do ural motorcycles with sidecar breakdown alot?

I think it depends on the age. Most people say to stay with 2004 or newer. I don't think they'll ever be as dependable as a five year old Honda, but neither do I think they are as bad as some will lead you to believe. I have a lot of friends who could afford something a lot more expensive, but choose to ride them instead.

The 2004 and newer is good advise, it has to do with the upgrades they have done to the bike, Urals are NOT a maintenance free bike, the like to be pampered and fussed over, the paint jobs are new but the design isn't but a lot of changes have made them a lot better,,,,or so they say, just keep in mine that they have 36 hp on a good day and shoould be ridden accordingly.

At 5600 RPM, they are rated at 40HP. Sweet spot is generally 55-65 on older models, but some claim they do 70 MPH all day long. Me, I like the slower speed of about 60-65, but that is just me and I like more woah for my go. I have had my rig up into the mid-70's in the past, but for only a very, very short period of time. Many times I push it into the low 70's, but in my part of Texas you don't have anyone riding right on top of your bumper as you do in the Dallas area and such, so I simply choose to enjoy the ride at a slower speed for the most part, even when on the local highways. Probably the only time I ever have problems with speed is in hill climbing and buffeting winds. A Ural is akin to driving into the wind on a brick at times, but if you remove the hack windshield and even the one on the bike if you have such, you can cut that down quite a bit with a tonneau cover on the rig. Even a brick can be streamlined for a bit of a better performance at times.

As to being as dependable as a Honda, I don't know that you can actually honestly compare the two equally. Urals come with hack as the standard and Hondas do not. Add a hack to a Honda and you still don't usually have a rig that can do what a Ural can off-road. Especially when it comes to what all can be loaded on the two. If you speak to dependability, then anything past 2000 for Urals has been improved upon steadily by the company. Me, I feel the fellows are slightly off on recommending the newer Ural rigs. Actually, anything past a 2000 model, with a 750cc engine, is probably a pretty good deal as to dependability. The new alternators are holding up well with the foil and some love the new Austrian gears. Me, I like the Crunch box feel of the older gears and tranny, and I see nothing to justify the high costs of the newer Urals over a good used one at present. If you got the money though, most folk say to buy the best you can afford. I'd love it if the tires were all interchangable, but the veggie slicer presents a problem with that scenario.

Me, I happen to think that a good, used Ural is a bargain in today's economy. Used Ural rigs are great as a bargain to start into the sidecar world, but I'd not recommend a new Ural at the current price and what is offered as improvements on them. I also believe that you really need to do some homework on owning such, prior to purchase. If you want super slab speed, then the Ural is not going to meet your expectations in that regard and you may end up with buyer's remorse.

I have no clue as to why anyone thinks a Ural takes any real maintenance that isn't about the exact same on any rig. (I am addressing the 2000 models and later). It takes only a teeny bit to become pretty darn near a Ural mechanic who can purchase parts at Tractor Supply, make things fit in the field and enjoy tons of enjoyable riding without any more difficulty that a Honda or HD owner. I do my own maintenance and have had very, very little happen that I can't work on myself. The maintenance is no more than what was standard on older bikes that had CVK carbs on them. Nothing special in the least, as far as I have found. Learn to use a Carbtune or TwinMax, learn to adjust your valves, learn to adjust the carbs, learn to change your own oil, learn to keep the tires aired up, learn how to change a flat tire in the field.........what is so difficulty in any of that? Ural ownership and maintenacne is not rocket science by any means. Besides, the older technology of the units make them as close to being Y2K complaint as anything else on the road. They have about the same quirks as a Model A Ford, but are just as easy to work on as well. There is none of the new fangled computer crap standard on them that you can't work on for yourself, and there are lots of online help from other Ural owners as a personal support. Billy G's online manual is a great help in doing almost anything to a Ural, and the two sets of maintenance Cd's, plus the online manuals at the IMZ home page are all helpful as well. No special tools needed to do most any of the mainten

I had a 2005 Ural Tourist for 2.5 years and put about 14,000 km on it. Was it trouble free? Not entirely but other than a few small electrical issues and a seal covered under warrantee it did a good job and was a totally fun bike and a great first sidecar rig. I would still have it if I could have afforded to keep it and had the time for to maintain two rigs. The reason I switched to a Harley is that we wanted a rig that was a little faster and had more UMPH! My wife and dog are most often with me when I ride, and the Ural, although good at 50-55, felt like it might self destruct going much faster. It is only 750 cc and weighs about 750 lbs without passengers or gear.

A good testimonial for the Ural is Julie and Graham Myer trip across the country.. They flew in from AU. bought a Ural in Washington State, packed all their gear on it and headed off across the US. When the pulled into our drive here in Maine I couldn't believe the amount of stuff they had loaded on that bike. They had gone through Death Valley at about 105 degrees, through the Rockies in the snow, etc. They continued from Maine to the south and the Blue Ridge Parkway until the "powers that be" decided they had stayed in the US long enough on their 6 month visa and would not renew it.

The nice thing about a Ural is that it is simple and if you choose, you can do all your own maintenance easily. The maintenance cycle is a little shorter than most, but also easier than most. If you don't choose to do your maintenance, any good general bike mechanic should be able to fix anything that goes wrong.

I would say, if you decide on a Ural, buy the latest year bike you can afford, as there have been improvements ever year. A bike with about 1000- 3000 miles is a good choice if you can find one. Often the things that are going to go wrong, ---will go wrong fairly quickly , and a bike with a few miles on it will be more trouble free than one that has hardly been ridden.

Good luck on your quest,

I have a 2000 Ural with a later 750 engine, I live at 5500 ft. Normal cruising speed for me is around 60, more is there but the poor thing's working hard. It's never left me stranded. A Ural is a cruiser and a back-road bike and a commuter; not a freeway flier. I can get parts for the Ural faster than I can usually get Harley parts (there are three or four standout dealers). Prices are OK, a lot of stuff is hardware store kind of things. Like Huey said, the maintenance is simple, but you gotta do it.

Here's the bottom line; if you want to get personally involved in the riding and maintenance experience (like Farvegnugen or whatever VW called it), then a Ural might be a good fit, if you want a sidecar. If you want an appliance, think about something else, and probably not a sidecar.

A new Gear-up model here in Canada near Montreal is 14 900.00.

That's one more reason so many Canucks have Japanese cruisers with a hack on the side. A lot more bang for the buck and you can go as fast as you wish without fear of breakage.

Lonnie
NWSC, LLC

I had a 2005 Retro w/ sidecar. Rode it home from Olympia to LA.

Problem with the rear brake cause a bearing leak after a few hundred miles.

Rain flooeded the paper air filter causinf mpre problems in northern cal

Then the carbs leaked, plus problems with the petcock fuel filter.

All "minor" if you like tinkering. Pita otherwise.

To compare to a Honda is absurd.

They are cool as all get out, and I would consider another, but I dont think they are even close to trouble free.

Jmho of course. I am not mechanical, and dont like to tinker.

Me, I believe the Retro has had more problems than most other models of the Urals produced since 2000. That model made the recall list a few times over the years, where none of the other Urals did. They may be a cool looking rig as to style, but they have their shortfalls and I'd always shy away from one, myself. Not a good choice of rig for most off-road stuff, but my Troyka has limitations like that as well.

On the other hand, check out almost any Jap website for bikes and you will find as many or even more problemes than most Urals. The good thing about Urals is the simplicity in a fix, as the norm. That may be a bad thing to someone who only wants a crank and go bike. The Jap rigs may well do any speed on the highway and be a great buy in that regard, but they are worthless as to being a decent off-road vehicle for the most part. You gain some and lose some in comparing the two. It makes for a good choice to consider either though when deciding upon either. If I ever purchase another rig, I'll certainly be considering the Jap bikes with an added hack in my decision-making.

Urals are no longer the "bargain sales" bikes/rigs they once were. You can easily get a lot more for your money in not going with a new Ural, but just purchasing a new bike, alone. Still, I guess it all depends upon what you are looking for in a rig, as, it is accurate in that you give up something in order to gain something in either choice you make. I still contend that a good, used, Ural is a pretty good buy for the bucks though. A new one is currently overpriced and waaaay to far out of line to make it a bargain in the least these days. IMZ may be trying to stay on an even keel in these difficult economic times, but they fail to realize that people may want a Ural, but no one actually needs a Ural. All rigs and motorcycles are not on the need list during a poor economy. IMZ is pricing themselves out of the business, if sales mean all that much to them these days. It will be interesting to see what happens with them in the next year or two. Of course, that can be said of the Big 3 auto makers as well.

Do Urals break down a lot? Probably no more than any other make at this point, in reality. Are they worth the cost for a new one? Not in my opinion. The Spyder, trikes and other such new items of travel and adventure are going to give all sidecar rigs a bit of competition for the new crowd of users. I believe that most rigs are currently favored by an older crowd as the norm. Trying to capture the new generation's want for such in order to increase sales will be tricky for all sidecar manufacturers and installers. The retro style and such may be a big attraction for some for a while, but sidecars are a niche market in the first place. No one is going to break balls in trying to manufacture them to compete with ATVs and other such fun rides. I think you may well see fewer, as opposed to more, sidecar rigs in the future. Be interesting to see what the future brings though.

If you got to have a sidecar rig, just do your homework first and make the right choice for yourself. Don't worry. Be happy! 🙂

Don't take this too seriously....Couldn't resist...click on attachment.

Guess you didn't have much to say Huh Sarge 🙂

Try again!!

2004 Retro:

22,000 miles (not Km). Only problems in five riding seasons (except rear brake) can be directly attributed to operator stupidity. Otherwise extremely trouble-free.

The only Retro recall was the rear/sidecar hydraulic brakes which, admittedly, were an abortion on the 2003-2005 models. Newer Retros have standard mechanical brakes like other Urals. (Hydraulic brakes on front of all models have been totally trouble-free.)

The only other recall I know of was on some 2006(?) model transmissions, if I remember right.

TOTALLY agree they are not freeway fliers.

Sarge

I sure would like 2 wheel drive on my Honda. I just don't want to give up being able to cruise at 80 mph across the Idaho desert.

I sure would like 2 wheel drive on my Honda. I just don't want to give up being able to cruise at 80 mph across the Idaho desert
=================================================================
Sooooo you want 2 wheel drive and be able to do 80+ mph ??? well maybe this will do:)
http://thekneeslider.com/archives/2008/02/12/rotohak-325hp-twin-turbo-rotary-engine-sidecar/