'82 750 Seca vs 650 turbo

What are the advantages one way or another?
I currently have the 750 with the touring package, and found a turbo at a moving sale that seems like a good price.
Are there pitfalls with the turbo? Are the carbs the same? (I hate my carbs). The turbo's odometer reads 21k miles, where as mine is up at 27k miles.
I like the full fairing better than the one on mine.
Should it get better gas milage?
Thanks for any advice.

 

About all I know on the turbos is that they apparently have a kinda wicked punch when the turbo spools up... From what I understand, they're alot of fun, and depending on price, 21k miles isn't too bad.

Plus you could always make a mean monstrosity of a bike by combining bits of the two.... :twisted:

 

The price was $900, I could probably get $1400 for mine. I'm trying to do the sweat equity thing to move up the bike ladder.
It probably needs new filters and the tank checked out. The paint isn't so great, probably a rattle-can job. The tires seem fine, and it idles better than my 750.

 

When I read (somewhere here) that the TURBO bike was only three tenths quicker in the 1/4 mile than the regular 650, I gave up the idea of restoring my TURBO, which only has 2,400 miles.

You would be inheriting unknown problems that need expensive and hard to find parts to fix. A NOS turn signal lens goes for $75.

Work on what you have, unless you really want a turbo bike.

 

just took a quick look the cycle world 1/4 time was 12.06 sec at 109 mph U are saying that a non turbo 650 runs 12.16 stock?? Maybe idunno I guess I didn't realize the 650's were that fast. My maxim X seems quick but I doubt it would touch a near 12 sec in a 1/4.

 

I have a Seca Turbo and really like it. I had a 750 seca years ago but do not remember that much about it. Both bikes are shaft drive which are great if you like touring around the country. Best thing I like about the turbo is the lower fairings. If it's raining you get lots of protection from the rain. The turbo puunch isnt that much but it is fun and for the first few times make sure that you are in a familiar area and have plenty of room. Sure NOS parts are expensive but do you have to have NOS parts? If you do happen to get the turbo, be prepared to pull the carbs and clean them out. Also you will need to clean out the fuel pump if it works, if it doesnt work do not throw the pump away, it can be fixed. There is also a fuel check valve that get's gummed up and needs to be cleaned once in a while. Also these bikes need to be ridden, they do not like to sit around and be a garage ornament. Any questions either PM me or ask me here. Ohh gas mileage has ranged from 53 mph to 36 mph, depends on how addicted you get to the boost.
Sean

 

Wouldn't 3/10 quicker mean the stock 650 ran a 12.36?

For reference, the SECA 750 was specced at 12.3 @ 106.6mph.

 

LOL yes it would be DUH!!! 8O . hmm you'd think the turbo would be faster or maybe it just takes longer than the 1/4 to get it spooled up to really make a difference. hmm guess there wasn't a big advantage then over the normally aspirated bikes.

 

It's also been said here (many times) that if you want to go really fast, get something else, like a 10 year old R1.

These quarter mile times were done on brand new bikes, with 110 pound Jay Gleason as the pilot, and a mechanic / tuner finding every available horsepower.

But back to the man's question- - the turbo won't gain you windshield area, it gains you mechanical complexity and even weight, weaker front brakes, no luggage, an expensive paint job if you want the bike to look "factory".

You gain "rareness" , a little horsepower, the boost feeling, wastegate sound, and the turbo whine added to the primary gear whine.

My opinion, improve upon your current bike's problems.

 

The Yamaha Turbo is a very neat bike. It is really easy to ride around town, a great commuter, and very reliable as long as you ride it regularly. I agree with the previous post---it doesn't like to sit. It needs adequate warm up time prior to playing with the boost and it likes very regular oil changes.It is the most reliable of all the Turbo bikes built. I have ridden mine coast to coast and would do it again tomorrow if the opportunity arose. When you study the fuel system, it is really simple, but with a lot of pieces. I have had 5 of them since 1982 and I guess I'll keep the 83 I have now for many years to come. And yes, I have other bikes to ride---but the Turbo is a "Hoot" in it's own unique way. Full boost is a rush! The major fault is inadequate brakes for the acceleration it is capable of. Stainless brake lines help, but still plan ahead!

 

having been a crew chief on a couple drag racing efforts, i know a lot of guys who would LOVE to find another "only" 0.3 seconds.

And a 650 capable of spanking it's 750 sibling?

Red-blooded, American Male Bikers, who haven't turned in their testicles for a lovely matching set of doilies, will ALWAYS opt for the bike that does 0.3 seconds quicker in the quarter.

0.3 seconds is an ETERNITY in a drag race.

I do agree with TTR, in that YOU or I will never post those times on OUR bikes.
Sir Jay Gleason and Rickey Gadson are better and faster than you.
And unless the article stated that the bike was randomly picked from a crate load of showroom bikes, they were piloting specially factory prepped units.

Still, the RELATIVISM of showroom-like bikes, ridden by the same rider, in substantially similar conditions (especially when corrected to standard conditions) do give us a discussion departure point.

I'll take the quicker one, Alex. :twisted:

 

but being ridden by an average rider on average streets, it is a pointless advantage. its a more expensive bike, faster only if you are riding quarter mile races ever day. other wise absolutely not worth the extra costs involved with owning a turbo.

 

if your doing the number crunch Maxim x 11.77 113

 

The Turbo would be a downgrade. Find a nice 900. Unless you like to wrench.

However, if exclusivity is your bag, go for it. The novelty wears off pretty quickly though.

 

There's no replacement for displacement!!!

 

Couple of points about the turbo bikes and published quarter-mile times:

Back in the day, EVERY ONE of the "Big 4" motorcycle magazines (yes magazines, remember those?) took their test bikes out to the strip and had (usually) Jay Gleason, all 110lbs dripping wet, do their 1/4 mile runs. Those are the numbers that are usually bandied about; you won't get them yourself.

Norton claims 12.03 sec at 109mph or somesuch nonsense for my 850; read the fine prints and it says "specially prepared machine with altered gearing."

My point tbeing, everybody did it and the numbers aren't indicative of real-world experience by any stretch, but can be used for comparison, as long as you realize you're comparing BS to BS.

Turbo bikes: Back in the day, around 1980-82, all of the major manufacturers got a bug in their britches about trying to out-do one another with "technological statements" in turbo charging. Yamaha had released the 650 Turbo (why not the 750, it had been around almost as long?) and Honda answered with the CX500 Turbo, more just to prove it could be done (turbocharging a shaft-drive v-twin) than anything. Kawaski had a "semi-factory" turbo 900 as well IIRC.

NONE of them were any great practical performance improvement over the 750s of the era; they were more a case of "see what we can do" engineering.

Nobody was all that impressed and the trend quickly died.

 

Is one bike better than another one? Is it faster? Is it more economic? Well that depends on a damn lot of things.
I have one of these turbos and for ME its FUN every time i go for a ride, i like the feeling of the turbo boost. But is it fun for YOU - thats hard to tell.
The best advice is try to get a ride on one.
(21K miles is not a big deal, i expect it to go 70 - 90K miles without major problems)

 

The 750 Seca TourPack fairing also had lowers originally. Mine came with only 1 side; I may try to replicate a mirror image by cutting strips out of sheet ABS and gluing them together for the other side.

This does bring up an interesting question in my mind - can the 650 Turbo Seca fairing be mounted on other 650/750 frames or is the Turbo frame unique?

 

http://prototype900turbo.com/index.php/ ... to_gallery

This guy makes a custom mount. With careful measurements and a welder, you can put any fairing on almost any bike.
There's people who have turbo'd a 900 - - now THAT would be worth doing !