M109 Rider Forums banner

1 - 19 of 19 Posts
G

·
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
To be honest I own the M109R.....never even knew of the C109RT until coming to this forum....never "seen" one till today..sat on it...damn, that's a mighty fine comfortable bike ya'll got there.....anyways just giving some props....had floorboards, nice front windscreen, even a speaker system and bags (at a local dealer)

Would of been a tuff choice if they had both of these bikes there when I bought mine!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
300 Posts
decisions decisions

To be honest I own the M109R.....never even knew of the C109RT until coming to this forum....never "seen" one till today..sat on it...damn, that's a mighty fine comfortable bike ya'll got there.....anyways just giving some props....had floorboards, nice front windscreen, even a speaker system and bags (at a local dealer)

Would of been a tuff choice if they had both of these bikes there when I bought mine!
they had both on the floor when I bought my M and I sat on the C but I could not stop looking at the M,both nice bikes but the M has it hands down,in my not so humble opinon :doorag:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
642 Posts
I had a M first real nice bike ,,hot rod show bike did not like the atention my self so I sold it and my loverly wife was pissed.
got on to the c and I would not go back nicer rid all around :D
not to many c109r on the road down here in new zealand .
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
623 Posts
The C is a little more to handle then the M but it just a learning curve as with all bikes. I tested the M9 for a weekend was thinking of trading my M95 for the M9 but couldn't do it because the M95 handles and shifted so much better but the M9 was a MONSTER in the HP dept compared to the much weaker M95.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
643 Posts
it was a tough choice:doorag:

The M was released just about the time i started riding and i personally spent alot of time :drool: over it and thought that was my dream ride, a real head turning sweet beast for sure. Between then and now, I had a Vstar Classic with floorboards and bags and they became 2 items I really wasn't willing to give up with big feet and using the bike for more then joyrides you really grow to appreciate them.

There was some concern when i pulled the trigger on the C/RT that it would be a lumbering ox on the backroads that i enjoy riding. I have had to make an effort at it and buckle down and know that I needed to improve my skills and become a better rider to go ripping the twisties I love so much. it has for sure proved to be worth the work
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,719 Posts
The C feels way too top heavy to me....I found it a bit difficult just getting off the side stand in the showroom and before anyone starts throwing the dirt I can still bench press 250 at 61 years old and have picked my M off both flat sides by myself without a problem. I do like the looks though :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
41 Posts
M109R vs C109R-www.roadrider.com.au

Shall we compare thee?
These two motorcycles, the VZR1800 (the M) and VLR1800 (the C), leapt (or perhaps, to non-cruiser riders, lumbered) off the same drawing board. They are powered by essentially identical engines, although the C's fuel injection makes do with a 52mm throttle body while the M's gets 56mm. Valve duration is increased on the M as well, and a bigger catalytic converter opens up the exhaust. The effect is to reduce the M's 92kW at 6200rpm and 160Nm at 3200rpm to 84kW and "only" 155Nm for the C.
The 54-degree vee twin engine with its five-speed gearbox is quite sophisticated for a cruiser, as you'd expect from the M's output. It gets two overhead cams, four valves per cylinder and liquid cooling. Capacity is 1783cc, which puts it among the biggest twin-cylinder engines on the market. Bore and stroke are 112mm and 90.5mm respectively, and the short stroke is another reason for the outstanding power it produces. The M's mufflers have a somewhat more authoritative tone than the C's, an outward sign of their bigger cat.
The running gear is very similar, although the C is bigger in just about every way than the M. It is 125mm longer at 2580mm and 45mm wider at 985mm, and its 1755mm wheelbase is 40mm longer. It is also considerably heavier, 357kg as against the M's 315kg. The greater weight and length of the wheelbase explain much of the difference in handling, which initially puzzled us because rake at 32 degrees and trail at 130mm are identical. The C obviously has more weight on the front, although we can't tell you just how much.
Both bikes have 19-litre tanks and a 10.5 to 1 compression ratio. Both also have shaft drive. The two high-tensile double cradle frames are noticeably different, with the C getting a more conventional and heavier design than the M, but suspension specifications look the same for both bikes with seven preload options for the link-type rear being the only adjustment.
One big difference comes with the tyres. The smaller, lighter M gets a 130/70R 18-inch hoop on the front and a massive 240/40 18-incher on the back, while the C runs a 150/80R 16 on the front and a 240/55R 16 on the back. That obviously also contributes to the handling differences, as does the suspension. The M's upside-down forks do their job well.
Brakes are quite different, too. The C makes do with twin 290mm discs on the front with radially mounted three-piston calipers and a 275mm disc with a twin-piston caliper on the back, although they are linked, while the M has 310mm front discs with four-piston calipers, also radially mounted. The rear brake appears to be the same on both bikes, although it seemed more responsive on our test M. Maybe that was something to do with the fact that it isn't linked.
This is, of course, all very interesting because it gave us an opportunity to assess what actual difference these changes in specifications would make when you're out on the road.
How do they go, mister?
Well, consider that the bikes are called M (for mugumbu, meaning "power" in Swahili*) and C (for classic, meaning "over-tyred" in American*). That already tells you quite a lot. You're familiar with the expression "chalk and cheese"? Well, hold onto that thought. These bikes are not at all alike.
Appearance is a matter of de gustibus non est disputandum. No point in arguing about taste and that's what will decide which of these bikes you enjoy looking at more (did I just write that sentence?). Each is a good representative of its respective style: power cruiser on the one hand, classic cruiser on the other.
Even keeping in mind that we had optioned the C up with panniers, windscreen and a few other goodies (a ride report and the final roundup of the project is, has been or will be in these pages), it looks and feels far bigger than the M. The seat, also, might only be marginally higher at 705mm but it feels like more. Ergonomics are "dragstrip" for the M and "cruisin'" for the C - see the diagram.
As for performance, our friends at Motorrad magazine in Germany tell us that, in Europe, Suzuki claims a top speed of 216km/h for the M, although the rev limiter will, in fact, catch you by the time you reach a little over 200km/h. They don't have a figure for the C, but we would devoutly hope it's less because we would not want to try to stop one from anywhere near that speed. The C's brakes are OK for cruisin', but not for haulin', while the M's setup is rather more effective at all speeds.
Likewise, the M pulls away smartly and enthusiastically from very low down - little over 1000rpm - and gives you a lovely bellow as it does. You need to wait a little longer on the C and then the power increase is much more gentle and linear.
The fat rear tyre takes its toll on the handling of both bikes and the small, fat hoop on the front of the C makes the effect more noticeable. Both bikes like to follow grooves in the road - mind you, so does every cruiser equipped with this kind of huge rubber.
Cornering is pretty hard work on the C at speed - you really need to push the bike down into corners. Then, when you're going slowly, it wants to tip in instead. On the M, the effects are similar but not nearly as pronounced. You pays your money and you takes what you're given with big cruisers, I'm afraid. But the M is definitely a better handler than the C.
Despite its handling foibles, the C is the better traveller. On the open road, and going fast enough, it's a smooth rolling delight and comfortable enough to keep you going for a good long time. Even the pillion seat and riding position are OK, something that's fairly rare on any kind of cruiser. Equipped with touring gear like our project bike, the one in the photos, the C is at home away from home.
Wind pressure can become a problem on the M despite the action-man riding position after a while, so it's less of a freeway muncher. It also offers far less luggage potential and, while there is a pillion seat, it's not intended to be used for any length of time.
So which and why?
Both bikes are pretty much state-of-the-art for mega cruisers, but they are very different within that envelope. What it really boils down to is that the M is the around-town bike, while the C (as we thought when we devised our project) is the open-road machine, the tourer.
We don't have strictly comparable fuel figures, but we'd bet the M would be more economical in traffic while the C would drink less on the open road - that's pretty much written in the specs. With their 19-litre tanks (which actually seem to hold a little more), both bikes should still give you a fuel range well over 300km.
If those differences aren't enough for you, we suggest you simply look at the bikes. If one of them rings your bell, the other won't, so your choice is sorted, isn't it?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
115 Posts
I just returned from a trip from Tampa, Fl to Key West, Fl. We stayed on the Back roads traveling between 55 and 65MPH, I got an average of 45 MPG. a couple of weeks ago I took the freeway to Naples, Fl. Average speed was 70-75mph economy dropped to 32MPG
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
41 Posts
after removing the catalytic converter and baffles from my c109r(completely free flow)and fitting a dobeck tfi for maximum power i get around-

5miles per [email protected]

not very economical but the extra power and torque are worth it :p
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
Shall we compare thee?
These two motorcycles, the VZR1800 (the M) and VLR1800 (the C), leapt (or perhaps, to non-cruiser riders, lumbered) off the same drawing board. They are powered by essentially identical engines, although the C's fuel injection makes do with a 52mm throttle body while the M's gets 56mm. Valve duration is increased on the M as well, and a bigger catalytic converter opens up the exhaust. The effect is to reduce the M's 92kW at 6200rpm and 160Nm at 3200rpm to 84kW and "only" 155Nm for the C.
The 54-degree vee twin engine with its five-speed gearbox is quite sophisticated for a cruiser, as you'd expect from the M's output. It gets two overhead cams, four valves per cylinder and liquid cooling. Capacity is 1783cc, which puts it among the biggest twin-cylinder engines on the market. Bore and stroke are 112mm and 90.5mm respectively, and the short stroke is another reason for the outstanding power it produces. The M's mufflers have a somewhat more authoritative tone than the C's, an outward sign of their bigger cat.
The running gear is very similar, although the C is bigger in just about every way than the M. It is 125mm longer at 2580mm and 45mm wider at 985mm, and its 1755mm wheelbase is 40mm longer. It is also considerably heavier, 357kg as against the M's 315kg. The greater weight and length of the wheelbase explain much of the difference in handling, which initially puzzled us because rake at 32 degrees and trail at 130mm are identical. The C obviously has more weight on the front, although we can't tell you just how much.
Both bikes have 19-litre tanks and a 10.5 to 1 compression ratio. Both also have shaft drive. The two high-tensile double cradle frames are noticeably different, with the C getting a more conventional and heavier design than the M, but suspension specifications look the same for both bikes with seven preload options for the link-type rear being the only adjustment.
One big difference comes with the tyres. The smaller, lighter M gets a 130/70R 18-inch hoop on the front and a massive 240/40 18-incher on the back, while the C runs a 150/80R 16 on the front and a 240/55R 16 on the back. That obviously also contributes to the handling differences, as does the suspension. The M's upside-down forks do their job well.
Brakes are quite different, too. The C makes do with twin 290mm discs on the front with radially mounted three-piston calipers and a 275mm disc with a twin-piston caliper on the back, although they are linked, while the M has 310mm front discs with four-piston calipers, also radially mounted. The rear brake appears to be the same on both bikes, although it seemed more responsive on our test M. Maybe that was something to do with the fact that it isn't linked.
This is, of course, all very interesting because it gave us an opportunity to assess what actual difference these changes in specifications would make when you're out on the road.
How do they go, mister?
Well, consider that the bikes are called M (for mugumbu, meaning "power" in Swahili*) and C (for classic, meaning "over-tyred" in American*). That already tells you quite a lot. You're familiar with the expression "chalk and cheese"? Well, hold onto that thought. These bikes are not at all alike.
Appearance is a matter of de gustibus non est disputandum. No point in arguing about taste and that's what will decide which of these bikes you enjoy looking at more (did I just write that sentence?). Each is a good representative of its respective style: power cruiser on the one hand, classic cruiser on the other.
Even keeping in mind that we had optioned the C up with panniers, windscreen and a few other goodies (a ride report and the final roundup of the project is, has been or will be in these pages), it looks and feels far bigger than the M. The seat, also, might only be marginally higher at 705mm but it feels like more. Ergonomics are "dragstrip" for the M and "cruisin'" for the C - see the diagram.
As for performance, our friends at Motorrad magazine in Germany tell us that, in Europe, Suzuki claims a top speed of 216km/h for the M, although the rev limiter will, in fact, catch you by the time you reach a little over 200km/h. They don't have a figure for the C, but we would devoutly hope it's less because we would not want to try to stop one from anywhere near that speed. The C's brakes are OK for cruisin', but not for haulin', while the M's setup is rather more effective at all speeds.
Likewise, the M pulls away smartly and enthusiastically from very low down - little over 1000rpm - and gives you a lovely bellow as it does. You need to wait a little longer on the C and then the power increase is much more gentle and linear.
The fat rear tyre takes its toll on the handling of both bikes and the small, fat hoop on the front of the C makes the effect more noticeable. Both bikes like to follow grooves in the road - mind you, so does every cruiser equipped with this kind of huge rubber.
Cornering is pretty hard work on the C at speed - you really need to push the bike down into corners. Then, when you're going slowly, it wants to tip in instead. On the M, the effects are similar but not nearly as pronounced. You pays your money and you takes what you're given with big cruisers, I'm afraid. But the M is definitely a better handler than the C.
Despite its handling foibles, the C is the better traveller. On the open road, and going fast enough, it's a smooth rolling delight and comfortable enough to keep you going for a good long time. Even the pillion seat and riding position are OK, something that's fairly rare on any kind of cruiser. Equipped with touring gear like our project bike, the one in the photos, the C is at home away from home.
Wind pressure can become a problem on the M despite the action-man riding position after a while, so it's less of a freeway muncher. It also offers far less luggage potential and, while there is a pillion seat, it's not intended to be used for any length of time.
So which and why?
Both bikes are pretty much state-of-the-art for mega cruisers, but they are very different within that envelope. What it really boils down to is that the M is the around-town bike, while the C (as we thought when we devised our project) is the open-road machine, the tourer.
We don't have strictly comparable fuel figures, but we'd bet the M would be more economical in traffic while the C would drink less on the open road - that's pretty much written in the specs. With their 19-litre tanks (which actually seem to hold a little more), both bikes should still give you a fuel range well over 300km.
If those differences aren't enough for you, we suggest you simply look at the bikes. If one of them rings your bell, the other won't, so your choice is sorted, isn't it?
LOL they are both awesome bikes.....just would of been harder to buy the M if I sat on the C first...that thing is damn comfy....after looking at some of my mods...(back rest, wanting to pull my bars back more, want saddle bags) perhaps the C would of been a better fit after all...but still happy with what I have for now

The way I go through bikes most likely next year I'll end up with something else anyways LOL
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
231 Posts
Owned the M first ... just awesome. Then I went in one day and sat on the C - traded soon after.

While the stats may be close, these are totally different bikes. How the bike feels, the pull back bars, the mods - just fits me better.

Here's mine ...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
96 Posts
I avg 300 km to a tank of fuel as the write up suggests, but in all honesty, I didn't buy a huge cruiser looking for huge fuel economy.

That would be like having a HEMI and wondering why you can't do 40mpg
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
450 Posts
Just my thoughts

I have an M, and I have a backrest, and soft bags, and am looking for a windshield. I have the 3" extensions on the bars, so i set back now. Maybe I'm kinda turning my M into a C.
But, if I had a C, I'd be putting aftermarket exhaust amd air intakes on it, so maybe I'd be turning my C into an M.
Both are great bikes, and both have great features.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
115 Posts
doesn't matter which bike you have. They both are Suzuki's big dogs. both nice bikes, and the nice thing is, is personalizing the way we want.
 
1 - 19 of 19 Posts
Top