|
|
Post by timberwolfmadcat on Aug 20, 2006 16:03:01 GMT -5
1) The engine is RPM limited to 8,000 RPM 2) This therefore means they are geared much taller than the ruckus, as they can hit 78 km/h stock 3) This being said they also wiegh nearly 100 lbs more than the ruckus 4) All this and they can still out accelerate us, wierd eh  |
|
|
|
Post by chanito on Aug 20, 2006 19:37:56 GMT -5
 Not really, they have a two cycle engine, which is more powerful, but they use more gas and require fill ups with two cycle oil regularly, they will not pass the 15.000 miles without serius wear, the seating position sucks, and the ruckus is way cooler
|
|
|
|
Post by Kami no Chiizu on Aug 20, 2006 19:40:52 GMT -5
That and they look exactly like a million other cheap chinese scooters.
|
|
|
|
Post by chanito on Aug 20, 2006 19:53:08 GMT -5
 I loooove! Katrina
|
|
|
|
Post by fokusing on Aug 21, 2006 1:26:07 GMT -5
more like cheap, chinese scooters try to look more like it.
let's not forget the disc brakes up front and added horespower.
even IF the engine needed to be replaced after 20,000miles it would only cost a few hundred bucks to replace entirely.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kami no Chiizu on Aug 21, 2006 1:31:01 GMT -5
okay, all the cheap scooters look alike...
Like wannabe sportbikes. Like for people that want a Ninja, but can't lay off the booze.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dandy Dan on Aug 21, 2006 11:38:17 GMT -5
Are you sure they weight almost 100lbs more? That doesn't sound right....I'm gonna look this up.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kami no Chiizu on Aug 21, 2006 12:45:22 GMT -5
Maybe riding two up. Yamaha's website lists the Zuma's dry weight as 185 lbs.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dandy Dan on Aug 21, 2006 13:03:19 GMT -5
Maybe riding two up. Yamaha's website lists the Zuma's dry weight as 185 lbs. Sounds right....I can't see the Zuma weight 300lbs or 50% heavier than the Ruck. |
|
|
|
Post by cabuco2006 on May 29, 2007 19:23:09 GMT -5
Not really, they have a two cycle engine, which is more powerful, but they use more gas and require fill ups with two cycle oil regularly, they will not pass the 15.000 miles without serius wear, the seating position sucks, and the ruckus is way cooler im with u on this one chanito. i had a yamaha razz. two stroke, and the filling up the oil every here and their gets annoying after awhile.. luckily it was direct injected or i would have to mix it with the gas |
|
|
|
Post by timberwolfmadcat on Jun 1, 2007 9:06:16 GMT -5
Maybe riding two up. Yamaha's website lists the Zuma's dry weight as 185 lbs. Sounds right....I can't see the Zuma weight 300lbs or 50% heavier than the Ruck. Dude this thing is a tank.... ill have to look at my dads bike, it is much heavier than my Ruckus, i have a little difficulty lifting the tail off the ground |
|
|
|
Post by Dandy Dan on Jun 1, 2007 9:31:57 GMT -5
Still seems hard to believe...an air cooled 2-stroke engine should be lighter than our engines....maybe the weight distribution is just more rear-ward so the rear end is heavier and the front is lighter?
|
|
|
|
Post by timberwolfmadcat on Jun 3, 2007 15:15:30 GMT -5
Still seems hard to believe...an air cooled 2-stroke engine should be lighter than our engines....maybe the weight distribution is just more rear-ward so the rear end is heavier and the front is lighter? Ill find the stickered wieght... i can lift up my ruckus no problem, his BW is definitely a lot heavier, i have a hard time pulling it onto the center stand  |
|
|
|
Post by chanito on Jun 3, 2007 18:32:55 GMT -5
That aluminum frame sure help with making our Ruckus lighter
|
|
|
|
Post by Dandy Dan on Jun 5, 2007 8:32:20 GMT -5
Yeah...it's too bad they didn't make the rear frame aluminum too.
|
|
