does anyone have a rg 500

[tygrant351]

pjmcburney, I envy you. I have long thought that the RG500/RZ500 are awesome and I have kept an eye for an affordable one... a few weeks back and totaly custom aluminum single sided swingarm was on ebay for the RZ500... I almost bought it juusssst in case I got an RZ someday haha.

[tz375]

My son bought an RZ500 a couple of years ago and was very disappointed with it. he spent some cash on getting it into perfect condition but it still sucked.

He had a nice ZXR9 before that and the RD did not handle as well, was not as easy to ride, was less powerful and was slower.

His current bike is a 1200 BMW 4 cylinder making 150HPin a smooth package.

An RG might be a different kettle of fish though. It has a reputation for being everything the RZ/RD wanted to be but failed to live up to

[pjmcburney]

My son bought an RZ500 a couple of years ago and was very disappointed with it. he spent some cash on getting it into perfect condition but it still sucked.

An RG might be a different kettle of fish though. It has a reputation for being everything the RZ/RD wanted to be but failed to live up to

Pretty spot-on Teazer...

There was an excellent article in Motorcycle Mechanics a couple months back about RZ's if anyone wants real in-depth info.

Basically the RZ wasn't particularly well thought out either engine or chassis-wise.
Despite being labeled a 'V4' it was essentially two completely different vertical twins siamesed (badly) together.

The front two pots are rotary-valve induction, the rear are piston-port; the front and rear run different size carbs, different plugs, different pistons and even have different compression ratios .
The engine isn't too unreliable, but it's bigger, heavier, vibey-er, produces less power, is much more difficult to tune and service, is not suited too well to modification and uses more consumables.

16" wheels were the order of the day and Yamaha managed to combine one of these (on the front) with poor geometry and low-rent suspension components in a heavy steel frame (RG was all aluminum). It wobbled and had heavy steering.
They couldn't even sort the rear suspension properly as the rear shock lays under the engine (in perfect exposure to engine heat and the elements) as there was no room to mount it conventionally behind the engine with the tortuous pipe arrangement.
Yamaha didn't rest with the brakes either - OEM front discs were vented and soft, so they wore out quickly and were expensive to replace.

This 'friday-afternoon-after-the-pub' design by Yamaha fairs rather badly in comparison to the RG which was, apart from a couple of quirks, far more conventional and far superior in every parameter.

RZ's can be made to go, handle and stop but it requires lots of time, money and dedication.
Sales and comparative values reflect all this, however RZ's have made a small comeback because of the rarity of RG's (and some masochistic, parochial nutbag Yamaha aficionados).

They are collectible, but at your peril... I would probably have one (at the right price), but I wouldn't want to actually ride it .

For everyone's entertainment, as I start to assemble my RG, I'll put up some pics - but don't hold your breath, it's a ways off yet.


Cheers
Paul

[pjmcburney]

pjmcburney, I envy you. I have long thought that the RG500/RZ500 are awesome and I have kept an eye for an affordable one... a few weeks back and totaly custom aluminum single sided swingarm was on ebay for the RZ500... I almost bought it juusssst in case I got an RZ someday haha.

Ta, but I've been VERY lucky with the acquisition of mine (thanks Steve Thompson!), and it will require a lot of work.

The engine is a basket-case - the cranks needed refurbishing, that cost me nearly two grand... anyone need a kidney?


Cheers
Paul

[spike]

My son bought an RZ500 a couple of years ago and was very disappointed with it. he spent some cash on getting it into perfect condition but it still sucked.

An RG might be a different kettle of fish though. It has a reputation for being everything the RZ/RD wanted to be but failed to live up to

Pretty spot-on Teazer...

There was an excellent article in Motorcycle Mechanics a couple months back about RZ's if anyone wants real in-depth info.

Basically the RZ wasn't particularly well thought out either engine or chassis-wise.
Despite being labeled a 'V4' it was essentially two completely different vertical twins siamesed (badly) together.

The front two pots are rotary-valve induction, the rear are piston-port; the front and rear run different size carbs, different plugs, different pistons and even have different compression ratios .
The engine isn't too unreliable, but it's bigger, heavier, vibey-er, produces less power, is much more difficult to tune and service, is not suited too well to modification and uses more consumables.

16" wheels were the order of the day and Yamaha managed to combine one of these (on the front) with poor geometry and low-rent suspension components in a heavy steel frame (RG was all aluminum). It wobbled and had heavy steering.
They couldn't even sort the rear suspension properly as the rear shock lays under the engine (in perfect exposure to engine heat and the elements) as there was no room to mount it conventionally behind the engine with the tortuous pipe arrangement.
Yamaha didn't rest with the brakes either - OEM front discs were vented and soft, so they wore out quickly and were expensive to replace.

This 'friday-afternoon-after-the-pub' design by Yamaha fairs rather badly in comparison to the RG which was, apart from a couple of quirks, far more conventional and far superior in every parameter.

RZ's can be made to go, handle and stop but it requires lots of time, money and dedication.
Sales and comparative values reflect all this, however RZ's have made a small comeback because of the rarity of RG's (and some masochistic, parochial nutbag Yamaha aficionados).

They are collectible, but at your peril... I would probably have one (at the right price), but I wouldn't want to actually ride it .

For everyone's entertainment, as I start to assemble my RG, I'll put up some pics - but don't hold your breath, it's a ways off yet.

Sorry Paul, but you have deffo NOT researched the RD/RZ 500 carefully.
Probably never had one and certainly not taken one apart.
There so many assumptions and mistakes in your description that it is pointless trying to correct it…

Apart from that, yes the RG is the better one in the sense it's more modern, but it also came on the scene AFTER the RD/RZ, so Suzuki had plenty of time to make a perfect GP copy. They are two very different beasts and, IMHO, should not be compared.

Let's also not forget the RG is quite fragile and designing a bike with a lethal gearbox problem is not high-class engineering…
Not to mention rotary valves covers lining falling to bits and destroying pricey cylinders etc… plenty of late-night-engineers-full-of-sake type of "quirks"…

I have yet to find people running over 100'000kms with their RGs, whereas I know a few here in Europe who have covered GTAllen type of mileage on their RD5.

Hrumpffff. nuff said.

(and, yes, I used to have 3 RD5… still have one left (with updated bits), wouldn't mind an RG though.

[pjmcburney]

Spike,


Admittedly I've not owned or worked on an RD/RZ500, and I've gleaned the mechanical info from articles.
But, I have ridden both and my opinion of their riding and handling characteristics won't be swayed by your retort.

I very much doubt I'm as far off the mark as you say.

BTW, you're RG 'knowledge' is not entirely without hyperbole...

RG gearboxes are not the hand-grenades you make them out to be if treated with respect.
There isn't as much margin for abuse as (say) a GT750, but many bikes and motors were modified and raced (which did show up some weaknesses), but were nevertheless very successful.

Rotary-valve cover linings are prone to disintegration, but not without some age and again, outside the realms of normal use.

They (as mentioned) also have sticky clutches as the actuator mechanism is poorly designed and not supported well in the casing, but it's not a major issue - many other bikes have similar quirks.

If RZ motors are the paragon of engineering that you subscribe to, how come everyone used the RG motors in their 500-class sprintcars?

I'm sure there are as many high-mileage RG examples as there are RZ's. Just because you've not come across them doesn't mean they don't exist.
The bike I owned had 50k km on it when I bought it and it required no work for as long as I had it...

If nothing else, I'm more than willing to learn.
Despite your seeming reluctance to impart your extensive knowledge, I dare say it would be (at least) in the forum's interest to correct my RZ 'slights'.


Put your money where your mouth is...
Paul

[johnakay]

Put your money where your mouth is...

[pjmcburney]

Ok, as Spike alluded, my information was slightly off...

Every cylinder on an RZ500 engine is reed-valve induction, with the rear two into the cylinders and the front two into the crankcase.
The carbs are mounted on 90 degree manifolds (instead of directly mounted like an RG) to their various entries and connected back to the airbox via a system of tubing similar to RG500's.

There is a balance-shaft driven from the front crankshaft (unlike the RG which has no need) to dampen engine vibes.

All the carbs are the same size and type - Mikuni VM26SS.

Specification comparison:
RZ
Power 64.2 kW (88 PS) @ 9,500 rpm
Torque 65.4 Nm @ 8,500 rpm
Weight 205 kg (452 lb)

RG
Power 69.3 kW (94.2 PS) @ 9,500 rpm
Torque 71.3 Nm @ 8,000 rpm.
Weight 154 kg (340 lb)

'Nuff said... unless you want second/third etc. opinion, take a look here - http://www.rg500delta.com/RG500_Buyers_ ... d_FAQ.html


Cheers
Paul

[tz375]

IIRC the only RZ motor that made any power back in the day was Russell Malley's 640 and for years that was the most popular reprint from AMCN.

Ignoring the one win by Michael Dowson in a 6 hour IIRC, that motor was never very fast and it's hard to get power out of it. the forks are not very good and the geometry is wrong and didn't it have a 16 inch front wheel?

Altogether not the best. A great idea that got lost in execution.

It's not a BAD bike and I'm not suggesting that it can't be improved upon, but stock they were a little disappointing.

[spike]

It's just that you have to see them as 2 very different things.
When they came out, it was natural people tried to compare them.

The RD RZ 5 was a very good machine killed by the bean counters…
and, yes their main problem is weight, sadly.
In that sense they're pigs in 100% stock form, a bit top heavy.

Both bike suffer from typical eighties "great ideas": poor shocks, strange wheel sizes, anti-dive (for Crissake!) and thin forks compared to the power and weight of the bikes.

Both bikes get reworked the same way: I got a good Ohlins shock, Brembos gold everywhere, ditched anti-dive and modded forks, and 17 inch mag wheels (decent rubber finally available).
It's still a touch heavy for me, though.

The motor is quite restricted the way the factory made it… since it is quite similar to RD350 LC and TZR 250s, it's fairly easy to make it faster.

But then (same as with the RG), you go nuts and end up pennyless under a bridge…

The RG gearbox lethal prob is not a figment of my imagination: factory recall for all early models and THREE design revisions.
Nothing like that on the RZ.
If you buy one of these minters, low miles bike, make sure you check the gearbox, last time I looked parts were available, but costed over 2 grand US if the recall hadn't performed.

Fact is the RG is the more exotic one, which is why people usually clock less miles on them. You don't want to blow them up or crash them.
RD5 parts (not counting all the fiddly model-only stuff that gets ditched) are cheap and a-plenty. Cranks are 400$ each, for example.
I couldn't get them rebuilt here for that price.

What they also share is an incredible sound (and level of noise!)

I'd love to have both but then both are illegal in my country. and I'm skint… Oh well, next time?

Back to working on my Aprilia/Cheetah hybrid. Now that'll settle the argument: lighter and more powerful… not to mention the handling.



Cheers,
Spike

[tz375]

That's cheating. It's lighter, handles way better than ether and has the potential to make more power reliably. Now I'm jealous.

[pjmcburney]

That's cheating. It's lighter, handles way better than ether and has the potential to make more power reliably. Now I'm jealous.

Sounds like Spike has been in contact with these guys - www.twostrokeshop.com


Cheers
Paul

[freeman437]

My brother has one since new on British Columbia, Canada...fun to drive...I had an RZ500 and we used to compare bikes.

[H2RICK]

The only stroker I've never ridden/owned that I've always wanted.
I did/did have a shot at a Walter Wolf rep holdover at a dealer up in Edmonton in ~1989 or 1990 for, IIRC, $5K or thereabouts......and I passed !!!
I've mentally kicked myself regularly ever since....