curb-weight figure for the California-spec
KLE500 SE ABS that we rode. It doesn't
really matter how the manufacturers ar-
rive at their numbers; the fact is, the KTM
feels much lighter. The KLE holds more
fuel, but only about half a gallon more:
4.2 gallons versus the KTM's 3.7. It's
not that the KLE is an excessively heavy
motorcycle; it's more like the KTM is an
excessively light motorcycle.
The KLE is very comfortable and well-
suited for long days in the saddle, while
the KTM is better for shorter jaunts. The
KTM is comfortable at first, but its firmer,
narrower seat will wear on you before the
KLE's plusher seat will. Both bikes offer ex-
cellent wind (and hand) protection, but the
Kawasaki offers more adjustability, with
three windscreen positions. You'll need
tools to make those adjustments, though.
We first rode the KLE earlier this year
in St. George, Utah, on mostly well-
maintained dirt roads, then rode it back
to the Los Angeles area, covering about
350 miles in one day on paved roads.
We could not have done that on the
KTM—well, maybe if we broke it into two
or three days and did it all off-road. Now
that would be fun. The KLE would be, too,
if you find the right roads.
The KLE is built around a parallel-twin
engine and the KTM around a single-
cylinder engine, and both configurations
have their advantages and disadvan-
tages. Parallel-twins are traditionally
smoother than singles in both power
delivery and vibration, and things are no
different here. The KLE's engine is simple
to manage on and off the road, and vibra-
tion is essentially nonexistent. You have
nothing to fear when it comes to the
Kawasaki's user-friendly powerplant.
The KTM's engine is downright spicy
in comparison. It's surprisingly power-
ful for just 398.7cc and performs better
than you might expect on pavement and
highways, though it's no freeway miles
VOLUME ISSUE OCTOBER , P99
