Joined
·
27 Posts
sold!! 
FS: [SYD] 2002 KTM LC4 640 Supermotard 4.8K Neg
1 - 20 of 27 Posts
Joined
·
27 Posts
RE: FS: [SYD] 2002 KTM LC4 640 Supermotard 5.2K Neg
haha hey dood, yeah I had a feeling you were on here too.
I put it back on cuz my aging left ear hearing problem has caught up to me after owning so many loud bikes :lol: Now it's abit more sedate haha
haha hey dood, yeah I had a feeling you were on here too.
I put it back on cuz my aging left ear hearing problem has caught up to me after owning so many loud bikes :lol: Now it's abit more sedate haha
Joined
·
52 Posts
RE: FS: [SYD] 2002 KTM LC4 640 Supermotard 5.2K Neg
You'll wanna check the LAMS status of it. The 640 SMC is LAMS, but the 640SM isn't I think.
You'll wanna check the LAMS status of it. The 640 SMC is LAMS, but the 640SM isn't I think.
Joined
·
27 Posts
RE: FS: [SYD] 2002 KTM LC4 640 Supermotard 5.2K Neg
Yeah, the rego label definitely has LAMS on it.
Yeah, the rego label definitely has LAMS on it.
Joined
·
27 Posts
RE: FS: [SYD] 2002 KTM LC4 640 Supermotard 5.2K Neg
my gf digs the rear handle rails if that's any convincing :lol:Matt said:
Joined
·
27 Posts
RE: FS: [SYD] 2002 KTM LC4 640 Supermotard 5.2K Neg
def. not suited to long distance. You generally notice the vibrations and ass hurt when your cruising at 100k's on the freeway or long stretch of road.
But if those 1500ks were twisties and negotiating bends, then this would be good fun
def. not suited to long distance. You generally notice the vibrations and ass hurt when your cruising at 100k's on the freeway or long stretch of road.
But if those 1500ks were twisties and negotiating bends, then this would be good fun
RE: FS: [SYD] 2002 KTM LC4 640 Supermotard 5.2K Neg
Just have a q which is slightly off topic, but how is the visibility with those mirrors? I've been eyeing them off (although they're fairly pricey!) and haven't done so yet because I don't know how good the visibility would be.
Best of luck with the sale, and Matt, tell your girl to GTFO... you need a motard!
If you're worried about your bum when you're riding it back home, just get some elastic strapped to a sheep skin cover, slip it over the seat and sit on that.
Just have a q which is slightly off topic, but how is the visibility with those mirrors? I've been eyeing them off (although they're fairly pricey!) and haven't done so yet because I don't know how good the visibility would be.
Best of luck with the sale, and Matt, tell your girl to GTFO... you need a motard!
If you're worried about your bum when you're riding it back home, just get some elastic strapped to a sheep skin cover, slip it over the seat and sit on that.
RE: FS: [SYD] 2002 KTM LC4 640 Supermotard 5.2K Neg
And if you're really really pansy, KTM even offer a "comfy seat" replacement seat unit with thicker padding.
Sneddy, re: the mirrors, when I had it I removed the mirrors, with the amount of vibration through the bars and the upright seating position it was easier to just turn my head and do a headcheck.
And if you're really really pansy, KTM even offer a "comfy seat" replacement seat unit with thicker padding.
Sneddy, re: the mirrors, when I had it I removed the mirrors, with the amount of vibration through the bars and the upright seating position it was easier to just turn my head and do a headcheck.
Joined
·
27 Posts
RE: FS: [SYD] 2002 KTM LC4 640 Supermotard 5.2K Neg
As slojo has said, even the standard mirrors are poor with the vibration, these updated mirrors obviously offer less visibility due to the slim sizing, but I just whacked them on for looks and abit of visibility/being legal. I would have no mirrors but didn't want to run the risk of the popo.Sneddy said:
Joined
·
52 Posts
RE: FS: [SYD] 2002 KTM LC4 640 Supermotard 5.2K Neg
Just to be clear. I had one of these, and it was great (until someone stole it). Anyone who wants a decently fast commuter supermotard should get it. Good price too.
I agree it's kinda backwards, but the SMC models come with the FCR-41 flat side carby, with a throttle stop installed to limit horsepower to 35HP(??) for some race homologation (details of which I don't know). The 640SM is not restricted, but also uses a different carby.
Now... if you take the throttle stop out (and you would of course), it's got a bit more grunt. But doing so also invalidates the LAMS classification.
I only bring it up, because if a learner did buy it, and crash. It would be a great way for the insurance company to weasel out of paying.
That said, if you can crash this bike, hard enough to write it off, you've got bigger issues than insurance (like keeping your legs). These things are indestructible at low speed.
Just to be clear. I had one of these, and it was great (until someone stole it). Anyone who wants a decently fast commuter supermotard should get it. Good price too.
speaksgeek said:
slojo said:
Cool, but I've just had a look at the vicroads LAMS list, and none of the KTM 600's are on it. On the RTA LAMS list, the 625SMC (which is what I meant above) is listed as is the 660SMC, but the 640SM isn't. RTA LAMS LISTragedmachine said:
I agree it's kinda backwards, but the SMC models come with the FCR-41 flat side carby, with a throttle stop installed to limit horsepower to 35HP(??) for some race homologation (details of which I don't know). The 640SM is not restricted, but also uses a different carby.
Now... if you take the throttle stop out (and you would of course), it's got a bit more grunt. But doing so also invalidates the LAMS classification.
I only bring it up, because if a learner did buy it, and crash. It would be a great way for the insurance company to weasel out of paying.
That said, if you can crash this bike, hard enough to write it off, you've got bigger issues than insurance (like keeping your legs). These things are indestructible at low speed.
1 - 20 of 27 Posts
