* Prices may differ from that shownMore Offers
I used to ride this bike for two years for a 50 mile round trip (commuting to work) 5 days a week, come rain or shine. Its not an exciting sports bike by any stretch of the imagination. Its also not a new riders dream bike either as the brakes are not full on and feel like they are charity workers at a weekend bring and buy sale (they want to do the job but wont put 100% effort in). It got me from Home to Work without any problems, but without any smiles too. If you want a bike to get you from one place to another with no fuss then this could be worth a look. If your looking for even a litttle bit of excitement look elsewhere.
The fuel tank holds about 18/19 litres and riding sensibly (the only thing you can do) you get on average about 40-42 miles per gallon. So you do get a real world tank range of over 150 miles, which is quite good.
The GSX600-F may have a slight sports bike look but the seating position is very comfortable as you sit almost upright (almost tourer style). Even though your riding position is quiet high fitting a double bubble screen takes all the wind blast away from you and the faring itself is very good for diverting the wind blast away from the rider.
From floor to seat its 770(ish mm) so its not a bike for the very short rider as there is only a tiny amount height of adjustment.
The turning circle is also poor so she can take some serious man handling to get into a tight storage space. What makes it harder is that the GSX600-F may look sporty(ish) but she is damm heavy. So put the weight and bad turning circle together and you had better be in good physical shape. There is no center stand either which I would havethough was a must on a bike of this size and weight.
The Uk insurance group is a respectable 10 so it comes in considerably cheaper to run than a lot of other 600`s.
If your looking for a bit of excitement you have got to really try hard and play at the top of the rev range. But its so much hard work to do it.
If your after a comfy bike with good tank range, but dont want a full on tourer, then yes take a good look at this. If your after a weekend toy try a Fireblade, Ninja or something. For the daily commute try a Bandit.
i passed my test 7 weeks ago and 3 weeks ago i bought a gsx600f 1997 on an R, wow i love this bike, it goes like a dream, im 6" and 17 stone and this bike is so comfy last week end i rode it for 260 miles just about not stop and when i did have to stop i didnt want to!!!!! i just thought i would share this with other riders and owners. the only problem being i want to by parts new parts or newish, i want a double bubble screen if i can get one or just a new black screen little bits and bobs if you know what i mean is there anyone out there who can point me in right direction please..................
i've just brought a 2001 GSX600F (the one with the twin joined lights) and cos i'm only 18 and not long since passed my test it has to be fitted with a 33BHP restricter kit does anyone know where to get one and how much email me on email@example.com have ridden the bike up and down the street very nice
Back in the late 80's I owned a 1988 GSX600F - the old style one ( not like in the picture shown ) and loved it. That one did 65,000 miles with no hassle just the usual consumables needed and a weeping head. The engine in my new one - a 1998 GSX600FW ( the new shape with twin-ish headlights ) is pretty much identical so I can't see any reason why it shouldn't last as long if looked after. The carbs on the new bike are different to give a better mid range. I get a bit tired of people slating the bike for being slow, heavy etc. Hey, if I wanted a tempramental, consumable munching bike I would have bought one dummy! The FW is designed to do a job and does it well. And the job it does? Well, commuting ( mine's used every day and no, I don't potter), touring and a Sunday grin making machine. Believe it or not, the FW is perfectly capable of being fun, with the performance of 600's nowadays, the BHP/weight/top speed/ 1/4 miles times etc are largely academic, they're all pretty bloody quick - how many cars do 135mph, 0-60 in 4 secs like the FW? The handling is relly the only thing I can criticise, It needs grabbing by the scruff of the neck and wrestling into the corners compared to some bikes I've ridden ( GSXR anyone ?) but, like I said before, that is not what this bike is all about. To summarise then, a good solid ( did I hear someone say boring )jack of all trades, reliable and oh yes, you lot on R6s, GSXRs, ZX6Rs etc - COMFY. If you want a stylish ( well I think so ), cheap to run bike that can still make you think you are 18 sometimes then GET ONE.
The GSX600F. To some folk the very name elicits smirks, winks and nudges and conjures up images of teapots - apparently owing to its sculpting. To others it means real value for money biking with low buying and running costs. So how do I rate this questionable piece of motorcycling heritage? Read on! This was my first bike after passing my bike test in 1996. I bought it for £2500 back then and that was a bit over the odds but I didn't know better. It had a lovely paint scheme (metallic blue with Lucky Strike logos) and was mistaken, even by hardened sports bike fanatics, for something more than it was. But this paint scheme was there for a reason! Once home my prize and joy was stripped to see what lay beneath that vast expanse of plastic. Exhibit A - two majorly patched up and stitched together panels. Beautifully done no question but please please - if you ever see a bike in non-standard colours ask yourself "Why?". Few folk rarely go to the bother of repainting bikes for the heck of it. The same goes for wheels that are non-standard colour. It usually means they've been in a collision and either had the wheel powder coated and resprayed or they got it from a scrappy's. But back to the bike. The bike is actually a real peach. For the money you get sheer comfort (I went to the south of France and rode back 800 miles non-stop and could still grin inanely at the end of it), you also get decent fuel consumption at 40 to 45 miles per gallon, a top speed of circa 140mph on a long straight, realistic hour long cruising at 120mph and, for those willing to use a bit of muscle, exciting cornering antics - you get round but each corner is imprinted on your grey matter. Running costs: Cheap cheap cheap. Forget your Dunlop D207's and BT56's. This thing will run on Dunlop Arrowmax's very well and they last for ages compared to the softer compounds on offer. Brake pads are cheap too as
are chain and sprockets. Useful mods: The original exhaust system rots and mine was replaced with a Motad chrome system. The poor man's choice, sure, but it looked nice, it polished up well and it lasted. The only other mod was a flip up screen which was useful for touring and high speed blasting (I use the term "high" loosely since today's 600's can do 160mph). Cons: The image is probably the biggest let down. There's a lot of plastic there and the aircooled engine is noisy. The performance is nothing like the CBR600, GSXR600 or ZX6R but it is by no means a slouch. Ridden enthusiastically I could keep up on windy A class roads with my friends on their ZX-9R's and CBR600's. This bike is not for small people. It is very heavy and bulky. The finish also wasn't the best – brake rotor bolts went rusty and the fluid reservoir fittings were a bit soft like a fine Brie. The bike is basically a parts bin special where the components are as cheap as you get from Suzuki and sourced from earlier models in times past. This was evident in the suspension which was limited in adjustment and pretty soggy when pushed to the limit. Other points: For me this was an ideal intro to biking. I learnt a lot about how a bike works - it's like a an old car where you can actually tinker with things without being hampered by space age electronics. It's also good to work on (I replaced the rear shock and I am no mechanic). For comfort it was great - good for pillions too. Conclusion: A cheap way into real biking without getting into wheezy GS500's or ER500's. NB I have written this in the context of the version before the current model. Maybe the new model has improved but if my memory serves me right I suspect it is pretty much the same.