======================================================================= Kawasaki EX-500 FAQ v5 (95-3-27): ======================================================================= >1) I want something I can ride long distances, maybe 500 interstate >miles in a day tops. It doesn't have to be *too* comfortable, because I >won't do it often, but I'd like it to be doable. This eliminates the >Ninja 250, and possibly the EX-500. (Opinions?) I've done four big tours in the last three years: 1800 miles in New Zealand on a rented '93 EX-500, 1600 miles in British Columbia on my '90 EX-500, 800 miles in Costa Rica on a BMW F650, and 1800 miles in Mexico on an '85 BMW R80- GS. I really liked the BMW more for touring, but the EX500 was acceptable. I'm not tall (5'9") and have a 30 inch in-seam. Even so I found my legs didn't have a lot of room to wiggle around on the 500. After riding for more than four hours, I would have to pull over every hour or so to stretch my legs. With both the 800 cc boxer and that new F650 single, I could ride for eight hours before feeling tired - and I never felt cramped on it. I would say the 500 is acceptable if the majority of your riding is < 90 minutes at a time and you aren't super tall. I learned how to ride on a 250 CC. My first bike was an 82 Yamaha Seca 400, which I bought for $600 US with about 21,000 miles. I outgrew it after about 10 or 11 months, then sold it for $500 US after putting 3,000 miles on it. A new EX500 is usually around $5000 to $6000 CND (about $3800 to $4500 US). I strongly recommend buying used: I found a used on with only 3700 kilometers (about 2300 miles) for $2800 CND (about $2100 US). I've been riding this '90 Kawasaki EX500 for two years and have put about 12,000 miles on it. I've been thinking of selling it to get something a bit bigger, but I can make do with the 500 for a while. It's a very good bike: ideal for commuting or other city riding. I also use it for 'sport'-riding in nice weather, and an occasional tour. The bike has a 'peppy' engine. It has about 45 horsepower at the rear wheel, fairly good for a 500. The Suzuki GS500 has about 40 HP and the Seca 600cc II has about 50 HP. The engine is a liquid cooled parallel twin. The EX500 was in production from '87 onwards, with no major revisions until the '94 year. (So it obviously is a reliable design that sells well.) The handling is very good (compared with other bikes I've ridden). One problem: to do even simple maintenance like changing spark plugs, cleaning the air filter, checking the battery, etc. you have to pull the gas tank of the bike. This is annoying, but the bike is very reliable so you shouldn't have to do this often. In the last year, I've done a routine service every 5,000 KM, and had to get the rear tire patched due to a nail. The last service found that the steering head bearings were shot, and so I had them replaced with tapered needle roller bearings. This cost $120 US ($40 for parts, $80 for two hours labor). This really improved the steering. They also replaced the stock chain with another Tsubaki Sigma at the same time. The bike does not like cold weather. When the temperature drops below about +2 or +3 Celsius (about 35 or 36 Fahrenheit) it tends to 'bog'. When the temperature drops below freezing, it gets quite bad. I've talked to other Ninja owners and they have the same problem. Apparently it's caused by carb icing: the flow of air over the carb causes it to ice up, restricting the flow of fuel. Maybe if you wrapped some insulation around the carbs it would prevent this problem; I haven't tried this. The EX500 is really not what I'd call a hard-core sport bike. Sure it has the little fairing, but it has a fairly broad powerband that is quite suitable to slow speed stop'n'go commuting. The clutch is very smooth and gradual, and the transmission shifts easily and surely. The handling is *very* good. The front brake is good. The EX500 has only one major flaw: the back brake is a drum and locks up fairly easily on slippery surfaces. Of course, this is going to be the case with most smaller cheaper bikes. I think it'd be ideal as a first bike. Not too powerful that it'll get you into trouble, but then again it does have enough power to accelerate you out of a trouble spot if you twist the throttle hard. The next bike I get will probably be a BMW or a new Triumph (drool) with hard luggage; soft luggage sucks for long tours. Of course, this is a problem with any smaller bike. The March '94 issue of CYCLE WORLD has a comparison of the latest version of the EX500, the Yamaha Seca II and FZR 600, and the Suzuki GS500 and Katana 600. You might want to give that a read. If you have any other questions, please ask away!! Bruce Clarke ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- FROM: Clarke, Bruce R. SUBJECT: Metzelers & fork springs follow-up In August 94 I had Progressive Suspension fork springs, SBS brake pads, and some new tires put on my EX-500. The tires are a Metzeler ME-33 Laser and an ME-55 Metronic. I've put about 3000 miles on since then. The tires are moderately better than the old Bridgestones in the dry. However in rain they stick MUCH better; the old rear tire had a tendency to slide easily when wet. Rear braking was something I pretty much had to avoid in wet weather. With the new tires I have had to brake hard once or twice and the rubber of the Metzlers seems to stick better to the pavement when wet. Situations where I may have locked up the rear brake before have proved to be no problem with the new tires. So the Metzelers get a thumbs up from me! I had to get the rear tire in a size 130/90-16 (the stock is 120/90-16). The tire fits well, but raises the seat height slightly. This is fine as the old height was low for me. The progressive rate fork springs: I'd read that these would improve the handling. I haven't noticed much difference in *handling*, but I've noticed a *HUGE* improvement in front end braking. I guess it never bothered me as I was used to it, but my bike had severe front end dive under hard braking. Right after the upgrade I had to brake very hard with both brakes when a "left turn bandit" jumped in front of me. Normally this would have been a bit of a pucker situation, but I was surprised to find the front end of my bike was rock steady: I was able to brake extremely hard with the front without the front end doing a nose dive and trying to pitch me over the bars. There is a bit of a caveat: the new stiffer springs seem to transmit minor road bumps to my hands more easily, meaning my hands pick up a little more 'buzz' from the road. Actually this is probably good from a handling point of view; it just makes it slightly less comfy for my hands. Another thumbs up! The SBS pads seem if anything to be a little 'softer' and have a more gradual 'bite' to them. In dry weather this is a bit of a let down, but in rain the brakes do not have the tendency to suddenly say "Hello, we've decided to start doing something now!" So if you ride a lot in the rain the SBS pads are better than the stock Kawi pads. Bruce Clarke ============================================================================= > How come you are selling it so soon? (Didn't you just buy it a few > weeks ago?) I keep a FAQ of EX-500 info, so if you have any gripes > with the bike I would like to put them in my file!! Bruce, nothing is wrong with the bike, on the contrary it is great. Yes I just bought it 6 weeks ago and love it but after a trip to Nags Head, NC, (300 miles each way) it seems to me that a slightly heavier bike is what I want. Don't get me wrong the EX500 runs great city and highway. Summer is over, and riding in the Fall and winter will be limited to sunny weekends since I have to drive to work (suit and tie not very adequate for a MC), I also started my Doctorate of Science and will be busy during evenings. To make things short I probably won't do much riding in the city and a heavier bike seems to be a better choice for highways and on long rides. I love my EX and enjoyed my first long trip on it but the best time to buy a M/C here in Washington is around mid-Fall, so I was told, since I can't afford two bikes I have to sell my EX and get a CBR600F2 or maybe a 750cc sportbike if I find a good deal. PS I am 5'8" and 155 lbs, a slightly bigger bike seems more appropriate for me. Then again I've only been riding for 2 months and 1400 miles so how much do I know! Internet: waele@seas.gwu.edu / welshari@cap.gwu.edu ============================================================================= From: Jason Molenda I rode 1270 miles, over 23 hours (Denver CO to Mountain View CA), on my EX-500 a week or two ago; stock seat, stock handlebar grips, no throttle lock, no aftermarket fairing, no highway pegs. I'm six foot and maybe an inch tall with a 32-34" inseam. So it is possible to do some real distance on the EX500 if you're not too bright. :-) Speaking of things you can do on your EX500, I rode up to the top of Mount Evans with Todd Blachowiak on the back. Todd is around 200 lbs and I'm more than that. Mount Evans in Colorado is billed as the highest paved road in the US, a little over 14,000 feet. The EX500 handled great, lots of low-end torque for going through the switchbacks behind slow-moving MVs. I've put about 5k miles on my EX since I bought it nearly two months ago and I think it is just great. I've ridden a whole bunch of other bikes before and there is a lot to be said for this one. Oh, I did have the stock tires and brake pads ripped off the thing the first day I got it -- I'm using EBCs and Dunlop 591Ks now. (I should note that the previous owner, from whom I bought my bike a month ago, installed an illegally bright high beam. I haven't opened it up to find out how illegal it is, but it is a really wonderful add-on.) ============================================================================= From: Eric Gunnerson One thing you might want to add that will help handling - a good fork brace. The EX's fork tubes are a little small, and the brace helps keep them stable. It's also helpful under braking because the single caliper induces some twist into the tubes. ============================================================================= >From: **** >Subject: Re: ex500 A poster writes: >i would like to know more about an ex500. is it like a ex250(ninja 250)? >does it get blown around on the freeway? does the engine buzz? >i think the engine is a twin like the 250, and a twin is not as stable >as a four cylinder one. bacically i would like to know if the 500 >is any good. thanks. (This is a little long to give the newbie an idea of how to take my advice...) I have an EX500 (before that a silverwing 500, a 550/4, a couple of honda '65 C90s, a passport, a 350 twin, all hondas, I guess I like Hondas). I also currently own a couple of Honda VFRs, an '86 (nice) and an '87 (sorta nice). I'm 32, I've been riding since I was about 20. I learned how to "sport ride" on the EX500. This means that I went up into the hills between Silicon Valley and Santa Cruz (like highway 84 behind Alice's down to San Gregorio, nice ride) with people that were far better riders than I and tried to keep up. Some people took the time to show me how to pick a line and keep the bike from sliding; most people just laughed. Sigh. I've gotten to the point were I understand a little about bikes, sport bikes in particular. Suspension and tires are really important :-), they keep you from falling down. My EX has Progressive springs and Dunlop sport tires (SportMaxes?). I also added steel braided brake lines. I suppose I could add better pipes and a Stage II jet kit to get some more power. OK, background over. I love the EX. I live in SF and do a lot of city driving - the EX is a blast for that. My VFRs heat up too fast; they don't like city driving that much. One reason I like the EX is that it "comes on" at 6500 rpm. This means that the bike does not have even power from 3000 to 11000 rpm; that is a characteristic of 4 cylinder bikes. The Ex's twin sort of surges at 7K or so - I happen to like that, it feels like a turbo kicking in. Some other people hate it, they prefer the smoothness of a 4. Whatever. I also feel like the EX has more power off the block than the 600 4 cylinders. A lot of people will argue with me but I've ridden CBR 600s and Ninja 600s and I thought they sucked. I'd take the EX any day. I like the torque. My VFR 750 has a bit more torque but my VFR 700 has less. Don't less to those guys that quote horsepower, it has a lot more to do with feel than that, IMHO. Bad stuff about the EX: you have to fix the suspension (at least progressives at about $100 installed), you have to add the steel lines, and you should add a rear shock. The bike is squirrely, it does not track very well around corners. I've often scrubbed off speed in the middle of a corner because I "felt" like the bike won't hold the road. The problem is in my head - the bike has plenty of grip on the road, it just "feels" like it is about to slide. This is both good and bad - I've never slid the EX. I'm scared shitless in tight turns at speed. Scrubbing off speed works only because the bike has more grip than I think it does. It is dramatically different than th the VFRs - they feel like they are on rails and won't ever slide. Consequently I've over driven the VFRs into corners and slid the front wheels more times than I can count (yuck) and that in just a few months of riding them. Another bummer is that I can't wheelie the EX too well. The VFR 750 pops right up (yeah!). Anyway, I'm planning on keeping my EX and selling one of the VFRs. I think it is a great bike, quite comfortable, respectable in the twisties, and peppy in the city. I'm not sure you could ask for much more. If you can find a better bike, go for it. The only thing that I've seen that might be a better deal is the Ymaha TDM 850 twin. That thing wheelies without thinking about it. ============================================================================= The Fram number PF6010A is off the top of my head. Just find a auto parts store that sells them and check the charts. Far cheaper than stock. sturges@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Richard Sturges) ============================================================================= From: Tim Graves Subject: COMPILATION: Tire recommendations (long) My original question below, followed by the replies I received. Thanks to everyone who offered an opinion. Since folks seemed to like the Metzlers, just for grins, I called Metzler themselves (610-458-9662) and talked with them about which they recommend. I talked with Jeff, and here's what he had to say: For decent performance, really good wet handling, and ok mileage: ME33 CompK front, ME55 rear For decent performance, decent wet handling, and little better mileage: ME33 CompK front, ME99A rear For ok performance, decent wet handling, and best mileage: ME33 Laser front, ME99A rear Since I live in the northwest where rain is a constant threat except for about 3 weeks a year, I'll probably go with the ME33CompK and ME55. These tires on average should give about 6000 miles, Jeff said. He did stress that was an average for the tire though, which includes motorcles sized from 250 to 1100. So, it certainly is possible to get more, or if I ride hard, less. thanks for all you help again! -tim ----------------- >From : I stuck with the Bridgerocks for about 6000 miles, then installed Dunlop K591S (street compound) front and rear. Wonderful change! Lasted about 6000 miles. Very good in dry, good in light rain. Slightly slower steering than Bridgestones. Slight rain groove shimmy, but better than Exedras. At 12500 miles I've just installed Metzler ME33 Laser front 110/90V16 and Metzler ME55A Metronic rear 130/90V16. Even better! Excellent in dry, very good in light rain. The steering is slowed a bit more than with the Dunlops, which suits my riding style. Zero shimmy over rain grooves. Tire pressures for both Dunlop and Metzler 34F, 36R. I can't imagine a better tire for this bike and my riding area / style (Central and Southern California canyons & freeway / slow in, fast out cornering.) ----------------- >From : Ditto here. The metzlers stick like glue and last forever. Also, they are the choice of champions for racing with the 16" wheels (although I used the ME1 comp K rear). ----------------- >From : Dunlop K591 120/80 front, 150/80 rear Race compound stick best of all 16" tires found. I wouldn't expect much tread life on the street. Both front and rear require slight modification to fit. 120/80 front works better on a 2.5" rim, like the FZ600 or the Ninja 600R. Dunlop K591 130/80 rear similar to above but fits without chain mods. I think they make a smaller front also. ----------------- >From : I rode my original Bridgestones for 11000 miles. My advice would be, "Dump the Bridgestones before they dump you" The bridgestones weren't great new, but after a few thousand miles, they get really greasy - whenever you put any cornering load on them, the bike doesn't hold it's line very well - it mombos around a bit. My first replacements with Dunlop 591s, which were excellent tires. My next two sets were Metzeler ME33/ME55A, which I've been very happy with, though I understand that the ME99A is probably a better choice for the rear than the 55A. The Metzelers are a bit more expensive, but the price has been roughly proportional to the increase in mileage I got. Their wet traction is especially good, which is important to commuters (like me). Overall, I like the Metzelers a *little* more than the Dunlops. I got about 12000 out of my last pair - there was still some tread left but they were two years old and I was taking CLASS. I expect about 12000 out of the current set (after a day at CLASS), or maybe a bit more. The ME33/ME99A combination will probably replace them, though a friend has recommended some Michelin Radials. Make sure you buy your tires early enough so they're scrubbed in before CLASS - 1000 miles is probably sufficient. ----------------- [THIS LAST ONE IS A LONG ONE ABOUT TIRE SIZES IN GENERAL -TIM] >From : Get the Metzlers. FWIW -- Here's the start of my tire faq -- The Mystical art of Tire Reading -Or- It's black, it's round, and it goes on the wheel. Tires are a mysterious thing -- think about it. A reinforced bladder with about thirty pounds of air is all that keeps your motorcycle from rolling on it's bare metal rims. That thin bit of rubber is what lets you get out there and enjoy a good ride. Obviously, it pays to know about your tires. There are a few basic elements to consider when looking at tires. The type of tire, the size, the profile, and the aspect ratio are all elements that can affect the behaviour of the tire, and thus the behaviour of the bike. We'll take these elements and go through them, and the effect that they can have on your bike. The most apparent differnece between tires is the size and aspect ratio. These are indicated by the numbers on the side of the tire, usually something along the lines of "120/80V-16" or "4.50H-16". There is also a alphanumeric system that would look something like "MR80H-16". So what do all these numbers mean? Let's take a look at the most common designation, the metric system for tires. This is the one that reads "120/80V-16". This type of designation is the most commonly used nowadays, and would break down as follows: 120/80V-16 The "120" is the nominal width of the tire, in millimeters. The "80" is the aspect ratio, expressed as a percentage of the width. The "V" is the speed rating for the tire. The "16" is the diameter of the wheel that the tire is constructed for. So, we can look at a tire and read a little bit of the code. But how do the numbers interrelate? Here's the scoop -- The nominal width is approximately how wide the tire is at the widest part of the tread. In this case, the width is about 120 mm. There is some variance from tire maker to tire maker, and from brand to brand, so one tire may be 124 mm wide, while another may be 118 mm. The aspect ratio is approximately how tall the tire is in relationship to its width. Thus, a 120/80 tire is about 95 mm tall, from the bead to the tread surface. The speed rating indicates at what maximum speed the tire is considered safe for continuous use. In this instance, the V stand for speeds up to 149 mph. A table of speed ratings is listed below. The last number is the diameter of the wheel that the tire is intended for. In this case, we are talking about a 16 inch rim for the tire. The second example above reads "4.50H-16". This is the so called American system, and reads as follows - 4.50 -- the nominal width of the tire in inches. In this case, about 4.5 inches, or about 120 mm. H -- The speed rating, in this case indicating a tire safe up to 130 mph. 16 -- This tire is intended for a 16 inch rim. The American system is a little quirky when it comes to aspect ratio. Generally, a tire is a high profile tire, with about a 90% aspect ratio, unless the width is indicated with a ".10" or ".60" designation. This indicates a lower profile tire, on the order of 75-85 percent. Thus, a 4.5 inch tire with a 85 percent aspect ration would be shown as a 4.60. A 4.0 inch low profile tire would be a 4.10. The last method of tire designation is the British system, which we showed above as "MR80S-16". This breaks down like so -- MR -- This is a letter code indicating the width of the tire. In this instance, MR indicates a 120mm tire. 80 -- Once again, the aspect ration, expressed as a percentage of the width. H -- The speed rating, once again for 130mph sustained running. 16 -- The diameter of the wheel that this tire is intended for. Since the British system uses an alpha code for the tire width, a table is included below to indicate what metric and American widths are included. The table also includes the recommended rim widths for those tire widths. Here's all the tables i've been speaking of : Speed Ratings : Unrated 95mph S 112mph T 118mph H 130mph V 149mph Z above 149mph Tire Size Conversions (Courtesy of the Dennis Kirk Catalog, and they probably don't even know it): Permissible Rim Widths Metric Width Standard Standard Alpha Numeric (In Inches) (In mm) Width (in) Low Profile Codes 1.60, 1.85 70 2.75 - MG 1.60, 1.85 80 3.00 3.60 MH 1.60, 1.85 80 3.00 3.60 MH 1.85, 2.15 90 3.25 3.60 MJ 1.85, 2.15 90 3.50 4.10 ML 2.15, 2.50 100 3.75 4.10 MM 2.15, 2.50, 2.75 110 4.00 4.60 MN 2.15, 2.50, 2.75 110 4.25 4.25/85 MP 2.15, 2.50, 2.75 120 4.50 4.25/85 MR 2.15, 2.50, 2.75 120 4.75 5.10 MS 2.50, 2.75, 3.00 130 5.00 5.10 MT 2.75, 3.00, 3.50 140 5.50 - MU 3.00, 3.50 150 6.00 - MW 3.00, 3.50, 4.00 160 - - - Over 4.00 inches, I have no data. I will add it when I find it. Okay, so we've got the codes... but what does it mean? How does a 130/80-16 differ from a 120/80-16, if both can fit on the same size rim? First of all, the most obvious characteristic is the width of the tire. The width, in concert with the diameter of the wheel, determines the size of the contact patch. The size of the contact patch in turn determines the load that the tire can bear, the amount of traction that will be available, how well the tire disperses water, and how mush it resists steering inputs. The diameter of the wheel and tire, in addition to the effect on the contact patch, affects the steering and stability of the bike. A larger wheel will be more stable at speed, and more resistant to steering inputs. This is in part due to the greater gyroscopic effect, but another factor is the greater contact patch caused by the larger wheel. In essence, a larger diameter wheel creates a longer contact patch, which requires more leverage to move. The aspect ratio of the tire is the distance from the bead of the tire to the tread surface. The primary effect of the aspect ratio is on the shape of the tire. In general, a lower aspect ratio results in a flatter profile. The profile of the tire is the cross sectional shape. It is affected by several elements: the aspect ratio, the wheel width, the width of the tire, and the manufacturers intentions for the tire all affect the profile. The profile in turn affects the handling. A triangular profile will cause the bike to turn in more easily, but may make it a little more prone to tucking or falling into the turn. On the other hand, a rounder profile may be a little more difficult to turn in, but might have a little more linear response to steering inputs. This is to a great extent motorcycle dependent -- some bikes may like a particular tire, others may not. All in all, this means that a wider tire will tend to steer more heavily, but will also offer more traction. A larger rim will also steer slower, as will a broad, relatively flat tire. So, what does all this mean when it comes time to go out and buy the tire? Well, it means a lot. First of all, in many cases the tire selection may be limited by the wheels on the bike, or the age and style of the bike. An excellent example of these limitations is found when attempting to find tires for a pre-1994 EX500, or for a Ninja 600 (NOT the ZX-6). Both of these bikes have relatively narrow 16 inch rims, but they are also meant to be more sporting motorcycles. The selection of quality rubber for these bikes is pretty much limited to either Dunlop K591s or Metzler ME33/ME1 tires. In other cases, while the hardware may be capable of supporting a more current tire, the optimal sizes are not available. A good example of this is the 1986 VF1000R (My personal bike at this time)that has a 2.75x16.0 inch front wheel and a 3.50x17.0 inch rear wheel. The fitment of rear tires is not a problem -- any of the quality 140, 150, or 160 width raials will fir nicely. The slightly narrow front, however, really ors best with a bias-ply tire. (FWIW -- I am currently running Michelin 89 series radials, front and rear, but I had to do a little tweaking to make them work. More on that later...). And that brings us to an important matter for tire buyers -- should I buy a radial tire? The answer is a firm "maybe". First of all, it helps to know the difference between a radial and a bias ply tire. To understand the difference, it helps to know a little bit about tire construction. A tire is nothing more than a bladder for air. It is made of rubber reinforced with some sort of fiber (once they were reinforced with canvas, now they're reinforced with kevlar -- times have changed). The rubber keeps the air in, and the fiber keeps the tire together, in addition to importing shape characteristics to the tire. The fibers are layed out in layers, each layer consisting of fibers lain in parallel, and impregnanted with rubber. (Martyn -- I'll dredge up some photos for this, if you want) The final element is the bead, which is simply a wire put around the edge of the tire to help it clamp to the rim. The way these layers are placed on the tire is what determines whether the tire is a bias-ply or radial tire. In short, a radial is a tire where the threads in the ply are lain perpendicularly to the bead. This gives them the appearance of radiating from the center of the tire, thus the term radial. Bias ply tires are a little different, because the angle of the fibers is at a bias to the bad, usually at an angle of about 70 degrees. For reference, a "zero degree" layer would be a belt around the circumference of the tire. Okay, so what does it mean? Well, a bias-ply tire requires a minimum of two layers to support the sidewall and the tread. The layers are fairly stiff, and essentially must scissor against each other to flex. This makes the tire run hotter. A radial tire needs only one ply, and thus is not only softer, but runs much cooler, and weighs less to boot. Advantages all around -- lighter, cooler, more compliant. This means that not only can you run a softer compound for radials, but it will provide better grip since it can conform to the road better. Great! But wait! There's a catch -- radial tires require wider rims to support the same tire width. That means that a 120/80 bias ply tire would work on a 2.5 inch rim, but a 120/80 radial would need a 3.0 inch rim to support it properly. Why does a radial need a wider rim? In simplest terms, a radial tends to have a softer sidewall, and a wider rim with a similar aspect radial puts less load on the sidewall, causing it to distort less under load. Most radials are designed for wider wheels, and putting them on a narrower rim will distort the cross-section of the tire and affect the hndling of the bike -- almost always negatively.