Ducati.ms - The Ultimate Ducati Forum banner

1 - 20 of 32 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I am offered a 1993 Superlight for $10,000, it has 2,200 miles and looks like it has been in a time capsule, perfect. Has all maintenance. Yellow, white frame.

Or, a 1996 900 ss, 25,000 miles, red, looks NEW. All maintenance records,$5,500.

I am interested in both, however, I will only buy one. I will ride only once in a while, probably the SL even less.
I cannot find any info on the SL, is it rare?

My question is are these good prices? Is the SL a collector bike?
ANY other info is appreciated. They are owned by a scientist and collector, if that makes any difference.

Thanks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
849 Posts
superlight

I'm sure there will be others that will have more to say about the SL. I don't have my Ducati book handy right now, but I can tell you that the SL is something that you will find once in a blue moon (not very often). If I recall correctly, the book that breaks down the past 60 years of Ducati bikes states that the SL is one of the best bikes that Ducati ever made. Of course it's more expensive than the other, but it is heads and shoulders above it (and most other bikes out there). The added a great deal of goodies (along with shedding the weight) with this bike (primarily a race replica). If I had the chance, out of any of the bikes that Ducati has made in recent history, this would be the one I would get.

Just my two cents. Happy hunting, and let me know how it goes. Hell, if you don't pull the trigger, I may have to look into having it shipped here!!!

Cheers,
Jason
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
187 Posts
Its really the 1992 Sl that had alot of weight savings vs. the regular bikes, because they had some fancy Marivic wheels. The 93 Sl came with normal Brembo wheels like the regular SS. A Sl is a collectors bike, however. Personnaly I would go with the 96 (although 5,500 is a bit high on the price range), just because by then all of the marjor bugs had been sorted. You would probably get more enjoyment out of the 96, because you won't be worried about putting miles on it. You can just go out and enjoy it. Either way though they are great bikes. Good luck
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
423 Posts
Price for the SL is in line with the one pictured below, with 15,000 miles on it, from Craigslist.

Clicky.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
661 Posts
Do you really like SLs enough to have one as a collectible, or would you be riding it like a daily? If daily, keep the money and buy the other bike. The price difference would go a long way towards paying for mods, insurance, maintenance, etc.

Hell, for $10k I'd buy a 996!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
141 Posts
converting the prices from Aus$ to US$ gives $7500 US for the SL and $4125 for the SS/SP.

Probably fair - perhaps a little bit high for the SL, although with the Marvic wheels it is the only SL worth paying a premium for.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
918 Posts
I remember sat in front of the Ducati dealer in Oxford staring at a SL back in 92. I was in awe back then. It's still such a beautiful bike. I'd love to own one but I couldn't let it sit, I'd have to ride it.......sean
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
319 Posts
Help us help you... what SL is it? I, II, III or IV. There's a plate on the triple tree which tells you the model and the number.

Both bikes being offered to you are as useful to ride - there's really not any difference between them - except one lets you take a pillion. ;) It depends on whether you think the SL is collectable, and if that's what you want to do with it.

The SL I was made in '92, and 1300 or so of them were made. Composite wheels, vented clutch, carbon hugger/mudguard, fully-floating rotors.
The SL II came in '93 and lost the composite wheels and the vented clutch cover (but gained a carbon rear-brake torque arm). It also lost the fully floating discs in favour of standard steel ones.
The SL III recovered the fully-floating discs and lost the carbon torque arm (they broke anyway), but still had the normal wheels, and got a carbon clutch cover. The III got 41mm Showas (same as the 888SP5)
The SL IV was the same as the III except it got the temp gauge.

To my mind the SL I is the one to get, or the III and IV - but not the SL II.

Production numbers decreased over the years so the final IV was actually more "limited edition" than the I.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
It is original, it has the carbon fender, vented clutch, Akront 2-piece wheels and floating rotors. The plate on the tree says "Super Light" but does not say 1-2-3, etc., so, I'm supposing it is a '1". I am wondering if riding this bike would ruin it's value,,,,probably so. Also, I would imagine the 900ss would be more comfy to ride, as I said, I wouldn't ride either very much, I have a 2006 Star Stratoliner S that I normally ride (a cruiser). And the 900ss looks showroom new, even though it has 25,000 miles. I am really torn, I want a very nice bike, but I need some comfort too. And I like the fact that the SL is somewhat rare. However, I am 58 and I really don't want to be in the crotch rocket "bend" when riding. Someone told me the 900ss is more upright in riding position. I have a week or so to make the decision, so, any advice would be helpful. And thanks to all who have responded, this is a great forum.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
319 Posts
Can't say if the lack of a 'designation' on the triple tree means a I or not, but it makes sense to presume so. Especially with the wheels. That's a worthwhile bike IMHO. Worth 10k? Worth what you want to spend on it.

Being the proud owner of both an SL III and an SS (95) I can honestly say that there is absolutely no difference in riding position. Clip-ons, bars, ergonomics generally are identical. If anything the SL is a little more comfortable as the single seat provides more of a bum-stop than the 'shaped' one on the SS. (Both my seats are standard). The SL lets you push your arse back into the seat, where if you try that with the SS, you end up on the pillion seat. Neither are particularly uncomfortable - but I guess that depends on what you are used to.

Would running it ruin(?) it's value? Perhaps it might, but "ruin" is a strong word. These aren't Brough Superiors or Ariel Square 4s... I would imagine that running some miles on it would be better than simply standing it in the corner (if I bought it I'd want to look closely at the intakes, tyres etc as these rubber things are prone to perishing if not used).

Let us know what you decide.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
187 Posts
If it really is a SL1 then I would go for it. You get the sweetest of the sweet for this style of bike. If you won't be riding it that often, then don't worry about the miles. As some others have mentioned, its not an extremely rare bike, and the older they get the more value a bike like that would commend regardless of miles. Buy it, take it to the local Duc hang out on bright sunny days, watch people fawn over it, and most of all enjoy it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
The s/s has a single seat also. I'm heading for the ss, it is mint, no marks and will be a great driver. According to the owner, it has had no expenses spared to keep it perfect, the man is very wealthy. I can see in the pictures of the bike, the backround has Ferraris in some of the garages. I have had a great lot of info from all of you and you have my thanks for all of your input. I can see this really is a board with a wealth of information, thanks to all. Will be checking in again after the purchase (2-3 weeks) and will let you know more.

Ron
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
78 Posts
Misinformation regarding US spec 93 Superlight

You are looking at a US spec 93 Superlight. Ignore all of the Mk I, II, III, IV crap as it applies to the US bikes. The triple clamp badge will not indicate MK.I etc. The Superlight was sold in the US for ONE MODEL YEAR only, 1993. The model year is encoded in the 17 digit VIN. It was an SS with carbon fenders, a vented aluminum clutch cover and a solo tail section that would crack all to hell around the mounting bolt holes if not reinforced in some manner. The 900 FE supports do the trick. This model also featured the Marvic wheels and high swept pipes. They were only available in Yellow.
Known weaknesses are outlined in many threads. I own a Superlight and a 95 900SS SP. I thoroughly enjoy everything about these 2 bikes. I can truthfully say that I never get so many thumbs up as when I am riding the Superlight. Saw a Superlight go on E Bay a couple of months ago for 8K. Are they worth the asking price? Like anything else in this world they are worth what someone is willing to pay. Only you can be the judge.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
319 Posts
Ian Falloon confirms (in a round about way) by saying that the SL wasn't offered in the US of A after 1994. He says leftover SL IIIs were rebadged and sold as the SS SP (with dual seat and the low pipes)... and again in 1995.

Shame that the "Mk I, II, III and IV crap" doesn't apply to you lot. I guess that means the rest of us got more SLs than you.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
849 Posts
a bit over anxious

I have to admit, after going back to the research, the others are right 10k is too much for the bike. I was thinking about the 92. In 93 they downgraded the bike a bit (brembo wheels painted bronze, ss standard rotors) so the solo seat and upswept mufflers were the only difference between the SL and the normal SS. Are you sure it is a 93? I'm looking at the production numbers and 300 yellows were made in 92 (100 california, 200 other US); none are counted for 93. However, the 94 yellow numbered 338. Overall, the 92 is the most desireable for the SL supersport. If you are holding out for a great SL, wait for that one...


Anyway, I hope this helps you out with your research.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,019 Posts

Attachments

1 - 20 of 32 Posts
Top