Yamaha Star Stryker banner
1 - 20 of 80 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
35 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
My first post. Love the forum. I have been looking forward to buying a Stryker for months now. But I came across a Raider at a great price. But after plenty of research, I am actually very lost as to how or why a Raider is a better bike than the Stryker. It seems like the bigger engine only makes the bike an unoticeable bit faster than the Stryker; based on the 0-60 and 1/4 mile times I have found. Clearly it has more torque and HP but why are the numbers almost identical. I ask because on paper the bigger engine doesn't seem to equal better performance.

I am interested to know what I am obviously missing. My intentions are to ride with a passenger at times and on long trips. I like the looks of both bikes equally. So performance and comfort are the deciding factor here. But I am not seeing a difference in performance or comfort that justifies the extra cash. Any input would be appreciated.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
729 Posts
Stryker 67 hp and 80 torque
Raider 80 hp and 104 torque
When you are talking about a light motorcycle pretty big difference especially the torque. Then add the mods make even more. May not look like a lot but when ya twist the throttle it is different. Worth the extra money I didn't think so so bought the stryker but sometimes do I want something bigger yes. I say sit on both ride both if u can and decide if ya will enjoy the stryker for years to come. Hope this helped


Sent from Motorcycle.com Free App
 

· Registered
Joined
·
35 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
I appreciate the reply but it really doesn't help. I can see that it has more torque and horse power. What I can't figure out is how all that extra power doesn't translate to a better 0-60 and quarter mile time. I'm certainly not going to race it. Nor do I care about quarter miles. I just don't understand the performance numbers when compared to the specs. Where is the bigger engine helping in the performance department?

The numbers I found are:

Stryker 0-60: 4.3 sec
Raider 0-60: 4.01
Stryker 1/4mile: 13.24
Raider 1/4mile: 12.27

I have found several different numbers but the difference is the same. .29 and less than 1 second respectively. So how do those performances translate to siginificant power when riding two up or on long highway trips? I know I HAVE to be missing something. And I have never owned a Cruiser. So I'm sorry if I'm an idiot here. But I know I'm getting one of these bikes. I just need to justify the extra cash.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
222 Posts
My first post. Love the forum. I have been looking forward to buying a Stryker for months now. But I came across a Raider at a great price. But after plenty of research, I am actually very lost as to how or why a Raider is a better bike than the Stryker. It seems like the bigger engine only makes the bike an unoticeable bit faster than the Stryker; based on the 0-60 and 1/4 mile times I have found. Clearly it has more torque and HP but why are the numbers almost identical. I ask because on paper the bigger engine doesn't seem to equal better performance.

I am interested to know what I am obviously missing. My intentions are to ride with a passenger at times and on long trips. I like the looks of both bikes equally. So performance and comfort are the deciding factor here. But I am not seeing a difference in performance or comfort that justifies the extra cash. Any input would be appreciated.

Maybe I can give a honest personnal opinion since I also own a Roadliner S (which is for sale) and its the same motor as the Raiders also. I rode the Raider several times way before I test rode a Stryker. Im 5'6" and when I first test rode a Stryker I fell in love with it. It handeled easier and of course that 100 lbs lighter makes the Stryker more flickable in my mountians where I live. They both have the same rake but you feel the handle bars pull in alot more on the heavier Raider in the very slow turnes. I will miss the bragging rights about owning the biggest mass produced AIR cooled v-twinn made by Yamaha, but thats okay. The strykers motor is quicker reving and more responsive than my Roadliners air cooled engine. The heat in stop and go traffic on the Stryker is not a issue. On my Roadliner the heat on the right side can cook your leg as the oil tank is right there. Also the Roadliners engine will vibrate at higher revs, some thing you will get tired of when rideing it hard in the twisties. The Stryker has a wider rev limit and way smoother ride, only some slight vibe's in the foot pegs and the Strykers higher rev range makes it easier for ME to ride the twisties and feels more of a v-twinn sport bike with the wider RPM range. The Raider and Roadliners do give better gas mileage than my Stryker so far, no big deal. also the Strykers engine is ALOT quieter because it is water cooled and water mask's the valve train noises. Working on the Stryker is so easy , oil changes are a breeze, alot easier than the three drain plugs on the Raiders, Liner motors. Now as far as performance goes,the reason the Stryker is almost the same in 0-60, ect, is because of the 100 lbs lighter weight and the quicker reving engine. I can tell you this. On a top end race the Stryker will blow away my Liner mod for mod. Im not steering you away from the Raider, I love the Raiders engine design, I think the big air cooled Yamaha v-twinns are the most beautiful built engines on the market today . Im a motor head ,so it may be just a personnal opinon on thier design,lol. So yes Im giving up the "I have the biggest air cooled motor mr hd, so take that". But its okay, lets just say my new Stryker already has proven its self bone stock against the last hd I raced,lol. Im also very pleased with my Stryker as far as a two up rider. Its is VERY stable at highway speeds, just as my Roadliner is. The lighter weight does not give up in that area at all and not bothered my side gusts of wind.I said it before in another topic . My Stryker is not as classy as the Roadliner,Raider,Warrior,Roadstars because it uses alot of plastic stuff and the motor is not as beautiful. But I can live with that, plastic is lighter,lol. I just orderd the Cobra power flow black air filter and the Cobra Tri flow exhaust and the EJK tuner. I should have it all together next weekend. To some it up. The Raider is a beautiful bike in its own rite.But for me the Stryker won in the end, smoother engine, lighter on its feet,just a quick but faster on the top end (if thats your thing), easier to manuver around. Fits me like a glove and I felt it has a better controlled syspension from the factory. I Hope this honest opinon of mine helped some:wink:.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
734 Posts
While that is definitely a good write-up from Yammyboy, I happen to be on the other end of the spectrum. A couple of months ago, I was able to take a Raider on an extended test ride. I dropped my bike off at my dealer for an annual service, and they gave me a Raider as an overnight loaner. Don't get me wrong, I definitely love my Stryker, but while I had the Raider I did some extensive "research" on it :biggrin1:. Here's what I found:

For a bigger guy like myself (6'4" 290lbs), the Raider is a better choice.
-It has a more comfortable riding position with a longer reach to the bars and foot pegs.
-It has better low end torque to get up and go (especially riding 2-up). Keep in mind that is just how it felt to me.
-My opinion is that it corners just as good as the Stryker (this coming from someone who is almost through the stock footpegs).
-Both bikes obviously look great, but the Raider doesn't have as much plastic, and like Yammyboy said the engine looks way cooler.

I've also never been a speed demon, so the quick bottom end felt better to me.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,226 Posts
I think two up and long range riding the Raider will serve you better especially if you are taller. The Raider has a more stretch out feel and many have put on lower control extensions on the Stryker after a seat upgrade which I guarantee will happen as your passenger will not want to be on that stock pillion pad for more than 30 minutes if that. Most of the really cushy seats push you a bit forward. This bike was expected to have larger female market share so it feels better to many riders of the not so tall stature and therefore it's not so stretch out. The heavier Raider will serve you better on long rides as it soaks up the road more. The higher torque motor will also serve you better riding to up.

Like you I debated and rode them back to back like 3x each at Star Demo day. The Raider's engine you could feel that torque and at higher RPMs it just kept giving like the power band was endless. To rap the throttle at 55 was just as fun as it was off the line. It had so much to give This bike would have definitely put my driving record in danger. All I would want to do is open it up every chance. but was not as nimble in city traffic and I felt like it was heavier to maneuver at lower speeds.

I rarely ride two up. My Stryker is commuter bike for me now and I live in congested freeway pack Orange County ( in So Cal) so the more nimble, lighter bike with a 1300cc was plenty for me. I also checked on insurance before I bought. The cc difference more than doubled my yearly premium for the motorcycle portion of the policy. Once the wife saw that I think the decision was finalized. I occasionally miss that power when I want to jump on it while cruising at highway speeds. But ehh I still love my Stryker.


Sent from Motorcycle.com Free App
 

· Registered
Joined
·
35 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
I can ride the Stryker but the dealership that has the Raider doesn't seem to be having any of that. And I'm not anywhere close to any other dealers that carry a Raider. But I'm 6'1" and my wife loves to be a passenger. So based on info here it looks like the Raider is a good choice. I also feet if I get the Stryker in a year I'll want the Raider anyway. As nd the wifey will veto any bikes after this for sure.

Sent from Motorcycle.com Free App
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,226 Posts
To be honest neither of these bikes to me are that great of long range two up machine. By the time you add bags, add a windshield or fairing, upgrade the seat and pegs to floorboards to make it a more long range bike you might as well look at the new 1300 tourer or other similar Bagger.


Sent from Motorcycle.com Free App
 

· Registered
Joined
·
35 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
It's not going to be the biggest part of my riding, the two up and long distance. I am buying one of these two bikes for the looks. And I'm willing to pay the extra cash for the raider if it is significantly better for two up and long distance. I certainly understand there are quite a large number of bikes better for these two tasks. I am choosing these bikes for the other qualities they bring. It was just hard for me to figure out why the Raider was more money and what the engine brought to the game. I'm gathering based on answers that the Raider has a great low end and higher quality parts. The low end is obviously better for two up riding and the extra weight of the bike would seem it would make it more steady on the highway. I like both bikes. But if these things are true seems like the Raider is the best choice for me.

Sent from Motorcycle.com Free App
 

· Registered
Joined
·
3,133 Posts
I ride mine on a trip to the coast and back home about every other weekend, 550 miles round trip and I LOVE it.
I will be adding a Corbin seat but that's just me.
With a Corbin I can see making that round trip in a day easy.
I don't tire of the bike but my azz does.

My wife loves to go on short trips, less than an hour, less than 40 miles with a stop to enjoy the view.
I ask her about the back seat and she really has no issue with it for that length of a ride but does wish we had a backrest so she'd feel more secure.

Personally, I prefer the tighter tolerances that can be maintained with a liquid cooled motor over an air cooled any day.
Plus the thought of all that heat coming off the motor in stop and go traffic doesn't thrill me too much.
I love how nimble the bike feels around town too.
I'm 5'11" and the bike suits me perfectly WITH a few modifications. :nod:
 

· Registered
Joined
·
4,672 Posts
Ergonomics/fitment is about the only real noticeable difference.
I'm just under 5"6' and the Stryker fits me like a glove. The raider is better suited for a much larger person. I couldn't reach the bars and set all the way back on the seat of the Raider.
The Stryker will beat the Raider hands down in tight mountains no question about that, I can't even use all the power the Stryker has in the mountains where I live. But if you don't live in mountains and only plan on visiting once in a while then that should not be a concern. The other thing that is a big concern is the liquid cooled verses air cooled. The Stryker is such a smooth running machine due to that and the roller rockers. It never gets hot, in fact my wife is looking into liquid cooled bikes to trade her 950 on just for that reason. After testing a few she has decided on a Stryker. Because it also has to handle serious mountain twisties and my Stryker handles even better than her 950 up here. Oh and it handles near max load just fine in mountains and has plenty of passing power to spare. I've rode 2 up fully packed at about 425 lbs.:thumb:
 

· Registered
Joined
·
551 Posts
For me, it was the lack of a liquid cooling system that turned me away from the raider. Well, that and the higher insurance for the larger engine. I did not feel the Raider was worth the extra coin for what I would get out of it. Just what worked for me and what variables were more important to ME.

Sent from Motorcycle.com Free App
 
1 - 20 of 80 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top