MISSING THEMARK
The bigger capacity version of Suzuki’s hugely popular SV twin.
Not everything can be super-siz ed, occasionally items are better off left as a small parcel of loveliness rather than boosted in scale. Obviously in the case of a Big Mac bigger is most definitely better as any connoisseur of the new G rand Big Mac will testify. H owever in 2 003 Suz uki decided to take their fantastic mini-Vtwin, the SV6 5 0, and treat it to a dose of steroids. Surely a bigger capacity version of their hugely popular middleweight would replicate its phenomenal success. Sadly for Suz uki, the SV1000S didn’t. In fact, it bombed…
When you look at the ingredients list, the SV1000 should have been a recipe for success. Take the legendary TL 1000 V-twin, give it a rework and then stick it in a die-cast aluminium chassis, add a conventional shock absorber to banish the demons of the TL ’s rotary unit and finally, base its style on a much-loved bike. And the icing on the SV1000 cake – release it in two forms, a half-faired one for those who are more practically-minded and a naked one for the flat-bar hooligans. So why did it all go wrong for the SV1000S?
The problems for the SV1000S started from the day it was released and it was all down to its parentage. The SV6 5 0 had a reputation as a bike that punched well above its middleweight status thanks to a staggering chassis that even gave birth to a one-make race series. With this in mind, everyone expected great things from the SV1000S in the handling department. The thought of a small, light and agile litre V-twin was a mouthwatering prospect to many riders. Especially those who had grown up with the SV6 5 0.
But the SV1000S was anything but small and agile. In fact, it was a bit long and ponderous as Suz uki had opted for stability over agility and had aimed the SV at a more mature and sensible rider. Y es, you got full adjustability in its suspension and brakes that were taken from the G SX -R7 5 0. But we were
talking conventional forks to keep costs down and a pretty relaxed riding position with more than the hint of a sports tourer about it, not a sporty V-twin racer like so many hoped. And the engine was a similar story.
Basing the SV’s motor on the TL was basically asking for trouble. Everyone hears TL and assumes a rip-roaring V-twin with a thumping mid-range and wild nature. This wasn’t Suzuki’s intention with the SV and sure enough, like its chassis, the V-twin motor was shackled…
Suzuki claimed 112bhp and 102Nm of torque from the SV’s V-twin. The problem was that this was considerably less than the 125bhp with 103Nm of torque that the TL-S was claimed to make and instantly the SV looked like a step in the wrong direction. True, the V-twin was more relaxed to ride and made its power far more smoothly than the aggressive TL, but for fans of performance V-twins the unassuming nature of the SV was a disappointment. Sadly, in making a big V-twin that was relaxed and friendly, Suzuki ended up failing to please any camp. SV650 owners were intimidated by the SV1000S’s size while TL1000S fans thought it was underpowered and soft. Sales never took off and once again Suzuki’s sporty V-twin experiment was a disaster.