crf1000 africa twins second hand

[Richard Simpson]

Thought i would join in on this one, I had a AT crf at 450 miles and gave it back at 1100 miles, full money returned ,, yep so i was the second owner in two months, to be totally honest with my riding style etc, it was an exceptional bike off road to the point I took it round a motocross track (no one there tho just me) with some TKC'S .. it was superb and on the roads it was superb.

I didn't like the rusty spokes and rusty head stock bearing and crappy heated grips etc (i paid 300 for the original ones fitted)

Also If you dropped it and broke the fairing you would likely looking at a bill of well over £1000, as the plastic and associated brackets behind the fairing are dreadful and ill thought out as an off roader.

I did drop it twice but only walking pace and I couldn't
reach the floor and I let it go down.no damage at all.

Could I abuse a £10k bikeand treat like an enduro bike? no
Did I enjoy riding it?... hell yes
Would it look good after a couple of years? ... no

015_2017-02-10.JPG

Soooo...you put 650 miles on it, including a motocross track, dropped it twice, and got a full refund...your dealer is clearly a very kind man.

[smudger272]

I've got one and love it had a GS 800 before that liked that one but AT better went touring round France on it last year perfect bike for me

[SteveW]

I've got one and love it had a GS 800 before that liked that one but AT better went touring round France on it last year perfect bike for me

I think the AT is the closest bike in specification and price to my GSA800.
I want to like the AT and I think I do like it :unsure: but I can't help thinking it's a bit flimsy, it just looks too plasticy.
I get the feeling that these days Japanese bikes have lost their edge, they're all a bit.....uninteresting, bland.
The European manufacturers are more inventive and generally make bikes that interest me more.

[waynecoluk]

I considered one when i got my GSA in June. However I don't go offroad at all and the wind protection, power, torque, tank range just made the GSA a better bike (for me).
However, if I did go offroad then I think I would have seriously considered it.
Im sure the GSA will do the very light trails that I am ever likely to venture on.

[captinktm]

Ah fancy this happening, I said and you can go back though my post and find it that, as with the original AT which to me was the worst bike I have ever owned, either on or off road, was badly under powered. All the signs were there, words like adequate and user friendly, which is mag speak for "it's under powered". As if to repeat history the original bikes worst traits, over weight and under power are here again and there's nothing you can do about it.

[Helicoptermanr22]

Yes I did what helped was that when I bought it, it had panniers that I didn't get.. When I went in for some warranty work, i saw my panniers in a box in the showroom,, with my number plate marked on it.
After a heated discussion I handed the whole lot back including my new pannier set! There was alot of warranty work to be done so we all decided to call it a day, and to top it all off, they hadnt sent the log book away. so me as an owner didnt exist!

[johnnyboxer]

Ah fancy this happening, I said and you can go back though my post and find it that, as with the original AT which to me was the worst bike I have ever owned, either on or off road, was badly under powered. All the signs were there, words like adequate and user friendly, which is mag speak for "it's under powered". As if to repeat history the original bikes worst traits, over weight and under power are here again and there's nothing you can do about it.

I found that with the 750 I had in 1996

It was a total dog, despite being brand new

60 hp on tap, dog slow and soft forks that dived like a premiership footballer in the box, trying for a penalty

Sold it within a month for a new 1100 GS and never looked back

The 1100 GS was 10 times the bike that the AT 750 ever was

[sohoeasy]

Ah fancy this happening, I said and you can go back though my post and find it that, as with the original AT which to me was the worst bike I have ever owned, either on or off road, was badly under powered. All the signs were there, words like adequate and user friendly, which is mag speak for "it's under powered". As if to repeat history the original bikes worst traits, over weight and under power are here again and there's nothing you can do about it.

I found that with the 750 I had in 1996

It was a total dog, despite being brand new

60 hp on tap, dog slow and soft forks that dived like a premiership footballer in the box, trying for a penalty

Sold it within a month for a new 1100 GS and never looked back

The 1100 GS was 10 times the bike that the AT 750 ever was

Knowing all that. Why would you have bought it then, or did you just walk in and buy it without a test ride ? B) Seems odd to buy a dog without first taking it for a walk ! :laugh:

[captinktm]

Ah fancy this happening, I said and you can go back though my post and find it that, as with the original AT which to me was the worst bike I have ever owned, either on or off road, was badly under powered. All the signs were there, words like adequate and user friendly, which is mag speak for "it's under powered". As if to repeat history the original bikes worst traits, over weight and under power are here again and there's nothing you can do about it.

I found that with the 750 I had in 1996

It was a total dog, despite being brand new

60 hp on tap, dog slow and soft forks that dived like a premiership footballer in the box, trying for a penalty

Sold it within a month for a new 1100 GS and never looked back

The 1100 GS was 10 times the bike that the AT 750 ever was

Knowing all that. Why would you have bought it then, or did you just walk in and buy it without a test ride ? B) Seems odd to buy a dog without first taking it for a walk ! :laugh:

What? I bought mine second hand with just a short test ride, I actually thought I could inject some go into it, but after a full exhaust system and dyno jet kit and hours on a dyno it was still dog slow, I remember well the first time I took it off road and it was useless. It looked the part and that was about it. Bit like the new one.

[sohoeasy]

Ah fancy this happening, I said and you can go back though my post and find it that, as with the original AT which to me was the worst bike I have ever owned, either on or off road, was badly under powered. All the signs were there, words like adequate and user friendly, which is mag speak for "it's under powered". As if to repeat history the original bikes worst traits, over weight and under power are here again and there's nothing you can do about it.

I found that with the 750 I had in 1996

It was a total dog, despite being brand new

60 hp on tap, dog slow and soft forks that dived like a premiership footballer in the box, trying for a penalty

Sold it within a month for a new 1100 GS and never looked back

The 1100 GS was 10 times the bike that the AT 750 ever was

Knowing all that. Why would you have bought it then, or did you just walk in and buy it without a test ride ? B) Seems odd to buy a dog without first taking it for a walk ! :laugh:

What? I bought mine second hand with just a short test ride, I actually thought I could inject some go into it, but after a full exhaust system and dyno jet kit and hours on a dyno it was still dog slow, I remember well the first time I took it off road and it was useless. It looked the part and that was about it. Bit like the new one.

Ooooh you lads get so defensive about your purchasing mistakes. In the heat of it had you not noticed my reply was to MrBoxer ?

As a note - 60 bhp on a bike like the AT is all you will ever get. It wasn't designed to be a performance engine. All the Dyno testing in the world won't change that unless you do the 850cc conversion,but then you lose the reliability, which would make it no different than a a GS (sorry JB, on jesting ! )