1600 vs. 1700 nomad

bulldog777 · 02-09-2012, 08:42 PM

I'm looking at buying a nomad, but need a little input on the 1600 and 1700 models.
Does the 1700 get better mpg due to 6 speed tranny?
Can you tell much difference in power between the two?
I noticed they changed the rake, good or bad?
Why belt instead of shaft drive on the newer models?
Disclaimer: not trying to start a war over whose is better, just the facts,ma'am,just the facts.

Old Crow · 02-09-2012, 09:10 PM

I went from a 1600 Classic to the 1700 Nomad. Have not ridden the 1600 Nomad. I debated buying a used older Nomad but went with the 1700 for the six speed, electronic cruise and the top opening bags.

On my 1600 I frequently found myself wishing for the sixth gear, and you'll absolutely love the cruise. A lot of folks don't like the tip opening bags, but I'm just the opposite, and prefer them. It's my understanding that the riding position is significantly different on the two bikes. Spend some time on each before you make your decision. Have fun!

twowheeladdict · 02-09-2012, 09:55 PM

I've only test rode the 1600 Nomad, but I do own a 1600 Mean Streak and the 1700 Nomad. You really need to ride both to make your decisioin. Different ergonomics between the 1600 and 1700. So far I am averaging 40 MPG on the Nomad but it only has 1800 miles on it so I am hoping it will improve. I feel like the 1700 is more nimble than the 1600s I test rode. Love the cruise control and the top loading bags. The 6 speed is a plus if you like to lug along at 60 MPH or buzz down the interstate at 80.

usranger74 · 02-09-2012, 10:00 PM

I don't care for belt drive.

twowheeladdict · 02-10-2012, 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by usranger74

I don't care for belt drive.

What issues have you had with belt drive?

I know folks who have had issues with drive shaft splines not being properly lubricated from the factory. My '01 Voyager XII developed a vibration due to the U-joint starting to where out.

Changing the wheel I found to be just as easy with the belt drive as the drive shaft.

**ringadingh** · 02-10-2012, 10:05 AM

I don't think belt drive or shaft drive would make a difference to me either way. The manufacturers switched to belt because it a lot cheaper to produce.

**bearbait** · 02-10-2012, 10:17 AM

I had a 1600 Nomad and now have a 1700 Vaquero (Nomad-like but with the old bags and the Voyager fairing).

There is a BIG difference in ergos between the 1600 frame and the 1700 frame. The 1600 is way more "stretched out" and can accommodate a taller rider than the 1700 can. I am 6'0" and felt that the 1600 was very roomy - to the point where I bought risers to offset some of the roominess - and the 1700 feels more crowded but (so far; it's very new to me) not uncomfortably so.

I haven't noticed much more power in the 1700 but, like Old Crow, I do like being able to hit that sixth gear on the slab. And like twowheeladdict I find the more compact 1700 is more nimble and maneuverable at low speeds.

But really, both the 1600 and 1700 are can't-lose machines. Try to ride both and see which fits you better.

bulldog777 · 02-10-2012, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Old Crow

I went from a 1600 Classic to the 1700 Nomad. Have not ridden the 1600 Nomad. I debated buying a used older Nomad but went with the 1700 for the six speed, electronic cruise and the top opening bags.

On my 1600 I frequently found myself wishing for the sixth gear, and you'll absolutely love the cruise. A lot of folks don't like the tip opening bags, but I'm just the opposite, and prefer them. It's my understanding that the riding position is significantly different on the two bikes. Spend some time on each before you make your decision. Have fun!

I spent about 4 months in the Pineville/Middlesboro area. You've got some very pretty places to ride around the Cumberland Gap. Looking to take a trip back there one day. Thanks for the info.

VulcanE · 02-10-2012, 10:54 AM

I own a 1600 Nomad, bought it new 7 years ago next month, and still loving it. I've ridden the Voyager and Vaquero (Nomad 1700 has the same frame) and found them to be very cramped. I'm 6'2" and my wife is 5"9", and the 1600 has way more room. But, the 1700s do handle a lot more nimble than the 1600. I have no preference when it comes to shaft-vs-belt. The side load bags look better to me, but the top load bags seem more practical. Like others have said you need to sit on each of them, and if possible test ride them before you make a decision.

cactusjack · 02-10-2012, 11:38 AM

Having owned a 1600 Nomad and ridden a 1700 Nomad on more than one occasion, the 1700 feels (ergonomically) like a Harley. If you are shorter in stature - say, under 6'0", the 1700 is probably more comfy than a 1600. The reach to the bars is much greater on a 1600.

Old Crow · 02-10-2012, 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cactusjack

Having owned a 1600 Nomad and ridden a 1700 Nomad on more than one occasion, the 1700 feels (ergonomically) like a Harley. If you are shorter in stature - say, under 6'0", the 1700 is probably more comfy than a 1600. The reach to the bars is much greater on a 1600.

He's really gonna have to spend some time on the seat of each to get a feel for the difference. I'm only 5'7" and the 1700 Nomad works real well for me. I was at our local dealer for a club event a couple of weeks ago and sat on one of the new 900s. The reach to both the bars and the shift/brake pedals is longer on it than my Nomad. I have no trouble understanding how someone taller than I would find the 1700s "cramped".

HONZO · 02-10-2012, 02:14 PM

Before buying my 1600 I looked at the 1700 at least 2 dozon times. I wanted the 'new' bike with warrenty. I am 6'5 and the 1600 felt great and as much as I wanted the newer, bigger engine, better etc...

I could not be happier with my desicion. There are also more aftermarket items for the 1600 and more/better resolutions for any mechanical issues.

usranger74 · 02-10-2012, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by twowheeladdict

What issues have you had with belt drive?

I know folks who have had issues with drive shaft splines not being properly lubricated from the factory. My '01 Voyager XII developed a vibration due to the U-joint starting to where out.

Changing the wheel I found to be just as easy with the belt drive as the drive shaft.

I can't tell you why other than I just don't like them. I feel the same way about a chain drive.

twowheeladdict · 02-10-2012, 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by usranger74

I can't tell you why other than I just don't like them. I feel the same way about a chain drive.

I understand not liking the chain drive. Having to oil it every 500 miles and after every rain.

Wearing out sprockets and chains every 15,000 miles or so.

The 1700s are my first belt drive bikes and I have no issues with them

ronnie · 02-12-2012, 09:58 PM

I'm sure glad you all are discussing this. I've got an 06 nomad with 82 k on it, and have been thinking about a new 1700 nomad. And all the questions and answers I'm hearing, I have been wondering about. Just listing to you, I'm thinking the new nomad is sounding a lot better to me all the time.

02-09-2012, 08:42 PM	#1
bulldog777 Jr. Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Thorndale, Tx Posts: 3	1600 vs. 1700 nomad I'm looking at buying a nomad, but need a little input on the 1600 and 1700 models. Does the 1700 get better mpg due to 6 speed tranny? Can you tell much difference in power between the two? I noticed they changed the rake, good or bad? Why belt instead of shaft drive on the newer models? Disclaimer: not trying to start a war over whose is better, just the facts,ma'am,just the facts. Login or Register to Remove Ads
	0

02-09-2012, 09:10 PM	#2
Old Crow Jr. Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 38	I went from a 1600 Classic to the 1700 Nomad. Have not ridden the 1600 Nomad. I debated buying a used older Nomad but went with the 1700 for the six speed, electronic cruise and the top opening bags. On my 1600 I frequently found myself wishing for the sixth gear, and you'll absolutely love the cruise. A lot of folks don't like the tip opening bags, but I'm just the opposite, and prefer them. It's my understanding that the riding position is significantly different on the two bikes. Spend some time on each before you make your decision. Have fun! __________________ Old Crow (Bob) Lexington, KY 2010 1700 Nomad KawaNOW #01691 VRA National Vice President 2012 Kentucky Chapter Treasurer
	0

02-09-2012, 09:55 PM	#3
twowheeladdict Advanced Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: Middle Tennessee Posts: 616	I've only test rode the 1600 Nomad, but I do own a 1600 Mean Streak and the 1700 Nomad. You really need to ride both to make your decisioin. Different ergonomics between the 1600 and 1700. So far I am averaging 40 MPG on the Nomad but it only has 1800 miles on it so I am hoping it will improve. I feel like the 1700 is more nimble than the 1600s I test rode. Love the cruise control and the top loading bags. The 6 speed is a plus if you like to lug along at 60 MPH or buzz down the interstate at 80. __________________ 2010 Vulcan Voyager, 2007 Vulcan Mean Streak, 2009 Vulcan Nomad
	0

02-09-2012, 10:00 PM	#4
usranger74 Sr. Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: La Vista, NE Posts: 4,060	I don't care for belt drive. __________________ Bill (usranger74) Blake 2016 Goldwing VBA # 1505
	0

02-10-2012, 10:05 AM	#6
ringadingh Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Newmarket Ontario Canada Posts: 35,387	I don't think belt drive or shaft drive would make a difference to me either way. The manufacturers switched to belt because it a lot cheaper to produce. __________________ 2002 Nomad aka Bountyhunter VBA #27 VROC #18951
	0

02-10-2012, 10:17 AM	#7
bearbait Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Greene County, NY Posts: 143	I had a 1600 Nomad and now have a 1700 Vaquero (Nomad-like but with the old bags and the Voyager fairing). There is a BIG difference in ergos between the 1600 frame and the 1700 frame. The 1600 is way more "stretched out" and can accommodate a taller rider than the 1700 can. I am 6'0" and felt that the 1600 was very roomy - to the point where I bought risers to offset some of the roominess - and the 1700 feels more crowded but (so far; it's very new to me) not uncomfortably so. I haven't noticed much more power in the 1700 but, like Old Crow, I do like being able to hit that sixth gear on the slab. And like twowheeladdict I find the more compact 1700 is more nimble and maneuverable at low speeds. But really, both the 1600 and 1700 are can't-lose machines. Try to ride both and see which fits you better.
	0

02-10-2012, 10:54 AM	#9
VulcanE Sr. Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Cartersville, Georgia Posts: 4,838	I own a 1600 Nomad, bought it new 7 years ago next month, and still loving it. I've ridden the Voyager and Vaquero (Nomad 1700 has the same frame) and found them to be very cramped. I'm 6'2" and my wife is 5"9", and the 1600 has way more room. But, the 1700s do handle a lot more nimble than the 1600. I have no preference when it comes to shaft-vs-belt. The side load bags look better to me, but the top load bags seem more practical. Like others have said you need to sit on each of them, and if possible test ride them before you make a decision. __________________ Cliff "VulcanE" Evans 2005 Blue & Silver 1600 Nomad VBA # 320 VROC # 20381
	0

02-10-2012, 11:38 AM	#10
cactusjack Mega-Contributor Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Where it doesn't snow...ever! Posts: 21,926	Having owned a 1600 Nomad and ridden a 1700 Nomad on more than one occasion, the 1700 feels (ergonomically) like a Harley. If you are shorter in stature - say, under 6'0", the 1700 is probably more comfy than a 1600. The reach to the bars is much greater on a 1600. __________________ Scott "Cactusjack" Hanks VBA #00105 H.O.G. #4250060 2011 H-D Ultra Limited 103ci :: 2011 HD Electra Glide Ultra Limited w/Stage 1 :: Rallies: Mesquite '08\|Custer '09\|Cortez '10\|Crescent City '11\|Kanab '12\|Antlers '12\|Estes Park '13\|Antlers '13\|Orofino '14\|The Dalles '17
	0

02-10-2012, 02:14 PM	#12
HONZO Jr. Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: Las Vegas Posts: 42	Before buying my 1600 I looked at the 1700 at least 2 dozon times. I wanted the 'new' bike with warrenty. I am 6'5 and the 1600 felt great and as much as I wanted the newer, bigger engine, better etc... I could not be happier with my desicion. There are also more aftermarket items for the 1600 and more/better resolutions for any mechanical issues. __________________ Richard Honzo Henderson, NV VBA #01951 2008 Diablo Black Nomad
	0

02-12-2012, 09:58 PM	#15
ronnie Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Glasgow, Kentucky Posts: 92	I'm sure glad you all are discussing this. I've got an 06 nomad with 82 k on it, and have been thinking about a new 1700 nomad. And all the questions and answers I'm hearing, I have been wondering about. Just listing to you, I'm thinking the new nomad is sounding a lot better to me all the time.
	0