Suzuki Burgman USA Forum banner

1 - 11 of 11 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
280 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
After just selling my 2012, I've decided to look for another one...I know, I know...It may be possible to snag a still-new 2012 from a dealer and I have a line on a couple. If not, I'll look for a super low mileage used one, because of the CVT mileage stigma, justified or not. It will have to be an Exec. Can anyone describe what if any differences there are from say 09-12? I don't think I want a 13.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,975 Posts
Gauge cluster changed in 2011. CVT primary pulley/stopper bolt change in 2010 (not sold in US).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
280 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Gauge cluster changed in 2011. CVT primary pulley/stopper bolt change in 2010 (not sold in US).
So is it safe to assume that they're all pretty much the same bike, or was there one specific year with significant changes? If they're all the same the model year is less significant than mileage and condition.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
69 Posts
2013/2014 went thru a few upgrades/changes. Sleeker/sportier bodywork, dash gauges are lot nicer with round analog speedo/tach and center LCD display, transmission and ABS systems have been re-worked as well.

If I was thinking of a 2012, a year or 2 newer would be worth the money IMO.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,810 Posts
So your defense of the dreaded CVT failure , is to put some miles on them and flip before you have any large maintenance issues ?

TheReaper!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
280 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
I don't know if I would put it that way, but the CVT concern is a constantly recurring theme here, though I don't personally think it should be a big deal. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but it seems that these machines lose their market appeal quickly as mileage builds. As I said, justifiably or not. Those who have the time, skills and a proper workplace to repair the CVT can overlook those concerns.

My broader point is that since they don't vary much from model year, it seems to make sense to get a low-mileage older bike in good condition than to pay a premium for a newer one that isn't really superior and will depreciate faster. If and when the CVT finally goes, you're left with a wider range of options because you don't have as much invested. If I had done more research before I bought mine that's probably what I would have done rather than buy and sell hastily.

One thing for sure...It's a super machine and I'll eventually have another one.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,810 Posts
I don't know if I would put it that way, but the CVT concern is a constantly recurring theme here, though I don't personally think it should be a big deal. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but it seems that these machines lose their market appeal quickly as mileage builds. As I said, justifiably or not. Those who have the time, skills and a proper workplace to repair the CVT can overlook those concerns.

My broader point is that since they don't vary much from model year, it seems to make sense to get a low-mileage older bike in good condition than to pay a premium for a newer one that isn't really superior and will depreciate faster. If and when the CVT finally goes, you're left with a wider range of options because you don't have as much invested. If I had done more research before I bought mine that's probably what I would have done rather than buy and sell hastily.

One thing for sure...It's a super machine and I'll eventually have another one.
Actually I think that is a fairly decent idea , but a person would have to buy all older very low mileage units at the right price . As long as you buy and sell right it's not really a bad strategy . But if you buy newer or new you'll get killed on the depreciation . I just sold my 2008 that had 13,600 miles on it and it wasn't even for sale , I guy I know knew I had an extra one called me and wanted to buy it . I made a decent profit so I let it go , I figure I'll look for one with less miles and this time I'll try to get an executive if possible . But for me any super low mileage unit would suffice , that said I'm not big on any high mileage bike . Good luck in your hunt .

TheReaper!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,975 Posts
So is it safe to assume that they're all pretty much the same bike, or was there one specific year with significant changes? If they're all the same the model year is less significant than mileage and condition.
Under the body all are largely the same with improvements that might make them more reliable. I would rank them from best to worst as '13-14, '11-12, '08-09, '05-07, and '03-04.

I don't know if I would put it that way, but the CVT concern is a constantly recurring theme here, though I don't personally think it should be a big deal. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but it seems that these machines lose their market appeal quickly as mileage builds. As I said, justifiably or not. Those who have the time, skills and a proper workplace to repair the CVT can overlook those concerns.

My broader point is that since they don't vary much from model year, it seems to make sense to get a low-mileage older bike in good condition than to pay a premium for a newer one that isn't really superior and will depreciate faster. If and when the CVT finally goes, you're left with a wider range of options because you don't have as much invested. If I had done more research before I bought mine that's probably what I would have done rather than buy and sell hastily.
Sounds about right and a solid plan.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,092 Posts
Qwimby - would you move to Calif. and become my personal supplier of recently bought, lightly ridden, and quickly flipped Burgmans? I'm thinking 400's in the even years, and 650's in the odd years. Whaduhya say?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
280 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
Qwimby - would you move to Calif. and become my personal supplier of recently bought, lightly ridden, and quickly flipped Burgmans? I'm thinking 400's in the even years, and 650's in the odd years. Whaduhya say?
I'd really like to help, but I plan to keep the next one for a while even though I can't ride it in Florida much. So It's future will include a coast-to-coast venture including the PCH and maybe someday an overnight ferry trip to circumnavigate Nova Scotia.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
280 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
Under the body all are largely the same with improvements that might make them more reliable. I would rank them from best to worst as '13-14, '11-12, '08-09, '05-07, and '03-04.



Sounds about right and a solid plan.
From the list of model year changes I found on this board it looks like from 08-09 forward are preferable. The earliest years won't work for me because I prefer ABS.
 
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
Top