Bike vs Car build quality
Discussion
Partly inspired by mtb's KTM... but also my own experience
Why do we as buyers of new motorcycles, put up with such crappy build quality, even from Japanese manufacturers? If people buying cars had the same issues, some manufacturers would just go out of business altogether!
Whether it's paint issues, rusty bolts, low grade suspension, and IMHO the worst offender, electrical/dash issues, we seem to just put up with it. Same with engines that might grenade themselves, but we put up with it because when they work they are amazing! (looking at you aprilia)
I think every bike I've owned has had some sort of issue, OR I've modded/replaced known problem parts before they have become one. And yes, there is always the other side of people have a flawless bike, I agree. A friend of mine has a KTM 890 ADV with a dash that just gives up every now and again, but he excuses it because when it works it's a great bike!
If you bought a car with these issues you'd send it back immediately, or if you test drove a car with crappy budget suspension, you just wouldn't buy it. Why do we bikers put up with such poor quality control, from nearly every manufacturer?
Why do we as buyers of new motorcycles, put up with such crappy build quality, even from Japanese manufacturers? If people buying cars had the same issues, some manufacturers would just go out of business altogether!
Whether it's paint issues, rusty bolts, low grade suspension, and IMHO the worst offender, electrical/dash issues, we seem to just put up with it. Same with engines that might grenade themselves, but we put up with it because when they work they are amazing! (looking at you aprilia)
I think every bike I've owned has had some sort of issue, OR I've modded/replaced known problem parts before they have become one. And yes, there is always the other side of people have a flawless bike, I agree. A friend of mine has a KTM 890 ADV with a dash that just gives up every now and again, but he excuses it because when it works it's a great bike!
If you bought a car with these issues you'd send it back immediately, or if you test drove a car with crappy budget suspension, you just wouldn't buy it. Why do we bikers put up with such poor quality control, from nearly every manufacturer?
I haven't had too many issues with build quality on modern bikes but they are not designed with the UK weather in mind, if they were they would have huge mudguards, enclosed chains, enclosed fork stanchions and weatherproofing on everything, the only issues I have had is minor corrosion on my Z900, dodgy switchgear on my MT09 and a rubbish chain on my Z1000SX, but then I don't/didn't ride in winter.
Everything is built down to a price, including cars which also have lots of inherent build quality issues also, you only need to read a JD Power survey to understand that it isn't just bikes.
Everything is built down to a price, including cars which also have lots of inherent build quality issues also, you only need to read a JD Power survey to understand that it isn't just bikes.
Jazoli said:
I haven't had too many issues with build quality on modern bikes but they are not designed with the UK weather in mind, if they were they would have huge mudguards, enclosed chains, enclosed fork stanchions and weatherproofing on everything, the only issues I have had is minor corrosion on my Z900, dodgy switchgear on my MT09 and a rubbish chain on my Z1000SX, but then I don't/didn't ride in winter.
Everything is built down to a price, including cars which also have lots of inherent build quality issues also, you only need to read a JD Power survey to understand that it isn't just bikes.
I know cars aren't perfect, but I don't think it's anywhere near as bad as an issue. Plus I've never had to fork out 10%+ of a car's value to 'make it right', suspension or otherwise.Everything is built down to a price, including cars which also have lots of inherent build quality issues also, you only need to read a JD Power survey to understand that it isn't just bikes.
Bob_Defly said:
I know cars aren't perfect, but I don't think it's anywhere near as bad as an issue. Plus I've never had to fork out 10%+ of a car's value to 'make it right', suspension or otherwise.
But you are making your bike 'right' for you aren't you, there'll be 99 people with the same bike who won't bother as there's nothing wrong with it.Most people don't spend 10% of their bikes value to 'upgrade' poor suspension, the only people who do are enthusiasts and folk who like adding blingy nonsense tat that in reality adds nothing to the bike, the overwhelming majority ride their bikes as they have left the factory and don't even set the sag or touch the adjusters ever, which is exactly the same in the car world where enthusiasts upgrade their cars by fitting upgraded coilovers or similar the rest of the public don't really care how the car handles or drives dynamically, they just want a large touchscreen and carplay, I'd wager the overall spend on modifying cars is many multiples of what folk spend on bikes pro rata.
Edited by Jazoli on Monday 13th November 15:17
I used to think this but when you start looking into it there are a whole load of problems on cars as well. It may not be as obvious due to all of the bodywork hiding stuff but the problems are out there.
Look at the abysmal reliability ratings for the likes of JLR products. Same goes with BMW and the infamous timing chain issues on the N47 engine/cars setting on fire etc etc etc. You've also got Ford with the Eco Boom engines - many of which were fitted to the Fiesta, which is one of the most popular cars in the country. The godawful Quashkai also comes to mind but the engine problems on that escape me.
I agree that the paint and finish quality of many bikes is absolutely appalling though. However, we only have ourselves as consumers to blame.
Look at all the sheep who have fawned over the GS1300 thread. BMW's paint (and reliability) has been utterly shameful for a very long time but morons keep drinking the corporate kool aid and taking it in the arse by the dealer when stuff like flaking paint on a new bike isn't covered on warranty.
Look at the abysmal reliability ratings for the likes of JLR products. Same goes with BMW and the infamous timing chain issues on the N47 engine/cars setting on fire etc etc etc. You've also got Ford with the Eco Boom engines - many of which were fitted to the Fiesta, which is one of the most popular cars in the country. The godawful Quashkai also comes to mind but the engine problems on that escape me.
I agree that the paint and finish quality of many bikes is absolutely appalling though. However, we only have ourselves as consumers to blame.
Look at all the sheep who have fawned over the GS1300 thread. BMW's paint (and reliability) has been utterly shameful for a very long time but morons keep drinking the corporate kool aid and taking it in the arse by the dealer when stuff like flaking paint on a new bike isn't covered on warranty.
Edited by Biker9090 on Monday 13th November 15:24
I think cars and bikes are pretty similar in this regard. In fact you'll see more absolute horror stories in cars. I think there is an element of corner cutting with some of the lower volume bike manufacturers (or ones that have grown quickly). I think in some ways you can equate them to the likes of JLR where they don't have a huge amount of corporate knowledge in the subtleties of delivering reliability.
The only truly shonky bikes are KTM and Triumph.
The rest while not perfect are what I describe as adequate to varying degrees.
The most important thing to me is that a bike works. I can forgive a little corrosion on a fastener.
As for shonky suspension....built down to a price for a middle ground in rider weight.
At 100kg I can hustle my Fazer around as quickly as I could ever wish to.
The rest while not perfect are what I describe as adequate to varying degrees.
The most important thing to me is that a bike works. I can forgive a little corrosion on a fastener.
As for shonky suspension....built down to a price for a middle ground in rider weight.
At 100kg I can hustle my Fazer around as quickly as I could ever wish to.
Everything from bikes to lorries has build quality problems. Everything is just a collection of parts from around the globe and assembled in whichever country with a badge stuck on it. I think how the manufacturers and dealers deal with their shortcomings goes a long way towards forgiving them for their shonky vehicles. I’m sure BMW deals with its customers a lot better than KTM just like BMW deals with their car customers better than JLR does.
My Yamaha FZ6 had good quality OEM suspension, basic and couldn't be adjusted, but it was fine. The electronics did as they were supposed to. Unfortunately it rotted away. I don't think bike manufacturers give much thought, if at all, to weatherproofing or longevity.
My Ducati Multistrada 1000S came with proper waterproof connectors, but had a hole in the dash so it would measure air temperature. Predictably this lit up like a Christmas tree in the wet. It also had an expanding tank because they hadn't tested it properly.
I wonder how much it would really be for the manufacturers to stop this crap. Fit waterproof connectors, paint frames properly, and actually test stuff before it goes out to the public.
My Ducati Multistrada 1000S came with proper waterproof connectors, but had a hole in the dash so it would measure air temperature. Predictably this lit up like a Christmas tree in the wet. It also had an expanding tank because they hadn't tested it properly.
I wonder how much it would really be for the manufacturers to stop this crap. Fit waterproof connectors, paint frames properly, and actually test stuff before it goes out to the public.
Quality in manufacturing is doing the same thing again and again and getting the the same results again and again. If things are set up correctly, the more you can do the same, the more the results should come out the same.
The issues with bike manufacturing is both volume and change. The numbers of bikes manufactured is tiny compared to cars and the product life of a given model is significantly shorter than for most cars. The manufacturing processes get less time to "settle" before they are being replaced in order to produce the next model.
Personally, I think that bike quality is, in general, pretty good compared to cars given the differences, It could be better but I don't see it as bad.
The issues with bike manufacturing is both volume and change. The numbers of bikes manufactured is tiny compared to cars and the product life of a given model is significantly shorter than for most cars. The manufacturing processes get less time to "settle" before they are being replaced in order to produce the next model.
Personally, I think that bike quality is, in general, pretty good compared to cars given the differences, It could be better but I don't see it as bad.
black-k1 said:
Quality in manufacturing is doing the same thing again and again and getting the the same results again and again. If things are set up correctly, the more you can do the same, the more the results should come out the same.
The issues with bike manufacturing is both volume and change. The numbers of bikes manufactured is tiny compared to cars and the product life of a given model is significantly shorter than for most cars. The manufacturing processes get less time to "settle" before they are being replaced in order to produce the next model.
Personally, I think that bike quality is, in general, pretty good compared to cars given the differences, It could be better but I don't see it as bad.
Completely agree with the bit in bold. I bought one of the last V8 M5s built by which time BMW had worked out all the little bugs in manufacturing and apart from fair wear and tear it never gave me any trouble. Same with the bike, one of the very last 955 Daytona's registered and only the ignition barrel has ever been a problem. The issues with bike manufacturing is both volume and change. The numbers of bikes manufactured is tiny compared to cars and the product life of a given model is significantly shorter than for most cars. The manufacturing processes get less time to "settle" before they are being replaced in order to produce the next model.
Personally, I think that bike quality is, in general, pretty good compared to cars given the differences, It could be better but I don't see it as bad.
I've found motorbike build quality to be higher than cars, my current KTM on 25k miles has zero corrosion, I can't say that for any car i've had. The paint on bikes too is generally better than cars, Kawasaki and KTM paint has been very good.
Every new product can have some issues, but usually the dealer will rectify swiftly - this is where the differences come, if you have a dealer which doesn't really care.
Every new product can have some issues, but usually the dealer will rectify swiftly - this is where the differences come, if you have a dealer which doesn't really care.
I've got a BMW K75 from 1987, with 62k on it. It's been reasonably well cared for, regular oil changes but missed a few services, and has been ridden year round in all weather. A very obvious workhorse.
Apart from some fuzzy header bolts, scratches, and fading emblems, the bike's absolutely fine.
I've never seen a car or bike that seems to have stood the test of time this well.
Apart from some fuzzy header bolts, scratches, and fading emblems, the bike's absolutely fine.
I've never seen a car or bike that seems to have stood the test of time this well.
Pebbles167 said:
I've got a BMW K75 from 1987, with 62k on it. It's been reasonably well cared for, regular oil changes but missed a few services, and has been ridden year round in all weather. A very obvious workhorse.
Apart from some fuzzy header bolts, scratches, and fading emblems, the bike's absolutely fine.
I've never seen a car or bike that seems to have stood the test of time this well.
When I took my bike for the MoT last week, a friend was there with his R60 custom from similar period, early 80's I think, and he said it's now got a minor oil leak, just small enough for there to be a misting of oil under the engine, but at 120k miles he think's it's OK and should go another 20k before it needs fixing Apart from some fuzzy header bolts, scratches, and fading emblems, the bike's absolutely fine.
I've never seen a car or bike that seems to have stood the test of time this well.
FFS, I'm currently in the process of selling my newly restored 1977 GS750, and have just sold my 2014 GSR750 to fund a KTM Superduke GT.
I've looked on quite a few reviews and by all accounts they hold up very well and don't have many issues.
Am I walking head first into a world of pain? I'm so excited to actually go and buy one (I will give it a good check before pulling the trigger), but this is the first thread I've seen KTM getting a bashing. Could anyone highlight some common issues with the Duke GT I should check?
I've looked on quite a few reviews and by all accounts they hold up very well and don't have many issues.
Am I walking head first into a world of pain? I'm so excited to actually go and buy one (I will give it a good check before pulling the trigger), but this is the first thread I've seen KTM getting a bashing. Could anyone highlight some common issues with the Duke GT I should check?
MOBB said:
My 2023 Superduke has been 100% fine, seems as well built as previous Ducatis/Japanese stuff I've had.
I should add, I'd be going for a 2017 / 18 so would expect some wear and tear. I was originally after a Multi 1200 but almost all of them in my price range have had their speedo replaced (mileage not corrected by the main dealer - unacceptable) or the fuel sender isn't working. This put me off and made me stray more towards the SuperDuke.
Gassing Station | Biker Banter | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff