Red_Liner740
Well-known member
Although it may not be as slow as a 250, everyone says the sv650 is a good beginner bike and the 696 has comparable power and torque. I'm actually a bit surprised that the 696 puts out 80hp from an aircooled mill.
Nope not at all it, the 696 is pure beginner bike, try riding one. I don't hate them they just are a really mellow low power bike. I even thought about buying my ex one to learn on instead of a 250 ninja. It isn't much if any faster than a 250. Not hating on it at all it would be a great beginner bike.
Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 4 Beta
1198 plus a bunch of others in the garage.
The 696 is way slower than an sv IMHO.
Sport rider has quarter mile time of 11.9 for the sv
Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 4 Beta
1198 plus a bunch of others in the garage.
The 696 is way slower than an sv IMHO.
Sport rider has quarter mile time of 11.9 for the sv
Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 4 Beta
I took my M license on a SV650 and it was slower then a 696. I am getting the feeling that the one you test drove was not working correctly. That is the only explanation for the lack of power.1198 plus a bunch of others in the garage.
The 696 is way slower than an sv IMHO.
Sport rider has quarter mile time of 11.9 for the sv
Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 4 Beta
No way in hell is an sv650 a 11 sec bike. an SV1000 maybe.
I ran 11's with my VTR and fiance rides an 04 sv650 with some minor work done to it, noope, not even close, the VTR would mop the floor with it.
I took my M license on a SV650 and it was slower then a 696. I am getting the feeling that the one you test drove was not working correctly. That is the only explanation for the lack of power.