Husqvarna TE 610

The new "best adventure bike"?

I'm a fan of the KLR. Old generation, new generation, doesn't matter, I like 'em. I've had 2 of them so far. One old generation and one next generation model. Both good bikes.

My first KLR - a '98 old generation model


My 2nd KLR - the first year of the next generation of KLRs

As my friend indicates in the above photo, the KLR is #1 for lots of riders. Its not that I think the KLR is the best dirt bike or that you can embarrass sport bike riders in the twisties on one or that it is a bike that can go anywhere and do anything. Instead, IMHO, the KLR has long been the best bike available for what I call adventure riding.

For me, adventure riding consists of everything between class 3 non-paved roads to freeway riding. I want a bike that I can ride 500 miles of freeway one day and then spend the next day riding class 2 and 3 non-paved roads. A bike that I can go for a day ride in the hill country today and then load up with luggage tomorrow and head out on a 10 day trip to Copper Canyon and back. If your riding envelope consists of class 1, 2, and 3 dirt roads, barely paved back roads, county roads, highways, and freeways, then the KLR is the bike to beat.

I don't include actual off-road riding in the equation. No single track, no motocross tracks, and no hare scramble/cross country courses. Sure, the KLR can do some of that stuff, but it's not a requirement that the bike needs to be capable of doing. The bike just needs to be able to handle all manner of paved roads and non-paved roads up to class 3.

Within these parameters I think the KLR has long been the best tool in the tool box. I don't mean to disrespect the DR650 or to make the owners of any particular model of bike upset, I just think the KLR has long been the best bike available for adventure riding. All the other adventure bikes tend to be better on one end of the spectrum or the other - either they are better on the non-paved roads or they are better on the highways. But, by being better in one area they give up capabilities on the opposite end of the spectrum. Those bikes, like the DRZ400, that are more capable in the dirt are less capable on the highway. Those bikes better on the highway, like my Wee Strom, give up a lot to the KLR in the dirt.

I submit that this is one of the main reasons the KLR has been so popular for so many years with the adventure riding crowd. While it has known flaws and faults there hasn't been a better overall choice.

Until now.

I may have found the bike that beats the KLR. A bike overall better at adventure riding. A new King of the Hill, if you will.

I'm talking about the Husqvarna TE610.

2008 Husqvarna TE610

I recently made a trade for a 2008 Husqvarna TE610. I've only had it for a few weeks as I write this and haven't ridden it enough yet to definitively say that, for me, the Husky is a better overall choice than KLR. I can say that my experiences with the TE610 so far have me seriously thinking it is a better adventure bike than either generation of KLR. The final thing I need to decide the issue is to take the Husky on a long, multi-day trip. Once that's done I will be ready to settle the issue in my mind.

Why do I think so highly of the Husky. What makes me think it is likely a better overall choice than the KLR?

First, right out of the box the Husky is better in the dirt than the KLR. There is no question of that. It weighs about 100 lbs less than the KLR (319 lbs vs 418 lbs), has 142% more horsepower (50hp vs 35 hp), better gearing, better suspension, and better brakes. All these things make the Husky excel in the dirt. The Husky performs a lot like the DRZ400 in the dirt.

Does that mean the Husky performs less well on the highway than the KLR? In stock form, Yes and No. The Husky has a wonderful, wide-ratio 6 speed transmission that seems to be geared perfectly for adventure riding. It's got a granny gear on one end and an overdrive gear on the other. That 6th gear means the Husky can cruise at freeway speeds without issue. The 50 horsepower engines provides plenty of passing power, even at highway speeds. The KLR lacks on both of these, meaning the Husky has the advantage in this area.

The Husky also has a sub-frame so you can load it up with all the same gear you would carry on a KLR. In this category, the two are tied.

The Husky's sub-frame means you can strap on luggage and go

Where the KLR wins on the highway is comfort and range. The wider seat and small windscreen of the KLR are measurably more suited for highway travel than the Husky's 2x4 seat and headlight cowling. Plus, the KLR's 5.5 gallon gas tank gives it more range than the Husky's 3.3 gallon tank (250 miles to the tank vs 165 miles to the tank).

Can the comfort advantage of the KLR be nullified by the Husky aftermarket? Yes on the seat, maybe on the windscreen, no on the gas tank.

Renazco Seats will rework the Husky seat, converting the stock seat from a torture device into a reasonably comfortable saddle. If that's not good enough, then an Airhawk seat cushion finishes the job. This combination makes the seat all-day comfortable for me and easily as comfortable as the stock KLR seat + Airhawk.

Renazco Seat + Airhawk cushion = ride as long as you want in comfort

The KLR windscreen on the next generation KLR is pretty darn good. I put a Laminar Lip on it and that made the wind protection good enough that I wouldn't hesitate to ride the KLR around the world.

2008 KLR tall windscreen + Laminar Lip made the wind protection good enough for me that I would ride the KLR anywhere, even around the world.

I haven't been able to achieve the same level of wind protection and comfort on the Husky. In stock form, the Husky only has a cowling around the headlight. This means that at highway speeds your upper body is one big sail. If you don't mind that, then nothing else need be done. If, like me, you want some wind protection, then you have to go to the aftermarket.

The Husky comes with only a headlight cowling

The first thing I tried was a laminar lip attached to the headlight cowling. It worked okay. It got the wind blast off the lower part of my torso, moving it up to my shoulders, upper chest, and head. Not bad but I still had to fight the wind, keeping my abs slightly tensed - I couldn't sit in a relaxed position at highway speeds which meant a greater level of fatigue after a few hundred miles of paved riding.

Laminar Lip attached to stock cowling. An improvement over stock, but still lacking.

Next I installed a Maier Cyclone universal windscreen. It was a step up from the laminar lip. It moved the wind blast completely up and off my body so that only my head was in the wind stream. Now I could sit relaxed. But, the downside was a LOT of wind noise. I wear earplugs but even with them in, the roar was much louder than I prefer.

Finally, I added the Laminar Lip to the Maier Cyclone windscreen. This has been the best combination so far. The wind blast is off my torso and the wind roar has been reduced. It's still noticeably louder than I prefer but its not as bad as with the Cyclone windscreen by itself. I'm still going to experiment with it some more, but as of now the KLR still wins in this category.

Maier Cyclone windscreen + Laminar Lip - an okay combination, but still not good enough for my preference.

I don't know the full history of the model but apparently Husky has been making the TE610 for some time now. In 2006 they redesigned the bike in its current dual sport configuration. I don't know anything about the earlier models, so my discussion here is limited to only the 2006 and later model of the TE610.

The 2006 & 2007 TE610 models were carbureted. A larger capacity (5 gallon) aftermarket gas tank is available for the '06 and '07 models, nullifying the KLR's range advantage.

In 2008 Husqvarna upgraded the TE610 to fuel injection. No aftermarket tank is currently available for the fuel injected models, meaning the KLR has a range advantage over these bikes. If you need more range, you'll have to strap/carry an extra gas tank of some type on the bike.

The Husky holds just 3.3 gallons of fuel. A larger aftermarket tank is available for the carbureted models but not the newer fuel injected ones.

Summary

For me, there is no question that compared to the KLR the TE610 is both a better dirt bike and better for the types of day rides that most adventure riders do. Its lighter weight, better suspension, higher power, 6 speed transmission, and better brakes make it significantly better in the dirt than the KLR. With some aftermarket mods the Husky beats the KLR as an adventure bike for day trips.

The only area where the KLR holds an advantage over the Husky is in wind protection and fuel range (vs. the fuel injected TE models). If I can ever get the wind protection to equal that of the KLR then, for me, there will be no question that the TE610 is an overall better adventure bike than the KLR. In the meantime, I'll end by saying the TE610 is likely the new KLR - the best adventure bike currently available - and that personal preference is the deciding factor. If you can live with the wind and less range, then it's "case closed".


As an FYI for those that like this sort of stuff.

I've created a table listing the specifications of most adventure bikes. Motorcycle Consumer News (MCN) is the source for about 90% of the data (every bike they review includes a battery of tests that include wet weight, rear wheel HP, top speed, 0-60 mph, etc).

I calculated the weight-to-power ratio with my handy pocket calculator by dividing wet weight by HP.

Here's the data on the KLR as published in MCN. Wet weight is the weight of the motorcycle, full of gas, ready to ride - i.e. what the bike actually weighs in a fully rideable condition.

2008 KLR650:
rear wheel HP - 36.1
wet weight - 428 lbs
top speed - 93 mph
power-to-weight ratio: 11.86 lbs / hp


Unfortunately, MCN has not tested the TE610, so the following data is pulled from other sources. Wet weight is from Rick Ramsey who weighed his 2008 TE610, full of gas and ready to ride.

2008 TE610:
rear wheel HP - high 40s - low 50s
wet weight - 317 lbs
top speed - about 95 mph
power-to-weight ratio: 6.34 lbs/hp (calculated with rear wheel 50 hp)


As a point of comparison, here's the data on Suzuki DRZ-400SM and the Yamaha WR250R from MCN.

DR-Z 400SM:
rear wheel HP - 33.4
wet weight - 319 lbs
top speed - 94 mph
power-to-weight ratio: 9.55 lbs/hp


WR250R:
rear wheel HP - 24.0
wet weight - 301 lbs
top speed - 88.8 mph
power-to-weight ratio: 12.54 lbs/ hp