A Stock GS is an awesome bike...

[NYNJ8]

Great, another motorcycle expert... who is smarter than me.

I paid $1100 for a 2006 bike that I think looks great, handles well, has highway power and range, handles well built by a top manufacturer, and has a solid track record.  Show me the list of bikes that fall into that category - low mileage, late model at that price point.  That is one reason why I think its awesome.

If you need to have a bike that is sought after or desirable in order to feel good about then all I can say is that you are... easily influenced.

And Sledge its not about me being easy to please, its about me being real and not an internet moto gp pro.  All these guys on the net who pretend like they spend their free time dragging knee and look down on a bike simply because it is popular opinion.  Those are the ones who buy a lunch box, new jets, and an exhaust before twisting the throttle.  Because guys like you say the bike is a turd.  And anyone who thinks differently does so only because they are a fool.  Or easy to please.  The bike did not sell for 25 years because it was cheap to build that's just idiotic so I'll ignore it.

I guess I'm one of the lucky ones who enjoys the bike and because I'm an idiot, a crappy rider, and I just don't know any better I get to enjoy my bike in ignorant bliss.  Suppose I should thank the legion of drones for reciting this nonsense and driving down the resale price of the GS so I could get such a good deal.  Thanks guys

[dennisgb]

That basically said it all Sledge. Maybe a little harsh but like they said it's an old bike.

It does what it does, is cheap to run, has a motor that holds up...and it can be had cheap.

Would I compare it to my Honda 919? No. Would I gush all over the place about it? No.

Would I ride it and smile? Why not?

If you don't want one don't own one...if you want something faster, sleeker, with more guts...then go buy that.

For good cheap reliable transportation it is what it is...that's been the point of most of these threads.

Don't stick a bunch of money in a GS500 thinking you can make it into a GSX...you're wasting your time and your money.

[dennisgb]

Also, when you talk about build quality that is subjective. If you google "Motorcycle Build Quality" you will see complaints about every motorcycle made.

The GS could be detailed better...but again this is all price related. I haven't noticed the "thin" paint on mine, in fact it looks pretty good. It's a 2009, so maybe they were a little better toward the end. The paint on the frame doesn't look great. Some of the chrome is not top notch. Fastener's look like they are just zinc plated, but my CBR has some of those too.

I have seen worse tho...and again my expectations are not the same as if I had paid $15K for it.

Motorcycle magazine reviews are sort of funny when you get down to everyday transportation, starter bikes, etc., These guys are reviewing and riding the latest and greatest and have trouble "dumbing down."

It's also easy to pick on the GS500 because it is old school and a lot has changed since 1989.

It doesn't mean that those of us that own them are stupid idiots... but maybe your right "awesome" might be too strong of a word 

[NYNJ8]

Maybe its my expectations for the bike after hearing for years what crap it is.  It certainly has a lot to do with the price I paid.  As a package I do think its awesome.  I can ride, and my ride is not limited by any of the GS's perceived limitations. There is plenty that I like about the bike and certainly some sacrifices but overall yes I think it awesome. 

More than anything I'm annoyed when people jump in and say "you're wrong, its not awesome it actually sucks.  Sorry you don't know any better." My argument is consistent and simple, that it doesn't need to be the best on paper for me to call it awesome.  I'll defend that.  No problem with others opinions except when they try and pass their opinions off as fact.

[NYNJ8]

Also, when you talk about build quality that is subjective. If you google "Motorcycle Build Quality" you will see complaints about every motorcycle made

Yes quite true.  Harley comes to mind.  To some they are a turd and to others they are the only motorcycle worth buying.

[sledge]

Great, another motorcycle expert... who is smarter than me.

Oh dry up FGS....I am not claiming to be smarter than you. I am being honest about how the general UNBIASED motorcycling fraternity views the GS5...........If you cant see that or accept or don't like it its your problem. Find me a review or a road-test by any magazine or journalist from the last 20 years that's not full of terms like `Budget` `No frills` `average` `mediocre` `value` `cheap`

I do believe you think its the best bike in the world and the best thing since sliced bread, I also believe you think you got a good deal on yours etc etc etc, but you need to accept that others like me think there is nothing special about it even Dennis can see where I am coming from

However.....bleating on about it over several pages, expecting others to share your sentiments and getting upset when they don't is absolutely pathetic.

The bike did not sell for 25 years because it was cheap to build that's just idiotic so I'll ignore it.

I would be interested to know why you think it lived for as long as it did then....fire away 

[dennisgb]

Hey Sledge,

If the "old school" concept is such a horribly bad idea, explain the Yamaha SR 400 to me.

Essentially a 30 year old air cooled motorcycle brought back to life.

Heck it doesn't even have a starter on it. Kick start only.

Yes it's fuel injected and Suzuki probably should have done that to the GS5 (it might still be around), but the parts bin "Retro" concept has been around a long time...and they make big money on it.

[sledge]

Dennis...that sr400 has been brought back to cater for what Yamaha see as a niche market. Its not going to be a best seller or compete in any way with modern machines, but they obviously think they can turn a profit on the small number they will sell and to turn that profit it must be cheap to make.

Its not a new idea, Triumph and Royal Enfield did it years ago

[sledge]

If you are going to bring something back from the past it must have an appeal and some kudos......I would have gone for the 400/4 or XS11.

[sledge]

Yamaha could have chosen several machines to resurrect, but I bet given that it will only sell in small numbers they went for the cheapest one to make 

[dennisgb]

Yes everyone has done it. But the Yamaha 400 fits into the same category as the GS5 did. The GS5 was never intended to compete with the GSX. It's really not that different. Now we are complaining that the GS5 is air cooled...so is the SR 400. Too small, underpowered...we could compile a comparison list. The GS5 was a niche bike too. It was built out of old technology because it would cost less and get mileage out of RD and manufacturing.

That doesn't mean it was a bad bike for it's intended purpose. It actually is a pretty good bike for the market it was intended for. Could it have been better...sure. But then how much extra would people have paid? I think Suzuki knew what they were doing.

Now we could talk about the CB1100...but that's a whole different animal with a very similar approach.

I think we actually agree on this. But it is rather interesting that an air cooled small bike is coming back. Maybe Suzuki will dust the GS5 off and add fuel injection, improve the package a bit and give Yamaha a little competition 

[dennisgb]

The US market actually wanted the SR to be 500cc, but Yamaha chose the 400 because of the restrictions in Japan on new rider's. I think that is also true in Australia and Europe...they even said it was cheaper to do it that way and sell to a larger market.

[sledge]

The US market actually wanted the SR to be 500cc, but Yamaha chose the 400 because of the restrictions in Japan on new rider's. I think that is also true in Australia and Europe...they even said it was cheaper to do it that way and sell to a larger market.

I doubt it, I mentioned kudos, the GS5 never had it in serious amounts, besides which it was an 80s design.......if Suzuki wanted to go up against the SR it would have to be with something from the 70s and they didn't do many low capacity 4 strokes back then.

[dennisgb]

How about the Suzuki Boulevard S40?

Old school? Air Cooled? First marketed as the Savage in 1986...still sold.

There are more of them...old bikes that the manufacturer's have gotten tons of mileage out of...without many improvements.

[dennisgb]

The US market actually wanted the SR to be 500cc, but Yamaha chose the 400 because of the restrictions in Japan on new rider's. I think that is also true in Australia and Europe...they even said it was cheaper to do it that way and sell to a larger market.

I doubt it, I mentioned kudos, the GS5 never had it in serious amounts, besides which it was an 80s design.......if Suzuki wanted to go up against the SR it would have to be with something from the 70s and they didn't do many low capacity 4 strokes back then.

Wait a minute...weren't you talking about "old" technology as the "Problem" with the GS5? So the 70's is new tech? Splitting hairs now. Kudo's? Do you think the Motorcycle Mags will talk about the performance of the SR 400? At 23 horsepower that is not likely. Retro? Yes they will talk the snot out of that...it doesn't make it a better bike tho.

[NYNJ8]

I do believe you think its the best bike in the world and the best thing since sliced bread, I also believe you think you got a good deal on yours etc etc etc, but you need to accept that others like me think there is nothing special about it even Dennis can see where I am coming from

However.....bleating on about it over several pages, expecting others to share your sentiments and getting upset when they don't is absolutely pathetic.[/quote]

Wrong, I enjoy discussion with people who agree and those who don't.  I don't care for discussion with know it all's who think their opinion is word from god. I don't care that you think there is nothing special about it.  In fact I like that it is much maligned.  I just place value on different things than you do.  Tell me you disagree, fine no problem. Tell me I'm wrong, because of things that are not important to me, problem. 

The GS sold for 25 years because people like it.  Simple.  Not because they are idiots who didn't know any better.  Not because they were ignoring reports of GS's exploding in the streets due to faulty manufacturing.  Same reason why any product has a long track record of success.  Consumers find value in them.  Plenty of cheap makes that don't sell out there.

[MeeLee]

I found that the GS500F is 'just enough', to get around safely.
The SV650 is probably a bike where you have enough power and acceleration all the way to 80MPH, without running out of steam.
Although the GS500 can take 80MPH all day long, you don't have that much more power.
The SV650 is probably one of the bikes that never lacks power in normal street conditions.

I wished I had gone for the SV650, but a more upright seating position, and softer suspension.
But I can't complain for what I got. The GS500 is a good bike for the money (on average half the price of anSV650), Less likely to be stolen, and a lot safer for beginners.

But I can't deny, that performance wise, most Hondas I've ridden performed better than the Suzukis.
Overall better gas mileage, less likely to have jet clogging, more power in the low rpm range,
I can't speak of longetivity. Haven't had bikes long enough to say anything about that, as usually my bikes last me 3-9k miles, before swapping them out.

If anything, Suzuki could have gotten a few (like 5+BHP) more power out of the bike performing minimal upgrades, if they wanted to, costing the company few pennies to dollars more per bike; but they kept the bike stock.
Like more comfortable handlebars. Most people complain about the too much forward seating position.

[dennisgb]

I think the problem is that a 500cc bike is hard for the Motorcycle Mags to get excited about. A lot of those bikes get lost in the shuffle. The GS5 was never a "great" bike if measured against the best and the fastest. A good value...that's about as far as they ever go. Some of the newer small bikes have gotten better reviews, but I've also read many that were not so good. The big boys consider these bikes tiny...and they rip them because of it. It's hard to find a decent review. They buzz at 60. They can't come out of the turns quick enough...blah blah blah. If you really listened to everything the experts say you would have to buy Aprilla RSV4 or own a piece of junk.

In 89 was a mono shock on a low cost street bike low tech? No...could have been a better shock for sure, but again that is price point. 20 years later it was old hat...and the design of the bike didn't age well...so what?

[dennisgb]

Although the GS500 can take 80MPH all day long, you don't have that much more power.

You're correct about that...but you can downshift if you need to pass or get out of trouble.

But I can't deny, that performance wise, most Hondas I've ridden performed better than the Suzukis. Overall better gas mileage, less likely to have jet clogging, more power in the low rpm range, I can't speak of longetivity. Haven't had bikes long enough to say anything about that, as usually my bikes last me 3-9k miles, before swapping them out.

I don't agree with this. I own and have owned a number of Honda's and performance is relative. Most reviewer's actually pick on Honda for having less performance to comparible bikes. I don't know if I agree with that but I think it may be true as Honda has a tendency to dumb down performance to increase reliability. They are definitely the most reliable bikes I ride. Always start, where the Kawasaki's I've owned were always bears to start. I've had 3 Suzuki's and they were/are pretty good bikes. My 800 Volusia was one of the nicest factory detailed bikes of any I've owned. A good runner too.

[NYNJ8]

I think the problem is that a 500cc bike is hard for the Motorcycle Mags to get excited about.  If you really listened to everything the experts say you would have to buy Aprilla RSV4 or own a piece of junk.

Couldn't find the words I guess.  But that is what I was trying to get across.