For Suzuki, the debut of its first all-new superbike design went swimmingly well, with the 2017 Suzuki GSX-R1000R impressing journalists at its launch in Phillip Island earlier this year.

We would hope so, as the Japanese manufacturer once laid claim to being the King of Superbikes, but then cowardly abdicated its throne for an eight-year period, where only modest updates came to the line.

Like most of Suzuki’s motorcycle lineup, the GSX-R models have suffered from abandonment by their caretakers in Hamamatsu, and while there is a new GSX-R1000 for us to drool over (though its true mettle yet untested against its rivals), what is to come of its 750cc and 600cc counterparts?

Our friends from Down Under seem to have the answer, as Australia’s Motorcycle News reports that a new Suzuki GSX-R750 is in the works, likely to debut as a 2019 model year machine.

As for the GSX-R600, well…that appears to be going the way of the dodo, as Suzuki seems set to follow Honda’s on its exit out of the supersport market.

In Europe, Suzuki gets by selling the GSX-R750 and GSX-R600 models because of derogation provisions in the vehicles code, which allow small quantities of out-going machines to continue to be sold without the latest mandates, like Euro4 homologation.

The law even applies to anti-locking braking systems, which became mandatory on all motorcycles above 125cc last year.

Yes, sometimes it is hard to believe that Suzuki has been so far behind the times with its sport bike offerings, that even ABS models of its machines can’t be found – a technology that has been around for almost 30 years now.

All of this leaves a very narrow window of time for Suzuki to get its sport bike house in order, or as we are fond of saying on the Two Enthusiasts Podcast, “get its shit together”.

AMCN reports that Suzuki is doing just that, well…maybe they are doing the Diet Coke version of that plan, as the GSX-R750 is said to be so near and dear to the company’s heart (rightfully so) that is will see the some of the modernization treatment that was given to the GSX-R1000. As we mentioned before, the Suzuki GSX-R600 won’t be as lucky, however.

The Aussie’s report that the new Suzuki GSX-R750 will be more evolution than revolution, with the current Suzuki GSX-R750 likely to get only modest engine and chassis changes, while the latest electronic whistles and bells will be added to the machine.

Whether those changes occur for the 2018 or 2019 model year lineup will likely depend on the Hayabusa, as the GSX-R1300R is due for a refresh as well. Both bikes have a long and important history with Suzuki, along with legions of loyal fans, and will want to have their own time in the spotlight, alone.

Middle children often get overlooked in their parents’ eyes, so this news must surely be heartening for fans of 750cc sport bike. One does have to wonder about the exodus of the Japanese brands from the 600cc segment, however.

The Suzuki GSX-R750 has always been the connoisseur’s choice for a well-balance track bike, but in recent years we have seen that segment taken over by Italian rivals. Bikes like the Ducati 959 Panigale and MV Agusta F3 800 fill this niche now, and do it quite well.

With the rising costs of making modern motorcycles, and the requirement of more electronics and more features, not to mention the current trend of buying on credit instead of cash, the Japanese are slowly losing their battle on price, with riders opting to pay a little bit more each month in order to have the absolute best that the market avails.

Hopefully Suzuki considers this when bringing out the GSX-R750 (assuming this report from AMCN proves to be accurate), because as we have seen from the launch of the “new” Honda CBR1000RR, trotting out the same old tired design no long cuts it in this cut-throat segment.

Source: Australia Motorcycle News

  • Jason Channell

    I’m glad they are updating it. I’m struggling with the idea of wanting a solid track bike but also wanting electronics as well,,just in case. A 750 with TC and a few other things would be fantastic.

  • Shinigami

    “cowardly abdicated its throne for an eight-year period” can also be seen as “tried desperately to survive the triple whammy of a global recession, terrible automotive division performance and a shrinking home economy”.

    As an avid 600 rider it pains me to note, the category is dead. Makes sense for Suzuki to put work into one of its better-regarded, more sensible offerings.


    Kudos for managing to fit in a shameless plug for The Two Enthusiasts Podcast! #kickstandsderp

    And by the way, I’ve noticed some changes here since the introduction of A&R Pro.

  • Such as??? Don’t leave me hanging in suspense!

  • Joe

    I started to wonder if they’d abandoned the 750 along with the 600 .
    Great bike. Perfect do-it-all ( and do it well ) bike.u
    I hope they don’t simply massage the current model. That just won’t generate the buying excitement that’s needed here.

  • paulus

    Man… I can’t believe we managed to survive on those skinny rear tyres. I used to think my RD500LC had a big hoop… until recently seeing one again.

  • Wayne Thomas

    The Aussie’s report that the new Suzuki GSX-R750 will be more evolution than revolution, with the current Suzuki GSX-R750 likely to get only modest engine and chassis changes


    I’ll keep saying it. We’ve hit a wall with current technology and design. There will never be anything revolutionary again with motorcycles without a completely new ergonomical design combined with new (perhaps nanotech reinforced) materials.

    You could give a 2010 Suzuki GSX-R and a 2017 GSX-R to most riders for a month and they could not tell the difference unless you told them which bike was which.


    Such as I don’t all the good stuff for free anymore dammit! The cow has been giving free milk all these years… and now my milk jug is kinda empty and starting to sour. Where’s the cereal?!

  • Jonn Dol

    Best case scenario would be Suzuki introducing worthy updates to both Hayabusa & the 750cc Gixxer! Although whether Suzuki is interested to challenge the current King of Hyperbike , the Kawasaki H2(R) remains to be seen..

  • D3

    Yep, lots of further refinements. I would say the “revolution” might be cheaper and more extensive carbon materials, along with the electronics revolution going on, both rider aids and electric powerplants

  • I’m not sure I agree with that sentiment. We crushed it during new bike season. We’re breaking stories no one else is running, and we’re getting stories before pretty much everyone else….all for free. Most of what you read on A&R today, will be news on other sites tomorrow, while A&R Pro readers get content that takes much longer to produce, and provides insight beyond just the surface level and our usual analysis.

    So, I wouldn’t say that the free milk is running out. It’s more like you’re getting the same free milk you’ve had along, and now there’s another jug that you want, but don’t want to pay for.

  • coreyvwc

    Beside the engine bore/stroke aren’t the current GSXR 750 & 600 essentially identical machines anyway? Why would anyone miss the 600?

  • darren636

    please make it look better than the 1000

  • darren636


    i see adverts aplenty

  • Superlight

    Now how would you know there’s so little difference between the 2010 GSX-R 750 and the 2017 model, other than what’s been reported here? And I disagree with your contention that we’ve “hit a wall with current technology and design”. Today’s sport bikes have way more electronics than anything 5-10 years ago, plus engine advances like VVT from Ducati and, yes, Suzuki. I loved the Ducati 916 when it was introduced in 1994, but the Panigale is even better in many design aspects.

  • motoschmoto

    I was at my local dealer this past week and he said Suzuki was updating the 750. Was interesting since I feel like most dealers usually say, at least outwardly, that they don’t have any information that’s not in the press already.

    A tech’d out GSXR750 has been my idea of possible perfection for a while. I ride a ’13 ZX6 (my favorite bike of any I’ve owned by far) and would love a little more grunt but also the comfort of the GSXR (the ZX6 is comfortable to me too though the current GSXR’s are definitely more so) along w the tech (at least abs and tc). I had an 899 and loved the engine and looks but disliked enough of it to get rid of it fairly quick (ridiculously vague front brake, furnace of heat, weird high seating position).

    Looking forward to seeing this bike!

  • motoschmoto

    Agree w Jensen on this one. I’m an A&R Pro subscriber and sometimes I don’t login and still think the content is on another level compared to much of the moto content online.

  • Jason

    Yes, we have more electronics on bikes today. Manufacturers have added power (to win the spec sheet battle) and then taken it away with electronics (to make the bikes rideable)

  • Ayabe

    Negative, lack of financial resources is cowardice, #capitalism #MAGA


  • Superlight

    Jason, there’s a little more to it than that. Those electronics also make the bikes safer to ride, chassis are more stable, the machines are more powerful and more rideable, tires are much more capable and braking is far better than it used to be. Have you actually ridden any of the newer bikes?

  • Alclab

    I love my 750 and hearing Suzuki won’t abandon it’s “prodigal child” is really heartening.

    It blends a lot of usability, power, weight and handling to make it ideal for sport riding.

    This does pose an interesting question though… Should I upgrade mine when the new one comes? The truth is I feel the ’16 model is great, but after owning and riding for my daily commute my Scrambler which has ABS, I really think that’s a very useful feature for safety.

    I’m on the fence because I feel like it could be “the last generation of great analog sport bikes”.


    @jbeeler:disqus I appreciate your work. I spend more time at A&R and get more information from you than any other source. So please don’t take any of this as an attack, I have nothing but praise for your work. However… You can only create so much content and if you’re devoting your time and effort to producing A&R Pro content then you’re not creating A&R Basic content. There’s only so much milk to go around. Unless you buy more cows. And while there’s still a lot of free content on A&R. it does seem like there is less of it than in the past. And that’s totally ok. Maybe I’ll cancel my Netflix membership and send the money your way instead.

  • MikeD

    NO MO 4 POT 7 fiddy, PULEEEES! Seriously tho, grab a GSXR1000RR engine and chop off a cylinder, BAM !!!! No more me too 4 cylinder from Suzuki, save some R&D money and keep cultivating your own little niche in a “me too” market. Stick it to MV Agusta and Triumph. POW, RIGHT IN THE KISSER. 😂

  • MikeD

    This Man it’s our MVP. He just earned it. Yes, please, don’t make it look like M.Y 2005 ALL OVER AGAIN ! I loved the 05 IN 05 but now it 2017. Get down with times, Suzuki.

  • MikeD


  • Wayne Thomas

    Which further proves my point. There are not any major advances to motorcycles. The seating position. Most of the fairings haven’t changed much in 10 years. The electronics are developing to RESTRICT the motorcycles because we’ve hit a design wall.

    People are hating hard on the GITS bike, but at least its trying different.

    Vyrus may be able to take motorcycles to a new level, but that remains to be seen based on the public acceptance and getting costs down. Everything else is derivative.

  • Jason

    Have I ridden newer bikes with all sorts of useless electronics? Yes, but they have been touring and ADV bikes.

    The last superbike I rode was a 2003 Aprilia RSV Mille. It “only” had 130 hp which was more than can be used on the street. I also had a 1996 Kawasaki ZX-7rr back in the day that hit 78 mph in 1st gear. Again more power than could be used on the street and I constantly found myself at stupid go to jail speeds anytime I twisted the throttle past 1/4 turn.

    A 1998 Yamaha R1 made 150 hp and ran the 1/4 mile in 10.19 seconds
    A 2016 Yamaha R1 makes 200 hp and runs the 1/4 mile in 10.11 seconds

  • Fivespeed 302

    They should cross plane it. They won’t though.

  • Superlight

    Look, I’ve ridden bikes since the ’60s (my first new bike was a 1965 Honda 305 Super Hawk) and have had many more since then (my current ride is a 2013 MV F3) and I can tell you bikes have come a long way over the years. Yes, it’s been a slow evolution, but much progress has been made in every design aspect, from engines to tires to brakes to electronics.
    There isn’t a “design wall” – the electronics have just made big power controllable for average Joe. Design moves slowly due to regulations, safety concerns and the high investment costs in this industry, plus consumers typically are slow to accept truly different design concepts unless the advantages are irrefutable.

  • Jason

    Motorcycles have gotten much much better since the 1960’s. I got nostalgic and bought my first bike 30 years later and by any objective measure it is a pretty crappy bike. However that isn’t what I’m talking about.

    I disagree with Wayne’s terminology but not the point. We didn’t run into a “design wall” we ran into a “physics wall” decades ago. You can only accelerate a motorcycle so fast (on the throttle or brakes) before it flips over. Physics is what has slowed down the pace of advances in motorcycle performance over the last couple of decades. The pace of change in motorcycle performance was massive from the 60’s to the 70’s to the 80’s and then it started to slow until today it is down to a crawl today. Superbikes from the 90’s had enough power (engine and brakes) to flip at will. Once you are at the limit of flipping the bike adding more power does nothing (at street speeds) That is why the 1/4 mile time for superbikes have only changed by a couple of tenths of a second in the past 2 decades.

    What electronics have done is make that edge more accessible to the average rider. Traction control keeps the hamfisted rider from looping the bike or high-siding. ABS keeps him from locking up the wheels with the fantastically powerful brakes. That is all great.

    What isn’t so great is that manufacturers are still focused on adding more and more power to bikes when that power can’t be put to the ground and used at street speeds. When 120 hp will loop the bike and you have 200 hp the electronics are just cutting back that power to keep the bike on the edge. Technology wasted. Manufacturers would have done better to add the electronics to a 120 hp bike and focus their development on the chassis. There are gains still to be made in suspension – especially replacing forks. Adding suspension that works when the bike is leaned over would be a game changer as well. Lighter is almost always better. But they don’t do this – instead they chase the spec sheet wars and add more power each iteration.

    We are long past the point where what makes a bike better on the racetrack will make it better on the street. In my opinion that is one of the main factors in the decline of the supersport market and the rise of ADV bikes, standards, and “sporty” bikes with fairings. The Ninja 1000 is a better street bike than a ZX-10R. At street RPMs the “low power” Ninja is actually making more HP and Torque. The Ninja 1000 actually makes more peak torque than the ZX-10R and it is almost 4000 RPM lower in the powerband. The ZX-10 makes 40 HP more than the 1000 but it is all the the top 1/2 of the RPM range.

    Image the Ninja 1000’s engine in a motorcycle that has the weight and suspension of the ZX-10R….. THAT would be a fantastic street bike.

  • Superlight

    We agree the new electronics make riding safer for the average rider. I also agree buyers are gravitating more towards bikes with more same riding positions than sport bikes, but most of that is due to the changes in rider demographics – riders are older and can’t cope with the “stink bug” riding posture anymore.
    I’m not so pessimistic as you on the new machinery. No one forces you to buy a 200 HP superbike; that’s your call. In the meantime we have bikes that are more powerful, better handling and offer adjustable riding modes at the push of a button in all motorcycle segments.

  • Jason

    I wouldn’t say I’m pessimistic. In fact the post recession era has been a good time for more sensible street bikes with lots of good street bikes released recently. The focus is shifting….

  • Superlight

    If you haven’t ridden a superbike of the last few years you’re way out of date with current technology. I do understand your issue with high HP bikes on the street – they can’t ever put all that power to the ground, especially with the majority of riders on board, but that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be sold/purchased – no one puts a gun to your head to buy one. Right or wrong, buyers are motivated by big HP – look at all the excitement when the Kawasaki H2/H2R was introduced, even though you rarely see one on the street. Personally I like middleweight bikes and am contemplating purchasing a new Ducati SS 939 in the future.
    OBTW, what your quarter mile times show is that today’s superbikes need extended swingarms more than ever to get that additional power to the ground, not that there’s been no time improvement.

  • Jason

    “I do understand your issue with high HP bikes on the street – they can’t ever put all that power to the ground”

    Which is my point. The extra horsepower is just there for the spec sheet racing. And yes, as you mention, some people are into spec sheet racing.

    “what your quarter mile times show is that today’s superbikes need extended swingarms more than ever to get that additional power to the ground, not that there’s been no time improvement.”

    Superbikes with extended swingarms suck at going around corners. What my 1/4 mile times show is that the actual performance of superbikes has changed very little over the past 20 years. The don’t accelerate faster, they don’t stop faster, they do go around corners faster but that is mostly due to improvements in tire technology.

    It would be interesting to see a magazine or website pit a 1998 Yamaha R1 against a 2016 R1 around the Streets of Willow with fresh suspensions and modern rubber. I doubt the difference in times would amount to much.

    Even WSBK lap times haven’t improved much. Back in 2003 (first year for 1000cc) Matt Mladin went around Laguna Seca in 1:26.4 In 2016 Tom Sykes did it in 1:22.2. That is only 5 % faster in 13 years! On the other hand back in 1988 the fastest lap at Donington was 1:34.56 and that dropped to 1:14.46 in 1998. That is a 27% improvement in only 10 years. The pace of change is approaching flatline.

  • Superlight

    As I said, much of the superbike performance increases seen over the last decade or so can’t readily be seen or used on the street, but they sure are noticeable if you do track days, and many supersport/superbike owners regularly ride on race tracks. I still say you need to ride one of the newer bikes to best understand the progress that’s been made.
    Those fastest lap times are way better now than 10 years ago – 4 seconds is an eternity around Laguna Seca!

  • Jason

    You missed my point again. The pace of change is decreasing. We have reached a point of diminishing returns where we throw more and more technology at a bike to go fractionally faster. From 1988 to 1998 bikes got 27% faster. From 2003 to 2106 only 5% faster. How much faster to you expect bikes to be 10 years from now? 1% maybe?

    At Laguna Seca the lap record for MotoGP is 1:20.55. For WSBK it is 1.21.81. How many millions spent to go 1.5% faster?

  • Superlight

    Perhaps you’re right, but so what? Should we just quit trying to improve?

  • Jason

    Maybe instead of chasing more and more power we should focus on making the chassis better.

    Maybe try something completely outside the box like the Yamaha MWT-9.

  • Superlight

    OK, so I guess you think Ducati’s Superleggera with its CF headstock and swingarm doesn’t go far enough?
    That Yamaha concept bike is interesting, but most motorcyclists would probably think the result is too far afield from what they’re used to. Many bikers are pretty conservative, especially when it comes to big-ticket items and, remember, when it’s all said and done the manufacturers have to attract a sufficient number of buyers.

  • Jason

    Does a carbon fiber make the bike better or just more expensive?

    The Superleggera is 13 pounds lighter than the R model but $45,000 more expensive. How much faster is it around a track?

    The Panigale vs Panigale R vs Panigale Superleggera seem to be a perfect example of diminishing returns for each dollar spent.

    Honestly do you think someone that buys a Superleggera is spending the $80K because it is fractionally faster than a R or to say that they have only of only 500 examples? I would suspect the later which is fine. Some people like to collect expensive things.

  • Superlight

    There’s no question that we run into the “law of diminishing returns” when pursuing maximum performance, or maximum just about anything, for that matter. It’s the nature of the quest itself, but does that mean manufacturers should be satisfied with “good enough”? I don’t think so. I applaud Ducati for showing us what’s possible with current motorcycle technology in the Superleggera even though I (and most of us) would never spend that much to reach the apogee of performance. Hey, it used to be the Japanese companies who might do this, but no more.
    To answer your first question – CF may be more expensive, but it really does work to reduce machine mass. How far along that path could we go if we chose to? Ducati answered that for us.

  • Jason

    Ducati already answered the question of carbon fiber frames with their MotoGP bike. Their frame went from steel to carbon to aluminum. The carbon frame didn’t make the bike faster so they abandoned it. That is also why I asked if the carbon frame on the Superleggera actually makes the bike faster.

    I’m not too impressed with the Superleggera’s carbon frame and swingarm. Yes the carbon parts save 5 lbs but they are simply replicas of the metal parts in carbon. I would be more impressed if they did something truly new instead.

    I remember an article in Sport Rider from the 1990’s. An engineering student took a 1989 GSXR 1100 and replaced the frame, subframe, seat, bodywork, and gas tank with a one piece carbon fiber monocoque. THAT was impressive and dropped the finished bikes weight down to 350 lbs. THAT is the kind of thinking that will be necessary to make the next big leap in motorcycle performance.

    It is the difference between evolutionary thinking and revolutionary thinking.

  • Superlight

    OK, but unless that “revolutionary” design actually improves the machine, has acceptable aesthetics and is affordable, no one will buy it.

  • Wayne Thomas

    Companies cannot improve much within the current paradigm. That’s the point that we have been proving. The current FIM imposed design specifications combined with the conservativeness of many riders has met physics.

    Maybe we have to evolve to Tron bikes or adopt an Akira seating position to go to a new level. But with the current ergonomics and materials, we’ve hit a wall where physics is simply going to win.

    It doesn’t have to be bad thing but prices of “new” bikes need to be in proportion to this reality.

  • Jim O Mahony

    Great debate guys

  • Superlight

    Thanks, Jim. Motorcycles are my passion and I enjoy discussing them, both engineering and marketing aspects. This was me on my Ducati at Daytona 1985.

  • Superlight

    No way would they copy Yamaha.

  • Fivespeed 302

    They did in MotoGP.

  • mikstr

    they didn’t crossplane the 1000 so I fail to see why they would the 750…

  • Jason

    There is no doubt that carbon fiber monocoque frames will improve performance. We can see that in auto racing where they are allowed. There is where we hit the self-fulfilling loop.

    The natural place for this technology is in racing where form follows function. However the rules don’t allow the technology (or at least make it unnecessary as all the bikes are already at minimum weight). Street riders want bikes that are as similar to the race bikes as possible. Round and round we go.

    I understand the marketing challenge, I dabbled in that field a bit myself. But I’m an engineer and look at it as a technical problem and that problem has a solution.

    Yes, it has been a good discussion.

  • Superlight

    As I’m a mechanical engineer who also has a marketing degree and who worked as a vehicle Product Manager for GM for many years, I relished this discussion.

  • Jason

    I’m also a mechanical engineer. I’ve worked in a variety of industries (all related to vehicles) and currently build these:

  • Superlight
  • Fivespeed 302

    My original statement said that I knew they wouldn’t do it. That was never in question. I just said that I wish they would.

  • Anteater

    Whilst the new 1000 is a technically very competent machine. Suzuki please stop styling the K5!!!! Move on, its over, 12 years already.

    Just take the fairing of the GSXRR MotoGP bike, shove it on the GSXR range and you’ll sell them faster than you can make them.

    Learn from your own past, the GP saying of the ’96 SRAD was iconic at the time :)

  • Anteater

    Ducati’s problem in MotoGP was a combination of engine packaging and the introduction of the spec tyre from Bridgestone rather than carbon fibre being the wrong material to build a frame from.

    Quite sure at some point carbon frames will reappear in top level racing, the understanding of flex in a carbon frame and element analysis has moved on a lot recently.

  • Jason

    I have no doubt that Ducati could build a proper carbon fiber frame. Carbon fiber’s main advantage is an incredible strength to weight ratio and the ability to make highly complex shapes. The weakness is the molds needed to lay it up correctly. You can’t just machine a block of carbon fiber like you can metal.

    Carbon fiber’s primary advantage is taken away by the minimum weight rules in motorcycle racing. There is no reason for a team to take the time and money to develop a carbon frame if they just have to add back the weight it saves.

    That said, just because something is made out of carbon fiber doesn’t mean it is better. There lies my original question of whether making parts of the superleggera out of carbon fiber makes the bike better. It might or it might not. It all come down to the design.

  • Wayne Thomas

    This also address the lie that racing improves the breed. It only does so within tightly confined parameters that benefit a small number of manufacturers to ensure that a Britten can never again arise and threaten the charade.

    Could be correlation rather than causation, but for me my interest in racing has drastically diminished over the years because I see to tangible relation between “race on Sunday and sell on Monday”.

  • darren636

    me too?

    the gsxr750 started it all

  • Superlight

    motoGP has little/no relationship to street bikes; manufacturers do whatever they feel they need to do to win.

  • MikeD

    Talking about engine layout, not displacement. It was pretty obvious on my opening sentence, at least i thought it was when i was typing it.

  • darren636

    i understood perfectly, thankyou ,
    the Suzuki being the original.

  • Fivespeed 302

    Really? Because you can’t watch an ad for Yamaha’s R1 (a legitimate street bike) without a reference to MotoGP. Manufacturers can’t even come close to “do whatever they feel they need to do to win”, any more than they can build any motor they want for the consumer market. They are impeded by hundreds of rules and regulations.

  • Superlight

    True, there are many rules in motoGP, but they are the most lenient of any roadracing series.
    I laugh at those R1 ads, as there is little/no relationship between the street bike and motoGP except the 1000cc limit, 4 cylinders and the name on the tank. That said, Yamaha has always been a competitive force in motoGP; so credit where credit is due.

  • MikeD
  • Stickshift

    There’s no way superbikes could make a 27% better lap time in those 10 years!

    Your Donington lap times are the wrong way around. The fastest lap in 1988 was 1.14, 1998 was 1.34… check.

    The 1988 race was held on the shorter (3.1 km) track, 1998’s race included the Melbourne Loop (4.0 km).

    If you want to see real progress in lap times the IoM TT is a better indicator than short circuit racing (where minor decreases [advances] in lap times may appear insignificant).

  • Superlight

    Agreed. One of the best features of CF is that you have ultimate flexibility in design using different carbon levels and application techniques. That’s also a negative of CF – it takes time to figure out those “best” design approaches.


    Reduce the weight, tune the chassis/suspension, and add VVT. I will buy.