GS Slated by bike

[matteo34]

Jus picked up this months (uk) "bike" mag.

I turned to the new bike section on the reviews and the gs500 got slated and had a big black avoid badge plastered across it with a measly 1 star out of 5.

Then on closer inspection it shows that the latest review was carried out in 93. 10 years ago.
As this was in the new bikes section I am rather annoyed about this.

:nana:  :nana:  :nana:  :x

I guess that much hasent really changed on the new 04' GS - right?? I mean it has that oil cooler and some plastic bits, but what else?

Its 10 year old technology basically... right?? - you dont need to ride it to know that, comparitive to NEW bikes, its gonna suck!

Stay Safe  

[matteo34]

i guess you are right but they could have at least tried it.

[Cal Price]

Yeah we've been down this road bafore, "What Bike" gives it a fairly good review on performance but slates it, "Ride it in the rain and it'll corrode before your eyes" they base this on a test that may be even earlier than '93. If you believe the brit bike press there are only one or two bikes worth looking at, Fireblades and errr Fireblades, now I'm being as unreasonable as they are!

[john]

Well send them a letter complaining that pergaps it was time to re-review the bike seeing it has been 10 years.  You can concede the bike still hasn't changed much but there have been changes to the fuel system, added oil cooler, larger fuel tank and new fairing.

[Lars]

Most Bike mags are about sensation. A bike is rated on how good it wheelies, the more hooligan a bike is, the higher the rating.

A GS500 doesn't have much "hooliganism", it's one of the most docile bikes you can buy, it has the image of a learner bike and it doesn't wheelie very well.

If they had bothered to include ridability, frugality and ease of maintenance it wouldn't have an "avoid" badge on it.

The best thing is not to buy bike mags anymore, the reviews in them are often biased, they leave bad or good aspects of the bike out and often the "test" is mostly a personal opinion of the reviewer.

Example: a Dutch bike mag tested the new ST1300 Pan European. They said it was a great bike, much better than the old one. Later Honda recalls all Pan Europeans because of heat problems (you get a hot stream of air on your body, very unpleasant) and most importantly: it didn't behave at speeds in excess of 160 km/h. It was so bad that it was dangerous to ride much faster than 140 km/h. THEY NEVER MENTIONED THAT IN THE REVIEW!!!!
example2: British bike mag says that the TT600(first model) was a great bike, Dutch bike mag tests also and says the top-end power  of the bike is really good, but bottom and mid-end is so bad, it can't even comfortably ride along in the traffic. This was one of the first bikes with injection. The British bike mag never said anything about low-down power, guess they only raced it on the track and pulled wheelies with it.

For me, the reviews in bike mags are of little value. If I wanna know how a bike rides, I rely on personal experiences of people I know, or I will test the bike myself.

[matteo34]

Good points well made lars,

Thankyou all for your responses.

[makin'due]

Funny you all should say these things...  Cycle World did a comparison between cheap bikes including the KLR650, EX500, GS500, Royal Enfield, Buel Blast, and a couple of others I can't think of, and the GS500 got great reviews.  In fact, the journalists were sad to see it going out Suzuki's lineup.  In the latest issue, the motojournalists seem pleased that the gs is coming back!    

[JohNLA]

Funny you all should say these things...  Cycle World did a comparison between cheap bikes including the KLR650, EX500, GS500, Royal Enfield, Buel Blast, and a couple of others I can't think of, and the GS500 got great reviews.  In fact, the journalists were sad to see it going out Suzuki's lineup.  In the latest issue, the motojournalists seem pleased that the gs is coming back!    

Yea they did that test with an 02 not a 93. I like the new seat a lot better as well. The brakes have been improved as well.

[Lars]

I was mostly pointing to the sportbike mags but I've seen bad reviews in other magazines too.

I've read the article from Cycle World and it seems that they at least try to give an unbiased look at the different bikes.  They tested those bikes objectively on many points  and for a longer period of time. (If I recall correctly, was a long time ago I read it).

I hate the magazines that say: "In comparison with the new model, the old one just plain sucks"  and "This is the best bike I know, it will wheely automatically on take-off, makes stoppies with one finger on the lever and did you know this thing does burnouts in 6th gear! awesome!!" While they tell barely anything about rideability on the street, rider comfort, etc.


The same magazines say that Honda CBR's are boring because theydon't have a peaky engine or extreme riding position like Suzuki's and Yamaha's.
I think that it's great that Honda thinks about real-life situations on the street where a peaky engine and extremely low rider comfort suck.

[The Buddha]

02 or 92 makes not much diff... Yea the seat is better but is it that important in the reviewers mind that it changes the whole outcome... Its the same crappy bike it always was... and it rates low cos they ride it, wheelie it and return it, They never try to work on them, never try to live with them, never try to insure them, and never try to fix them after a crash ... etc etc... I beg to differ... but That's what real riders do. Heck those moto weenies wont know a Valve shim if it bit their ass... Yea now that the GS has a fairing they are all over it... cos its new... and looks like a baby busa... Now what are they going to trash... oh I know lets pick on the old bikes... the SV's... That old bike is fitted with cheap suspension... its not even upside down and the brakes... dont get me started... and what's with the no fairing... do people even buy these... You know just to get them started...
Cool.
Srinath.

[dmp221]

Talk about poor reporting....the Dec. issue of "Motorcyclist" reviews a bunch of '04's.  About the GS?  They go on and list the major specs and mechanicals, then go on to say that the biggest change is the fairing.  WHATT??  Not ONE WORD about the oil cooler?  Just another motojournal swing and a miss..!!

[mrslush50]

that's 'cause the fairing is the biggest change.  A full fairing is MUCH bigger than a dinky little oil cooler.  If it wasn't, how would they fit the oil cooler inside the fairing?!

[Arpee]

I think the latest "Ride" magazine (the one with the readers polls on bikes and kit) also rated the GS and SV quite low due to corosion, bad clutch (SV), uninspiring motor (GS), and poor body work and general poor workmanship.....boo.
The highest rated bikes were a couple of Bimmers, a R1, and some Blackbirds.
Brits like their bikes to hold up well to bad weather...those guys are hardcore...riding everyday in most conditions.

[mrslush50]

Arpee:  you mean like us?  we deal with about as much rain and bad weather as they do.

[Turkina]

I read a reader's mail in Bike, and the little review under the 'Really Useful Section'.  The bad review it got, in some ways, is justified.  The engine is based on 30 yr old tech (aren't H-D engines ancient like that too?    ), the bike rusts, and the design itself is about a decade and a half without major changes.  So... it's like riding around a relic  :lol: Hey,  most of us here have a list of stuff to do to the bike to bring it up to spec: new suspension bits, poke at the engine, etc., so this means the bike isn't that great out of the box.  And to be honest, a Suzuki just doesn't run like a Honda.

For a rider in the UK, who already has experience under their belt with a learner's bike, there's not a real compelling reason to buy a 'starter' bike, especially a brand new GS.  The magazine suggested to get a more weather-resistant, better engined, more reliable bike.   Something for riding, not learning on, that the rider would keep for a while.  

But, I think a one star rating is way wrong.  The bike is not twitchy, overpowered, bad handling or otherwise dangerous, like some other machines out there.  You can fix the bike yourself.  Engine runs without too much hassle.  Handles well and is considered one of the best beginner bikes in the US, since we don't get the smaller engined machines to compare it to.  I think the GS is good for what it is, and it isn't a high-tech, monster engined, too much to handle devourer of blacktop.  It's good for tinkering on and fun in the twisties  I think the magazine has an addiction to tech and horsepower and won't give a review based on the purpose of the bike.

Okay, off the soapbox with me!

[The Buddha]

And to be honest, a Suzuki just doesn't run like a Honda.

What do you mean by that.... I have all 4 makes... Honda is nothing special... Basically with a honda you are praying it dont break on you... cos all the parts are 2-3 times the other jap makes... Else Honda = Kawi = Yamaha = Suzuki. Have not split open the cases but the rest is all nearly the same... and why shouldn't it be...
Carbs... Mikuni on my suzi's and yams, Keihein on the kawi and honda, and frankly the keihein carbs have given me more trouble with leaking o-rings etc than the suzi or yamaha.
Brakes... Nissin's on all... and never troubled by any.
Suspension... Kayaba's and showas on all jap... and Showa's are better IMHO but really in the GSXR type only. Twin shocks... no real diff.
Electrics... They all use the same mitsui, denso, NGK other jap mix and match... and haven't had much trouble with any of the 4. However it is harder to trouble shoot honda electrics.
Body, fit and finish... Honda does a great job of it but the rest aren't that far behind, Though during the rust years (late 80's) honda did a better job of keeping things rust free. Now all 4 are great.
The bikes are nearly generic mix and match parts made by many jap firms... Motors and internals are just the only ones made by the factory. The mechanical tolerances of the bargain basements in all 4 are pretty much the same. Dont compare a GS to a CBR900. Compare a GS450 to say a nitehawk 450 of the same year. I dont think you'll see any reason a CB is better wihtout going back to personal preference.
Cool.
Srinath.

[JohNLA]

Yea, my Knighthawk had no oil filter at all.

[ac_nvmax]

I think the latest "Ride" magazine (the one with the readers polls on bikes and kit) also rated the GS and SV quite low due to corosion, bad clutch (SV), uninspiring motor (GS), and poor body work and general poor workmanship.....boo.
The highest rated bikes were a couple of Bimmers, a R1, and some Blackbirds.
Brits like their bikes to hold up well to bad weather...those guys are hardcore...riding everyday in most conditions.

The GS corrodes a little but not so much, and the SV wont corrode at all. I agree on the SV's clutch, my SV clutch can stick like my GS does when not downshifting until low rpms.

I agree on everyones comments about the GS being easy to maintain. Once I got stuck in it was easy-peasy.

The R1 may be fast, but it's not a practical bike. U seen the size of it??

Its another case of reviewers liking fours over twins.