Hey everyone! I am comparing the GS500F with the Kawasaki 500 and 250 and was wondering if anyone knew an estimate for the gas mileage for the Suzuki GS500F? I am leaning toweards this one though because of it's looks.

I've been getting about 50 MPG on the White Owl. But she is an '89 not an '04. Love that little fizzy bike and this forum too.

C.......

Mostly, I hear people report between 40mpg and 60mph.  It seems like, on a stock new GS500, the average is probably around 55mpg on the highway.  I believe that the GS has slightly better mileage than the EX500.  But the variability between any two bikes can be pretty large, so it would be easy to have a GS get worse mileage than an EX.

If you're interested in 250s, I'd look at the Hyosung Comet 250.  Around town, it might be even more fun than the GS or EX500 (small, light v-twin... fun!).

Where the GS500 really makes its mark (IMHO) is in maintainability.  The technology is "older" than the EX500.  Just a few simple tools are necessary for most maintenance, and there aren't too many things which we wish Suzi had done different.

The F's have been clocking at the higher end of the spectrum ... I remember a few claims of 65 miles per gallon ...
Cool.
Srinath.

I was checking my mileage at the beginning and I was getting 160 miles per ~3 gallons. I just fill up at 160 and I think I have never paid more than $7 per fill-up (California price is $2.1x), so I was getting around 60. The worse mileage was around 50 when I was practicing in first and second gear for a few hours (my first day of riding

D.

I've got and '04 GS500F, and I've been getting 50-55 regularly.  
It's split evenly between city and highway.
But I've got a strong throttle hand and get up to the speed limit as fast as I can!!    
(Saw an '04 on ebay yesterday with 200 miles on it claiming 70 mpg  , must have been all downhill miles!!    :lol: )

Roy

When I first got my bike, a '94, I was getting an average of 65mpg; that was completely stock with the brass plugs still over the mix screws, so it took a long time to warm up, but it carbureted well enough. Now that I set the screws to 2 3/4 turns out (soon to go back to 2 1/2), 40 pilots, shimmed needle and 125 mains, I'm getting 50mpg. This is a '94 though.

Man I must be doing something wrong   or its just cuz I'm a big guy.
I average 40mpg  but I'm 6'2" and 260, but with my school stuff I'll be up around 280+lbs.  But I need to do a valve job which will probably help out alot.

The July 2004 issue of Motorcycle Consumer News had a comparison test of the GS and the Ninja 500; they reported the high/low/average mpg for the Ninja as 69/58/64 and the numbers for the GS were52/46/48.

The number of miles covered is not mentioned.

Hope this helps.

Quote from: EdThe July 2004 issue of Motorcycle Consumer News had a comparison test of the GS and the Ninja 500; they reported the high/low/average mpg for the Ninja as 69/58/64 and the numbers for the GS were52/46/48.

The number of miles covered is not mentioned.

Hope this helps.

Yeah, mention that article and start another long thread!  It had a lot of questionable information.  The redline they list as 9500, which I've seen on replacement tachs, but not on my '98.  Their maintenance info was wrong, skewing cost of ownership.  A friend of mine who bought one was very angry when he found discrepancies, and sent them a letter, but they never corrected the information.  They rarely do.  Most letters they post are tech questions or letters praising their work.  That must be tough!

Also their coming down on the Ninja side was like an electoral college landslide when a lot of their categories admittedly could go either way or were otherwise very close.

OTOH my friend, who is the most conservative rider out there (rarely seeing north of 6K on the tach), easily gets 60+mpg on his Ninja.  And it's presently cheaper.  But good luck wrenching it.  And look at the cool folks you get to hang out with here!  I'd elaborate, but modesty forbids.

--Mike D.

Mike D:

I don't have a dog in this fight but am considering both these machines and would welcome any elaboration by you.

I do notice in the body of the report MCN does say the GS redlines at 9500 but on the "CycleStats" page they show it as 11,000 - is the latter correct?

Are the 3500 mile service and valve adjustment intervals given both in error?

What makes the Ninja more dificult to work on? The valves??

Are we hijacking this thread?

Quote from: EdMike D:

I don't have a dog in this fight but am considering both these machines and would welcome any elaboration by you.

I do notice in the body of the report MCN does say the GS redlines at 9500 but on the "CycleStats" page they show it as 11,000 - is the latter correct?

Are the 3500 mile service and valve adjustment intervals given both in error?

What makes the Ninja more dificult to work on? The valves??

Are we hijacking this thread?

Hijacking?  Nah.  The question was about mileage?  The two bikes are often compared, so I don't think it's a total hijack.  More like "Drop us off in Cuba and be on your way."

My bike's in the shop, but I can tell you the 11K or so redline is probably correct, at least on my "E" bike.  I think the maintenance schedule on this site can give you the valve adjust interval, and there are only four on the GS and 8 on the Ninja, and the Ninja is generally more complicated so I doubt it could be a cheaper job.  As for the interval on the Ninja have a look at something that friend of mine wrote to MCN regarding their article (I don't think he'd mind if he's anonymous):

I purchased a 2005 Ninja 500r last week. Unless Kawasaki changed their ecommended service intervals from the 2004 model, the valve adjustment interval reported in your July 2004 article is inaccurate. The valve adjustment interval is 7,500 miles, not 12,000 miles. While this is still longer than what you reported for the Suzuki, it might change your dramatic conclusion that the "GS's ownership costs could run to almost  triple those of the Ninja."

(Mike D. writing again) Dramatic indeed.  I'm not an expert, and I don't read that stuff exhaustively, since I have my bike and just want to enjoy it.  My friend is a bit more thorough.  Others on this list can give more input.  Sorry, but if I had my bike home at the moment I could check the redline, but suffice to say it's not 9500, but higher.  My bike rarely goes north of 8500rpm, so I don't really look much higher.

Now the Ninja is a very nice bike, and most dissing it gets here is light-hearted and in fun.  It is technologically a better bike, but that means more can go wrong.  The GS is a simpler bike, and you're not going to have a coolant leak for instance, and I've heard it's easier to load down a GS without messing up the plastic (take that as hearsay).  And somehow I like the GS ergos better.  But I wouldn't kick a 2005 Ninja out of my garage!

I hope this helps.  Hopefully those who do research it more than I will also chime in.  Thanks for the interest!

--Mike D.

Quote from: EdThe July 2004 issue of Motorcycle Consumer News had a comparison test of the GS and the Ninja 500; they reported the high/low/average mpg for the Ninja as 69/58/64 and the numbers for the GS were52/46/48. ...

If fuel consumption is the deciding factor, then the Ninja seems to consistently better the GS500.  Saying that, I'd say my stock 2001 gets 69/52/58, not the numbers MCN provided.

The only reason for the low numbers I can fathom is they let the GS500 warm up for 5 minutes before riding off.  In non-Summer weather, my mileage decreases by 4-5 MPG, mainly due to warm-up time, sometimes running a smidge of choke (er, enrichment) to gain a performance boost.

Roy...

So Roy,

I'm curious.  By stock, do you have the original jet setup as well as exhaust?  If so, does it have any hesitation or misfires?  I keep getting messages that modern motorcycles in "stock" configurations always feel a bit anemic, and not just compared to what they could do, but that they often just feel like all's not well.  Like rejetting is a must anytime you buy a new bike today.  I'd like to buy new for my next bike, but I'd like to think I'd be happy, and the engine won't get hurt, by leaving it stock.

OK, this is the real hijack attempt.  Not really, just curious.  Say one of these fellows buys a brand new GS or Ninja.  Can they leave the jetting like it is, or is it pretty much unhealthy all around?

--Mike D.

There is no signigicant difference in gas milage between the GS500 and the EX500.  I've posted my sheet listing all of the test results I've found for the GS500 from 89 thru 04.  Where the info came from comparo tests between the GS and the EX, I went back and entered the EX data too.  Sometimes one comes out ahead and sometimes the other.  The gas mileage figures are over in the right hand column.

http://www.prodigyweb.net.mx/sergiodelrio/fotos/GS500_tests.jpg

I've always preferred the GS to the EX because of the lack of bodywork.  With a simple change of the front springs which we all know are too soft, the GS is the better handling bike of the two.   MCN's comparo didn't seem to grasp this situation.  They said the EX was the better handler because of its 37mm forks as opposed to the GS's 36mm forks.  We all know they have both had 37mm forks since the beginning.
They also blamed the GS's poorer handling on the spindly front axle on the GS compared to the stout one on the EX.  A quick checks shows the EX has 6202 front wheel bearings and the GS has 6302 frt brgs.  The 02 on the numbers indicates both have the same 15mm bores so the axles are the same dia most of the way between the forks.  The GS's 6302 brg is a heavier duty brg with larger OD and greater width than the EX's 6202 brg.  Also they mentioned the weight of the instruments mounted on the handlebars of the GS night have some effect too on the handling since EX instruments are fairing mounted.  Still haven't quit laughing over that one.

Now for the 04-05 models we in the US can only get the full faired one while the rest of the world can get either the full faired one or a naked one.  And for the first time the GS is more costly than the EX in the US.  We all know the EX has always had better performance figures than the GS.  Just in case you might think I'm as totally biased towards the GS as MCN is towards the EX, let me say that if I were to be buying a new one this year, that based on the better performance and the lower price of the EX and the fact I can't get another naked GS, I'd buy the EX500 aka Ninja 500 this year and gsJack would become exJack.  

And ever since MCN reported their GS500F had Bridgestone Battlax Radial tires in the 110/70/17 and 130/70/17 sizes, I've searched the world for such tires to no avail.  Not on Bridgestone's North American site, Japanese site, or Euro site.  Such size Battlax radials can't be found anywhere.  Members here with 04-05 F models say they came with the BT45 bias ply tires.

Redline is 11 on GS500F. I think it is the same for previous years.

Getting back on topic, I wanted to note that I am running an 80 profile front tire which may give the illusion that I am getting worse mileage (larger diameter tire making less revoultions per 100 miles vs. 70 series front tires...).