Total Motorcycle Community Forums

So I've found a few EX500's for sale in my area that I'm interested in.



Year:2002
Mileage: 18k
Notes: new tire, chain, sprockets, breaks (6 months ago)
Price: $2600 (pretty firm)
http://seattle.craigslist.org/mcy/89218526.html

Year: 1989
Mileage: 20.5K
Notes: Carbs running rich, he thinks it just needs to be flushed.
Price: $1700 (might negotiate)
http://seattle.craigslist.org/mcy/89604118.html


Going to see the 89 tommrow night, and asuming I don't buy the 89 will see the 2002 on friday. I could afford either of them, the question I have is given that they both have about the same number of miles is it worth it to pay an extra $1000 for a bike that is 3 years old rather then 16 years old?


-Eric

I vote the 2002 would probably be the best choice for several reasons. The EX changed from 16" to 17" wheels in 1994 and now has same size wheels and OEM tires as the GS500 does. Much better choice of rubber if you get into spirited riding as one is likely to do with these bikes. Can put radial tires on the 17" ones.

Every used bike is different but the 16 year old bike is more likely to have dried out seals that might leak and hardened grease in wheel and steering head bearings, etc and with the low 20k milage must have done a lot of sitting and drying out between rides. Could require tearing down the carbs and cleaning them to get it running right, a bit expensive if you don't do it yourself.

Jack's on the right track. The big difference between these two bikes will be maintenance issues. One of the bigger problem areas with bikes are that most people let them sit. This does bad things to internal engine parts (cam spalling, rust), seals, cables and just about anything else that's flexible.

If you could afford either one, I'd say the 2002 will probably give you much less trouble in the long run (assuming it's in good shape when you see it). They both have a similar number of miles, but the '02 has obviously been ridden on a more regular basis.

Well I can afford both, but my question really is what is the better deal. I don't mind doing some work myself, thus the question really is will the 89 most likely require more then $1000 worth of work.

What is "high miles" for an EX500? Everytime I mention that i'm looking at getting a ninja to someone they say something regarding how solid the engines are. I thought 30k was high miles for a bike, but I've see people say they have 60 or more on their bikes. If I get the 2002 assuming I keep it up, how many more mile would I most likely be able to put on it?


Eric

aireq wrote: I thought 30k was high miles for a bike, but I've see people say they have 60 or more on their bikes. If I get the 2002 assuming I keep it up, how many more mile would I most likely be able to put on it?


Eric

When it comes to the question of how many miles is high for a bike, the answer is almost totally dependent on the bikes owner. Bikes that are well maintained, regularly ridden and well cared for can top 100K miles. Bikes that spend their lives sitting in a garage, full of deteriorating gas and oil can be ready for overhaul in 5K miles.

I don't own an EX500 so I can't give you specifics, but I do work with an owner that has an '00 model with 78K miles on it. He rides nearly every day and maintains it religiously. It hasn't given him a problem so far.

Well I saw the 89 yesterday. When I showed up it was sitting the dryway spewing gas everywhere. The guy said he'd been riding it for the last couple weeks. He tried to start it before I got there (yes I know I should have remembered to have him leave it cold).

I noticed that the connection between the airbox and the carb hand come off. Mabye that screwed up the mixture and cause it to flood itself. I honestly don't know anything about carberated engines, I've always had fuel injected cars. There was a lot of gas dripping from the carb. The bike also wouldn't turn over again. You could hear the relay clicking, but it didn't crank.

So yeah I'm going to skip that one. Going to check out the 2002 tommrow.


Eric