www.BurgmanUSA.com

by **djb383** » Wed Apr 18, 2007 12:41 12

I just took mine across our local public scales (full tank and empty trunk). WOW! 627 lbs. Anyone else check there's?

by **Ken** » Wed Apr 18, 2007 14:08 14

I know they are heavy but I didn't know they were that much. Were the scales certified and did you have anything stored under the seat? Tank must be filled with "leaded" gas?

Where in Texas are you?

by **djb383** » Wed Apr 18, 2007 14:27 14

Yep, nope, Midland. Maybe if we could get some others to make a trip across their local public scales we could get an average for consistancy.

by **Wes** » Wed Apr 18, 2007 20:21 20

I posted a couple of years ago that I had run my 650 onto the public scales and weighed in at 633 pounds with full tank and some extra stuff under the seat. I got a lot of unbelievers writing in but the scales are gov certified. You're right in there at the same size. Porky l'il suckers, ain't they?

by **djb383** » Wed Apr 18, 2007 22:59 22

Absolutely porky.........and I would have to say with 2 weigh-ins that close together, the scales are accurate. Hey, thanks a bunch for the info. Anybody else?

by **Burglar** » Sat Apr 21, 2007 3:05 03

By 'public scales', are you referring to the ones at some truck stops that weigh the semis?

by **djb383** » Sat Apr 21, 2007 11:49 11

I looked in our yellow pages under 'Scales-Public' to find a location. They were not located at a truck stop but trucks could drive over them. I weighed the lardy with me on it (824 lbs) and without (627 lbs). When I got home, I steped on our digital bathroom scales and they indicated 196 lbs. I'm not overweight, just too short.

by **djb383** » Sun Apr 22, 2007 23:35 23

I was just over at the Harley website looking at the 1200 Sportsters. In their specs section they show dry weight at +/- 560 lbs and 'running order' at +/- 580 lbs. WOW, +/- 50 lbs lighter than lardy......can that be? Any Sportster riders out there that have run their bike across the scales?

by **jkyu99** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 0:43 00

593 lb is what the Suzuki Japan's web pages say a 650 should weigh.
They don't say wet or dry, but if you assume dry and add fuel, then fuel would be 32lb more. So the Burgie should weigh about 625lbs and you got 627lbs. A little more if you add the oil. Seems reasonably close.

What doesn't seem reasonable is Suzuki America's web pages that say a 650 should weigh 518lb empty!

by **Burglar** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 0:59 00

]

Sportsters are deceptively heavy bikes. 580 isn't far off for a gassed-up Sportster, I've heard 570, but don't doubt the higher figure one bit.

Looking at them, it's hard to figure out where they're hiding all that lead, it's just not there, visually.

by **Burglar** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 1:04 01

I'm not certain that all builders do it this way, but when some manufacturers quote a 'dry' weight figure, it's DRY. That means no brake fluid, no coolant, no fork oil, no rear-end oil, no tranny oil (as in the Burgmans case), not even 'water' in the battery...zero fluids of any kind.

These 'dry' figures are technically correct, but purposefully deceptive. It's a marketing 'thing'.

by **djb383** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 11:34 11

I just don't think all fluids could exceed 37 lbs in the 650. So what makes up the other +/- 75 lbs. One of lifes mysteryies. So, 593 lbs dry, plus 37 lbs for fluids = 630 lbs. That sounds a little more like it to me.....not 518 lbs.

4 gal gas = 24 lbs
1.7 qts water = 3.5 lbs
1 gal mtr oil = 6 lbs
14.5 ozs gear oil = 1 lb
fork oil, shock oil,
battery water,
brake fluid (est.) = 2.5 lbs

Total = 37 lbs

by **SIX-FIDDY** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 23:36 23

djb383 wrote:I just took mine across our local public scales (full tank and empty trunk). WOW! 627 lbs. Anyone else check there's?

I sure do like your subject header :!:

I thouht you were talking about me until I clicked on your subject :wink:

. My web name is derived from the way SIX FIFTY is said in Alabama, thus the name I chose. My Bama brother ask me"So, you got yer self one of em six fiddies?" :lol:

You can take the boy out of Alabama, but you can't take the Bama out of the boy!!! BTW, he owns an old Honda SEVEN FIDDY- FOUR and a 2006 Kawasaki Vulcan 900 Tourer.

by **snave** » Tue Apr 24, 2007 12:44 12

I dropped mine on my foot. It's Bloody Heavy s'all I've got to say about that... :oops:

by **Burglar** » Tue Apr 24, 2007 15:25 15

djb383 wrote:I just don't think all fluids could exceed 37 lbs in the 650. So what makes up the other +/- 75 lbs. One of lifes mysteryies. So, 593 lbs dry, plus 37 lbs for fluids = 630 lbs. That sounds a little more like it to me.....not 518 lbs.

4 gal gas = 24 lbs
1.7 qts water = 3.5 lbs
1 gal mtr oil = 6 lbs
14.5 ozs gear oil = 1 lb
fork oil, shock oil,
battery water,
brake fluid (est.) = 2.5 lbs

Total = 37 lbs

What we're left with, unfortunately, is that the same 'team' at Suzuki who 'calibrated' the speedometers also had their optimistic little fingers involved in calibrating the company scale.

It all starts to make some sense then, doesn't it?

by **Brewman** » Tue Apr 24, 2007 17:01 17

Yes it does. Especially when you toss in the other mathematical wonderkid who cut off the mpg computer at 50.0 mpg. That one really has me scratching my head.

I'm dying to know what the reasoning was behind that decision.

by **Burglar** » Wed Apr 25, 2007 3:38 03

I think they might have tossed in a handfull of confounding 'features' like that just to add a bit of mystery to the bike. Perhaps the fact that it makes no sense to do some of these things, makes it then sensible to do them as senselessly as they have.

The bike has it's share of 'quirks', but at least they all seem to be rather superficial and of limited consequence.

by **jkyu99** » Wed Apr 25, 2007 11:31 11

Brewman wrote:. . .when you toss in the other mathematical wonderkid who cut off the mpg computer at 50.0 mpg. That one really has me scratching my head. I'm dying to know what the reasoning was behind that decision.

He must be related to the guy who cut off my Camry hybrid's single trip mpg computer at 40.0 mpg! The same guy allows me to know an unlimited mpg for the tank, but for the single trip, it reads a maximum of 40.0. When I refill, it resets the tank mpg automatically, so I can't get a lifetime average reading like I can on the Burgman using the b-trip computer and never resetting it.

by **frugality** » Wed Apr 25, 2007 11:55 11

jkyu99 wrote:. . . so I can't get a lifetime average reading like I can on the Burgman using the b-trip computer and never resetting it.

I let my b-trip meter go indefinitely, too, but it really isn't too helpful since it just stays pegged at 50.0... :roll:

by **Brewman** » Wed Apr 25, 2007 12:06 12

To me the irony with the MPG cutoff, is that it had to be intentionally designed and some programmer had to code it. Granted the coding wasn't probably very complicated, the display has the ability to display all 10 existing digits, and the math produces an actual number that, why not let that just flow? I'm in the IT world by profession- this makes no sense to me. Sounds like something our marketing department would try and pass thru a design walkthru. And I guess nothing our marketing department wants us to do surprises me anymore.
"Whatever you do, don't let anyone know the Burgman 650 is capable of getting more than 50.0 miles per gallon."
Suzuki must have hired marketing people from the same school my company did. Right out of a Dillbert cartoon.