Opinions!!!!

Yep 748 /853 quite nippy for a 22 year old bike, especially with the close ratio gearbox they come with as standard unlike the 916.
Steve

 

I always preferred the handling of my 748sp and sps over the 916/996 bikes I had.
Dunno if it was the lower profile fronts (120/60 instead of 120/70) which made the difference.

 

It's a no brainer as those three famous 916 numbers add up to race pedigee with sex appeal.

 

Did any 916 powered bikes win or were they 955?

 

The Factory 916's was the model name but with whatever engine installed at that time,996cc.

 

If price is a factor then unless you are aiming to buy a neglected example for a resto, you might struggle to find an "ordinary" 916* at an ordinary price as a lot of them carry an extra tariff for being recognised as the first of the breed, the much-cosseted and preened little luvvies. Although 748* might also suffer from over-restoration and maybe over-pricing to some degree, I reckon the majority of owners are more likely to remember their bikes exist for riding first and foremost and so possibly priced more realistically.


*generalising, mainly about base models.

 

Think they came later.

 

1997

 

916 sps

 

Had a 748 then 916SPS bitsa. 916 was initially intimidating due to increased torque over 748 mainly, but after a while it became a complete hoot to ride. Loved it. 748 was easier to ride as it wouldn’t get you into trouble loosing grip etc like the SPS.
Handling wise - identical as I ran both with 120/70F and 180 rear tyres and set them up the same.

 

Just as long as it’s red, either.... X

 

ive never rode a 916 so as always should not comment but as always i will! the 748 is better..... lol...
i cant compare but i dont think you will be dissapointed with a 748. i love mine and although ive not rode or owned a 9** i have rode plenty of more powerful bikes and i have as much fun on the 748. they are quick enough and i like the revvy nature of em.