Four stroke, parallel twin cylinders.
DOHC, 4 valves per cylinder.
Capacity
498 cc / 30.4 cu-in
Bore x Stroke
74 x 58 mm
Cooling System
Liquid cooled,
Compression Ratio
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 Tyre
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 Tyre
100/90-16
Rear Tyre
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 Litres / 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
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?