Husqvarna SM 610 2005 vs. Husqvarna SMS 4 2013

Husqvarna SM 610 2005

Husqvarna SM 610 2005

Husqvarna SMS 4 2013

Husqvarna SMS 4 2013

Loading...

Overview - Husqvarna SM 610 2005 vs Husqvarna SMS 4 2013

Husqvarna SM 610 2005

Husqvarna SM 610 2005

Husqvarna SMS 4 2013

Husqvarna SMS 4 2013

Technical Specifications Husqvarna SM 610 2005 compared to Husqvarna SMS 4 2013

Husqvarna SM 610 2005
Husqvarna SMS 4 2013

Engine and Drive Train

TransmissionTransmissionChainTransmissionChain
CylindersCylinders1Cylinders1
StrokesStrokes4-StrokeStrokes4-Stroke
DisplacementDisplacement576 ccmDisplacement124 ccm

Dimensions and Weights

WheelbaseWheelbase1,500 mmWheelbase1,465 mm
Seat HeightSeat Height920 mmSeat Height900 mm
Dry WeightDry Weight140 kgDry Weight117 kg
Fuel Tank CapacityFuel Tank Capacity12.5 lFuel Tank Capacity9.5 l

Pros and Cons in comparison

Pros and Cons in comparison

Husqvarna SM 610 2005

Husqvarna SM 610 2005

The Husky is by no means an inexpensive entry-level bike. However, single-cylinder enthusiasts looking for power, a great chassis and civil service intervals have come to the right place with the Husky. A good iron!

Optimal chassis

independent geometry

linear steering feel

high-quality fork

qualitative workmanship.

Hakelige ignition lock seems to have been reworked cheaply

high price

not suitable for long-distance travel

spare parts supply problematic.

Husqvarna SMS 4 2013

Husqvarna SMS 4 2013

Unfortunately, our editors did not test this model.

Alternative Comparisons

1000PS Partner

ChigeeContinental MotorradreifenMotorex AGcalimoto GmbH