Talk:Kawasaki KLR650

No article discussion? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.5.249.21 (talk • contribs) 21:43, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Specifications
Either the horsepower, torque, or both specifications listed are incorrect. In order to achieve 44hp @ 6000rpm, the required torque is 38.5 ft*lb, which is more than the listed peak torque. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Totensiebush (talk • contribs) 05:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The dry/wet weight section doesn't make sense. The wet weight can not be only 6Kg more than dry with a 23l tank! ( Weight	176 kg (388 lb)[citation needed] (dry) 182 kg (401 lb)[citation needed] (wet) ). I have changed the wet weight to 196 kg as found at https://www.kawasaki.ca/product/klr650 in the Technical Specifications / Dimensions section. I do not know how to add the citation so I didn't. Also, since I was there, I added the width taken from the same source. Thistle881 (talk) 07:21, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

FAQ
Sorry guys, but Wikipedia should not contain FAQs despite how useful they are. Please rewrite/summarize the known issues while citing reliable sources. –Pomte 12:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Non-publicated sites
Should the links to sites' reviews of the motorcycle be kept? I honestly don't think they should, as well, they aren't magazines, but community-fueled reports and the like. I mean to say, these are reviews from sites that are not actual publications like Rider magazine, and shouldn't be listed. The reviews presented by sites such as KLRworld.com and klr650.net could be counted as orignal research, as they were made by community members of said sites, and not real publications. Heck, I could go write a review, then list it here. Would I? No, that's orignal research. Please discuss, if there is no discussion within the timespan of a week, I shall be removing all non-publication links. Daedalus (talk) 22:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * As per what I stated above, please refer to Verifiability in reguards to self-published source. Daedalus (talk) 22:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I think they are a valuable source of information by third parties who have actually ridden the motorcycle. After all, the reason the majority of people who look up something like a motorcycle on wikipedia would be to learn about certain characteristics of it, and the information contained in the review articles may be what they were looking for in the first place. Daedalus, do you own a KLR650?Firemedicntx (talk) 22:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't need to own one, or have had a previous experience of riding one, however, the reviews from the sites stated above could be classified as orignal research. As per Verifiablity:"Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable."
 * Also, as per nobility, what is different in those reviews from the reviews of the publicated magazines? Daedalus (talk) 22:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I read the "verifiable page", and agree with most of what it has to say. These links are listed under the "External Links" section on the page and are not listed as "References". Looking at the "When should I link externally" page it says:

Although external links on content pages provide useful information, Wikimedia projects are not search engines or link repositories. They should be kept to a useful minimum, and provide relevant and non-trivial information that isn't present in the page. Where possible, consider using content in links to expand the page or create new pages........ Many sites are commercial in nature. Although this provides motive to spam them on wiki pages, there is no problem with commercial sites that are useful references. Many major newspaper websites contain heavy advertisement, but they are nonetheless good references. In the end, the best criteria to consider is the content and relevancy.

I agree that the content and the relevancy of the '08 KLR650 Review pages as well as the KLR650 forum pages both fit the criteria as external links. However, if the rule is "No links to forums" so be it, but the links to reviews should be allowed to stay in light of the above statements. What is the difference between user based reviews and a published magazine review? Motive and monetary gain. Owners doing a review aren't being compensated, and in turn are perceived to be more truthful by readers who are also motorcyclists. Firemedicntx (talk) 23:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

No specs for 2008 redesign???
It is good that the 2008 redesign is mentioned, however, it is mentioned mostly in a strictly favorable light. For instance, the fact that the redesign is 50 pounds heavier doesn't seem to make it into the "unbiased" wikipedia evaluation. Since they are different bikes, there should be a page of stats just as there is already in the article for the 1987-2007 bike, only for the 2008- model. This is pretty important -- people who turn to wikipedia wanting to compare the new version with the old version, so they can decide to buy new or used, should get all the facts, not just what Kawi wants them to hear. 69.236.134.34 (talk) 08:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Feel free to add a section, just make sure that it is from reliable sources. tedder (talk) 10:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

What's in a name?
KLR stands for what? I've seen a million answers but having the correct one in the wiki article would be nice. BillyTFried (talk) 05:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I would guess it's because previous model dual sports in the 70s and 80s were just "KL" and when the 600 came out in the mid 80s they added the "R" to it to designate it being faster. They probably didn't want to suggest that the 650 was lesser than the 600, so they kept the "R". As to the origin on "KL", I suspect you could possibly find some patterns if you look here: http://www.motorcyclespecs.co.za/bikes/kawasaki.htm. I suspect the letters are designators for the purpose of the motorcycle, it's "family", and maybe for the engine configuration, but that's pure speculation. If they stand for a word, it is possible it would be a word in Japanese, making it even more difficult to determine. This site also has some conjecture for you: http://www.autoevolution.com/news/motorcycle-name-abbreviations-explained-81377.html 217IP (talk) 03:51, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

2009 Piston Rings
I can't find any sources that the piston rings were upgraded in 2009. There is a motorcycle review magazine that claimed they were upgraded for 2008, though: http://www.roadrunner.travel/magazine/read/march-april-2009/page/62/

BikeBandit claims they were, but it looks more like someone working at that website plagiarized the Wikipedia article since the sentence is word-for-word the same: http://www.bikebandit.com/community/articles/motorcycle-history-the-kawasaki-klr650

The only mention I can find of this anywhere on the internet is a forum post with a member claiming the item number for the 2009 model was different. 217IP (talk) 23:45, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Kawasaki KLR650. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071201122320/http://www.kawasaki.com/Products/detail.aspx?id=221 to http://www.kawasaki.com/Products/Detail.aspx?id=221
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071020090946/http://www.kawasaki.com/Products/GetAwardPdf.aspx?id=39 to http://www.kawasaki.com/Products/GetAwardPdf.aspx?id=39
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070602182724/http://www.motorcycledaily.com/30april07_2008kawasaki_klr650.html to http://www.motorcycledaily.com/30april07_2008kawasaki_klr650.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:27, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I'd like to mention the KLR 500?
So according to these (not great) sources that Austria and Norway had a KLR 500 with a slightly modified engine. There is barely any info on it, but it sure did exist.

https://www.reddit.com/r/klr650/comments/d3r9wv/klr_500/

https://www.onderdelen-kawasaki.nl/kawasaki-motorfietsen/500-MOTOS/1987/KLR500

there is even a service manual

https://service-workshopmanual.com/product/kawasaki-klr-500-650-1987-2004-repair-manual-suplimentar-pdf-download/

I hope this helps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.22.250.209 (talk) 14:23, 7 November 2020 (UTC)