A case can be made that I suffer from arrested development. In the spring of 1988 I picked up my brand new Kawasaki EX-500. It was my first new bike and just the second bike I’d ever owned. Up to that point I’m pretty sure I fit right into Kawasaki’s marketing plans. But I don’t think they ever expected me to keep it for the next twelve years and 140,000 miles.

Over the years my EX has lost most of its connection to the bike I rode away from the dealer, so I won’t base my evaluation of the Ninja 500 on it. But last fall I got to spend some time on a new Ninja and it was one of the most disappointing experiences I’ve had on a motorcycle. It was exactly as I remembered my EX when it was new, but it’s not 1987 anymore.

Here’s a little perspective: In 1987, when the EX debuted, the hot Yamaha middleweight was the air cooled FZ-600. Today’s R6 is five generations removed from those roots. Honda launched the original 600 Hurricane in 1987. The Kawasaki 600R Ninja was in it’s second incarnation in ‘87, the first Ninja 6R wasn’t even a twinkle in an engineers mind. Neither was a Suzuki GSXR600. They had to make the Katana first.

Compare that to the Ninja 500, still powered by a dissected Ninja 1000R motor (circa 1985), still using tires that were skinny even in the old days, and still using suspension components that were bargain basement when it was new. Styling is subjective, but I don’t think many will think the Ninja 500 has aged gracefully. The new skin introduced a few years ago seems to my eye like someone was told to draw a generic sportbike. There is no character in it and the results remind my eye of a Pinto dressed up with racing stripes.

The bike does have its plusses. It is very smooth for a parallel twin, but no less smooth than you’d expect any bike made in the last decade. As you put on the miles vibration will develop but it’s no worse than any other bike. If you’ve don’t have much experience the engine is so inoffensive in every regard you might be reassured to find it feels almost automotive, delivering power almost seamlessly. But there’s only fifty ponies getting to the rear tire at peak and it doesn’t take long for seamless to be seen as flaccid. But it’s greatest asset is it’s durability. In 140,000 miles I have not had an internal engine part fail-not one. I’ve been part of putting together several EX and Ninja 500 racers through the years and you have to reach very deep into the bag of high performance tricks before the engine will start to give. In stock tune it might last forever as long as you change the oil regularly.

But that’s not enough to recommend the bike for a novice or experienced rider. The handling that was criticized as too quick for newbies in 1987 is every bit as quick today. Maddeningly so considering that a simple design change could eliminate the problem but Kawasaki hasn’t seen fit to do it even after 13 years. Combine the quick steering with the skinny tires and the Ninja will show its cornering limits quickly. The single disc front brake squeezed by a two-piston caliper was barely adequate by the standards of the day when it was new, today it’s among the worst I’ve experienced. Suspension? Horribly underdamped and undersprung then (especially in the front) and almost comical today.

The pace of evolution has left the Ninja 500 so far behind I can’t even recommend it to a new rider who knows he (or she) will move up to a newer 600 (or larger) after a year or two. The performance difference is just too great. The only way I could recommend this bike is if you are a gearhead who wants a platform to make a machine that is honestly unique instead of just slapping a pipe on a new 600 like everyone else. For that it stands alone. But that’s only because you’re doing the job Kawasaki hasn’t.

And that is the real shame. Back in 1987 Kawasaki broke the code. If you used half of your top liter class sportbike engine as the foundation for an entry-level machine, you could have a bike that was more than the sum of it’s parts. They could do it again-a new Ninja based on the ZX-11 motor and fitted with chassis components borrowed from last year’s ZX-6R would be a tasty little bike, something probably close to what I and other EX enthusiasts have built for ourselves. But trust me on this-don’t hold your breath waiting for Kawasaki. And if you’re in the market for an inexpensive and fun light sportbike, look at the Suzuki SV-650 instead.

Pros
Still one of the best bargains in sport motorcycling, amazing durability.

Cons
Largely unchanged for 13 years, handling by current standards is well below average, not a great value.