I'm looking ahead to the day my bike is no longer worth the effort to repair. I see the an occasional 3rd gen for sale in good condition, but I see a lot more 4th gens. Apart from the thinner tires and the shaving of weight off a few components here and there, is there any real difference between the two bikes? (Aside from those fake air intakes which keep me going back to the 3rd gen?) I'm curious to hear from anyone who has owned both types.
LOL fake intakes? Not really, they do have a small function. they guide air into the valley between the V below the carbs for better cooling. As far as thinner tires, not by much, I'm thinking you are revering to the rear rim being a 5" instead of a 3rds 5.5" 180 vs 170 profile tire. fronts the same but a 4ths rims are lighter. Other than a wee bit more HP different mid range and beside a few cosmetic changes and some differences in suspension they are pretty darn close to being the same bike. So pick your poison can't go wrong with either one. I've always thought hard and long on the 93, thats a pretty one.
Well Klee, I've owned them both and RVFR summed it up well. Now having a 97 parts are much easier to find. The only place that seems to have anything after market is Thurn Motorsports in Germany for the 3rd gens (4th gen too, but other places have stuff). As far as power delivery, handeling, etc. The 97 does seem to turn in quicker, but that could be me and not the bike. They are damn close...so its your choice. But I can say a because of the parts issue, I would be reluctant to have a 3rd gen as a primary bike now. My two cents. BZ
Look Left Like the one to the Left??? I want a pipe so bad but cant see the $500 price tag and keep missing them on ebay.
