Page 1 of 1
Yamaha Zuma 50 vs Genuine Roughhouse 50
Posted: Thu Oct 10, 2019 4:43 pm
by skipper20
Comparing 2 stroke only, which would be the better performer? OK, how about the later 4 stroke fuel injected Zuma 50 vs the 2 stroke RH 50? I'm thinking about doing a trade deal for one of my Honda Gyros.
Bill in Seattle
'84 Honda Gyro Red
'86 Honda Gyro S Red
Posted: Thu Oct 10, 2019 4:54 pm
by DeeDee
They are completely different bikes. I'm a big fan of the 2012 and newer Zuma 50f. Fuel injected, 3 valve, water cooled. With routine maintenance this engine will go 40,000 miles +. Yamaha parts are cheap and easy to find. The Zuma is fairly easy to work on. For $100 in parts and a few hours work you can tune it go go 45 with much better take off and hill climbing. Yamaha made a smart move in 2012 when they stopped 2t production and put the drivetrain out of the Yamaha C3 into the Zuma.
Posted: Thu Oct 10, 2019 11:47 pm
by sc00ter
If I was to chose between a 4 stroke newer Zuma 50 or a Genuine RH50, it would be a tough choice. I love the Zuma 2 strokes the most. It really depends on what you wanna do with it. 2 strokes are easier to tune but 4 strokes are better on fuel and reliability. So, if I was getting it to ride on a regular basis, I would get the Zuma 4 stroke. If I was going to mess with it as a toy, I would get a Zuma 2 stroke first (I still have one) and a RH50 second-but its a close tie on the 2 strokes.