That would totally suck! LOL!
I have a large fuel filter, hopefully with enough fuel to make it to the next gas station, lol!

To have them reversed has crossed my mind, and is possible. I thought last time I connected them correctly, but could been wrong. Only way to know is to switch to reserve for a mile and see if it still runs.

I topped it off quite a bit, so I think there's more fuel in there, but I think I have a 5.3 gal tank.
That'd translate to 300mi on 4.5gal or 66.6 mpg.
Worst case, I'd be riding on reserve, and run at 56MPG, still ok.
I still have fuel in the tank, and probably fill up before I hit reserve.

It would surprise me that I would break an MPG record, seeing that I ran a few 90+MPH bursts, and some city (100 miles of start-stop traffic), but I always try to ride 40-45MPH, which is optimal for my setting (35-40MPH is optimal with stock gears for best MPG).

MeeLee, On a 2004 the hose from the back of the fuel chicken goes to the forward fitting on the tank, the forward fitting on the tank should also be longer than the rear fitting on the tank.

Also note there is a small arrow "->" on the black knob on the fuel chicken

Quote from: Suzuki Stevo on December 21, 2014, 11:18:55 PM

Quote...the hose from the back of the fuel chicken...

That made me laugh way more than it should have. Must be a Monday.

Quote from: NYNJ8 on December 14, 2014, 06:21:46 PM
...problem is that so many buy their GS from a string of noobs who have molested the hell out of what is a very good stock bike.  In fact, in Stock form, the GS is the best bike of the 7 I've owned, including the SV.  Too often folks buy a GS and before they twist the throttle they have a list of must do performance mods.
[...]

Whoa, whoa....whoa. Hold on there cowboy.

I'm not sure if you owned a first-gen or second-gen SV, but I've owned a first generation SV650. The SV was an improvement on every single one of the GS' weaknesses. Here are the facts:

- The GS is air cooled (newer ones have an oil cooler too). The SV is liquid cooled. This means less finicky when it's cold, and far less time to warm up.
- The SV has an aluminum frame which won't rust and is more structurally sound than the GS
- The SV (first gen) weighs 17lbs more and has 50% more power (68HP versus 46) (weight is for SV650S and GS500F)
- The chain tensioner and guide are far better designed on the SV
- The front forks don't bottom out as easily as they do on the GS

The SV basically bests the GS in every category because it's a more expensive and more modern bike. Again, I have never ridden a second gen SV but the first generation is what I owned. I became quite familiar with the bike. I've owned two different GS500's (E and F); believe me, the GS is an awesome bike but the SV is a superior machine. An upgrade for sure.

That being said, there are subjective things about the SV versus the GS, like valve maintenance is a b!tch; the SV is more complicated to work on because of liquid cooling; etc. etc.. However, that's neither here nor there, if we're talking strictly performance.

That is all, carry on. 

Quote from: Elmojo on December 22, 2014, 10:14:06 AM


Quote from: Suzuki Stevo on December 21, 2014, 11:18:55 PM

Quote...the hose from the back of the fuel chicken...

That made me laugh way more than it should have. Must be a Monday.

Really......"forward fitting" did it for me!

Yeah it took me a week or two to realize the forum was editing posts, not people on here with a sense of humor


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Oh, so that was an auto-censor of the word CO.CK?
Dangit, that's not NEARLY as funny.

Henceforth, I will be referring to my manhood as the FUEL CHICKEN. 

I'm not sure if you owned a first-gen or second-gen SV, but I've owned a first generation SV650. The SV was an improvement on every single one of the GS' weaknesses. Here are the facts:

- The GS is air cooled (newer ones have an oil cooler too). The SV is liquid cooled. This means less finicky when it's cold, and far less time to warm up.
- The SV has an aluminum frame which won't rust and is more structurally sound than the GS
- The SV (first gen) weighs 17lbs more and has 50% more power (68HP versus 46) (weight is for SV650S and GS500F)
- The chain tensioner and guide are far better designed on the SV
- The front forks don't bottom out as easily as they do on the GS

The SV basically bests the GS in every category because it's a more expensive and more modern bike. Again, I have never ridden a second gen SV but the first generation is what I owned. I became quite familiar with the bike. I've owned two different GS500's (E and F); believe me, the GS is an awesome bike but the SV is a superior machine. An upgrade for sure.

That being said, there are subjective things about the SV versus the GS, like valve maintenance is a b!tch; the SV is more complicated to work on because of liquid cooling; etc. etc.. However, that's neither here nor there, if we're talking strictly performance.

That is all, carry on. 
[/quote]

People get way too caught up on specs.  That's been my point all along about the GS. Too much focus on specs and what is "better". As you said its all subjective and for me, my stock GS is better than my stock SV 2nd gen.  There is always a latest and greatest technology coming soon to a dealer near you but those improvements don't generally offer most riders any real advantage.  In the realm of sport bikes, most of the advances are really only enhancements on the track.
Let me address the "facts" as you have laid them out.

1. Better frame rigidity and rust resistance - I have never had a problem with the rigidness of any bike I've ever owned.  Have either of your GS frames cracked or broken?  The GS frame is rigid enough.  Would I pay extra money for a more rigid frame? No.  Similarly, I have no rust on my frame.  Having a more rust resistant frame is of no value to me.  My bike lives in my garage in the summer and the basement in the winter. 
2. Power to Weight - Weight of the bike is highly valued criteria for me.  17 extra pounds is not much for an extra 50% HP but I have enough power in the GS for my purposes.  I don't need to take on any additional weight for HP that I really don't need.
3.  Chain tensioner and guide - eh, no real value here either.  Some are good, some suck.  GS has a center stand.  That blows away the benefit of an improved tensioner.  Would you make that trade?
4. Front forks - I have never bottomed out the GS or any other bike I've ridden.  I'm 5'7" 160lbs without gear.  The suspension settings stock for most bikes suit me fine.  Again, this is not an advantage for me.


So I'll stick with my original post.  For my purposes the GS is better than the SV.  Cheaper, lighter, easier to ride, easier to work on = better to me. 

Quote from: Suzuki Stevo on December 21, 2014, 09:18:55 PM
MeeLee, On a 2004 the hose from the back of the fuel chicken goes to the forward fitting on the tank, the forward fitting on the tank should also be longer than the rear fitting on the tank.

Also note there is a small arrow "->" on the black knob on the fuel chicken

If that is the case, then I am in trouble,lol
I do have them reversed...
Wednesday is my day off, riding.
I might fix it on Friday...

Quote from: MeeLee on December 22, 2014, 05:29:54 PMIf that is the case, then I am in trouble,lol
I do have them reversed...
Wednesday is my day off, riding.
I might fix it on Friday...

Until you swap them On is now Reserve and Reserve is now your On...no panic required 

Quote from: NYNJ8 on December 22, 2014, 05:25:00 PM

People get way too caught up on specs.  That's been my point all along about the GS. Too much focus on specs and what is "better". As you said its all subjective and for me, my stock GS is better than my stock SV 2nd gen.  There is always a latest and greatest technology coming soon to a dealer near you but those improvements don't generally offer most riders any real advantage.  In the realm of sport bikes, most of the advances are really only enhancements on the track.
Let me address the "facts" as you have laid them out.

1. Better frame rigidity and rust resistance - I have never had a problem with the rigidness of any bike I've ever owned.  Have either of your GS frames cracked or broken?  The GS frame is rigid enough.  Would I pay extra money for a more rigid frame? No.  Similarly, I have no rust on my frame.  Having a more rust resistant frame is of no value to me.  My bike lives in my garage in the summer and the basement in the winter. 
2. Power to Weight - Weight of the bike is highly valued criteria for me.  17 extra pounds is not much for an extra 50% HP but I have enough power in the GS for my purposes.  I don't need to take on any additional weight for HP that I really don't need.
3.  Chain tensioner and guide - eh, no real value here either.  Some are good, some suck.  GS has a center stand.  That blows away the benefit of an improved tensioner.  Would you make that trade?
4. Front forks - I have never bottomed out the GS or any other bike I've ridden.  I'm 5'7" 160lbs without gear.  The suspension settings stock for most bikes suit me fine.  Again, this is not an advantage for me.


So I'll stick with my original post.  For my purposes the GS is better than the SV.  Cheaper, lighter, easier to ride, easier to work on = better to me.

-Frame rigidity: A more rigid frame means a bike that handles "better" and most notably, more predictably. The less flex you have the better. The GS handles fine, don't get me wrong. The SV handles better. Additionally, it doesn't take rain to rust metal. Humidity can do it, especially on the inside of the frame.
-Power-to-weight ratio: The SV's weight sits down lower, and makes the bike more manageable when not on it. The SV "naked" weighs less than 400lbs fully wet. This is less than the GS weighs, which is 400lbs dry.
-Chain tensioner and guide: "No real value"? Clearly you don't understand how important it is that your rear axle is straight. Also, yes I would make that trade, because trying to get the tension right on the GS can be a huge P.I.T.A. if you care about the straightness of the axle. Guess how easy it is to get along without a center stand? Very. You grab the nearest 2x4, cut a notch in it, and then shove it up under the swingarm, opposite the kickstand. Works perfectly. In fact, you can even put a bungee cord around the front brake so it's very stable.
-Front forks: I guess you've never ridden a GS500E before, or seen all the threads where people are swapping springs on the E's and F's.

Some other additional features of the SV over the GS500:

-Standard can-type oil filter (makes oil changes so much easier)
-Sight-glass instead of a dipstick
-Better headlights on the "S" (sorry, 2 is better than 1)

That having been said, I'm not caught up on "specs" or the "latest and greatest" like you implied. I have owned two different GS500's and also an SV650S. What I stated as facts, are, in fact...facts.

I traded in a more advanced bike (DL1000) for the GS500F. I then sold my GS500E and bought the SV650. With an SV650 and GS500F in the garage, I decided to sell the SV650 when I was tight for cash. I could've more easily sold the GS500, but I chose to sell the SV650 instead. I wish I never had, but that's a different story.

I'm not trying to bash the GS, because it is an amazing little bike in its own right. However, there are bikes out there that can do what the GS cannot do, and improve on its weaknesses.

What you should be saying is "I don't mind sacrificing these things to have the GS" or "The GS is better for me." The GS is not a better bike than the SV650 in the broad scheme; it just isn't, I'm sorry.

Quote from: Kijona on December 22, 2014, 09:31:34 PM

Quote from: NYNJ8 on December 22, 2014, 05:25:00 PM

People get way too caught up on specs.  That's been my point all along about the GS. Too much focus on specs and what is "better". As you said its all subjective and for me, my stock GS is better than my stock SV 2nd gen.  There is always a latest and greatest technology coming soon to a dealer near you but those improvements don't generally offer most riders any real advantage.  In the realm of sport bikes, most of the advances are really only enhancements on the track.
Let me address the "facts" as you have laid them out.

1. Better frame rigidity and rust resistance - I have never had a problem with the rigidness of any bike I've ever owned.  Have either of your GS frames cracked or broken?  The GS frame is rigid enough.  Would I pay extra money for a more rigid frame? No.  Similarly, I have no rust on my frame.  Having a more rust resistant frame is of no value to me.  My bike lives in my garage in the summer and the basement in the winter. 
2. Power to Weight - Weight of the bike is highly valued criteria for me.  17 extra pounds is not much for an extra 50% HP but I have enough power in the GS for my purposes.  I don't need to take on any additional weight for HP that I really don't need.
3.  Chain tensioner and guide - eh, no real value here either.  Some are good, some suck.  GS has a center stand.  That blows away the benefit of an improved tensioner.  Would you make that trade?
4. Front forks - I have never bottomed out the GS or any other bike I've ridden.  I'm 5'7" 160lbs without gear.  The suspension settings stock for most bikes suit me fine.  Again, this is not an advantage for me.


So I'll stick with my original post.  For my purposes the GS is better than the SV.  Cheaper, lighter, easier to ride, easier to work on = better to me.

-Frame rigidity: A more rigid frame means a bike that handles "better" and most notably, more predictably. The less flex you have the better. The GS handles fine, don't get me wrong. The SV handles better. Additionally, it doesn't take rain to rust metal. Humidity can do it, especially on the inside of the frame.
-Power-to-weight ratio: The SV's weight sits down lower, and makes the bike more manageable when not on it. The SV "naked" weighs less than 400lbs fully wet. This is less than the GS weighs, which is 400lbs dry.
-Chain tensioner and guide: "No real value"? Clearly you don't understand how important it is that your rear axle is straight. Also, yes I would make that trade, because trying to get the tension right on the GS can be a huge P.I.T.A. if you care about the straightness of the axle. Guess how easy it is to get along without a center stand? Very. You grab the nearest 2x4, cut a notch in it, and then shove it up under the swingarm, opposite the kickstand. Works perfectly. In fact, you can even put a bungee cord around the front brake so it's very stable.
-Front forks: I guess you've never ridden a GS500E before, or seen all the threads where people are swapping springs on the E's and F's.

Some other additional features of the SV over the GS500:

-Standard can-type oil filter (makes oil changes so much easier)
-Sight-glass instead of a dipstick
-Better headlights on the "S" (sorry, 2 is better than 1)

That having been said, I'm not caught up on "specs" or the "latest and greatest" like you implied. I have owned two different GS500's and also an SV650S. What I stated as facts, are, in fact...facts.

I traded in a more advanced bike (DL1000) for the GS500F. I then sold my GS500E and bought the SV650. With an SV650 and GS500F in the garage, I decided to sell the SV650 when I was tight for cash. I could've more easily sold the GS500, but I chose to sell the SV650 instead. I wish I never had, but that's a different story.

I'm not trying to bash the GS, because it is an amazing little bike in its own right. However, there are bikes out there that can do what the GS cannot do, and improve on its weaknesses.

What you should be saying is "I don't mind sacrificing these things to have the GS" or "The GS is better for me." The GS is not a better bike than the SV650 in the broad scheme; it just isn't, I'm sorry.

Your post is the definition of hypocrisy.  You entered a thread where I am clearly giving my opinion, and tell me that I need to qualify my opinion by saying its the "better bike for me".  Yet you go on to say that the SV is better as if that is fact.  Then you go on about how a better chain tensioner is more valuable than a center stand as if that is also fact.  It is not.  It is your opinion and you are welcome to it but don't pass it off as anything other than that.  Personally I have no trouble whatsoever straightening the rear wheel on the GS, SV, or any other bike I've owned.  I've used a chain alignment tool, a string and weighted object, etc.  I find that just as easy as you find it to prop the bike up on a 2x4.

Clearly I don't understand how important it is to have a straight real axle?  Really? That's crap, unnecessary and unwelcome.

You are caught up on specs and you are not stating facts.  A more rigid frame on the SV is not an improvement if the rigidity of the GS frame is sufficient.  Just like a heavier coat is not a "better" coat if you live in Florida.  It has POTENTIAL to handle better only if you are comparing it to a bike for which you are exceeding the rigidity limits of the frame.  This is commons sense.  As I alluded to in an earlier post, a bike that can go 150 is no better than a bike that can go 120 if you never drive more than 80.  In that case they are equally as good.  To have someone jump in to tell me that I am wrong and that the bike that can go 150 is better is silly. 

You are welcome to continue arguing if you like.  But you have missed the point of the original post.  I'll say it again for you.  The GS is stock form is a better bike than any other bike I've owned in stock form including the SV.  You should reasonably assume that I am giving my opinion and not telling everyone that the GS will be better for them than the SV.  I don't need to qualify it. 

I welcome your opinion as you should welcome mine.  But don't pass your opinion off as facts.  Specs are specs, "better" is subjective and without context it cannot be proven or disproven.

Yes, I'm a little chapped, but I understand what you are trying to say.  I just disagree.  At the end of the day this is all in fun 

Quote from: NYNJ8 on December 22, 2014, 11:18:25 PM
Yes, I'm a little chapped, but I understand what you are trying to say.  I just disagree.  At the end of the day this is all in fun 

The first rule of the internet is not to get your hind quarters hurt because somebody else doesn't go along with what you're saying.

Quote from: Kijona on December 23, 2014, 02:31:49 AM

Quote from: NYNJ8 on December 22, 2014, 11:18:25 PM
Yes, I'm a little chapped, but I understand what you are trying to say.  I just disagree.  At the end of the day this is all in fun 

The first rule of the internet is not to get your hind quarters hurt because somebody else doesn't go along with what you're saying.

Lol I don't have a problem with people disagreeing.  I do have a problem with people telling me that my opinion is wrong because their opinion is fact. 

There is a lot of over engineering on the part of the MC industry and then marketing execs sell these features to consumers who will never actually realize the levels of performance that their machine can explore.  Then people hop on forums and argue about whether a bike is better because it has a more rigid frame.

I have never heard anyone complain that their bike wouldn't allow them to lean harder in turns because their frame wasn't rigid enough.  90% of riders could never reach the operating limits of the GS.  When it comes to comfort and convenience features then it all becomes subjective.

Quote from: NYNJ8 on December 23, 2014, 06:09:55 AMI have never heard anyone complain that their bike wouldn't allow them to lean harder in turns because their frame wasn't rigid enough.  90% of riders could never reach the operating limits of the GS.  When it comes to comfort and convenience features then it all becomes subjective.

At the risk of being attacked by those here who know more than I do, I feel I need to comment on this statement.

Maybe I am a little older but complaints in handling due to rigidity or lack there of in frames was much more common in the early days of "Super Bikes" as the manufacturer's competed to produce the fastest motorcycle. This continues today but chassis design has improved so much that there are only a few who push the limits and can feel the difference in rigidity.

Probably the most notorious motorcycle in history was the Kawasaki Mach III which was dubbed the "Widow Maker" because of it's horrible handing. It was the combination of HP in a frame that flexed and totally inadequate suspension which made the bike go in a straight line okay (although you could feel the frame flex when shifting and accelerating). Many young riders were killed on the Mach III when they tried to turn, thus the name "Widow Maker"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kawasaki_H1_Mach_III

Many motorcycles in the 50's and into the 80's used cradle round tube frames which were known to flex. Cross tubes and bracing improved this to some degree. The Norton "featherbed" frame was one of the better ones and prized by racers in the day.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Featherbed_frame

As engines got bigger and more powerful, and technology improved rectangular tubing was found to be stronger and eventually evolved into the cast aluminum frames of today. They still flex to some degree and the flex can be beneficial in the "feel" of the motorcycle. Using the engine as a support member also became common and allowed the engine to be placed lower in the frame resulting in a lower center of gravity and improved feel and handling.

In real terms the GS500 frame being steel is not the "best" in terms of known technology, but it is fully adequate for the weight and horsepower of the bike. If one wanted to push the bike to it's limit I think that some flex would occur but nothing dangerous like the old tube frame bikes.

I'm sure there are people here who know infinitely more about the subject and will pick apart every word I have written in order to show their higher degree of knowledge but the jist of what I wrote was placed here only to point out that there are cases where frames have been known to flex and I personally have experienced this.

While this is some "extreme" information and not really applicable to the GS500, it is placed here to support the theory that frame flex is actually an important consideration. Fully stiff frames have been shown to not be able to compete at the highest levels. Search Ducati Carbon Fiber frame if you do not believe me.

Controlling Flex In MotoGP

"Chassis designers have long known that some flex is a good thing as it acts as the motorcycle's suspension at extreme lean angles. With tires getting grippier and wider over time, motorcycles are getting increasingly more lean angles and the importance of chassis flex increases accordingly."

Read the entire article here:

http://www.insidemotorcycles.com/component/k2/item/400-controlling-flex-in-motogp.html

My GSX650F is considered a Sport/Touring bike, it has a steel frame, in a touring bike a little give from the frame is considered acceptable for comfort.

Dennis stop offering objective information.  You have to pick a side and start throwing haymakers lol...

Good information, which I think supports the point that stronger, bigger, faster, etc. does not necesarily mean better.  It really depends on the application. 

Also, going back to the OP while we may ride a GS500, because these bikes have been so heavily "modded", abused, dropped, etc. we really could have very different experiences with the bike.  When I am talking about the GS I am talking only about my experience with my GS which is a stock '06 with 2 owners and 2500 miles on it.  The results of an owner with a '97E with 10 different owners and 20k could be very different.

You are totally correct about that. I always struggle when the discussion comes around to handling, because rider skill and bike condition comes into play. Not to mention tires...type and condition of rubber is a huge part of handling.

I struggled with "I have never heard anyone complain that their bike wouldn't allow them to lean harder in turns because their frame wasn't rigid enough."

I don't think you meant it as a blanket statement...more directed at the GS500...but this is the problem with the internet. What sounds right in our head is read twenty different ways by the reader. This board is a perfect example of that.

Earlier there was this statement by Kijona:

"Frame rigidity: A more rigid frame means a bike that handles "better" and most notably, more predictably. The less flex you have the better."

In basis this statement is somewhat correct, but it could be read "Solid Rigid" because of the reference to the less flex the better which isn't really true.

There was a time when those in the motorcycle industry and in racing believed this to be true. I think as the HP increased it "seemed" that the frames needed to be rigid. What happened, and I experienced this myself, is the frames cracked. The handling was also compromised. A rigid chassis made the bikes more difficult to control. There are a lot of calculations for the forces acting on the frame, tire patch size and on and on, but what was found is that there is beneficial flex. Computer simulations allow each frame design to be "tuned" to get the right frame "character" which includes some degree of flex.

For the average rider you want the bike to feel secure. A slightly softer feel actually accomplishes that. It's weird, but I've ridden totally rigid bikes and they were scary as hell...you were afraid to push them in turns because it felt like they would slide...and they probably would.

The GS500 frame is a bit of a compromise (like a lot of things on the bike), but it is designed for the engine and weight...and then the price point. Nothing wrong with that...and it's really not a bike most people will push real hard. It doesn't have the HP to do that anyway.

That doesn't mean it is not good or safe. Comparing to other bikes that cost more...yeah sure the more expensive bike has some better features, but these are not fair comparisons or relative for that matter. It's like comparing 100+ HP sport bike to the GS500. Why? Like you said it is "purpose" and the differences even between the SV and the GS are obvious.

If we are going to start quoting facts how about these.

The GS5 is coming up to its 25th birthday, during those years it remained basically unchanged
The Gs5 engine dates back to the 70s
It wasn't the best amongst its competitors when it was launched and within a couple of years was even further behind the pack
It was built down to a price.....and it shows.

True it has a following and numerous supporters but go in any motorcycle forum and the contributors there will all say the same things about their machines 

Get all dewey eyed if you want but the bike is nothing special, it wasn't 25 years ago and it certainly isn't today. It wasn't and never has been particularly desirable or sought after, it didn't set any performance, handling or styling standards nor did it offer anything over and above the competition nor was it in any way innovative (quite the opposite in fact) nor was it particularly exciting or thrilling to ride. Those are the factors that set bikes apart. Its saving grace over its lifespan was the fact it was, cheap to build and could sell in just about every country in the world........Suzuki were making good money off it so they just carried on `polishing the turd` for as long as they could until emission legislation killed it off.

My local Suzuki dealer had a yellow F in the showroom for 2.5 years and couldn't shift it....he called it the dinosaur and in the end he auctioned it off

To some it serves a purpose and that's it.......... if that makes it `awesome` all I can say is.......you are easily pleased 


Here is a MCN review from 8 years ago. DONT read it if you are overly sensitive, have trouble with reality or are prone to throwing your toys out of the pram

http://www.motorcyclenews.com/bike-reviews/suzuki/gs500/1989/