KTM 390 Duke - Gen 1 vs Gen 2.

[Kawasicki]

So, a couple of months ago I bought a Ducati 999. I’m really enjoying it, but I am looking for an additional bike that is more basic, less “diva”. I go back from a very wet ride a couple of days ago and the 999 had developed a couple of issues. The rear indicator lens had fallen off and the tail light was staying on. The lighting in general on mine is a joke...I love riding it though.

So anyway...I thought about getting a few different bikes as a second bike.one of them is the Duke 390. I aim to use and abuse it... I also want to try motogymkhana. So it will be sliding on it's side from time to time.

Has anyone had experience of both the first and second gen bikes? I can afford either...I am put off the second gen bike because it is supposedly 10kg heavier...which is an awful lot. I weigh little myself...a skinny 64 kg, so the 10kg is significant. Are there advantages to the taller second gen bikes?

Thanks, in advance, for any advice.

[Esceptico]

So you like Ducatis - at least something we can agree on ;-)

I had the first gen 390 for a few months. It was a good little bike. Fun on back roads but struggled a bit when I was riding together with people on bigger bikes - although it was fun having the throttle pinned everywhere!

Reading the MCN review on the gen 2 bike it seems a big change from the first bike - all for the better according to the review.

Only real way for you to get a feel for the difference is to ride both. If you are lucky you should be able to find a KTM dealer that has a demo bike and a secondhand gen 1 to compare.

[Kawasicki]

Esceptico said:

So you like Ducatis - at least something we can agree on ;-)

I had the first gen 390 for a few months. It was a good little bike. Fun on back roads but struggled a bit when I was riding together with people on bigger bikes - although it was fun having the throttle pinned everywhere!

Reading the MCN review on the gen 2 bike it seems a big change from the first bike - all for the better according to the review.

Only real way for you to get a feel for the difference is to ride both. If you are lucky you should be able to find a KTM dealer that has a demo bike and a secondhand gen 1 to compare.

We don’t have to agree on everything!

Thanks for the reply too...I just looked up the MCN review...interesting, but I still can’t understand the justification for a 10kg weight increase! I’ll be lightening the bike further, so to start at +10kg for the more modern version is a bit of a downer!

[Krikkit]

Kawasicki said:

We don’t have to agree on everything!

Thanks for the reply too...I just looked up the MCN review...interesting, but I still can’t understand the justification for a 10kg weight increase! I’ll be lightening the bike further, so to start at +10kg for the more modern version is a bit of a downer!

Switch to a bigger metal tank was one, is 10kg really going to be the end of the world?

[gareth_r]

Kawasicki said:

We don’t have to agree on everything!

Thanks for the reply too...I just looked up the MCN review...interesting, but I still can’t understand the justification for a 10kg weight increase! I’ll be lightening the bike further, so to start at +10kg for the more modern version is a bit of a downer!

ABS?

Bigger brakes?

[obscene]

My sister bought the mk2 as they were being kicked out nearly two years ago for £3500 new. I rode the first version when my SMCR was in for a service. I preferred the mk1. You feel more sat in the bike and the positioning of how you are sat is more comfortable. The mk2 feels as if your legs are pushed forwards and are in more of a race position. Power wise, can't remember any difference. For the price, they are great fun and you can pin them everywhere without worrying too much about your licence.

[klootzak]

I had a gen 1 Duke 390 for a couple of years and it was an absolute hoot to ride. Some of the parts were a bit shabby (the dash is a crime against design and the wiring looked like it was done by a blind person), and the reliability could be iffy, but if you're not actually commuting on it it wouldn't be an issue.

Aside from aesthetics and a better dash (still a bit Dixons), the real difference with the gen 2 is size.

At 1.73m (5'8") I was on the limit of comfort on the gen 1, which is really cramped lengthways. If you're any taller you'll be better off with the gen 2, even though the riding position is a bit more aggressive.

k

[Kawasicki]

Krikkit said:

Kawasicki said:

We don’t have to agree on everything!

Thanks for the reply too...I just looked up the MCN review...interesting, but I still can’t understand the justification for a 10kg weight increase! I’ll be lightening the bike further, so to start at +10kg for the more modern version is a bit of a downer!

Switch to a bigger metal tank was one, is 10kg really going to be the end of the world?

10kg is not the end of the world, but with so little power it will make a difference to performance. I once owned a light KTM, and it weighed about 110kg...it was hilarious to ride. I think the very light weight of the original bike indicates a certain single-mindedness to the the development. Overall the first bike is for most customers inferior to the second gen one, but somehow a bit more fun for me.

[Kawasicki]

gareth_r said:

Kawasicki said:

We don’t have to agree on everything!

Thanks for the reply too...I just looked up the MCN review...interesting, but I still can’t understand the justification for a 10kg weight increase! I’ll be lightening the bike further, so to start at +10kg for the more modern version is a bit of a downer!

ABS?

Bigger brakes?

The earlier bikes already had ABS, and from 2015 a slipper clutch...you are right about the brakes though, the second gen bikes have bigger discs.

[Kawasicki]

obscene said:

My sister bought the mk2 as they were being kicked out nearly two years ago for £3500 new. I rode the first version when my SMCR was in for a service. I preferred the mk1. You feel more sat in the bike and the positioning of how you are sat is more comfortable. The mk2 feels as if your legs are pushed forwards and are in more of a race position. Power wise, can't remember any difference. For the price, they are great fun and you can pin them everywhere without worrying too much about your licence.

Thanks for the feedback. I'm thinking a 2015 or 2016 one now.

[Kawasicki]

klootzak said:

I had a gen 1 Duke 390 for a couple of years and it was an absolute hoot to ride. Some of the parts were a bit shabby (the dash is a crime against design and the wiring looked like it was done by a blind person), and the reliability could be iffy, but if you're not actually commuting on it it wouldn't be an issue.

Aside from aesthetics and a better dash (still a bit Dixons), the real difference with the gen 2 is size.

At 1.73m (5'8") I was on the limit of comfort on the gen 1, which is really cramped lengthways. If you're any taller you'll be better off with the gen 2, even though the riding position is a bit more aggressive.

k

I'm the same height as you, so I should be fine on it too.

[Kawasicki]

So, I did a bit of research over the weekend.

Gen 2 is simply a slightly bigger/somewhat sturdier bike. Still great fun to ride!