YAMAHA
T - Z
Yamaha TY175. Late 1970s. In the early 1980s, a few of us got into trials-riding. So we went out and bought trials bikes. A couple of the group bought TY175s. These machines were vastly different to the trials machines you see today. They even had lights and blinkers so you could register them. In effect they were really just smaller-framed light-weight trail-bikes, with smaller seat, lower front mudguard, and engines tuned for greater low-end torque. As I said, vastly different to the specialist machines of today!
The TY175 was a nice little bike though. Very light and manageable, and reasonably capable for what it was (there were more seriously-focused trials irons around). I bought a TY250 (see next item) and the guys who had these 175s were impressed - and a bit envious - when they rode mine, because of the extra power. 

Yamaha TY250. 1977. See the item above for the background to my buying one of these. The 250 was a bit bigger and heavier than the 175, but it was also quite a bit more powerful. And that power was very useable, making it more capable of tackling steep climbs etc. As I mentioned with the 175, mine also came with lights and blinkers etc, although I took them off as it was to be used exclusively as an off-road bike. (And yes, that's me doing a bit of trials-riding on the left).
As I also mentioned above, these were a long way from the specialist machines we see today. Suspension was one of the things; it wasn't especially long-travel, and not especially soft. Not much different to a normal trail-bike in fact. So that probably limited it's ability in trials-type situations a bit.
What was impressive though, and what I especially liked about the bike, was the power. 2-strokes aren't known for their torque, but this was surprisingly powerful from low revs. You could turn up a steep climb almost from idling speed and it would pull up with a power that was quite remarkable for a 2-stroke. I suppose gearing had a lot to do with it, but also the engine was very tractable. Hitting steep climbs from very low speed and having it power it's way up was what I really enjoyed about riding it.
It was harder to start than smaller capacity bikes though. And it had an annoying habit of kicking-back if you didn't get it right - which usually resulted in it driving my knee up onto the handle-bar! Ouch!
The other guys got more serious about this trials-riding thing and went into competitions etc. I joined them, although my riding has always been for relaxation, not for competition; and I was never really much good at competition riding! When we'd go riding together they'd be practicing riding over huge rocks and logs etc, and I'd be just enjoying tootling around and going up and down some steep bits. It was fun, but eventually I got tired of having to trailer it everywhere to ride, so stuck more to trail-riding; and sold the TY.

Yamaha XJ600 1984. This is the one produced in the 1980s, from about 1984 to 1989. You can read about my experiences with this bike in the "Worst Bike I've Bought" item in the "Happenings" section. Despite that, these were actually quite a good thing! And I'm glad I owned it actually. Back then it was considered a sports-bike, and was really the fore-runner of today's crop of 600 sportsters like the R6 and the Honda CBR600 etc. For that alone, it was an interesting bike!
With a claimed 52kw it was certainly quick in it's day. Twin discs up front gave good stopping power, and it had a couple of other niceties like a half-fairing, and a fuel-gauge (the first bike I owned that had one). It was a tall bike, and perhaps might be considered a bit top-heavy by modern standards. I found the ride to be a little harsh too. 

Yamaha XJ600 Seca. 1996. Ah, now, this is a real personal favourite! This is the bike I bought after the earlier XJ600. And it was the bike that really got me back into riding each weekend, riding further, and being generally more enthused about bikes than I'd been in quite a while! In many of the articles I've written here, when I mention my "mid-size sports-tourer", this is the bike I'm referring to. (Although in reality I suppose it was more a "Commuter-Tourer"). At the time of writing this (early 2006) I covered more kilometres on this bike than any other bike I've owned.
The XJ600 was re-introduced after an absence of around 4 years; being released in about 1993. But it was a vastly different bike to the earlier model. This wasn't intended as a sports-bike. It was more a sports-tourer, and had been "softened" quite a bit from the earlier model; although it was also a more modern design. The frame was completely new, and was lower and just a little longer. It was a couple of kg lighter also. The riding position was just slightly more lean-forward than the earlier model; although that was due more to the earlier bike's tall stance, and the newer bike's more modern design, rather than any pretence to being "sporty". I found it a much more comfortable riding position than the old bike. And comfort was a strong feature. A "Two Wheels" road test at the time said, "It's touring comfort would do a BMW's ergonomics team proud". That might be a bit of an over-statement, but I certainly found it comfortable (especially for it's size), and as I've said, it encouraged me to ride further and more frequently than I had in a long time!
It handled extremely well! Not in a sports-bike way (it was probably a bit soft for that), but in an easy-to-ride way. The first time I rode it, I was amazed; it felt as easy to handle as a 250! The ride was also good, and added to the comfort factor.
The engine was basically the same as the earlier model, with exactly the same internal dimensions (same bore and stroke and same compression-ratio) but produced less power - down to 45kw. Torque was about the same. But these were produced at lower engine-speeds; power about 1,000rpm lower, and torque about 2000rpm lower. The result was a bike that was extremely smooth and very tractable. Where the old bike didn't really get into it's stride until it got to around 4,000rpm, with the new one you could pull away from under 2,000rpm and change-up at 4000rpm! In fact it seemed to encourage this more "lazy" style of riding; although you could still wind it out if you wanted to! Interestingly, red-line was 500rpm lower, at 9,500.
Probably because the power came lower in the rev range, I didn't really miss the power of the older bike. Perhaps it didn't feel quite as "fiery" as the old one, (maybe not quite the same "sting" when you gave it a big handful of throttle), although I always felt that was due more to the smoother power-delivery than it was to a significantly reduced rate of acceleration.
You certainly wouldn't describe it as a "fast bike", by today's standards anyway, but it was a very pleasant bike to ride, with power that was entirely adequate for around town or out on the highway. For example, you could be following a car at 100kph on the highway and just give the throttle a twist and it would whip out and around and be doing 120 a few seconds later when it pulled back in. Any open-road hill could easily be taken in top gear with just a slight increase in throttle. And it would cruise easily at 100 - 130kph; with 110 - 120 being a particularly sweet-spot. So not particularly fast, but entirely adequate! 
Interestingly, it lost a couple of things from the old bike. Up front was now just a single disc; although the stopping power was still more than adequate. The fuel-gauge also disappeared, which was the only thing I really missed from the old bike.
I've said it was a very smooth bike; and that was one of it's strong points. Smooth power delivery, and a smooth ride. It was also superbly reliable!
The only "fault" really was a tendency for the fairing to vibrate and rattle a bit. Other than that, it was a great bike for commuting and mid-size sports-touring. As I said, a real personal favourite, and I reckon one in good condition would still be a good bike; especially for an old bloke!

Yamaha XJ650. Early 1980s. A 4-cylinder, shaft-drive bike with bikini-style fairing. This was sports-touring 1980 style. And it must have been a good thing, because it won "Two Wheels" magazine's "Bike Of The Year" award in about 1980. A more recent 2nd-hand review summed it up as, "Shaft-driven and one of the nicer bikes around".
A mate of mine had one of these and gave me a ride. "It really starts to go over about 6,000" he told me. But I was changing up at about 5,000rpm; and it still seemed to go well. Specs I found quoted power at 52kw, with a weight of 230kg. I rode this when it was fairly new, so it's a long time ago now. But I do remember it as performing well and being very stable.
There is one very significant memory I have of this bike; it was the first bike I got up to the "ton" - 100mph or 160kph. (The owner said he often rode it at this sort of speed, so I didn't feel guilty at giving it a blast up to this along the expressway). I remember two things about my first "ton-up" experience; one was how quick the road was disappearing under the front wheel, and the other was how stable the bike was at this speed. 

Yamaha XJ900 Diversion. Late 1990s. I've had very limited experience with this one, and haven't had a chance to ride it enough to comment. But it probably deserves mentioning what little I do know, because it has been a favourite with old blokes. In fact, at one time it was almost the standard bike for blokes joining the Ulysses Club! And it's not hard to see why. It looks good, it's a decent size, it's comfortable, it's got good power, and low maintenance. The perfect bike, right? Well, good yes, but maybe not perfect!
Having owned the XJ600, I expected this to be a bigger (and possibly better) version of that. And it kind of is. Apparently Yamaha waited to see how the 600 did (and it sold well - especially overseas) before releasing the big-brother version. It looks similar (in fact people often mistook my 600 for the 900) and feels kind of similar to sit on; except bigger.
The engine / gearbox unit is of course bigger, and even the fairing seems bigger, and more solid - which is a good thing, given the fairing on the 600's tendency to vibrate. The instrument panel contains a bit more info too; like fuel level, which is always useful. The exhaust header-pipes are chromed, which is one visual improvement on the 600.
It performs well and sits on the road well, although there is a question-mark over low-speed handling. Some road-testers commented on a tendency for the front to "tuck-in" on slow-speed corners. I've heard some riders describe it as feeling "top-heavy", but it isn't; it actually has a reasonably low centre-of-gravity. It's more a steering-geometry thing than a weight thing.
Speaking of weight, it is a bit heavy by today's standards. At 239kg it's actually 2kg heavier than a (2004 model) fully-faired Yamaha FJ1300. It's a legacy of when it was designed. When it first hit the road back in the mid-90s, comparable bikes (like Triumph's Sprint, for example) were around the same weight. Today they're about 30kg lighter. The problem (if you can call it that!) was that it stayed in production virtually unchanged until 2003. And by then other bikes, like it's afore-mentioned bigger brother, were more modern and efficient in design.
But I still reckon they must be a good thing; all those Ulysses members who had one can't be wrong!  
Yamaha XS650. Early 1980s. I like old Triumphs; the ones from the 1950s and 1960s. And so this appealed to me; being Yamaha's take on the Triumph concept. Sure, the styling was different, but the engine (at least the top-section) could have come straight off the production-line at Meriden. I thought of it as a kind of "Clayton's Triumph"; a classic-Triumph-type bike, but without the oil-leaks and dodgy electrics; and with the benefit of Japanese build-quality and reliability. It also had the luxury of electric-start. I was impressed when I rode one too! Power is listed at 37kw, but I still thought it went well.
The motor sounded good too; it mightn't have been quite the same as a genuine Triumph, but it still had that "sporty British twin" sound to it. The usual twin-cylinder vibes were there, but didn't seem too bad. Added to it's character rather than annoyed you. So, it sounded good, went well, and I found it good to ride. If I'd found the right bike at the right price and had the right amount of money to spend I'd probably have bought one! But I didn't.
These bikes have their critics (as all bikes do!), but they also have a very solid fan-base. There are even clubs for them, with their owners very passionate about the model. They did have one mechanical weak-point though; the starter-motor clutch. They were very prone to breaking a pin in the assembly. It was a typical "20c part that takes $200 to replace" scenario. This was an affliction that effected a few Yamaha models from that period actually. I still like them though.

Yamaha XT200. Late 1980s. A 4-stroke mid-capacity trailie. It was the smallest of the XT range (XTs were 4-stroke, DTs were 2-stroke), but a good little bike. I had a couple of brief rides on these and was impressed! They were easy to start (still kick-start, of course), and went well on the road. With trail-bikes, I always found 4-strokes were a bit better on the road; better torque and no problems with plugs over-heating etc. But this was quite a good thing off-road too. From my brief ride I found I could ride it slowly in trials-fashion with it remaining smooth and nicely balanced. It was another bike I considered buying at one stage.

Yamaha XT500. Late 1970s. A trail-riding mate bought one of these back in the mid 1980s. In fact I went with him to help him check it out (and trailer it home). These were a big, powerful trailie; and possessed both the advantages and disadvantages of that. They had power for any situation, but were a bit big and heavy for serious off-road riding. The owner acknowledged this when he described riding it in company with smaller off-road machines. He said that on straight sections he'd blow them away, but come to corners and he'd have trouble stopping it and turning it as quick as the smaller bikes.
Kick-starting a 500cc single takes a bit of technique and muscle, even with a decompression lever; and starting it was always a challenge whenever I rode it. But on road, or on open trails, it was fun. Screw the throttle around from idle in 1st gear and it would happily stand up on the back wheel. I used to like to loft the front on my DT, but with that as soon as the wheel got up it was time to change gear and the wheel would come back down again. With the XT it went up with plenty of revs to go, and stayed there as you mono-wheeled up the road. Great fun! It had heaps of grunt for hills, both on road and off-road. But I found it a real handful in the bush. Whenever we went riding together I used to like to ride the XT to wherever we were going to ride, then I'd happily swap back to my DT for the bush stuff.         

Yamaha XV535. Mid 1990s. Back when I had the SR250, I was going through my "cruiser-phase". With the bikini-style fairing it came with, and the panniers I'd fitted, added to it's soft-chop style, it encouraged me to aspire to a cruiser-type bike. And I reckoned the XV535 would be ideal! I still think it is the best-looking of the Virago range. Bigger than the diminutive 250, but with more pleasant styling than the bigger models - which always look to me as if something heavy has fallen on the middle of them! It would have plenty enough power for me, and I also liked the fact that it had normal foot-pegs (not running-boards), and that those foot-pegs were positioned normally, not way out in front. Then I rode one; and learnt the truth about cruisers! (For a more detailed discourse on my opinions of cruisers, see item on Cruisers in the "Comments" section).
The particular model I rode had pull-back-and-down handlebars, which despite the owner's insistence that it provided a more natural position of the hands, I felt uncomfortable with - especially on U-turns.
It was very comfortable to sit on, and I was quite satisfied with the performance. With about 34kw it wasn't a rocket, but still went well enough for what I wanted. Handling was hard to evaluate with the weird bars, but it seemed quite okay in that department too.
What disappointed me was the ride. It felt quite harsh; especially at the rear. Andd it didn't take long to see why. The rear suspension is the usual twin-units, rather than mono-shock. And the upper mountings of the units are aimed pretty much straight at the rider's backside, thereby transmitting road shocks straight to the rider. The real problem though comes when you look at specs on suspension-travel. The XV claims just 85mm of travel. Other mid-size commuter / tourers have around 110mm or more. Less travel means they need to be stiffer, and so the ride becomes harder. That's when I began considering other types of bikes. And as I've said in the item on cruisers, I reckon other types of bikes - like sprots-tourers - are a better choice -especially for an old bloke!
However if you really do want a mid-size cruiser, then these are still a good thing; with better performance and handling than you'd get in quite a few other similar type bikes.   

Yamaha XV750. 1980s. I kind of liked these. V-twin, shaft-drive and chopper-ish styling; but not exactly a Harley copy. They were their own thing, and probably intended to be more rideable (in an "all-round" sense) than the usual cruiser style. I think that was the main reason I liked them. Following this more individual approach, rear suspension was mono-shock, not twin-unit as with most other cruisers (and Yamaha's later XV series). They sounded good, and the vibes were fairly well-controlled. Performance seemed good too, from the fairly brief couple of rides I had. The one I remember most had high-rise handlebars, so I couldn't really assess the handling.
For some reason they never seemed to be as popular as they should have been. (I did hear some whispers of reliability problems). But to me, as a more individual and more rideable cruiser style bike, I liked them.

Yamaha XZ550. Early 1980s. These were a bit odd really. The concept was probably good - a longitudinal V-twin, shaft-drive and cast wheels - but it somehow wasn't as impressive as it could have been. A neighbour owned one for a while and I had a couple of brief rides. I remember it as being an "okay" bike. Performance was "okay", but nothing special. Handling too was "okay", but not as good as I expected. Comfort was, again, "okay" but didn't overly impress. (I seem to recall the riding position felt a bit odd; not sure why now). I was riding the Yamaha SR250 at the time, and while it was certainly a much better bike than that, it didn't make me want to rush out and buy one; because it was just "okay", not especially "good"!
  The neighbour actually picked up another one to use for spares; which was a pointer to one of the bike's main criticisms. These things had a reputation for being unreliable. One 2nd-hand review I read summed it up in these words: "Nice idea but too many problems. Avoid". The neighbour would endorse that recommendation; his ended up spending more time with a mechanic than it did at home, so he sold it.

Yamaha Zeal 250. Mid 1990s. I had a test-ride on a new one of these. They were a 4-cylinder 250cc sports / commuter. Suzuki did a similar sort of thing with their Across. The Yamaha seemed more overtly sporty though. The engine was quite incredible. As mentioned, it was a 4-cylinder, with 4 carbies of course, and produced around 32kw. Compression ratio was 12:1, and the red-line was around 14,500! Yes, it was meant to rev! Or "scream", more like it! I wound it up to 11,000rpm a couple of times, and it was certainly an experience to hear that little engine wailing beneath you! (The only other bike I recall riding at these sort of revs was some belt-drive Kawasaki which I forget what model  it was now). With that sort of power, revs and light weight, of course it went well! Specs I saw on one site claimed a top speed of 180kph; although another site's claim of 140kph might be more realistic. I recall it cruising - albeit at high revs - quite capably at 110kph. Acceleration, accompanied as it was by the scream of the high-revving little donk, was pretty quick too. But it needed to be revving to provide the go.
Despite it's obvious performance advantages, it wasn't a bike that I would have considered buying. For one thing I have too much mechanical sympathy to own an engine that has to be worked that hard! I recall it wasn't terribly comfortable, and seemed a bit cramped for a lanky bloke like me. Still, quite a unique bike, and attractive for that I suppose. One of the few 250s that you'd proudly show off to your mates; "Look, it's got 4 cylinders, and look at the revs it does!"
Click here to return to front page. Click your BACK button to return to previous page.
Yamaha XJ1200. 1997. I got more interested in these retro-styled nakeds after finding them comfortable to sit on, and also having a couple of regular readers who own a Suzuki GSX1400 and loving them. I couldn't find either a Suzuki or Yamaha XJR1300 at any dealers to test, so when I came upon an XJ1200 I thought I'd take it for a spin.
When I rode it, it was 10 years old, and had 57,000km up. It was painted in Kenny Roberts-style yellow with checkered striping - not a finish I would pick myself! It was in good condition though, and came fitted with a handlebar-mounted screen, which no doubt helped keep the wind down a bit.
With a broad comfortable seat and up-right riding position, it was very comfortable. I've said in a few places on this site that I don't like an up-right riding position because it places all the weight - and road shocks - directly on your spine. But I suppose it depends what you're sitting on! In this case, the seat was comfortable, and the twin Ohlins at the back did a fine job of giving a smooth ride. I didn't encounter any really rough roads, but when I did aim it at pot-holes etc, there were more road-shocks transmitted through the bars than there were through the seat. (Hmmm, there might be something to this up-right position after all!).
Weight is listed at 232kg, but it doesn't feel heavy. Only on sharpish corners at low speed did the weight make itself felt. The handling seemed a bit more difficult, but I think that was just a matter of me suddenly being aware of the weight. Maybe that, combined with less than ideal steering geometry? Anyway, other than that it was great to ride. With 71kw it was a quick bike; although it didn't feel as quick as it was. The performance is very smooth. Twist the throttle away from the lights and by the time you're changing out of 2nd you're a block in front of the rest of the traffic. It's amazingly torquey! It'll pull from under 2,000rpm in any gear, and then rev cleanly and quickly towards the red-line if you want to take it that far. You're never in the wrong gear - even if you are!
So, a relaxing and enjoyable bike to ride. The sort that you could settle into and do a long ride and still be relaxed at the end of it. Top gear (of 5) was geared at about 30 kph / 1,000rpm, so cruising was effortless; although there still was a bit of wind at highway speeds.
Yamaha XJR1300. 2006. This was the bike that I said was the most comfortable I sat on at the 2006 Sydney Motorbike show. And comfortable it certainly was! The bike is very similar to the current (2008, as I write this) model I tested earlier in the year. The seat is slightly different though; in shape, and it also has different foam. Hard to say how it compares to the new one, but this was wide and plush; maybe even more so than the new one, although I certainly found the new one comfortable too. Reminds me of the 1970s, when comfort seemed to be a higher priority in seat design!
This was the last of the carburettor versions. The engine was smooth and had the same low-down torque of the new one; which adds to it’s easy-to-ride nature. Perhaps it was just this bike (it was very low on fuel and running a bit rough at idle when I rode it), but I felt performance might not have been quite up to the new one. But then I did ride this straight after riding an ’04 Yamaha FZ1; and the difference in power to that was certainly noticeable. Not that you could accuse the XJR of lacking in power!
The bike had the same easy-to-ride characteristics as the new one. It was heavier than the FZ1 I’d just stepped off, but around town, which was where I rode it, it was easier and more accurate to steer. I think the FZ1 has to be ridden more aggressively to appreciate it’s capabilities.
I reckon the bike looks great! Call me old-fashioned (well, I am an old bloke!), but I like all the chrome, and silver engine.
The ride was good too, although I didn’t get too many rough patches to test it out.
My only real criticism was that, like the first new one I rode, the bars felt all wrong. Too high, set at a wrong angle, even too wide perhaps. That’s for my preference; and it’s not a major problem. Probably just a matter of adjustment, or at the very worst, a change of bars.
As I said, I rode this straight after riding an FZ1 and within 100 metres of the showroom I knew which one I preferred; it was the XJR. I like them!