Help Choosing between 2: Cheap vs Newer?

[ElusiveA]

Hi Guys,

Well my hunt for a bike is going well but I'm at decision point and could do with some advice:

Currently looking at two bikes, one is 1993, 65,000K's going for about $3k. It seems to go well mechanically, but it has obviously been well used (little bits of rubber coming off, instruments a bit faded etc). It has been resprayed and comes with an after market exhaust.

The other bike is a 1997, 25,000K's. going for $4.5K also goes well mechanically, only damage is mirrors and indicator a bit scuffed up (cheap to replace i imagine), but it is obviously a newer bike, things are much tighter (ie gearbox) and no worn rubbers etc.

Both bikes have good tires and run well.

I need your advice PSB! Go the cheaper bike, and hopefully get my money back in a year, or spend more and get something much less 'used'?

I only intend to have the bike a year or two then upgrade.

[malenko]

what bikes are they?

[Captain Starfish]

if they're both running orrite, go cheap. Punish it for a year.

[ElusiveA]

Originally Posted by malenko

what bikes are they?

Sorry, they are both Suzuki Across's

[malenko]

oh ok yeah if the cheap one is still ok then i would go cheap and spend the extra on gear if you dont have any atm, like helmet etc

[barfridge]

Check if either has had its cam chain replaced, and go for that one. They are the main problem with these things.

I had one for my first bike, and loved it.

I'm happy to come out and have a look at them if you like, or if nobody more mechanically inclined offers

[ElusiveA]

Thanks all for the advice, managed to find another one with the best of both worlds (low k's and lower price) and snapped it up.