KLR650 or DR650?

[Aero]

I am thinking of getting a dual sport sometime soon and both the KLR and DR seem to be more or less what I want. Haven't ridden either of them yet though, which one is preferred by ST-Ners? I know the KLR has been around a lot longer and there aren't many real problems with them, how does the DR compare? And how about on-road riding? I want it for touring on mixed road types including gravel, but no serious off road riding. Opinions please!

[R.Markus]

THe DR is more dirt worthy than the KLR, but has a lot smaller tank. For what you describe, I would vote KLR.

[Johnny Monsoon]

Trying to split dirt worthiness between KLR and DR is an exercise in futility; the rider determines that.

The KLR is more 'tour' ready with more luggage options, more windshield options (it comes with a much more substantial fairing), larger 'tour ready' tank, and many more aftermarket options.  Look around on www.advrider.com's ride reports.  You'll usually see slick exotics, highly modified XRs, and a KLR right in the mix at the ends of the earth.  They always get you there.  The DRs are less represented; I think because they don't offer the serious offroad gain that the XLs do when modified, and are more expensive to modify, and require more mods, to compete with a KLR for actual 'adventure' duty.

None of this is to bash the DR; it is a fantastic bike.  In fact, I was on my way to buy a blue DR when I wound up getting a deal I couldn't refuse on my KLR ($3995 otd).  If you're doing more than 'in town' riding though, you'll want a larger tank; especially if you're even considering some extended 'out there' miles.  It also needs a saddle swap; the DR has a MX saddle (very, very thin) which is more than a little uncomfortable.

Now, I hate to do this because I'm starting to sound like a broken record, but between the DR650 and the KLX250S, there isn't a huge difference on-road, but a MEGA difference offroad.  Ride one before dismissing outright.  It will suffer similar limitations as the DR for extended touring, however, but the mods are out there, along with engine upgrades, that make it very competative.

[oremike]

 I just got a 2001 DR 650 to go where the bandit is too much bike and I love it. In trafic the DR is a blast to ride tall, skiny, and nimble. On tight twisty wet pavement roads with gravel in the corners I'll take the DR every time. I haven't done much fire roading yet but thats what I got the DR for and I'm sure it will do just fine. All that being said for rides of all good pavement over say 100 miles I'd rather take the bandit, it's my sport tourer. I didn't check out the KLR's because the Kaw dealer here sucks so I'd have to go 125 miles for parts and service. I'm sure they are a fine bike just got a poor dealer.
Mike M.

[speedjunkie]

The KLR sounds like it would best suite your needs.  The bike overall is reliable, but then again, so is Honda, Zook, and KTM.  But, the overall design is very dated.  

Somethings to consider from my experience.  The KLR is overweight, undersprung, and underpowered.  The weight can't be fixed and the power enhancements are pretty limited.  There is a big bore kit for it that is better, but you still have the overall weight.  Of course, the suspension can be fixed for $$.  So, if any of these things would be an issue, consider something else.  There are a few weak points in the bike that have mostly been sorted out over the years in aftermarket goodies.  See Fred at Arrowhead.  

I "settled" for a KLR and thought it would suit my needs fine.  I was very wrong.  I wanted a dirt bike that I could run on the street.  But what I got was a street bike that was, for me, less than adequate in the dirt.  I wanted something that put a grin on my face EVERY time.  The KTM does that for me, street or dirt!  The KLR never did.  The KLR is fine on the street and gravel roads, but single track woods riding, she's just really not up to the task.  Your results may vary.  Good luck and have fun, whatever you decide!






Mike

[Johnny Monsoon]

Here's the basic deal:  The KLR and DR are bikes that sit right in the very center of the dual-sport spectrum.  A lot of people put huge emphasis on a bike that performs like a dirt bike offroad, yet others get by just fine (and still go amazing places) with really big bikes like the Tiger and GS1150.  The KLR and DR are lightweights by comparison.  Other folks (like me) would be just as happy with a KLX250S or a KLR250 on trips.  So, no bike, really, is a better 'bike'; it is just that one (or a couple) will suit your needs much better than the others; and that bike will be the 'best' bike for you.  

This is where the KLR/DR comes into the equation.  They're plentiful, reliable, and cheap.  Grab either; it really doesn't matter which, and they'll point you to where you want to go in the DS range.  You may find you'll be satisfied with the KLR stock (lots and lots of folks are) or the DR stock.  

We tell new riders to get appropriate bikes that fit their needs all the time.  This is a very similar issue.  Sure, you *could* grab a KTM640Adventure, but you've just sunk a TON of money into a bike that's a whole bunch of DS experience.  What happens when you find out you don't like it the way you thought you would?  Or, if you decide you really would rather have a much lighter bike, or a more streetable bike?  It would not be unlike the new rider who was sure they wanted a HD dresser, bought one, then realized they were more of a sport rider after all.

In cheap, out cheap.  That's the great thing about most DS bikes.  Your first one won't likely be your last, and, like new entry level bikes, you'll find that you can sell them for near what you paid for them if you buy used.

[zero]

Although I don't own either bike, after reading 'Two Wheels Through Terror' I have a new found respect for the KLR. Glen Heggstad put his through everything imaginable. If anyone hasn't read it, then I highly recommend it.

[R.Markus]

I would agree with what Johny Monsoon stated above...

..and the KLR will perform admirably off road:

[Mrs. DantesDame]

There's some good information in this thread as well: http://www.sport-touring.net/forums/index.php/topic,2570.msg55897.html#msg55897

[Bad Dad]

Xr650L, the better dirt bike. KLR650, the better street bike. DR650 The 50/50 bike.

[forester]

I am thinking of getting a dual sport sometime soon and both the KLR and DR seem to be more or less what I want. Haven't ridden either of them yet though, which one is preferred by ST-Ners? I know the KLR has been around a lot longer and there aren't many real problems with them,

The "doohickey issue" is the only potential problem I've really ever heard with the KLR.  I believe that can be fixed cheaply.

how does the DR compare?

Poorer quality seat than the KLR so I hear from a buddy of mine who had one, but I believe it is more purpose built for the off-road experience where you're using your legs more often than seated anyway.  It's not as popular of a choice compared to the KLR, but that wouldn't stop me from buying one for trail riding.  I've ridden one short (120 mile with breaks) road ride where there was a guy on each of these bikes.  The 650s both have plenty of "go".  I liked the looks of the KLR better, but the DR is a good choice too.  Based on what you've suggested, I'd tend to steer you toward the KLR if a 650 class motorcycle is the only thing you are considering.  If you're open to others, read on...

 

And how about on-road riding?

Road-based knobbies compromise the least off-pavement in my opinion.  Having ridden a true dual purpose before, I can tell you that I really liked that 21" knobby tired wheel leading the bike down the gravel roads better than my 'strom, but on-road there is no comparison for the comfort of a street-biased tire like the 'strom trailwings (they are not the same as the KLR trailwings).


 

I want it for touring on mixed road types including gravel, but no serious off road riding. Opinions please!

That statement pretty much favors the KLR right away!

However, like Johnny Monsoon suggests (and now this thread is going to sound like a broken record), I would personally opt for a lighter weight bike if I were to choose to purchase a true dual-sport.  There is just nothing like throwing a lightweight bike around off-trail.  As I look at the available options (which are limited), the KLX250 is the best bang for the buck.

[pj]

I bought a 2006 KLR 650 in March 2006.  I'm only 5'7" so I had the dealer drop it 3" using a Scootworks lowering link.  I also put on a 7" taller windshield than stock and put on a flat Corbin seat.  I'm living in Ohio now and mostly just ride the secondary roads around the state.  It is fine for that.  There are very few unpaved roads here, so I have not had much opportunity for off-roading.  My opinion is that weighing in at 327# dry and probably about 375 with a full tank, it is too heavy for riding single trails.  In June I will be moving home to Montana, so I'll find out how it does on gravel and dirt roads then.  That's why I really bought it--to ride on the highway to places I want to explore or fish that are off the beaten path.  I think it will do fine on dirt and gravel roads.

I have 7400 miles on my bike, so I have really enjoyed riding it.  The Corbin seat is a great improvement.  With the stock seat my bottom was really uncomfortable after 200 miles or so.  After the Corbin I rode 325 miles one day with no discomfort.  The windshield is a nice improvement for highway use, too.

I am considering buying a V-Strom 650 for touring.  It has a sixth gear versus 5 on the KLR650 and the dual cylinder engine puts out considerably more horsepower than the single cylinder on the KLR650.

The DR650 has a good reputation also.  It is aircooled and has been around.  Peter Egan in Cycle World magazine speaks well of his.  I almost bought one, but liked the KLR better due to its reputation as a hearty military bike and world tourer.  You'll be happy whichever you get as they are both strong reliable bikes, so go with the one that feels best to you.  

[SWriverstone]

Also consider the Suzuki DRZ400 (I think I got that right?)...it's a nice one too, albeit with a slightly smaller tank.

As for the KLR being "overweight, undersprung, and underpowered"...
• Overweight? Compared to what? A tiny enduro? Then yes. A BMW (any BMW)? The KLR is lighter.
• Undersprung? Yes, in it's stock configuration—but a few hundred bucks and some Progressive springs and shock fixes that (and makes it better than the other bikes).
• Underpowered?   That depends—if you want to pass people at 90mph on the highway, yes. Otherwise, no. (And an inexpensive smaller front sprocket gives it piles more grunt down low, if that's what floats your boat.)

Here's an important consideration:
The KLR probably has as much (or more) aftermarket and community support than any other bike on the planet. There are a TON of mods you can get for this bike. Not as true of the others. And there are dozens of fantastic, step-by-step-with-full-color-photos-and-schematics "how-tos" on the web showing you how to do everything from changing tires to adjusting the valves. There is no problem you could possibly have with a KLR that dozens of people can't tell you quickly exactly how to fix it (or prevent it).

All of this was important for me: to have a bike that's "of the people, for the people!"  

Scott

EDIT: I wouldn't be surprised if in 10 years there isn't an equal amount of aftermarket and community support for the V-Strom...assuming Suzuki doesn't do something stupid like stop making it (or "improve" it 'til it sucks).