starter bike

[amiles]

i went to a few dealerships today and am torn between 2. i kawasaki ninja 500 and a suzuki gs500fk5. any opinions would be great.

[Sev]

There are relatively few differences between the two bikes, so my suggestion is which ever one feels MOST comfortable with you. Just because it feels good for one of us doesn't mean you'll life it.

By way of example, I cannot stand to sit on the Suzuki SV650, but I love the Honda599, it was built for me. They're essentially the same ergowise, but the handlebars are just to low for me. Other people however believe that it is perfect for the way they sit.

[Ninja Geoff]

I personally prefer the styling of the GS better, but having sat on neither, i wouldn't know which one to go for.

[NCRonB]

I have a Ninja 500 and I like it a lot so far. I don't care if it has 20 year old styling; it looks fine to me and fits me well. I considered the Suzuki as well, but this comparison (http://www.mcnews.com/mcn/model_eval/Ni ... aro07a.pdf) in July 2004 Motorcycle Consumer News pushed me toward the Kawasaki.

[sapaul]

None of those, try a BMW 650 or look at the Hyosung Comet range. 250, 650
http://www.motorbikes.be/en/Hyosung/

[gsJack]

That comparo from MCN is from "experts" that don't know the difference between bias ply and radial ply tires.

Actually I voted here for the Ninja 500 since it is the one I would buy in the US if I were to buy new today. My preference would be the naked GS500 still available to the rest of the world.

I just don't see buying a motorcycle based on looks over function. Sadly the image based US market has drifted almost completely to big chrome plated cruisers and plastic wraped sport bikes and we don't even see the large number of standard type bikes available to the rest of the world.

[cb360]

we don't even see the large number of standard type bikes available to the rest of the world.

That makes me cry too.

[NCRonB]

That comparo from MCN is from "experts" that don't know the difference between bias ply and radial ply tires.

Is anything in the comparison factually wrong? Just curious. I know any comparison by people will include opinions that may not be the same as others'.

we don't even see the large number of standard type bikes available to the rest of the world.

I've noticed. While the EX500 is technically a sport bike, I like its more upright position than the "typical" sport bikes. I'd like to move to a standard for my next bike (if/when), but I don't see many options here.

[gsJack]

That comparo from MCN is from "experts" that don't know the difference between bias ply and radial ply tires.

Is anything in the comparison factually wrong? Just curious. I know any comparison by people will include opinions that may not be the same as others'.

First of all let me say that I'm not biased towards the GSs just because I ride them and that I like both bikes, but I prefer and went to the GS over the EX because I prefer the naked bike. Of course there is much personal opinion in these road tests and comparos, but there is too much factually wrong with the MCN comparo and also some really silly opinions expressed there.

The radial tire issue first, the GSs used bias Excedra OEM tires from 89 thru 02 and went to the BT45 bias tires as OEM starting with the 04 GS500F models. The MCN pics show the BT45 tread patterns and I persued the matter with Fred Rau on their MCN forum and he insisted to the end that their bike had radials. Just gotta love a guy and publication that can't admit an error.

They state the EX has stiffer 1mm larger front forks than the GS and show 37 vs 36 mm on their data sheets. Truth is both bikes have always had 37 mm front forks.

They said the GS front axle was particularly spindly which lessened it's steering integrity. Truth of the matter is that the EX has 6202 front wheel bearings and the GS has 6302 front brgs. The 02 on both numbers indicates a 15 mm bore making the axles the same dia almost all the way across except possibly for one end. The 6 indicates single row and the 2 indicates a light duty brg and the 3 indicates a medium duty brg, in other words the GS bearings are heavier duty than the EX.

Never heard anyone claim the old tubular design EX frame was stiffer than the GS fabricated frame except MCN. One tester referred to the GS frame as hell bent for stout and most concur including myself.

Now for silly opinion matter, they claim the GS handlebar mounted instruments add weight and reduce steering sensitivty compared to the Ex fairing mounted ones. Ever hold this very light instrument assy in your hands? Very light and quite unnoticeable compared to a NC Plexi 2 type fairing which can definetly be felt in the handling.

They use all of these matters to claim handling superiority for the Ex over the GS when the GS has mostly been given the handling edge over the years by most comparos, but the GS does come with very soft front springs that have given the handling edge to the EX in some recent tests. A $60 pair of Progressive front springs will make the GS handle like a sport bike wannabe, no need to make up all the above silly missrepresentations to justify a handling opinion.
Here are all the road tests I've found for the GS over the years and where the data comes from EX/GS comparos, I've included the EX data too. Not doubt about the quarter mile and roll-on performance edge of the EX over the GS. The EX 64mpg and GS 48mpg gas milage figures reported by MCN are beyond silly as these data will show. I averaged 60-65 mpg all summer on my stock 02 GS.

http://www.prodigyweb.net.mx/sergiodelr ... _tests.jpg

[NCRonB]

First of all let me say that I'm not biased towards the GSs just because I ride them and that I like both bikes, but I prefer and went to the GS over the EX because I prefer the naked bike. Of course there is much personal opinion in these road tests and comparos, but there is too much factually wrong with the MCN comparo and also some really silly opinions expressed there.

Wow. Those are a lot of factual errors. That sure doesn't help their credibility in anything else I read. I can understand differing opinions, but to not check the facts is just sloppy. This reminds me of benchmarks of computers; too many factors to be so definitive about the better of two so similar products.

Not doubt about the quarter mile and roll-on performance edge of the EX over the GS.

So you don't contest their powerband chart? I haven't ridden a GS, so I can't compare on a practical level, but it seems like quite a difference in the high rpms.