I spoke to the Kaw officials at one of the Daytona Beach bike demos.
I also rode a Vulcan 900LT at same said bike demo.
The staff there said the 900 replaced the 750.
I don't believe that for a minute.
No two bikes could be more different.
The 750 is indeed a "sport cruiser." It it lighter, quicker, and has better maneuverability than the new 900s. The 750 would be more at home in places like Deal's Gap, or north Georgia's Wolf Pen Gap Road.
It is also more "full-featured"--with shaft drive, full instrumentation, centerstand, tubeless tires, etc. It was designed from the ground up to be relatively quick, and (compared to most other bikes of the time) easier to maintain and live with.
The 900 has a much heavier feel, and has much less available lean angles than the 750. It has much more space for a passenger, and is more at home as an "open road" bike--on the superslabs, and the like. It has more cruising power at higher speeds. Only the "custom" version has tubeless tires. The other versions have tubed tires--a major disadvantage if one has a flat. It does NOT have the nimbleness and maneuvering abilities of the 750. It has a belt drive.
Belt drives apparently are somewhat like chains in that they periodically need adjustment. They can also break; a recent article I read in Motorcycle Cruiser magazine suggested owners of belt drive bikes take along a "split" emergency belt while touring that can be installed without disassembling half the bike. Obviously, this is not an issue with shaft drive bikes (when the splines are given their due lube treatments).
The 900 is yet another nod to the classic cruiser look that is so prevalent now...but in a (somewhat) smaller package than most Harley-lookalike cruisers.
I guess my real point in all the above is that the two bikes are to-tal-ly different in feel and character.
The 900 did not replace the 750. It merely succeeded the 750.
Hope the above helps.
Last edited by theauhawk; 07-01-2008 at 12:05 AM.