I guess it all depends on how attuned you are to the engineering of a particular bike, but the placement of one of the carbs on the VX almost made me throw up. Here was a 800cc OHC vee twin so mildly tuned that it only gave 60 horses. Something a 500cc twin, these days, manages with ease and a power output not beyond the means of race replica 250cc strokers. Here was a watercooled vee with cleverly placed crankpins to minimise vibration whilst keeping the engine relatively compact. A motor with deeply finned barrels and neatly finished engine castings that seemed to go out of its way to impress its functional chic upon the world. And, yet, by some profoundly disturbed logic it was burdened with twin carbs, the rear placed to give an awkward induction path when a singular carb between the pots would've been so natural, so perfect, that all the engineers had to do was take a glance at any Harley to find their way.
Had the VX been a Vincent imitator then a surplus of carbs might be forgiven but it was in reality a big softie which could've easily got away with four instead of five gears. Maximum power comes in at 6500rpm, max torque (54ftlb) 1000 revs below that. These figures scream out for a single carb!
The VX also has a weight problem. In 1993 a 800cc vee twin, be it both watercooled and shaft driven, should come in at 350 to 400lbs, the VX has a dry mass of 475lbs. It also has a long wheelbase that makes a mockery of the engine’s compactness. It’s pretty obvious that the motor and the frame were designed in separate departments, the former executed as well as any other vee on the market, the latter merely a sop to brain dead marketing men.
The days when the Japanese made weak frames are long gone, the parameters of that art stored in their computers. The VX uses an old fashioned twin loop that despite being bolted together on one side (pass the sick bucket) is strong enough to take whatever nastiness the engine can produce. Most of the lower loop could've been thrown away had a more sensible use of the engine as a stressed member been employed.
Just sitting on the bike reveals a remarkable softness of suspension. The narrowness of the VX, the lowish seat height and nice hump of a tank between knees feels good. The whole apparition comes crashing down when grabbing hold of the bars. Why on earth produce such a narrow bike only to fit handlebars that would fit in with some fat-cat four. They can at least be easily replaced.
The other problem with efficient town riding was the gearbox, a piece of nastiness redolent of some horrible old BMW. Undoubtedly, the directness of the shaft drive interfered with the box, Suzuki have usually managed to produce ultra-slick gearchanges and it's difficult to see why such an art should suddenly desert them. After a few days the clunking, when changing in the lower gears under anything other than hard acceleration, faded a bit and might even clear up with more than 4000 miles on the clock.
Below 2500rpm there's a bit of rattle from the shaft as it tries to screw up the transmission. It needs a lot of attention in town to ride smoothy, rather like the old Boxer twins, something that can be adapted to after a while. Persistent power flows in from just above tickover, it never comes on cam as such, but gains urgency as the throttle is opened, all the way up to about 7000rpm. Beyond that, harshness and power fall-off make further throttle abuse pointless.
90mph cruising for an unfaired bike was remarkably easy and tolerably comfortable, the motor churning over at under 6000 revs. The exhaust note was a touch harder than relaxing and if I closed my eyes I could almost be on some old British twin. Top speed turned out to be 120mph but the motor felt unhappy and the chassis was something else.
Poor suspension was the bane of the VX's life. I've ridden long travel suspension trail bikes that felt tauter in bends but the VX didn't even offer the ability to soak up large pot-holes. On smooth roads it was tolerable up to 90mph. Cornering was way ahead of something like a Harley, but that doesn't mean much. It was, perhaps, better than the old Japanese fours, down merely to the strength inherent in its frame and long wheelbase.
The shaft would interfere with quick changes of direction when it wasn't sure how to react to the combination of fierce engine braking and sudden, desperate use of the brakes. Running wide through bends was its most disconcerting habit, the lack of any speed wobbles its best point. As with similarly afflicted BMWs, the solution is merely a matter of decent shocks and some heavy-duty springs in the forks.
The brakes were the usual laugh. A single rear disc was shoe-horned on to the back wheel, looked ridiculous and worked with none of the finesse of a good SLS drum. One of the ugliest master cylinder's in the world sits above the brake lever. It's unlikely that all the crud allowed past by the minimal mudguard will let the rear caliper see out a winter. This trendy bit of trash engineering is not unique to the VX by any means.
A single front disc proved a bit alarming the one time I had to rapidly lose 90mph. It was merely the excess mass that was at fault, lose a 100lbs and it'd be adequate. As it was, it was tolerable for cut and thrust riding in town and safe enough for most of the time out of town. Unfortunately, it’s that one time when massive braking force is required that really counts. Wet weather riding wasn't too fear inspiring. The wheels were a neat bit of engineering whilst the Metz tyres were wholly adequate for the performance.
I had suspected that the fuel economy would've been appalling, the combination of poor induction path, shaft drive and excessive mass having it hovering around 35mpg. I was pleasantly surprised to find it was doing 50 to 55mpg for most of the time. One mad motorway dash got it down to 45mpg. With a four gallon tank it was possible to do 200 miles between fill-ups, something my backside could just about take. Rather than excusing its poor engineering such economy should suggest that properly designed around 70mpg should be available.
As much as I hated most of its engineering, the nature of its vee-twin mill kept breaking through. It was so good that even when smothered by too much weight, hindered by a poor transmission and sent occasionally wild by soft suspension, it flowed along the roads with an eerie snarl and an eagerness of acceleration from its excessive torque that often brought a smile to my world weary face. It seemed to have stolen some of the charm of a well running Harley vee or old British twin but had none of the engineering horrors of the latter.
Watercooling ensures that the back cylinder suffers from none of the overheating inherent if the design was aircooled. It also helps with longevity, as engine clearances can be more exact. Major service intervals are at 8000 miles, although if it's used in town all the time it'd be necessary to change the oil every 1000 rather than 4000 miles, otherwise the oil will emulsify and engine life decrease. Suzuki have long made ultra tough motors and there's no reason to believe the VX will be any less reliable. With its mildly tuned mill it should last even longer.
I liked the VX, though not at the four grand new price. For that kind of money much more interesting tackle can be bought. It's the kind of bike that a few years down the line will be sought after for its exemplary engine and have its chassis much modified. As always, it seems, no-one's really bothered to design the VX as a whole bike and the varying conflicts between its characteristics makes for a poor show in 1993. It says a lot for the vee-twin motorcycling experience that, paradoxically, it's jolly good fun to ride!
Anon.