For some 200 kilos is lightweight and for others 140 kilos is heavy, thus its all in the eye of the beholder….

-Honda Crf300 Rally, maybe not enough oumph for you? Will most probably need a suspension upgrade and some other stuff to make a decent travel machine.

- Royal Enfield Himalayan - heavy and slow and not as reliable as the best of japanese bikes but should still be given a consideration…

-KTM 390 Adv - its really a street bike with some moderate off road potential. Good value for money but on the heavy side of light?

-Suzuki DRZ400 - not the greatest gear ratio for highways, carburated and old school…

- Yamaha XT600 a much used overlander bike. Old school, carburated and maybe hard to find a decent one nowadays…

-Suzuki Dr650 - very old school, carburated and in need of some mods but a very proven overlander bike. Almost impossible to find in Europe.

KTM/Husqvarna 690/701 Enduro - powerful and relatively nimble and lightweight machines. But will need some upgrades (bigger gas tanks etc etc) and how about reliability?

-Husqvarna 701 Enduro Long Range - the perfect travel bike? Was only made 1 year or was it 2???

__________________
In the end everything will be fine. If its not fine its not the end....

Thanks SnakeBoy and I really appreciate your feedback. I would be thinking about 140kg weight is best
I agree with your sentiments on all of those bikes. The CRF300 is good but soft. I really liked the DRZ's but as you say they are old school. Its such a pity they haven't made a modern equivalent in the 400cc range.
What about the the KTM 690 but you like me also question the reliability.
The Husquvarnas - maybe, i'm not sure.
Let's see what others come back with.
Thanks again

__________________
Your Life is Now!

I forgot the BMW 310 GS - maybe not the best for hardcore offroad as it had 19/17 cast wheels and not the best range either….

The Honda Dominator - great bike but a bit old school also comes to my mind…

__________________
In the end everything will be fine. If its not fine its not the end....

I considered the 690 for my next planned trip across Asia, but discounted it in favour of the 790, for these reasons:
- As you mention, there are mixed stories of reliability, though I would expect later models to be better
- There is no "adventure" model available with big tank, etc, so I'd be looking at quite a lot of money to "adventurise" the bike.
- 90% plus of my journey will be on tarmac, and the off road sections I anticipate will not be extreme.
- That's what the 790 is basically built for right out of the box.

That said, you mentioned you didn't want to go that large. The suggestions for CRF300, CB500X or 390 Adventure are all worth looking into. Of course, they will get a bit breathless on road sections but there are no unicorns

My experience of the KTM 690 is bulletproof reliability (I've had three, still have one) and it does everything on your list plus one... high-speed motorway liaisons if needed.

I stuck a Lynx cockpit on my London 690, but didn't bother doing that with my Spanish bike where the cockpit is a simple touring screen with a defector on top. Luggage is Metal Mule. I'm 5'8" so I bought 2012 and later bikes which are lower than the previous 'R' models.

Fuel range when gently exploring in Spain and Morocco is 275km average over 24,000+km, 360km best-ever on a single tank, so I never fitted a bigger tank, see Lucía's Fuelly log at https://www.fuelly.com/motorcycle/kt...mcullis/251250

But if you don't need the high-speed motorway liaison ability perhaps a CRF300 is more suited? Don't know as I've not ridden one, but I did have an XT660Z which given the large fuel tank and nice cockpit, at the time I referred to as the best 'out-of-the-box' adventure bike, but it's much heavier than the 690 and nowhere near as tractable.

The words below are something I wrote three years ago before test riding a KTM 790S (which I ended up buying for UK riding, though I have taken that also to Morocco.....)

Any bike by definition is a set of compromises, especially in the long distance comfort vs off-tarmac choices. The 690 is one of only a few bikes that you can stick 50 kgs of luggage on, ride 1000+ km, and then head off over a ploughed field or sand dunes without taking the luggage off.

Whilst not particularly comfortable, it swallows long distances and motorway speeds—I’ve ridden my London-based 690 from Aberdeen to London in a day which is 880 km (550 miles). In one 20-hour period I rode my Spanish-based 690 from Marrakech to Tanger, took the ferry to Spain then rode on via Granada to our cave in the mountains which was 1100 km (690 miles).

There are lighter (i.e. better) bikes for off-tarmac adventures, but they can’t carry sufficient luggage, would be excruciatingly uncomfortable for long distance, and have a service interval measured in hours rather than 10,000km. There are better (invariably much heavier) bikes for distance travel but unless you are an off-road god they are impossible riding in loose sand—I’ve been there and done it, with a BMW 1200 GSA, and have no wish to revisit the nightmare.

When I’m in Morocco I normally ride solo, often in very remote places, sometimes in 40ºC heat with no shade. Getting a puncture in tubed tyres in those conditions is a real downer so at the moment I run the Spanish 690 with mousses, an expensive solution as the mousses cost as much as the tyres and need replacing as often.

Consequently, the tubeless tyres on both models of the 790 are a huge positive as far as I’m concerned.




2013 KTM 690 R Enduro set up for adventure travel



Off-tarmac on the 690 with Rosie

__________________
"For sheer delight there is nothing like altitude; it gives one the thrill of adventure
and enlarges the world in which you live," Irving Mather (1892-1966)

The CB500X, although a decent adventure bike, my number one concern with this bike in terms of "hard core" adventure would be the alloy wheels. The smaller wheel sizes, and the lower ground clearance could be an issue also - but may still be a good compromise for the vertically challenged. It is more the cast alloy wheels that I would be concerned about. Smashing one up in the middle of nowhere can put you in a very bad place to say the least, and it is quite probable if you don't take it easy in the rough stuff. The wheels can be upgraded with spoked, but IMHO it will come at a cost which simply isn't justifiable for a bike in this price bracket.

I bought a 390 Adventure, and it shares the same wheel issues as the CB500X. The KTM 390's ergonomics is also a bit aquard for offroading (still quite ok). The bike is quite a bit lighter than the CB500X, and much cheaper. The only reason I bought the KTM 390 and not the Honda 300 Rally was because the Honda had not come to market yet, and I also got a great deal on the KTM. The CB500X would however be the most comfortable ride of the bunch - on the road. Both the CB500X and The Ktm 390 Adventure are great options for the vertically challenged. If you are not vertically challenged, then I think the CRF 300 Rally is the more "hard core" option.

What someone considers "hard core adventure" is of course very different to that of another. To me "hard core adventure" usually involves a very long trip, with some long stages where you are completely left to your own should anyone your group get in trouble - and with a very long distance to walk out should that be your only option (no one to call, no one who will come looking, no one who will come around). Riding highly difficult trails for a weekend, far out in the boonies, and riding them hard - that for me involves a completely different set of "hard core" - to me that is maybe closer to motorsport than adventure.

For me, on a "hard core adventure", I wan't the equipment (bike) that will keep me out of trouble in the first place - a reliable bike that is very adapt to navigate the terrain I will be riding. Further, the bike should be able to take a beating and still be able to carry me out with some bush craft. Also, since "hard core" for me usually involves long distance travel, it also needs to be comfortable enough to ride days at end. Rider fatigue is also a sure way to cause injury to yourself or damage to the bike.

Depending on your skill, and your physique, the weight of your bike could mean a lot, but never nothing - for most it makes more than a little difference to have a low weight bike when getting into the rough stuff.

Most of my riding now is done on a T7 - which is quite heavy compared to the KTM/Husquarna. I'm no professional rider, but the T7's redeeming features still makes it the best compromise for me for the rides I am currently doing the most. For me, that means that when doing anything "hard core", I take more precautions and take it more slow and easy than I otherwise would. That also means, that if I was to be gone for a very long time, I would consider trading it in for a Honda CRF300 Rally.

Tim Cullins knows his stuff more than most - if he says the 690 is reliable enough, I would take his word for it. I also believe that many of the early issues has been ironed out. In the end though, all bike models have some common problems you need to be prepared to tackle. Some may be easy to prepare for - like bringing an extra fuel pump for bikes where this is prone to fail (the 690 reportedly being one), or carry out any preventative measures by upgrading fail prone items (i.e. strengthening the sub frame on the 701 or protect the wiring loom from chaffing on the 690). Bikes that have common issues that you can't prevent from happening on the road, or you cant readily tackle in the bush - those are bikes you really need to steer away from. None of the bikes mentioned so far belong in this category.

I often find myself drooling over the 690/701 - for its low weight, power and offroad capabilities. But like Tim Cullins says - in the long distance adventure department, it leaves much to be desired when it comes to creature comforts. For a much less expensive bike than the 690/701, I would be more willing to live with shortcomings - i.e living with the inconvenience of a fuel bladder over upgrading the tank. But, if I buy a bike in the more expensive price bracket, it is because I am trying to buy myself out of shortcomings. With the 690/701, there is still much that I would need to upgrade before I would have felt that I had ironed out the biggest issues - with crazy depreciation when it comes to resale value.

The KTM 790 is more adventure ready than the 690/701, and is a beast of a bike, but is also in the T7's weight bracket. It is more capable than the T7, but not by much - only a lot more expensive. The weight of either of these two bikes will make them more of a handful to manage in the rough than any of the other options mentioned.

All aspects of a "hard core adventure" considered, to me, the Honda 300 Rally or the T7 Rally are the two most rounded off bikes that would give me the most value for money today - right out of the box. They are at different ends of the same spectrum, but on the same spectrum non the less - each with their own set of redeeming factor where it falls short of the other.

Some good questions to ask - will this be your only bike or can you afford a second special purpose bike? How long do you intend to keep it?

All the bikes mentioned so far are very capable - you can't go very wrong with any of these.

__________________
Blog: www.bamakobyvespa.no
My Youtube Channel

I agree with most of what you say, but must put my hand up here. Although the T7 and 790 are similar on paper they are very different bikes. The Yamaha is much simpler electronically, arguably a better option for the middle of nowhere, has a beautiful engine, and runs tubes in the wheels. The 790 is a much better bike off road as stock, and carries the fuel weight low in the pannier style tanks (which also act as good crash protection). The low fuel gives it a low CG (unlike the T7 which caries 19L high above the engine, making it more unwieldy and a nightmare to pick up alone). The 790 has tubeless wheels (despite being spoked) which work very well, but could be harder to repair in case of a puncture. With up to 70mpg available, the KTM has a range of well over 250 miles.

Ultimately someone who wants a bike that will do a fairly specific job, they're going to end up modifying it. My 790 fits my needs well but I've spent money on mods regardless. And if cast wheels were the only stopper to an otherwise well suited bike I'd say get them built

A point that havent been mentioned so far is the low octane gas that often seem to be the only available option in Mongolia and «far east/stans» country - and what bike is suitable and compatible with such fuels.

Arent the KTMs/Huskies quite high strung with high compression engines that requires relatively high octane gas? And if so wont these KTMs/Huskies get problems with the 80 octane gas you often get in Mongolia/Stans?

__________________
In the end everything will be fine. If its not fine its not the end....

Snakeboy that's a very good point and one that has concerned me too. I've spoken to KTM who don't do a low octane map for the 790, though I will ask again before I go. As it stands I'm packing a couple of litres of Silkolene octane booster, and I've invested in a Coober lambda manager so it doesn't run lean (for emissions) low down (were you spend most of your time). I'm cautiously confident we'll be OK, but it's not just a KTM issue - all of the new generation of bikes are designed to run very lean.