XJ prices new/used through the years

I recently found an 1998 edition Pace Buyer's Guide, 2nd Revised Edition. It has prices of new and used motorcycles from 1978 up to 1998. So I transcribed all the XJ bikes from 1980 until the last of them in 1997.
You'll see there were no XJ's produced for a few years, especially in the middle of the golden age of XJ's, 1984. What I learned from a senior salesman at Yamaha Canada was that the company, like other bikemakers, produced very few machines in 1984.
It was a terrible year for the industry. XJs sold and registered as 1984 models were actually 1983's. He told me there was a huge overstock of bikes in late '83 because the oil crisis that began in the late '70's and sent gas prices skyrocketing had suddenly abated by the middle of 1983. Gas prices fell quickly, catching bikemakers off guard. They'd produced far too many machines, especially the up-till-then fast selling XJ series.
So no XJ's were build in 1984. And you'll that after 1984, there were far fewer XJ models. I guess they got gun shy. But it was also then that they began building the hot rod Maxim X.
I've also included the XS series bikes since they were the forebears of the mighty XJ1100.
And sorry about the layout of my columns, they're a bit wonky. Anyway, to check out the price of your XJ when it was new and used, go to:

http://xjpricelist.tripod.com/

thx,
baz

 

Well, that's a really nice Hollywood version of history, but not quite true.

In the late 70's/early 80's Yamaha made a conscious marketing/strategic decision to try and overtake Honda as the largest builder of motorcycles, and that's what led to the amazing increase in both the number of models and production quantities. Kawasaki and Suzuki quickly followed the herd, and soon the the world (especially North America, the biggest market) was awash in un-sold motorcycles, and the standard price wars that always follows over-production started......

It has been quoted that by the early 80's.....1983 is probably about right.....that Yamaha alone had over 1 million unsold bikes in dealer/factory inventory, and to try and move them out, huge price discounts started appearing, and that started eating into Harley-Davidson sales and profits.........

Which is when HD went to the US Government and got an import tariff and restriction on 720cc+ sized bikes.......

Which wasn't really necessary, since Yamaha had given up on their grand plan by then, and they and others simply slowly bled off the excess inventory via the discontinuance of most models (XJ's included) and no new production in most of 1983 and 1984.

In fact, by the time the '85/'86 models hit the showroom, HD had gone back to the US Government and told them that the import restirctions were no longer needed! (and the restriction and tariff was lifted). Of course, for the USA, it was too late for those dealers to get the larger XJ750X models........and by then, the consumer rush to the newer style model "sport" bikes and huge cruisers had started, and that was the end of the XJ-series of street-sport-cruiser style bikes.

 

Ah well, I guess the Yam salesman I talked to didn't want to revisit a period when his company almost bankrupted themselves with hubris. I'd heard about Yam trying to overtake Honda back then and almost killing themselves in the process. Now that you mention it and have shaken loose a few cobwebs, wasn't there some kind of secret or not so secret agreement after this sales war where Yam agreed to be number 2 and not challenge Honda's dominance?
I remember another story about Yamaha building a high powered V8 car engine for the Ford Taurus SHO. From what I'd read, the idea was for Yamaha to supply these hot rod engines to Ford and eventually enter the North American market themselves. But it turned out the Yam V8 wasn't anything special. I have no idea if its true that Yam built a high output V8 engine for a Detroit company. Seems weird they'd do that but maybe you can confirm or deny.
It's actually kind of sad the XJ line ended with the XJ600 Seca. Not a bad bike but not anywhere near the earlier models.

 

it's true that yam built car engines for the taurus sho but i belive it was a 3.0l v-6 in the early 90's

 

I personally owned a 1992 Ford Taurus SHO.
The engine was a Yamaha 3.0 Litre V6.
It was rated at 220 hp x 215 lb-ft of torque.



Mine looked exactly like this:


It had the highest specific output per litre of any normally aspirated engine sold in the US that year, including the Corvette.
It was quicker in the quarter mile than that year's Mustang GT. (Road & Track)
It had a tarantula style dual intake runner system. From 0-3400 rpm, the long, thin runners were open for low end torque. at 3400 rpm, a computer controlled solenoid opened shorter, fat runners for top end hp. you could occassionally hear a chirp when it happened, like a turbo's wastegate operating. Redline came at 7000 rpm.

It also had uprated suspension kit to make it handle like no other Taurus before or since.

I had the 6-speed manual version, which was faster than the automatic.
I personally saw north of 145 mph on several occasions.
I put 130,000 miles on her and about 90,000 of those were HARD miles.
I had to put a clutch in at 110,000, but other than that it was just gas and oil.
I surprised many a pony car and Corvette in those days, when they'd launch off the line, thinking they left me in the dust, only to see a 4-door family Taurus, right next to them or even pulling away.
My version had full leather, 6-way electric seats, moonroof, 300W JBL sound system, the works.

Best overall car i've ever owned (and i've had many nice ones, including a '70 Chevelle SS396 and firebirds and camaros and such).
I'd take that care back new, in a heartbeat.

Around 1994, Ford brought out a V8 version, but it was never as fast as the original series of manual Yamaha 3.0 V6s.

 

The Ford Taurus SHO was indeed quick. The HP and torque you listed seem low for the SHO set-up. As far as being quicker than a
V-8 Corvette, not likely as the Corvette was lighter and had more HP and Torque.

But now, the SHO's HP and Torque would be considered low for a 3.0 liter V6. There are 3.0 liter V6 engines out there that push 300 HP. My wife had a Saturn VUE with the Honda built 3.5 liter V6 rated at 250 HP and approx. 250 Torque.

 

CORRECTION: I meant SHO quicker that the Mustang, not the Corvette. Typo error. Sorry.

 

Hey hammerhead,
You mentioned you owned a 1970 Chevelle SS 396. I've always lusted after one of those. Maybe you can tell us a little about it. Or if you have any pics left, that would be great too.

 

By the way, what's that building behind the Taurus SHO. It's very cool architecture.

 

Yamaha has been a leader in the developement of mutliport fuel injection. This was brought into the auto relm from their developement of outboard boat motors. They also were in the process of developing a F1 engine at one time but rule changes there brought an end to that as well as deminishing revenue to support the project. Wisely I think they have focused their efforts toward more motorcycle oriented projects.

I have acouple of their guitars and some of their audio gear from years past and present. The vintage stuff is much better in my opinion. I doen't like my sound over processed unless thats the the way the artist wanted it.

The Buff

 

I agree about today's V6s.
But back in '89-92, 220 hp was a LOT. My stock '92 Camaro with it's 305 V8 was rated at only 165 hp. No, i'm not kidding. The Base Camaro would get STOMPED by my SHO of the same year, even with the 265 additional torque of the V8.
Heck, the flagship Z28 in '92 only claimed 245 hp!
It really was impressive back then.
Today, it would just produce a yawn.
All hail PROGRESS!! 8)

My Chevelle was midnight blue metallic with white tuxedo stripes and functional cowl induction hood. It had the 350hp block, stock, but had an iski cam, factory high-rise manifold and a 730 CFM Rochester 4MV quadrajet on it. Mated to a Muncie 21 and a Hurst in-line gated shifter, it twisted 4.11 gears in a 12-bolt posi. I bought that car with cash, from working on my girlfriend's fathers farm as a Junior in high school, in 1981. I loved that car. Only had an 8-track in it and the only tape i ever had was Journey's Escape album. You can bet that when "Stone In Love" comes on the radio, i stop whatever i'm doing, cause it takes me right back.

Next decent car i had was a '76 'Bird with a '74 ram air hood and a four color paint job (red, orange, blue and yellow).
She had a '68 Pontiac 350 block, .030 over, Edlebrock performer cam and intake, 11.5:1 compression, Holley 750 dbl-pumper and Heddman headers.
A solid 400hp on the dyno when built. A Hurst shifted Saginaw 4-speed spun 3.08 gears out back.
She would hit an indiated 170mph (185mph speedo) on the interstate. Probably a bit optimistic, but not much. That car was FAST!

After that, i had the SHO, then the anemic '92 Camaro (convertible)

The 'Bird and Camaro appear below, but i don't have pix of the Chevelle.

 

Flippin' you the 'Bird.
This ride was a certified babe magnet. couldn't go to the grocery store without some sweet thing asking for a ride.
Real attention getter. Not for the the meek. Especially when running open headered. :wink:
Her idle had a serious lope to it. The kind that made you wonder if it would keep running. Sounded Really mean and nasty...
I never had a stereo in this car. The engine provided the soundtrack.

 

The SHO was quick. I wonder if it was faster than an S-10 pick-up. Or my brothers S-10??
His S-10 has a 4 bolt main 350 which has a balanced and blueprinted crank. Block was line bored. Roller bearing cam. He said the cam was about the hottest cam he could use without having to put a stall converter in. Edelbrock Performer intake, 650cfm carb, headers. Truck weighs in at about 2900 pounds. And it gets up and goes... like real fast. I have yet to run my xj650 against it.

 

Hey Hammer, thanks for sharing the stories of those great old cars. Funny, I can't see a ChevelleSS in anything but that midnight blue and white pinstripe paint job you mentioned. Nothing else works as well with that car. And that 'Bird, man that is some very hot 70's paint job. A real classic piece of work.
I neve had anything that pretty. Both of the hot rods in my life were AMCs. I had a 71 Javelin with the 390-4 barrel and later on a 77 Hornet AMX with the 304 in it. The Javelin was a nice deep black and it had those zany black and white bucket seats. The Hornet was lime green from the factory with stock front spoiler, fender mouldings and rear window louvres.
Nowadays the cars all look like either jelly beans or shavers.

 

Sir,
A couple of things to improve your motorhead education. Not to put you down, but to help you out in the future.
1. 4-bolt main SBCs are good. they are stronger and can withstand more power and higher rpm than their weaker 2-bolt siblings. thumbs up.
2. balancing and blueprinting are two different things. A fully balanced engine means all the reciprocating mass components have been matched. For example all the connecting rods are weighed and are within an accepted tolerance of equality with each other. Same with pistons, wrist pins, push rods, lifters, rocker arms, bearings and even piston rings and retainer clips, if you're anal. This is so that when the engine is spinning everything stays "balanced" and doesn't set up adverse resonances or vibrations. All cranks are inherently balanced, although custom grinds may have to undergo tweaking for perfection.
3. Blueprinting simply means that every single fastener has been torqued to exact specifications for that bolt or nut and a written record of compliance has been maintained, from the oil pan to the air cleaner. This doesn't inherently increase horsepower. It's more of a reliability improvement. It's written proof that the engine was assembled correctly. Anyone who claims their engine is "blueprinted" and can not produce the written log of all the torques, should be treated as suspicious and probably slinging BS.
4. All blocks get line-bored, if they are rebuilt at a reputable shop. This simply is a means of not only assuring perfect circular roundness of the individual cylinders, but even more importantly, that the cylinders are aligned with each other, on the same exact centerline and x, y, z angles. balancing and blueprinting would be USELESS without this basic starting point of perfectly round and square (with each other) cylinders.
5. ALL automatic transmissions have a stall converter. This has nothing to do with the camshaft in the engine whatsoever. Perhaps you meant that certain cam grinds (along with matching engine components that take advantage of the grind) move the HP curve up the rpm scale enough to necessitate the spec'ing of a HIGHER RPM stall converter, but i'm not sure you understand that from your post. The term "stall converter" literally has to do with the hydro-dynamic properties of the "fan" blades in the torque converter of an automatic transmission. I'm simplifying it a bit, but essentially ALL automatic transmissions slip a little bit, unlike manual trannies with clutches. That's how you can be in "drive" and be standing still and not "stall". But think more like aerodynamic stall. At a certain rpm, a torque converter will move from stalled to a pressure that will force the vehicle forward. The rpm at which this happens is called the stall rpm.
On most stock vehicles the stall rpm is set quite low, so you don't have to rev the engine very high to get moving.
Highly tuned racing engines are actually quite anemic down low and have to get on the boil before making serious power. That's when the high stall converter comes to the rescue, by allowing that slippage to happen longer, to allow the engine to rev nearer its power band before being asked to move the vehicle.
But this decision is NOT based on what grind of cam is installed alone. there's a whole HOST of factors that play into the decision.

A S-10 with even a mildly tuned 350 is going to be very quick, provided it has the traction to take advantage of the power. I'd be interested in hearing what heads he has on the engine. Heads can be the biggest determining factor of the power potential of a combination. Remember that an internal combustion engine is really just a fancy air pump. The more air a carb/intake/head combo can flow into the cylinder and subsequently evacuate, the more fuel you can burn along with it. The more fuel/air mixture you can burn per given time unit, the more power you generate.
it is entirely possible that a heavily massaged 350/355/358 SBC in an S-10 could embarrass your XJ 650 in a drag race, provided it had the proper rubber out back and weight transfer characterics to provide traction.
It would certainly blow my SHO into the weeds, without question. :wink:

I hope i haven't insulted you. That was not my goal. If you already knew all this, i apologize and hopefully, my post will be valuable to those members who didn't know these things. My offering is humbly submitted, but with a bunch of experience to back it up.
I have served on pit crews in racing from dirt track to asphalt circles (since the 1980s) and have been crew chief on a Super Comp rail dragster (8.90 dial).
I've helped build everything from SBC 350s, to fire breathing alcohol, twin toilet equipped 800+ hp big blocks with digitally delayed torque converter lockup trannys.
This is NOT to brag, but to inform the reader that i'm not just some crackpot spouting off.
My goal in this "lesson" was to help you understand some of the terms and concepts so you can continue our shared love affair with internal combustion with a better understanding.

Peace,
Christopher.

 

Christopher,
That's a first class piece of explanation. Thanks for the straight up answers for terms I'd heard for years but was never exactly sure what they meant or did.