TW200 Forum banner

1 - 10 of 10 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
166 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Continuing my quest and will probably give this up after this attempt, should either of these not pan out.



My delimma in the second bike. I have looked at a few now and they were not as expected upon arrival. I have since scoured and found a few more, one is a friend of a friends coworkers, pure luck I came across it as they have not officially put it up for sale.



These are about 3 hours away, but in complete opposite directions, figures.



First 1989 sat for some time and was recently brought back to life. Has about 950 miles on it and was ridden maybe 200 miles since it was brought back out. The owner changed fluids, cleaned the inside of the gas tank as best as possible, added two fuel filters and is offering it to me. Not my favorite color, but appears to be in excellent shape. New battery as well.









Second one is a bit better for color combos... however its a 1987 (off year for charging systems). This is a second owner. He has a new chain, sprocket, and rear wheel he bought it with 500 miles on it in 2003 and has since ridden it another 1000 miles. It has just under 1500 miles on it.



I asked about the case cover being damaged above the front sprocket as it appeared it may be in the picture and was told it is not damaged, must be a reflection. Also the exhaust had been repainted with high temp paint.







I guess I am asking what is the opinion of anyone willing to post a reply as to the lesser of the two evils.... both are within a few years, would you prfer a slightly lower mile (although they are both low mile) but 2 year newer bike that sat in storage for many years. Or a slightly older bike, with a unique hard to find parts for charge system and a better color scheme? I will say I am not trying for any fashion show on the bike so the color is really secondary, but the red white combo is a bit better overall in my opinion.



Anyone have thoughts or wisdom they could share?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
319 Posts
You want a bike that has been ridden if it has to be old.

Not a low mileage bike that just sat.



I would see if it runs and take it to a good Yamaha mechanic.



Just MHO.



T-Dub Ken
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
166 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
T-Dub,



It appears that the 87 that has had 1000 miles on it in the last 6-7 years is your choice, if I am choosing between these two?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
10,664 Posts
Whichever runs better. When bikes are that old a few years doesn't matter.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
166 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
Found out some more info on the 87 and updated.



Also I realize everyone here (so far) seems to agree that an older ultra low mileage bike may not be the ideal choice... I do have a line on a 2001 with kickstart and drum brake, with close to 5000 miles, so I may opt that way to get a much newer bike within $100 of these bikes price point. I hate the idea of the miles, but at least I know its been used and not sat around.



I just dont want to spend as much as I did on the first bike we bought on labor day. Its great 2006 with 700 miles, but this second bike is going to get more use and trail riding as it will be mine. I dont want to spend that much on something I am going to really put miles on.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
231 Posts
I do have a line on a 2001 with kickstart and drum brake,
has it been modified? 2001 was the year they discontinued the front drum and kickstart so it is more likey a 2000. i had not heard that yamaha put out any NOS 2000's as 2001's.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
166 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
Yeah that was my thought as well on the year. It must be a 2000 and he is mistaken.



Its a white with blue theme.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
42 Posts




mine is a 2001, if that helps, at least you can look at my avatar to see if it looks the same.



I'd buy the 2001 with the miles, 5000 isnt that many. some people on here have 20000+ miles
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
166 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
Yeah I talked to him, he is not positive on the 2001 year. I did some google image searches and it appears its probably a 1999 to be honest. He is at work and doesnt have the title handy. He said he will look tonoght but I could be correct.



That response makes me feel better yet as at least I dont have some bastard bike or mismatched title to sort. The 2 years there really doesnt matter either as I am still looking at this or other bikes that are 10-12 years older.



Now its a matter of setting the time for sunday and going to look. The good news is that 1999 is about an hour or mroe closer, plus it has the rack on the back, which is nice.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
10,664 Posts
I've had several old vehicles with very low miles and never had a problem with any once the carbs were cleaned, fluids and filters changed, and dryrotted rubber replaced. In '77 I bought a '55 Chevy that had been in a garage since '56. Cleaned the points, shot a bit of ether in the air filter, and jumped her off. Aired up the tires and drove her home, then immediately changed all the fluids. She leaked everywhere for a few days, but eventually all the seals and gaskets swelled up and sealed. I replaced the tires and all the hoses under the hood, and she ran for 65,000 miles with nothing but oil changes and grease.
 
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
Top