Faults:

Normal wear and tear. It's well-reported that the finish on the ER-5 isn't brilliant - and that's true - but not to the extent that it spontaneously falls apart.

General Comments:

Effortless to ride at motorway speeds when equipped with a Puig Touring Screen and handguards. Benefits from a radiator protector, and I think a rear carrier is a must. It'll get a fair lick on, but takes its time getting there. Touring ability is under-rated; conversely, its qualities as a short-distance town/city commuter are slightly exaggerated. It lived most of its production life in the shadow of the 1993-2003 Honda CB 500 twin, which in all honesty was probably the better machine, but not vastly so. IMHO the ER-5 represents better value these days - a genuine "bargain basement" purchase. Better described as "dated" rather than "retro", its appearance conceals a certain ruggedness.

The ER-5 was widely used in rider training schools, which can be looked at in two ways - the bikes could've been badly (if inadvertently) ill-treated, but would also have been regularly serviced and given frequent maintenance checks.

I love mine. I've bought other, more exotic motorcycles with the intent of downgrading the ER-5 to my "second-choice", but that doesn't work - the Kawa always remains my favourite and has been dubbed "Old Faithful" by my friends. It may be a banger, but it's MY banger.

I'm surprised no-one has yet mentioned the trade-mark brown downpipes, though...

Faults:

Rectifier failed.

General Comments:

Generally underrated, especially by the press, a kind of Ford Fiesta of the motorcycle world.

Handles well, good on fuel (I've been getting high fifties to the gallon), brakes are fine, gearbox is very good, comfort is OK too.

Apart from a dead regulator-rectifier, mine has been reliable, starts on the button and has been used in all weathers.

Comments from others about rapidly deteriorating finishes are true, but regular spraying with WD40 etc (I've been using ACF50) helps a lot.

I would recommend the ER5 as I consider it a very competent bike, as long as you expect of it what it was designed for.

Faults:

Wear and tear items really. Just fitted a new chain and sprockets, and a new front disk rotor and pads. The disk had a couple of cracks in the drilled braking surface.

General Comments:

Most people dismiss the bike as a bit of a hack bike or a commuter bike. Having been riding for over 45 years, take it from me it's not.

If you owned T100 Triumph from the 60s or a T120, you would see the pleasure of riding a twin engine bike. These are great bikes; simply made, and easy to maintain, ride and enjoy.

Faults:

Regulator blown, fork seals perished, CDI unit buggered, battery over charged, stator coils packed up, light bulbs blown, exhaust baffle whistles, sprocket carrier bearing knackered.

General Comments:

An easy to ride motorcycle for the beginner. Manoeuvres well, it's sturdy, and has a fair bit of poke.

The engine sounds terrible, it can only be described as an old petrol lawn mower.

Regulators have a habit of malfunctioning, causing the battery to overheat, the CDI unit to pack up, blown bulbs and possibly damage the stator coils, which is what happened to me.

Second hand parts are plentiful, and it's a fairly easy bike to do home mechanics on.

Fuel consumption isn't great though, and the petrol gauge isn't that accurate.

It is what it is. For the first time rider, it's great to plod around on and build up your confidence, ready to move onto bigger and better machines.

The wind really hits you at 60mph+, which isn't nice.