the 650R is the replacement, and I belive 09 to be the final year for that horrid design of motor. they're great bikes if you arent beating them and expecting power all around, but the design is terrible in so many ways.

the 650R is just lightyears ahead in quality.

 

the 650R is the replacement, and I belive 09 to be the final year for that horrid design of motor. they're great bikes if you arent beating them and expecting power all around, but the design is terrible in so many ways.

the 650R is just lightyears ahead in quality.

Wow! "...horrid design of motor..." or "...design is terrible in so many ways...". If you would've said, "old" instead of "horrid" or "terrible" I'd agree with you 100%. That bike came out originally in '87 and was updated in '94 and never changed since then except for color scheme...not what I'd call the result of horrid or terrible anything.

I predicted back in the summer of '07 in this forum that the 650R was/is the replacement for the outdated 500R. There were people over in the 500R forum that wanted to see the 500R with updated fairings and FI; I told them that it was already done, it was the 650R. Of course none of them over would agree with me. It wasn't until Fall of '08 when people finally started to see that my guess was right. The 500R has had an amazing 21+ year run and now it's ready to be retired (has been for a while).

 

The way I see the EX500, it lacks in SO many ways compared to other sportbikes. not to say it isnt good for an entry level bike, but beyond that or a gas saving commuter, it sucks. The way I'm looking at the 500R, updating it, putting FI on and doing everything necessary will make it near or more than the cost of a 650R, which isnt even close to worth it at all.

 

I thought everyone knew that the 650R was always intended as a replacement for the 500. The Kawi dealers in my area were told initially that 07 would be the last year for tehm. I guess mama kaw wanted to wait to see the see sales over more than just one year before they did the KO. While I may not have found the looks of the bike attractive, it was still a nice bike. And it is more than capable of being way more than just an entry level and commuter bike.

 

The way I see the EX500, it lacks in SO many ways compared to other sportbikes. not to say it isnt good for an entry level bike, but beyond that or a gas saving commuter, it sucks. The way I'm looking at the 500R, updating it, putting FI on and doing everything necessary will make it near or more than the cost of a 650R, which isnt even close to worth it at all.

I'm going to have to strongly disagree with you... the motor is not a horrid design. The 500R is a nice bike capable of being a daily driver. Its design is long in tooth, it has carbs and it isn't laying down 100+hp, but that does not negate it as a viable bike for street riding.

On thread topic, Wikipedia isn't always accurate, but I do suspect that the 650R will be the "replacement" and they will drop the 500R soon. Honestly if they retooled it a bit like they did with the 250, it might very well be their best seller.

 

I'm going to have to strongly disagree with you... the motor is not a horrid design. The 500R is a nice bike capable of being a daily driver. Its design is long in tooth, it has carbs and it isn't laying down 100+hp, but that does not negate it as a viable bike for street riding.

On thread topic, Wikipedia isn't always accurate, but I do suspect that the 650R will be the "replacement" and they will drop the 500R soon. Honestly if they retooled it a bit like they did with the 250, it might very well be their best seller.

Its nothing to do with the viability of the motor, its the short lifespan of 90% of them that I observe. 30k seems to typically be the beginning of the end for them. plus you CANNOT build them much and keep a dependable motor, the cam chain splits the **** engine in two(poor design) its got rocker arms instead of shim and bucket valves like it should have had from the start, and they're easily killed because they have no rev limiter.

I may just still be P'o'd about owning a first gen(absolute GARBAGE) but I dont really like the ex500 anymore.

 

I would have to go with the ER6n being the replacement, now that that bike is offered in the US. It makes sense though as the bike probably cannot meet the newest emissions requirements. Isn't emissions also the reason why there are two versions of the new 250R running around (US gets carbs, elsewhere gets FI)?

 

I always thought that if you're going to get a 500, you'd be better off getting a cheaper 250, or a more powerful 650. When I bought my first bike, a 250 in 07, I made no thought as to buying a 500. It was not an option. Then when it came time to upgrade, I skipped the 500 of course, and went to the newer, more advanced, and way better looking 650. It's not that I cared what other people thought, (HELLO, I HAD A 250), it's that I cared what I thought. And I thought the then current 250 just seemed like a better buy.

 

I always thought that if you're going to get a 500, you'd be better off getting a cheaper 250, or a more powerful 650. When I bought my first bike, a 250 in 07, I made no thought as to buying a 500. It was not an option. Then when it came time to upgrade, I skipped the 500 of course, and went to the newer, more advanced, and way better looking 650. It's not that I cared what other people thought, (HELLO, I HAD A 250), it's that I cared what I thought. And I thought the then current 250 just seemed like a better buy.

You make great points in terms of a starting point and moving up in displacement along with going with what you know is right. However for me, the 500R was the perfect platform for me to start on because of what eventually became a daily freeway commute to-and-from work on Los Angeles/Orange County freeways. And from the 500R, it was a natural transition for me to go to a litre bike.

The thing about getting a 500R is that it could potentially save you money in two ways: 1) the extra power is worth the difference because it means that you can ride it a little longer giving more ROI and 2) while the jump to a litre bike is big from a 500R, it's very realistic which means that you can transition from first bike to final bike in step. Trust me on this, you're going to be looking to upgrade from the 650R sooner than you think you are. I never thought that I would ever own a litre bike of any kind but after only a year and-a-half, I got my new Z1000 instead of the 650R that I was planning to get. I saved myself a lot of depreciation on the 650R by going straight to my "dream" bike.

 

I saved myself a lot of depreciation on the 650R by going straight to my "dream" bike.

Point well taken. My future ride is the mighty ZX-14.

Although in my case there were many lessons learned on my 650 that were not made available on my 250. I can't say that this was a waste of my time and money. But, you're right about the transition. What you're saying is that I could've skipped a bike had I started a little higher. True.

 

I just bought a brand spankin' new 09 EX 500. I had been riding a 250. One MAJOR difference between these two bikes is that WIND does NOT blow you around on the 500. Also, it has A LOT more get up and go. My 250 used to run out of energy in 6th gear. The 500 is a keeper. The 250 was good to learn on. I just love this 500. I don't see what the complaints are all about.

 

just ride an I4 600+ and you'll see. leaps and bounds more fun than the 500's design will be. I really got used to the stiff and REALLY nimble handling of my old Hurricane over the EX500's so-so handling. now, the GS500 frame, with an EX engine, you could seriously have fun. specially with a 636 front end mated to it, and SV rear shock.

 

Apples & Oranges

I'm a newbie rider. But, since you suggest it, I'm now offering my 500 up for sale and I'm going right back to the dealer and getting a 600RR. Why on earth would I want a 500? What was I thinking? I'm missing out on so much more fun on a 600 GSXRR Twin Turbo Convertible. Again, my 500 is now up for sale. It has 28 miles on it. The first $3000 takes it. Then, I'll put that towards a 600RR twin turbo. NOT! LOL. :tongue:

 

Don't want to get off topic, but now that you mention it, are the Inline 4's really that smoother to ride? Less engine vibration transferred to the rider?

& then there are some people that swear by their 500 and would never change rides. Whatever keeps you content, I say. If it makes you sleep better at night, then more power to you. To each his own. :smile:

 

Don't want to get off topic, but now that you mention it, are the Inline 4's really that smoother to ride? Less engine vibration transferred to the rider?

& then there are some people that swear by their 500 and would never change rides. Whatever keeps you content, I say. If it makes you sleep better at night, then more power to you. To each his own. :smile:

Not necessarily. Inline 4's have high frequency vibration, or can have. This is the tingling put your fingers and hands to sleep kind of vibration. All bikes vibrate to some degree and usually at a pretty specific rpm. My meanstreak was at 3500rpm, Jodie's Ninja 650R 4500rpm. Depending on where that harmonic vibration occurs may affect your experience with the bike. On the meanstreak the vibration was right around highway cruising speed, so I usually just sped up a bit to get out of that range. On Jodie's Ninja she would just be whizzing by 4500rpm on upshifts and rarely if ever cruised at that speed so it was rarely an issue. My Honda CBF, inline 4 is very smooth until you approach redline then you can start to feel the buzz but it has a lot of torque so I don't need to rev it that high to get it to go.

It's a very personal thing, some people are more affected by the "buzziness" of an in-line 4, whereas other people can't stand the thump of a big twin, a 'la harley or V2K etc.

An important thing to keep an eye on any multi cylinder bike that has a vibration is your carb or throttle body sync. Out of sync carbs/throttle bodies will make a smooth bike very uncomfortable to ride. My BMW RT used to put my little finger to sleep in 20 minutes of riding, until I balanced the throttle bodies, then I could ride 10 hours with no trouble and no sleeping fingers.

And I totally agree with you about the 500, you can have just as much or probably more fun on the street on a 500 than any supersport. Small bikes rock! I keep saying this, but Jodie's favorite bike to ride is her little DR200. This from a 1300km trip through the Cascades...

I have a ball on that bike and I can absolutely rip on it and not even be doing the speed limit. :tongue:

 

I have a ball on that bike and I can absolutely rip on it and not even be doing the speed limit. :tongue:

My friend has a suz exactly like that. Same color and everything.
2 Summers ago he and I and 2 others rode from here to Maine and back. 8000 miles round trip. He rode on that and loved it.

Don't want to get off topic, but now that you mention it, are the Inline 4's really that smoother to ride? Less engine vibration transferred to the rider?

& then there are some people that swear by their 500 and would never change rides. Whatever keeps you content, I say. If it makes you sleep better at night, then more power to you. To each his own. :smile:

From my experience, the difference between a twin and an I4 is night and day. I had a 500R, a Vulcan 900, and now I have the ZZR. An I4 is much smoother.

I'm not saying one is bad, I loved my 500R, and my 900, but as far as engine vibration goes, the ZZR is buttery.


...Not to mention an I4 could spank a twin of equal CCs :lol:

 

My friend has a suz exactly like that. Same color and everything.
2 Summers ago he and I and 2 others rode from here to Maine and back. 8000 miles round trip. He rode on that and loved it.



From my experience, the difference between a twin and an I4 is night and day. I had a 500R, a Vulcan 900, and now I have the ZZR. An I4 is much smoother.

I'm not saying one is bad, I loved my 500R, and my 900, but as far as engine vibration goes, the ZZR is buttery.


...Not to mention an I4 could spank a twin of equal CCs :lol:

Yep, when Jodie bought her Ninja 650 parallel twin, to replace her BMW F650 single, the difference in power was night and day. The F650 would run out of steam at 75-80mph making interstate passing iffy, while the Ninja 650 had lots of oomph at the same speed. I wasn't sure why until I did a bit of research. It's the increased valve area that allows a multi cylinder engine to draw more air into the cylinder. More air + more fuel = more power, even with identical displacements.

 

An I4, on the interstate, is kinda boring really. well, any bike honestly. I feel that motorcycles in general shine on rural backroads with lots of curves and elevation changes. otherwise, you JUST dont get the full joy out of riding one.

That said, coming off a paralell twin onto an I4, theres a HUGE difference in power and the delivery of said power. like just crank the throttle a hair farther and BOOM, you're zipping up past that car with ease. most twins, it feels like a slow building of momentum unless you're riding in the higher rpms where the power is most available at.

 

I always thought that if you're going to get a 500, you'd be better off getting a cheaper 250, or a more powerful 650.

There's a problem with this logic, and it's like this - there wasn't always a 650 but there has practically speaking always been a 500. And this is exactly why now the popularity of the 500s is waning with the 650s being around.

 

There's a problem with this logic...

I see the problem now.

An I4, on the interstate, is kinda boring really. well, any bike honestly.

Only on rare occasions have I felt bored.

the difference between a twin and an I4 is night and day. I had a 500R, a Vulcan 900, and now I have the ZZR. An I4 is much smoother.

I thought so.


Maybe if Kawasaki had redesigned the 500 from the ground up and gave us more of a reason to buy it, there'd be a better chance of it surviving. Retweaking the engine to get better gas mileage as well as more power, too, would be nice.

 

Don't want to get off topic, but now that you mention it, are the Inline 4's really that smoother to ride? Less engine vibration transferred to the rider?

& then there are some people that swear by their 500 and would never change rides. Whatever keeps you content, I say. If it makes you sleep better at night, then more power to you. To each his own. :smile:

Yes and No to your smoother question regarding in-line 4's. Bross went into detail on one part of the subject another is engine size. For instance, to go 80 on the 250R you'll be rev'ing the engine pretty high; you'll be rev'ing the engine the less with a 500R and even less with Concourse (the 1st gen--not the C-14). The lower the engine rev's, the less vibration created by the engine. Of course we could go into whether the engine is a stressed member or nor but I'm not an engineer. But there are other ways to minimize vibration (engine mounts, engine angle, firing order, etc.). With power being generated with 4 cylinders instead of two, the strokes will be shorter and faster so the vibration will be different (higher with an in-line 4) but as Bross said, there will be an rpm range where the bike will still vibrate.

But what I think people mean by "smoother" (at least I do) is that the power delivery is a more linear along a longer range of rpm's. Like on my 500R, the bike really didn't start to "kick" until about 6k on-the-tach. With my Z1000, I have an even torque increase from idle (okay, maybe about 2.5 to 3k) all the way up to 8.2k. The engine pulls hard from a stop and increases torque very evenly until it reaches max torque. That's what I mean when I say, "smoother".

 

Yes and No to your smoother question regarding in-line 4's. Bross went into detail on one part of the subject another is engine size. For instance, to go 80 on the 250R you'll be rev'ing the engine pretty high; you'll be rev'ing the engine the less with a 500R and even less with Concourse (the 1st gen--not the C-14). The lower the engine rev's, the less vibration created by the engine. Of course we could go into whether the engine is a stressed member or nor but I'm not an engineer. But there are other ways to minimize vibration (engine mounts, engine angle, firing order, etc.). With power being generated with 4 cylinders instead of two, the strokes will be shorter and faster so the vibration will be different (higher with an in-line 4) but as Bross said, there will be an rpm range where the bike will still vibrate.

But what I think people mean by "smoother" (at least I do) is that the power delivery is a more linear along a longer range of rpm's. Like on my 500R, the bike really didn't start to "kick" until about 6k on-the-tach. With my Z1000, I have an even torque increase from idle (okay, maybe about 2.5 to 3k) all the way up to 8.2k. The engine pulls hard from a stop and increases torque very evenly until it reaches max torque. That's what I mean when I say, "smoother".

Agree, we're just using different terminology. I use smooth for how an engine runs and peaky or linear to describe acceleration. Anyone that's ever ridden a two stroke knows what peaky is like. The throttle is like a light switch, it's either on or it's off, and you better be hanging on if it's on! Supersport 600s tend to be peaky as well, you have to rev them. I'd say linear describes your Z, my CBF and the parallel twin Ninja's. There's just a nice linear (smooth) rush of acceleration, no big power hits or OH sh!t moments.

A linear (smooth) bike is a lot easier for a beginner to learn on because it doesn't have that big surprise of a power surge that will loop it, surge forward uncontrollably etc. That's one reason I got rid of the BMW R1200, even though it's typically not thought of as a peaky bike, it has lots of torque, but you have to rev the boxers to keep them in the happy zone. Basically you had to keep it between 6-8000rpm if you were riding aggressively so you ended up riding it like a supersport 600. I really prefer the linear nature of the power on the CBF (or your Z), they just pull from anywhere, shifting is purely optional. ;-)

 

Cuts both ways...

Wow! "...horrid design of motor..." or "...design is terrible in so many ways...". If you would've said, "old" instead of "horrid" or "terrible" I'd agree with you 100%. That bike came out originally in '87 and was updated in '94 and never changed since then except for color scheme...not what I'd call the result of horrid or terrible anything.

I predicted back in the summer of '07 in this forum that the 650R was/is the replacement for the outdated 500R. There were people over in the 500R forum that wanted to see the 500R with updated fairings and FI; I told them that it was already done, it was the 650R. Of course none of them over would agree with me. It wasn't until Fall of '08 when people finally started to see that my guess was right. The 500R has had an amazing 21+ year run and now it's ready to be retired (has been for a while).

Well, your prediction and argument cuts both ways...

People also desagree with me when I tell them the engine on the 650R is just an anemic revision of the 500R engine now claimed to have 650cc...

I guess no matter in what way you try to link the 500R to the 650R, people just won't accept it...

I must say, I love the design on the 500R, I know is out dated, but still a pretty looking bike to me, I won't mind getting another one...

 

Confused...

Agree, we're just using different terminology. I use smooth for how an engine runs and peaky or linear to describe acceleration. Anyone that's ever ridden a two stroke knows what peaky is like. The throttle is like a light switch, it's either on or it's off, and you better be hanging on if it's on! Supersport 600s tend to be peaky as well, you have to rev them. I'd say linear describes your Z, my CBF and the parallel twin Ninja's. There's just a nice linear (smooth) rush of acceleration, no big power hits or OH sh!t moments.

A linear (smooth) bike is a lot easier for a beginner to learn on because it doesn't have that big surprise of a power surge that will loop it, surge forward uncontrollably etc. That's one reason I got rid of the BMW R1200, even though it's typically not thought of as a peaky bike, it has lots of torque, but you have to rev the boxers to keep them in the happy zone. Basically you had to keep it between 6-8000rpm if you were riding aggressively so you ended up riding it like a supersport 600. I really prefer the linear nature of the power on the CBF (or your Z), they just pull from anywhere, shifting is purely optional. ;-)

I guess I am totally confused now...

When we talk about a smooth ride is different then when we talk about a smooth speed rush...

High end Inline 4 bikes not only have smoother engines, but also have better chassy component which produce an overall smoother ride. Even if you just set the bike on neutral and coast down a hill, you will find that coasting is a lot smoother on higher end bikes then with entry level bikes.

Now the smooth linear power that I think you guys are talking about, also has to do with things like fuel distribution design, higher end bikes with sophisticated fuel injection have very predictable take off and power rush, while entry level bikes tend to have more simpler carbs or fuel injection systems that produce a more jerky results when you twist the throter.

Also, the jerky behavior can be due to engine design trade mark, twin engines tend to be very jerky even in the way they IDLE and they also tend to have an early rush of power but also an early peak for this reason I don't think Twin engines are good for beginners, but every entry bike now seems to have a twin engine on it.

Inline 4 tend to be a lot smoother, lazy at the begining with a rush of power in the end (higher revs). I would said that a Inline 4 500cc bike with such a smooth behavious would be ideal for a beginner instead of a jerky twin.

I think the smoothness of an engine from while at idle to when at higher revs is different then the smoothness in power delivery and the smoothness of high chassy component in general...

The problem with a beginner riding a bike like an R6 for example is the endless amount of power, the more you step on the gas the more it will go and if you don't have the skill to be riding at higher speed and you don't know how to control yourself, that is where the problem is, but other then that, a bike like a R6 has a very domesticated and predictable power delievery that is very smooth and friendly instead of Jerky and peaky as found on some of the wild twin engines...

I don't know if I am making any sense... just how I see it...

 

This is exactly what I was talking about. I like these explanations. Good points.