vehicle weight minus wet weight. Can find neither. Suzuki page gives little info. Would appreciate information regarding this subject.

Thank you
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
498 Posts
A few stats:

The 400 weighs 181kgs dry, has a trunk space of 55 litres, and 32bhp / 24ft/lbs torque claimed crankshaft output. That gives it a power to weight ratio of 119bhp per ton / 90ft/lbs per ton with one 75kg rider and maximum 10kg load under the seat.

The 650 weighs 238kg dry, has a trunk space of 56 litres, and 50bhp / 44ft/lbs torque claimed crankshaft output. That gives it a power to weight ratio of 155bhp / 136ft/lbs per ton with one 75kg rider and maximum 10kg load under the seat.

Comparison:
The BMW 330i weighs 1540 dry, and 231bhp / 221ft/lbs torque claimed output. That gives it a power to weigh ratio of 143bhp / 136 ft/lbs per ton with one 75kg driver and 10kg in the boot.

Not bad.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
231 Posts
Hey Bleeder how do you become a "tester" for Suzuki? That is a heavily disguised 2005 Burgman right? :wink:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
100 Posts
#

gvwr is 999 lbs. it's on the plate below the glove box. gives you approx. 400lbs of carrying capacity.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
100 Posts
#

o.k.,they give a dry mass of 525#. also i vaguely recall seeing a wet wieght of about 600#.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,363 Posts
Re: #

skootertrash said:
o.k.,they give a dry mass of 525#. also i vaguely recall seeing a wet wieght of about 600#.
The documented gvwr is always conservatively low. On most Japanese motorcycles it does not add up to enough to support an American sized rider and passenger, nevermind putting anything in the luggage... This is done for liability litigation reasons I'm sure. I don't pay any attention to it. I just try to exercise common sense when I load for a trip - heavy stuff down low and as far forward as possible. I reserve lighter stuff for the optional top box, which is up high and way to the rear. Works for me...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
26 Posts
Tyre ratings

The Bridgestone data for the tyres on the 650

gives the following max allowable capacity:-

Front 224 kg based on a 120/70 R15 56H
Rear 290 kg based on a 160/60 R14 65H

Where the 56 and the 65 are the load indexes which in the Bridgestone data relate to the capacities shown above.

The H is the speed index and the data table gives a maximum rated speed for the tyres of 210 km/h.

Thus the total tyre capacity is 514 kg or 1130 lbs.

Deduct the weight of the bike (wet) assumed to be 600

You would have to be quite heavy to exceed the static weight limit. How this works out dynamically in practice I have no idea, but certainly lower. If you take a 50% factor for safety, the max weight comes to 1130-600 x 50% = 265 lbs.

Of course there are other things that also come into play such as tyre pressure and tyre (running) temperature.

Probably that is why there is no quoted figure anywhere to be found - so far.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,411 Posts
I haven't looked at the Capacity Plate on the bike (too hard for me to see that small print with my aging eyes), but here is the data that the oft quoted (by me) May 2004 Motorcycle Consumer News gave:

GVWR: 999 lbs.
Wet weight: 607 lbs.
Carrying capacity: 392 lbs.
 
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
Top