Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have been looking at one of the recent Royal Enfields. They are only a 500 but look pretty cool. Heard they have a hard ride. Thought I would ask and see what you all think.
I always liked English bikes having owned a couple of Triumphs back in the 60's.
Not sure but I think Steve McQueen rode an Enfield in the Great Escape.(It was supposed to be a German bike but you can't fool motorcycle enthusists)
Didn't know they were producing them again. 500 cc used to be a medium size road bike but with all the crotch rockets and big cube Harleys these days 500cc might be considered a beginners bike.
I just looked at their web site and it is a 500 single just like the old BSA Victors 441 Stump pullers.
I like it but I am not a big engine fan, 750 is big enough for me.
These built in India Royal Enfield's have been in production for many decades. Originally, they were the Brit designed bike built for the local marketplace under license, with 350 and 500 cc singles ... a pretty big bike by the standards of the area, but essentially the 1950's Brit bike with all of it's faults and shortcomings.
Think in terms of old Lucas electricals but of poorer quality, and you're on the right track. These bikes may have been decent old thumpers in 1950 ... heavy, sturdy, overbuilt, designed for bad roads ... but were hopelessly outdated by the 1960's and still built to that standard until just a few years ago, without any significant changes. Reliability was a real problem for anybody expecting a modern minimal vibration, decent brakes, reasonable power (a struggle to cruise at 65 mph!), leak free and clean motorcycle. In short, a 21st century tinker's nightmare ... a joy to ride only for it's nostaglia of what it was like to ride a big thumper back in 1950's ... while requiring the ongoing maintenance and repairs of those years, too. They even built an 18HP diesel version for the fuel economy in the area for people who did a lot of longer distance traveling and needed the big frame for saddlebags and stuff, but didn't need to go much over 50 mph. Of course, you needed a sundial to time the 0-50 mph acceleration, but that was a secondary issue.
They've recently updated some of the components, moving on to more modern ignition, fuel, and braking systems, and redesigned the motor, too. Whether or not their quality and materials will hold up in a realistic service environment at the speeds and performance you'd want for a transportation bike (as opposed to a Sunday driver) remains to be seen. My bet is that they're still not competitive with so many other big singles that have established an excellent reputation ... see everything from the BMW 650 to the Kawasaki 650's to a host of other sizable modern singles with well earned reputations for performance, reliability, and durability ... at a price point that is very competitive with these machines.
Watching the ads in my regional papers and listings and on-line ... it appears a lot of folk buy these bikes and put on just a very few miles before realizing that the nostaglia trip isn't worth the expense for a bike that cannot and does not perform as a modern motorcycle. There's a lot of bikes in the marketplace that simply blow the doors off one of these, and even if speed or crotch rocket performance isn't your thing ... reliability and durability is still a prime consideration for most riders. Claimed fuel economy may be high on these, but when I get on my motorcycles, I want them to start and run with minimal fuss and maintenance, and get me to where I'm going at speeds that can keep up with traffic ... so mid 50's mpg on my bikes is very acceptable against the RE's claims of more than that.
I'd also mention that the quality of paint and chrome leaves a lot to be desired, and the finishes aren't applied with anything like what you'd come to expect from other mainstream bikes. These things rust out on the dealer's parking lot in our very dry climate.
I've owned my share of 500cc Goldstars and G80CS Matchlesses and an odd Ariel big single, along with an original RE Continental GT 250 (with the factory fairing) ... and all of them have been gladly sold for bikes with real value for the money, performance, durability, and reliability. Those old bikes are just that ... old bikes, with many shortcomings compared to modern rides.
OTOH, if you want to spend a lot of time tinkering around with a new bike to keep it running just to have a slow nostagalic new bike, then go for it ...
They are beautiful IMO, but they are slightly modernized antiques. They are very slow compared to almost any other motorcycle. I certainly wouldn't have one as my main ride, but for puttering along on a country road at 50 mph, they're great. And they are lovely machines.
If you are looking for reliability in a daily driver i'd look to something more modern,perhaps something from the major Japanese manufacturers,
If its just for the occasional Sunday run through the local countryside then maybe..
I always liked English bikes having owned a couple of Triumphs back in the 60's.
Not sure but I think Steve McQueen rode an Enfield in the Great Escape.(It was supposed to be a German bike but you can't fool motorcycle enthusists)
Didn't know they were producing them again. 500 cc used to be a medium size road bike but with all the crotch rockets and big cube Harleys these days 500cc might be considered a beginners bike.
I just looked at their web site and it is a 500 single just like the old BSA Victors 441 Stump pullers.
I like it but I am not a big engine fan, 750 is big enough for me.
There was a few bikes used in the movie. They were actually Triumphs. One was a 62 Triumph Thunderbird (for the jump scene) another was a 61 Trophy.
As far as Enfileds go. A friend has one as well as an Ural in his motorcycle collection. The Enfield is a good looking bike but the quality is sub par. The Ural is a bad BMW clone and the build quality is worse. I've ridden both and don't care for either one, but they do look cool. He likes to take the the Enfield to cruise night, it gets lot of attention.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
