...alright, what really changed?

[Wirehead]

Hey there all...newbie to the forum...1st time post.

I'm getting ready to buy a commuter bike for a 100-mile-plus daily commute (round-trip, 40% highway, 60% back roads), and am deadlocked between the new GS and the Kawi Ninja 500R.  

The finalists are there because of relatively low cost (for new), good fuel economy, size and weight...I'll eventually buy a duplicate of whatever I buy now for my 5'1" wife.  

Outside of the commute, primary usage will be for weekend jaunts and (trailered) trips down to the Appalachians (love those N. Carolina/Tennessee mountain roads).  I'm one of those riders who likes to feel like a hero at under the ton believes that a "lesser" bike ridden properly at 10/10ths can smoke an inexperienced 600-squid on a given canyon.

What has me deadlocked is a lack of info on the new GS-F model.  I've seen posts on some sites (unnamed out of good manners) that referred to the new, faired GS as "the shiny new turd...same old bike with new plastic and a boosted sticker price."  

The guy at the dealership, on the other hand, says most of the bike has been worked over...slightly massaged ergos, head/engine/jetting/exhaust work, suspension tweaking, etc...  According to him, the changes put the GS ahead of the EX/Ninja overall as a daily-rider (which hasn't been the case in almost 20 years of published comparisons).

So what's the deal?  Has anyone ridden the older, naked GS and the new GS-F?  Who can tell me the real-world differences, outside of the obvious fairing?  I intend to buy either the GS or the EX within the next few weeks and could use some help.

Thanks

[juggernaught]

From what i know other than the air cooled oil cooler and the fairing there is no signigicant difference i could be wrong of course.  It would make sense since the new fairing would kinda hinder the idea of an air cooled bike.  Oh.....almost forgot.....the GS is a much better looking bike than the ninja 5 and i've heard that on the twisties the GS outperforms the Ninja 5.  But of course my opinion is biased....so sue me.... :dunno:

[i3randon12]

i use to own a kawasaki knija 500r...      and now i own a gs500e

i never really drove the knija on the higway but i felt uncomfortable going at higher speeds, i personally like the look better,    but thats me!

i would say gs500e!! wohoo         the old ones look cooler then the faired ones...  that fairing looks odd and ugly

[JLKasper]

Cycle World magazine rated the 2002 model GS over nine other challengers in a road test that appeared in the 2003 buyer's guide. The Ninja 500 finished in fifth behind the MZ Skorpion, Kaw KLR-650, and Yamaha V-Star 650 and ahead of the Honda VLX600, Kaw Vulcan 500,  Suz Savage 650, Royal Enfield Bullet, with the Buell Blast bringing up the rear.  

IMO, the oil cooler was long called for.  It enhances engine longevity without the added expense and mechanical complexity of liquid cooling.   I'm not aware of any other tweaks compared to '02 and newer models.  The most important chassis upgrade was Suzuki's upgrading the tires to Bridgestone BT-45s, which is the consensus favorite bias tire of this forum.  The Ninja still is shod in the older GS's Exedra tires, which is a definite step down in performance.  

I'd try to get test rides to evaluate other subjective characteristics such as comfort and utility.  Personally, I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss a Ninja.  Let us know about your decisions!

[70 Cam Guy]

I took the MSF class with my good friend from the dorms.  He bought a ninja 500 and I found my GS.  I enjoy my bike and he says the same about his.  I wish I can say that we had a chance to swap bikes but he graduated before me and moved back to BFE before we got the chance  :lol:

I remember that cheap thrills article because I read it a 1000 times  :mrgreen:.  It came out right around the time I was looking at bikes and doing my research

I agree that you should try to check them out in person.  Arguements can be made for either bike because they really are similar.  I'm pretty sure this is the kind of thing you'll ask 30 people which one is better and it will most likely give you a split decision based on their on personal preferences.

[Gisser]

Both the GS and EX are a bit long in the tooth to be spending new bike dollars on.  Definitely worth it to spend a few dollars more on an SV650 and enter the age of fuel injection.  The GS and EX are good values when purchased on the used bike market.

That said, if buying new, the EX offers substantially more bang for the buck plain and simple.  That's an importand distinction in post 55MPH America.  The GS-F counters with a contemporary sportbike fairing which should offer useful protection from windchill and precip compared to the EX half-fairing which is mostly for style.  Anyway, those are the two main issues when deciding between the two makes.  The Suzuki's eye-pleasing aesthetics, amazing fuel capacity, and slightly lower suggested list are secondary items which may or may not add up to a whole lot.  

Perhaps the most reassuring thing we can say is that the GS is fun to ride.

[Wirehead]

Thanks for the quick replys, everyone...

Gisser, I was thinking about the SV at first, but bike size is a big thing, since my (petite) better half is into us having matching rides.  Small/lower performance isn't really a big deal to me anyway.  The best times I've had on bikes were on a '76 RD350 and a '72 GT380 that I rebuilt.

As far as being pricey for new, I agree...but all of my prior bikes have been self-restored basket cases (literally true for my last CB750...came in four boxes).  For once I'd like a bike where I'm getting to do the break-in.

I'll definietly post back once I make a decision...once again, thanks for the great feedback.

[Wirehead]

...by the way, has anyone ever posted that 2002-comparo article from Cycle World online?  I'd like to give it a read...