Kawasaki EX500R Ninja
Kawasaki EX500R Ninja | |
Manufacturer | |
---|---|
Production | 1987 - 88 |
Class | [[:Category:Sportbike motorcycles|Sportbike]] [[Category:Sportbike motorcycles]] |
Engine | Four stroke, parallel twin cylinders. DOHC, 4 valves per cylinder. |
Compression ratio | 10.8:1 |
Top Speed | 197.9 km/h / 122.9 mph |
Ignition | TCI (Transistor Controlled Ignition) |
Spark Plug | NGK, DR9EA |
Transmission | 6 Speed |
Frame | Iron, Double cradle frame |
Suspension | Front: 38mm Telescopic forks Rear: Swinging arm, single shock adjustable for spring preload |
Brakes | Front: Single 270mm disc 2 piston caliper Rear: 160mm drum |
Front Tire | 100/90-16 |
Rear Tire | 120/90-16 |
Wheelbase | 1435 mm / 56.5 in |
Seat Height | 770 mm / 30.0 in |
Weight | 170 kg / 370 lbs (dry), 200 kg / 441 lbs (wet) |
Recommended Oil | K-tech 10W-40 |
Fuel Capacity | 15.9 Liters / 4.2 US gal |
Manuals | Service Manual |
It could reach a top speed of 197.9 km/h / 122.9 mph.
Engine
The engine was a Liquid cooled, cooled Four stroke, parallel twin cylinders. DOHC, 4 valves per cylinder.. The engine featured a 10.8:1 compression ratio.
Drive
Power was moderated via the Wet, multiple discs, cable operated.
Chassis
It came with a 100/90-16 front tire and a 120/90-16 rear tire. Stopping was achieved via Single 270mm disc 2 piston caliper in the front and a 160mm drum in the rear. The front suspension was a 38mm Telescopic forks while the rear was equipped with a Swinging arm, single shock adjustable for spring preload. The EX500R Ninja was fitted with a 15.9 Liters / 4.2 US gal fuel tank. The bike weighed just 170 kg / 370 lbs. The wheelbase was 1435 mm / 56.5 in long.
Photos
Overview
Kawasaki GPz 500S / EX 500R Ninja
The Kawasaki Ninja 500R (which was originally named, and is still referred to as
the EX500 and is known as the GPZ500S in some markets) is a sport bike with a
498 cc (30.4 cu in) parallel-twin engine, part of the Ninja series of
motorcycles manufactured by Kawasaki from 1987 to 2009, with a partial redesign
in 1994. Although the motorcycle has a sporty appearance, it offers a more
standard, upright riding position with greater comfort and versatility. It
provides a combination of performance and low operating costs, which has made it
a favorite as a first motorcycle with new riders and popular with experienced
riders on a budget. 2009 was the last model year for the Ninja 500.[2]
Given that it was Kawasaki's best-selling sporty bike for a number of years, the EX500 is a popular mount for road racing, offering low price and availability of spare parts. It also offers a wide but forgiving performance envelope suitable for new riders or even veteran club racers, eschewing the significantly higher expense of campaigning 600 cc or larger supersport machines. In its latter years, the long-running (now-defunct) Production Twins class of the LRRS racing organization in New Hampshire was composed primarily of essentially stock EX500's. The United States Classic Racing Association retains a similar class, and in 2014 CCS Racing created the 500 SuperSport class, which has a competitive class for relatively stock EX500's to race against similar machinery.
Its marketing name was changed in 1994 from EX500 to Ninja 500; the R suffix was added in 1998. In Europe it was sold as the GPZ500S.
Kawasaki may want us to think of their new 560 as half an RX but
they are selling themselves short. What they should be saying is
that they can make twins to match the performance of
four-cylinder motors and remind us of the impressive 250
Scorpion and the 305 version that transformed it.
The ZX500 is another step along that particular road but it
isn't as dramatic as the image created by the 1000RX and its 900
predecessor. And the new twin is four-valved and water-cooled,
so I suppose they can justify all the claims. But when you cut
through the hype, it's still a twin. And w hen you cut through
the timing lights, it's nearly as quick as the fours.
It causes a bit of an identity crisis and one which doesn't
stop at performance. Why build a twin, one might ask? Because it
is smaller, cheaper and simpler than a four, another might
reply. Wrong. It doesn't quite beat the fours;
nearly-as-good-as, considering-it's-a-twin is a better
description. And it isn't cheaper. Another problem is that the
sports 550s have grown into 600s with 140mph performance.
Another problem is that Kawasaki recognise the value in their
other bikes and the shaft-drive 550 is just £2,399 which is not
so easy to reconcile with £2599
I for the twin. Or maybe we're not supposed to compare them,
just take them on their own | value.
If that's the case, there's a lot about the twin which is
great. And some which is harder to digest. Let's get the bad
bits over first. From appearances, it is made cheaply. Without a
lot of loving care it could look really scrappy after six
months. That has to be speculative because we only had the bike
for two weeks. It particularly the wheels and forks stood up
well to the last of the winter salt.
But it was already getting a bit rattly, there was a certain
roughness in the engine and the bike snatched suddenly between
drive and overrun, as if a chain was loose or a cush drive had
gotten squashed.
It had deteriorated quite quickly from its sweet, smooth
state when we first picked it up, and it had done less miles
than most of our road test models. It also developed two faults,
almost simultaneously, which caused a certain amount of
confusion. One ignition coil failed, over a period of two or
three miles, rather than suddenly. The fuel tank breather, which
runs behind the tank and under the seat, also got trapped, which
was probably our fault for disturbing it and not re-routing it
correctly.
The result was that the breather caused an air lock, which
caused fuel starvation which caused an intermittent misfire
under load and occasionally cut out one cylinder. The faulty
coil achieved the same thing but fortunately it happened when
the bike was on its way to be dy no-tested.
The dyno is a good place for diagnosing faults but by the
time the faulty coil had been found, the tank had been removed
and the trapped breather no longer existed! We only noticed it
later when the bike had been stopped after a run and the air
rushing through the restricted breather was making a
high-pitched whistle.
The only other fault with the 500 is its identity crisis.
When people ask why Kawasaki have built such a bike, the answer
is not immediately obvious. It is more expensive than the
sensible 550s, it is slower than the sporty middleweights; so
who is it aimed at?
Maybe you are in a better position to answer that question
than we are. The bike itself has got a lot of attractive points;
from a ride and handling point of view, it has a lot in common
with the Honda VF500. It feels like an overpowered 250, light
and small, with an engine that buzzes on and on.
The 500 comes in with a bit of a surge at 7000; above that it
feels smooth, like a four. Below that speed, the motor has the
chunky, lop-sided, burbling nature of a 180-degree twin. Which
is what it is, plus a balance shaft and rubber engine mounts.
To get at the performance, you need to work away at the
six-speed gearbox and, if you like this style of riding, the 500
is at its best on country A roads or good B roads. The
transmission roughness spoilt it on slower roads and sometimes
made the gearshift a bit clunky.
Under motorway conditions it would cruise happily at 80
although it was sometimes closer to flat out than the rider
realised . . . however, everybody agreed that the performance
was impressive for a twin.
And here we have a division. Forgetting price and comparisons
with 550-fours, I liked the twin, I enjoyed its rapid handling
and the buzzy motor. Rupert found it unsatisfying and wanted
more midrange, even at the expense of top end power, which he
admitted was impressive. On top of that he didn't like the
handling; it wasn't as easy to get used to as, say, an RD350
which seems to be its nearest competitor in terms of street
performance. Finally, he said, the whole bike didn't make any
sense and we're back to the price and performance comparisons
again.
The problem seems to be the price, which puts it into the
four cylinder bracket you could even get a newish 750. It will
outperform the likes of the SRX and VT, but then it costs a lot
more.
In some ways the Kawasaki is a bit basic, with touches of the
economy class roadster, in others it borders on the exotic. It
is light at 3711b it is in the same bracket as most 400s and
feels even lighter, helped by the 16-inch, three-spoke wheels
which give sharp steering even on conventional amounts of rake
and trail.
It is the sort of bike which demands concentration; it isn't
unstable, like some racers, but it isn't stable either, in the
sense that you can't sit back and relax, keeping it on course
with lazy steering corrections. You need to keep on top of it
all the time, otherwise it will wander all over the place.
The engine demands a similar level of attention-. You need to
use the gears as much as on a lightweight for rapid overtaking,
although the acceleration through the gears can be exhilarating
when the motor hits the top end of its power band.
While the steering is fast and precise, one problem with
light bikes and with 16-inch wheels, is that the feedback to the
rider is reduced. The harder you push it, the less feel there
is, giving the impression that it is all about to break loose in
the biggest possible way. Perhaps it is a good way to keep
people well on the safe side of the ragged edge.
In long fast corners the bike would develop a slight weave;
it was at its best in mid-speed turns, snapping in and out of
large roundabouts with a rate of turn which would do credit to a
YPVS.
Braking was powerful, the single disc needing heavier than
average pressure which somehow suited the nature of the bike.
The dual piston caliper has a smaller leading piston which,
according to Kawasaki, gives more even wear and thus more
uniform pressure and better performance. There was no doubting
the performance, whether it was on full and pinning the bike
down, or feeding it in gently as the bike rolled over into a
tight corner.
The rear brake is a drum, and that's all I can remember about
it.
Being able to use performance depends very much on the hike's
ridmg position and the 500, although comfortable, could have
been stretched out a little more. The handlebars were a shade
too high, the footrests an inch or so too far forward. The
layout and controls were, as always, just right.
An example is the old-style fuel tap, which has two
horizontal positions, one off and the other for reserve. I
hadn't checked to see which was which, so the first time the
tank went on to reserve, I didn't know which way to turn the
tap, and twins stop pretty quickly when the fuel runs dry. The
tap was easy to twist one way, and more awkWard to move in the
opposite direction; I assumed that, if the designers had done
their job down to the last details, then reserve should be in
the easy direction. It was. Funny how the Japanese can be so
predictable in these things.
The tank at 4 gallons gave a respectable range even when
the 500 was down to 43mpg in its headbanger mode. Most of the
time it ran around the 48mpg mark, and could be persuaded up
into the mid-50s without sacrificing too much performance. Then
you could look forward to 190-mile ranges and still have reserve
in reserve.
Take the bike on its own and it has a lot of good points; few
real faults but it has characteristics which you either like or
hate. After riding a 125 it would feel great, but if you happen
to like the lazy way that BMWs perform, the 500 would be less
than impressive.
Compare it with other bikes and you hit its biggest problem:
what do you compare it with? It looks like Kawasaki have tuned
it for enough top-end to compete just with the 550s. And
they've priced it higher than both of their own 550s ... so
would you rather pay a bit more and get the 600?
Make Model | Kawasaki GPz 500S / EX 500R Ninja |
---|---|
Year | 1987 - 88 |
Engine Type | Four stroke, parallel twin cylinders. DOHC, 4 valves per cylinder. |
Displacement | 498 cc / 30.4 cu-in |
Bore X Stroke | 74 x 58 mm |
Cooling System | Liquid cooled, |
Compression | 10.8:1 |
Lubrication | Wet sump |
Engine Oil | Semi-Synthetic, 10W/40 |
Induction | 2x Keihin CVK34 carburetor |
Ignition | TCI (Transistor Controlled Ignition) |
Spark Plug | NGK, DR9EA |
Starting | Electric |
Max Power | 60 hp / 43.7 kW @ 9800 rpm |
Max Power Rear Tire | 54.7 hp @ 9500 rpm |
Max Torque | 46.1 Nm / 4.7 kg-m @ 8500 rpm |
Clutch | Wet, multiple discs, cable operated |
Transmission | 6 Speed |
Final Drive | Chain |
Frame | Iron, Double cradle frame |
Front Suspension | 38mm Telescopic forks |
Front Wheel Travel | 130 mm / 5.1 in |
Rear Suspension | Swinging arm, single shock adjustable for spring preload |
Rear Wheel Travel | 100 mm / 3.9 in |
Front Brakes | Single 270mm disc 2 piston caliper |
Rear Brakes | 160mm drum |
Front Tire | 100/90-16 |
Rear Tire | 120/90-16 |
Rake | 63° |
Trail | 91 mm / 3.5 in |
Dimensions | Length 2110 mm / 83 in Width 685 mm / 27.0 in Height: 1160 mm / 45.6 in |
Wheelbase | 1435 mm / 56.5 in |
Seat Height | 770 mm / 30.0 in |
Dry Weight | 170 kg / 370 lbs |
Wet Weight | 200 kg / 441 lbs |
Fuel Capacity | 15.9 Liters / 4.2 US gal |
Consumption Average | 18.2 km/lit |
Braking 60 - 0 / 100 - 0 | 14.6 m / 39.9 n |
Standing ¼ Mile | 12.5 sec / 164.8 km/h |
Top Speed | 197.9 km/h / 122.9 mph |