Silverwing To 400 Burgman *** 400 Burgman To Silvering ???

Hi I am thinking for getting a back up to keep the miles off my silverwing and bad weather miles etc too.

So I just wondered if anyone has had both, or gone from one to the other either way.

The Silverwing suffers from unsprung weight to a degree, so I wonder if the Burgman would be more of that on the Bumps.

Be really interested to hear how they ride, handling, power. feel etc etc compares.

I know the early Burgmans were lighter, but also less powerful.

Were there any chassis upgrades as well ?

Basically am I going to be able to cope with a B400 if I also have the silverwing sat there !!!

I very rarely get over 70 on the silverwing anyway so don`t need a lot of power but it does feel nice to have it all the same.

Best SWD

SILVERWINGDAYS wrote:

Hi I am thinking for getting a back up to keep the miles off my silverwing and bad weather miles etc too.

So I just wondered if anyone has had both, or gone from one to the other either way.

The Silverwing suffers from unsprung weight to a degree, so I wonder if the Burgman would be more of that on the Bumps.

Be really interested to hear how they ride, handling, power. feel etc etc compares.

I know the early Burgmans were lighter, but also less powerful.

Were there any chassis upgrades as well ?

Basically am I going to be able to cope with a B400 if I also have the silverwing sat there !!!

I very rarely get over 70 on the silverwing anyway so don`t need a lot of power but it does feel nice to have it all the same.

Best SWD

There are plenty of reviews on the internet about the Burg vs. Silverwing. One thing to consider is the upkeep of another bike, not to mention insurance.

Had 2 new SilverWings, 2 new after 2007 Burgmans, about 150,000 miles on all---Burgman about 100 lbs lighter than SilverWing, softer ride, a little better gas mileage. Both Japanese made so do not break very often. Burgman has some dashboard features that SilverWing does not, including electric plug in, that US model SilverWing does not.

The Silverwing has the motor mounted to the frame and the Burg400 has it on its swingarm. I had the Majesty, and really liked that bike, but I noticed that Swing took bumps and speed bumps better. The Swing's power was much more noticeable than the Majesty as well. But the Majesty was a great bike. The Burg400 and Majesty are very similar and have the same power and things. Also, the SWing is a twin cylinder I felt that since the SWing is heavier that it handles better on the interstate for longs rides. I didn't feel as tired after long rides on the SWing as I did on the Majesty. But then, I would ride 80 plus mph so maybe that is why the SWing felt better.

I kind of wished they would make the engines on the 400cc mounted to the frame. The Majesty was a very smooth and comfortable bike and it handled better in the twisties than the SWing. I hear very good things about the Burg400 since it has been updated a few times. Just my opinion though.

SILVERWINGDAYS is going to a busy lad, he's getting his front forks sorted, a pair of new rear shocks, new battery, brake pads, and a Airhawk seat cushion (the one you want is the Cruiser Medium, it fits my Silver Wing, and also my previous 400 and 600 Burgmans, the current Polyurethane cushion version which is supposed to be as good as the Neoprene costs £135). Now it's more coin on a 400 Burgman as a winter bike, no wonder he still hasn't found time for his long overdue Intro.  

I had an ’05 Burgman 400 for three years and as a solo tourer it was great, although it did require it's oil topping up every couple of days you did a lot of miles at motorway speeds. At night time and in winter it wasn't so good, the OE twin 35w/35w headlights were pathetically inadequate on country roads, and I had to religiously get out the hose and clean off all traces of road crud and salt after every ride.

The OE screen was the standard totally inadequate maxi screen I've come to expect, I replaced it with a Biondi, in fact the that as new condition OE screen is wrapped in plastic and currently taking up space in my garden shed with a couple of other screens.

One handy thing about the ’03 to ’07 Burgman 400’s is that the rear wheel is very easy to remove, similar to the Paralever suspension BMW's of my biking days.

I had a Burgman 400, it was a 2010 or so. Nice bike, especially below 70 mph. Above that, it was breathing hard, I felt.

I upgraded to my first Silver Wing after that. Not much of a penalty in fuel economy and a lot more power. The twin cylinder engines just handle the high speed stuff with so much more grace, and there's not much penalty for low speeds either. The Silver Wing handles better; the Burgman would kind of get some steering shake on high speed sweeping turns.

Getting a second bike to keep the miles off of the Silver Wing doesn't make sense; then, you'd be maintaining two bikes, insuring two bikes, licensing two bikes... It's cheaper just to do more maintenance on one bike.

If you DO get a second bike, get something with a completely different skill set. How about a big-wheeled Piaggio Fly 150 or even a Vespa GTS? Then, you'd have something for B-roads and around town, something that handles the low speed stuff and tight parking maneuvers better. The new Fly 150 is a nice bike. Lots of room for a 150, air-cooled single cylinder should mean less maintenance.

OR...

spend the money on a nice road trip instead.

I'm with Smaug on that. If you're going have two bikes they may as well be totally different.
For winter ACF50.

The Burgman 400cc pre 2008 requires the valves to be adjusted every 4,000 miles. If you can do that yourself, you are good to go.

If you have to have a shop do it.... $300 is the price. Add that to the price of gas and the 400 becomes expensive. That is exactly why I got rid of a 2006 400cc Burgman.

When I had my 05 Burgman 400 I took it in to the Suzuki dealers I bought it from for the 4000 miles valve checks during the warranty period. I'd ride it down to them the day before the service and leave my Burgman there and ride home on one of their bikes like a Suzuki V Strom 1000 or GS 500E.

They'd do the valve checks the next morning on a cold engine. I'd have a enjoyable leisurely afternoon ride back down to the dealers on mainly coastal and fell roads, hand back their bike and pick up my Burgman and ride home.

I don't remember being handed any expensive bills for the valve checks either, just exemplary service from the dealer.

Meldrew, I wonder if that's a difference between UK and US dealers. We sometimes refer to them as "stealerships" here...

I was quoted $300 plus tax plus a $10 shop fee. I sold the bike.

Modernman1953 wrote:

The Burgman 400cc pre 2008 requires the valves to be adjusted every 4,000 miles.  If you can do that yourself, you are good to go.

If you have to have a shop do it....  $300 is the price.  Add that to the price of gas and the 400 becomes expensive.  That is exactly why I got rid of a 2006 400cc Burgman.  

Here's another viewpoint: just because they recommend checking valve clearances every 4k miles doesn't mean you have to.

Some folks have started to do that, and after a few times have found they don't move any more. So they stop doing it. By most accounts, it's important to do it the FIRST time, but not necessarily afterwards. (esp. with shim-under-bucket designs)

My old PCX recommended checking valve clearances every 2500 miles. It is a big undertaking; major disassembly. Can you guess how many owners actually have that done? It's the same interval as an oil change!

Instead, they (maybe) do it once, then wait for either hard starting or valve knock to do anything else. By and large, they're just fine that way.

I'd be it's the same with 1st gen Burgmen.

Smaug wrote:

Modernman1953 wrote:

The Burgman 400cc pre 2008 requires the valves to be adjusted every 4,000 miles.  If you can do that yourself, you are good to go.

If you have to have a shop do it....  $300 is the price.  Add that to the price of gas and the 400 becomes expensive.  That is exactly why I got rid of a 2006 400cc Burgman.  

Here's another viewpoint: just because they recommend checking valve clearances every 4k miles doesn't mean you have to.

Some folks have started to do that, and after a few times have found they don't move any more.  So they stop doing it. By most accounts, it's important to do it the FIRST time, but not necessarily afterwards. (esp. with shim-under-bucket designs)

My old PCX recommended checking valve clearances every 2500 miles. It is a big undertaking; major disassembly. Can you guess how many owners actually have that done? It's the same interval as an oil change!

Instead, they (maybe) do it once, then wait for either hard starting or valve knock to do anything else. By and large, they're just fine that way.

I'd be it's the same with 1st gen Burgmen.

Good point. There are many "previous owners" who use this method of maintenance. It is called neglect.

I would seriously recommend that one visit the Bergman website and research that method of maintenance on the 400cc and see what the results are before heading off in that direction.

I can neglect to change my brake fluid, oil changes, and anti freeze changes on the Silverwing "for awhile" and get away with it if I am just gonna resell it soon enough.

How is it neglect if experience has shown that the valve clearances aren't changing?

I didn't say anything about not changing fluids. (though I admit I've never had a bike long enough to change brake fluid, I do it on cars about every decade)

Smaug wrote:

How is it neglect if experience has shown that the valve clearances aren't changing?

I didn't say anything about not changing fluids. (though I admit I've never had a bike long enough to change brake fluid, I do it on cars about every decade)

I belonged to the Burgman site.  There are members there who share their experience of having to have engine work done for not doing the valves as the manual suggests.  

The manual suggests having the valves checked every 4,000 miles.  Neglect is not following the suggested maintenance plan and thinking it is ok to do.  Deferred maintenance is another term for it.  Perhaps you might like that one better than neglect.

The OP asked about buying a 400cc Burgie and what others thought of it. I shared my knowledge about that little problem with ownership of a pre 2008 400cc.

I have a 2003 SWing, my second, and a 2014 Burgman 400.

First, a slight correction.  The B400 was redesigned in the 2007 model year.  In that year, the engine received some modifications.  These included larger displacement, different valve train and other things.  

Prior to the 2007 MY, the B400 maintenance schedule required valve clearance checks every 4000.  This was offset slightly by the fact that access to the valves for the check was not too bad and the valve adjustments were done with a screw and locknut arrangement.  When the engine was redesigned in the 2007 MY, the access became more difficult and the adjustment was by shim, but this was offset by the fact that the valve clearance checks are now only called for at 14.500 mile intervals, as shown in my owner's manual. For me, the valve clearance check is something I will gladly pay the shop to do, as I have neither the tools, the knowledge nor the patience to that myself.

With regard to comparing and contrasting, as you might expect, the SWing has significantly more power, which is slightly offset by significantly more weight than the B400.  I find the SWing easier to do routine maintenance on, partly because the factory service manual is much more user friendly than that for the B400 and partly because stuff is more accessible on the SWing....should be noted that I'm speaking in generalities...routine maintenance on the B400 is certainly doable, but I haven't tried it yet, having only about 4000 miles on the bike.

I find the SWing will effortlessly cruise down the freeway at any rational speed without frenzy or difficulty, even when carrying my prodigious self and all my junk.  The B400, surprisingly, can also run 70-75 all day without straining and while carrying the same load, but there's not a lot of headroom there.  On the B400, 75 mph corresponds to roughly 7500 rpm, with redline at 9000 rpm.  The B400 will go 90 mph indicated, but I wouldn't do it routinely, safety notwithstanding.  The SWing, as we all know, has redline also at 9000, but the engine is running significantly slower at the same indicated speeds.

The storage on each is about the same under the seat.  The dash storage on the B400 is larger than the SWing, but I don't really use the dash storage much on either, so not significant for me.  I have a Givi Monolock topbox on the SWing to increase storage, as the SWing is the preferred mount for long distance riding and touring.

I consider the B400 handling superior to the SWing.  It is lighter, turns easier and the weight is lower, IMHO.  The B400 is quite stable in corners, more so than the SWing, but the SWing is more stable on the freeway and in windy conditions.  Either bike can be ridden safely and well on either the freeway or the backroads, but my preference is to use the SWing for freeways, long distance and touring and the B400 for local rides and backroads.  That said, I switch them off all the time.

Fuel economy is better on the B400.  The B400 has a 3.6 gallon fuel tank.  I routinely get 55-65 mpg on the B400 and have travelled as far as 185 miles on 3.1 gallons of fuel.  I've never gotten close to that on the SWing.  I average 45-55 mpg on the SWing and have gotten as far as 154 miles on 3.19 gallons, with just under a gallon left.  As a general statement, I start looking for fuel on the SWing at about 135 or so, but with the B400, I'm very comfortable waiting until 165 miles or so have passed.

Both are excellent machines and I really don't think you can go wrong with either one.

Jinglebob, you make good points and you can make the comparisons better due to owning both scooters.  One comment, the early Silver Wings had lower fuel economy than the newer ones, say 2008-2013.  My 2012 (on a trip) exceeds 60 MPG on a regular basis and usually averages in the 55-58 MPG range. With the 4.1 gallon tank I seldom fuel up before 180 miles. So the diff between it and the Burg 400 is not that great.

I too have owned a 2012 400 Burg. and if you go to my posts on the Burgman forum (under Pastor Ron) you will see why I would not recommend a Burgman purchase. IMO if you want a second bike buy another Swing.

Correction: A 2007 Burgman.

I had an '03 Burgman 400 I purchased in early 2011 with 12,400 miles. One of the first things I did was check the valve clearance (about 45 minutes at a leisure pace), the intakes were spot on, the exhaust clearance was tight by 0.003"--not a surprising thing.

Checked 'em again at 18k or so, again the intakes were OK and the exhaust was just bit (0.001") tight.

Checked them again at 25k and 35k miles--spot on, never checked them again; sold the scoot' with 61k on it after I got the S'Wing in May of 2016, still ran like a champ. I see the current owner (one of those "maybe change the oil once in a while" types) now and then, he had 72k on it in mid-July.

My 400 had 18g DRP sliders, a modified variator ramp plate, Adige clutch and Malossi torque multiplier  spring--all of which greatly improved its performance; however there is no comparison to the Silver Wing in that regard.

The 400 was lighter making it more "flickable" (though saying that about any maxi-scooter approaches absurdity), it had much more unsprung weight, that could make itself known, due to the pivoting engine/swingarm assembly.

It was however a fully serviceable and fun to ride beast that never let me down in the 5 years and 48k miles I rode it.

Re: the pre-'07 vs, '07+ models; the engine control system on the earlier scoots was much less complex; with no catalytic converter or O₂ sensor, and did not have the ECU controlled secondary throttle valve which has proven problematic on '07+ models as the miles rack up...

------------------------------
Oh, I had fabricated and installed a more restrictive insert, #11 in the drawing below, (w/a 0.050" orifice) for the PCV system that significantly reduced the high speed oil consumption to less than 4 oz/1000 miles. To me this was acceptable and perhaps even desirable as it ensured good top cylinder lubrication at those higher speeds--which may have been Suzuki's intent (though they were IMHO a bit overzealous about it):