are there any obvious differences between models regarding a) off road capabilities and b) passenger comfort? c) me soon on a tiger?
The '99 is an 885cc/FI in a newer body style.
The '05 is the same body style with 955ci/FI .... much improved
Get the '05 !
I have an 00 885i; I don't want to start a war, but...
Why is the 955i much improved? Is it because it has a little more HP and torque? That not withstanding, mine runs fine, has plenty of power (even with a 19T front sprocket), is smooth, doesn't burn a drop of oil (well maybe 50cc in 6,000 miles), etc. I think the choice between the 99 and the 05 comes down mainly to cost versus condition, versus the notion that the newer model is always better; case in point, read some discussions on the 2007 model. Don't get me wrong all you 955i owners, I would have bought newer if I had the money, but not primarily for the engine, but for a bike that had fewer miles and years on it. Either model would be a good choice.
all well and good gentleman, but if the motor difference has no bearing on off road capabilities or passenger comfort, would this be your way of saying they are identical? tubes vs. tubeless perhaps? rake and trail changes? head tube angle? suspension upgrades? length from passenger seat to passenger footpegs? shagged in shakopee.
No difference in off road ability, the only fly might be the cast wheels on the 05, but I haven't heard of anyone breaking them yet.
Exactly the same frame, seat, pegs and pretty much everything else so no difference in pillion comfort.
As for whether the 955 is a better bike....if you can afford it then it is. I've ridden an 06 for a back to back comparison to my 99 and the big difference is with the engine. Except it's not that big. Much the same feel, just more oomph which is especially noticeable at higher speeds. Throw in similar fuel consumption and a few tweaks that benefit servicing costs/effort and reliability. Can't comment too much on the handling as the rear shock on my 99 is well past it making any comparison there irrelevant, but I did prefer the front end on mine with it's 15w oil and WP springs over the stock 06.
I remember reading somewhere that the electrical capacity was reduced on the 955's when the external alternator went away.
I could be wrong though.
Bruin
thanks, that's what i was looking for.
Quote from: "bruincounselor"I remember reading somewhere that the electrical capacity was reduced on the 955's when the external alternator went away.
I could be wrong though.
Bruin
You'd be right. Pre 955 all Tigers used an alternator mounted outside the cases and driven by a chain from the crank. The 955 ditched this to reduce engine noise and it was replaced by an alternator driven directly off the crank. Because it had to fit inside the cases it was of course smaller. But I don't think any 955 riders have really had any problems with the output of the newer alterators.
I ride both a '99 885fi and a 2004' 955fi regularly and there is not much difference. The 885 engine is not as quick, but it is turbine-smooth compared to my 955 that is a bit more lopey, especially at lower RPM.
Many people have beaten on the 885fi engine, but I have been told by a well respected Triumph mechanic at one of the highest volume Triumph dealers in the USA that he has not seen with any frequency the problems described frequently on this site regarding the 885fi engines.
A well cared for '99 with reasonable mileage should be a deal about now, whereas you will pay a good bit more for a 2005.
They are both great machines: my two cents is not to fear the 885 engine.
I had two 885's before my 955,the first one in 99 lasted 6 weeks before it blew a head gasket,Triumph had it back and i had a new one,as soon as it was out of warranty i sold it because i never trusted it,the 885 was faster than my Africa Twin!!!,comparing the two(Tigers),you sit in an 885 were as you sit on a 955,but for me the motor makes it a no contest,if you ride at slow speed,then maybe it doesn't matter,but for me the 955 was a league in front,so much so,i've had it over 5 years know without any thoughts of changing it.
Quote from: "Chris Canning"I had two 885's before my 955,the first one in 99 lasted 6 weeks before it blew a head gasket,Triumph had it back and i had a new one,as soon as it was out of warranty i sold it because i never trusted it,the 885 was faster than my Africa Twin!!!,comparing the two(Tigers),you sit in an 885 were as you sit on a 955,but for me the motor makes it a no contest,if you ride at slow speed,then maybe it doesn't matter,but for me the 955 was a league in front,so much so,i've had it over 5 years know without any thoughts of changing it.
Assume you mean the steamer 885 rather than the injected 885? Only the seating on the injected 885 is exactly the same as the 955...
The seat might well be the same the bike ain't!!! their like chalk and cheese,i've even got a body kit of the early injection on my 955 means nothing.
I cannot tell any difference in frame geometry between my wife's 1999 885fi Tiger and my 2004 955fi Tiger. I wholeheartedly disagree that you sit 'in' one and 'on' the other. The frame is exactly the same.
Not to attempt in any way to marginalize anyone's specific bad experience with 885i engines, because there apparently were a few, but I am looking right now at a Triumph advert I have framed on my office wall that shows a 955i Speed Triple (not sure which year) and this motorcycle has the same engine (based on engine case and cylinder visual appearance) that my wife's 885fi Tiger has. My point in this is that I believe based on the Hinckley Triumph advertisements I have collected that the earliest 955i engines/tranny's were reworked versions of my wife's 1999 885i engine.
If I am right, and I could be wrong, we have to be careful about saying that the 885i engine is a turd and the 955i engine is golden because it appears there was a time when the engines were the same one with different bores/strokes.
My uneducated two cents. MJ
....and I have to add this: just go buy that 1999 model if the bike is in good shape. I love my wife's 1999, despite the fact that it is not as quick as my 2004 955i. People used to think that 650cc bikes with bias ply tires and terrible suspension were performers---we are splitting hairs if we say that the 955i is significantly better than the 885i Tigers. The difference in price will buy you a nice package of accessories.
...and you can get a 1999 Tiger in Lightning Yellow, which is an outstanding color both based on coolness and on safety considerations.
If I could have gotten an '04 in Lightning Yellow, I certainly would have.
Go buy that 1999!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
...and I was told by a respected Triumph technician in Florida that the FI system on the 1999 has some room for adjustment while the one on my 2004 has no room for technician adjustment. My wife's 1999 starts on the first attempt, while my 955i takes about three attempts to start. The 955i is, however, a pisser once it finally starts......
Tigerhund
The 900 injection motor was a turd!!! if you've got lucky with a good one,then well done dude,late nineties when Triumph had so many broken motors(in all models) i remember going unto my local dealer who were up to their collective neck e'm trying to help out(rebuilding them),they were 30 miles from the factory,the alarm bells were going full blast(Triumph were well aware the 595 motor was a dud) in 1989 and hence the 955 which has proven to be another league.
I went on a factory visit in 1990 with a group of Tiger owners,my first question why 900?? they had the cheek to say i was wise with hindsight!! yea sure and thats why you got the 900 for just 3 years and the 955 has been around ever since 2001,and the 1050 is just a bigger version of the same apart from the water outlet moved from the side to the back of the water jacket.
The stock suspension on 955 isn't good,the 900 was like an over wieght jelly!!! i rode mine, maximum everything from day one and even then at anykind of speed would tie iteself in knots.
Living so close to the factory i've lost count of the number people who had complaints about the 900i,suspension,broken motors,bad starting!! the crank would move before the ignition pickup!!,turn it off and try again,but what the hell Triumph new the score and did somthing about it.
You sure you've got your dates right Chris?
oops should have said 2000