Royal Enfield, what does the hive think of these?

I am not in the market, I am just wondering how good the current motorcycles are...

I do like their retro style.

Anyone have one, ridden one?  Know someone that has one?  Maybe knocked one over accidently?

Inquiring minds want to know.

(Edited to declare I meant the modern incarnation of Royal Enfield products)

Indian made I think? I recall someone saying average but not terrible quality and a fairly agricultural riding experience, so if you like your retro to be retro then maybe its just the thing.

There are a couple eras of Royal Enfield. The old style ones trace roots back to before WWII, and were concurrently made in India and England. After the English company dissolved, the Indian company kept on building bikes. I think of them like the motorcycle equivalent of a VW Beetle. The basic formula remained the same for decades with changes made now and then for regulatory compliance. I have a 2002 Bullet 500 with a sidecar, that's my parents use to ride with their St. Bernard. It's not running at the moment, so I need to get it going again.

The new bikes are probably most similar to the modern classic Triumphs, though with smaller engines and less power. I have not ridden one yet. 

Noddaz said:

I am not in the market, I am just wondering how good of a motorcycle these are...

I do like their retro style.

Anyone have one, ridden one?  Know someone that has one?  Maybe knocked one over accidently?

Inquiring minds want to know.

I briefly rode  one   Briefly since I used to own a British made Royal Enfield 750 TT Interceptor.   ( which  was a massively powerful engine with almost no brakes.  
      The little one is made in India and a semi decent replica.   The sound is right and if you kick start it, it's going to take a decent leg.   Not as bad as a BSA 441 Victor though.  
The exhaust note is really authentic .  Not as nice as the BSA but then that has the best sounding muffler I've ever heard.   
  It's not quite as reliable as the British version which was well,  a mechanical challenge.  If you had got mechanical skills and a ready supply of parts you might be able to ride it at least once a week.  With two of them, good skills and plenty of parts, I could almost guarantee twice a week as long as you never went too far.  

Good enough to ride around the planet according to this woman. 

Best engine assembly using cleanliness of initial oil as a yardstick, according to Fort9. 

In reply to ae86andkp61 (Forum Supporter) :

I'm shocked!   The best?   Well they did say they overhauled the whole line recently and it's been more than a decade since I tried  one.   On the one hand it single was under $2000 back then  and it's more then doubled.  
 Maybe it's time I go look again!   

The new ones are being compared against triumphs that cost twice as much. Local dealer carries both lines, he says he sells the RE at 4:1 to the triumphs. The only one in the lineup he does not like is the Himalayan. Not that its not a great bike but people think they can use them in modern traffic in LA/SoCal and you cannot, my WR250 is faster in a straight line. 

Do not under any circumstances think this applies to the older bikes. The pre 2016 days non FI bikes are piles of crap. I love them though but they are for weekend toys where you don;t care if you get home.  The new ones I think even have a three year warranty now and what little experience I have with them is very positive. But and its a big butt, a KLR650 is a better bike for about the same money and does way more then the RE, and in the US at least there are tons of used bikes out there at the OTD price of a RE that are just better. 

That's kind of what I did.  Back in the mid 60's I could buy a Triumph Bonneville  650 or for hundreds less I could get a Royal Enfield 750 TT interceptor with a lot more power.   I got the Royal Enfield.   
At the time it was the fastest motorcycle you could buy. I only owned it for a little over a month when I sold it for more than I paid for it. 
only time in my life that happened. 
       

Royal Enfield is almost like talking about completely different companies depending on what year you are discussing. The OP asked about modern RE's, which by all accounts I've followed are stellar machines. 

The Meteor/Bullet line currently is a 350cc single, one of the smoothest running singles currently made. Excellent reviews everywhere. Power is good to adequate up to about 70 mph, so not a highway machine. But if you just ride in town or cruise the back roads it's an excellent choice.

The INTerceptor 650 twins are what get compared to the Triumph Bonneville. The Bonnies (the new water cooled ones) are very smooth and IMO too refined. They've lost some of their classic soul. The RE's retain that. The Triumph is more powerful and nicely finished but costs nearly 2x what the RE does. YouTube reviews will frequently argue the RE is about 80% of the Bonnie at 1/2 the price. I would agree, having ridden both.

The Himalayan is an odd bike, sort of like a KLR but without the absurd seat height and chain tensioner spring failures. I found it pretty soulless and not really any fun on the road. Early models had some teething problems but otherwise they are pretty bulletproof and a good choice for an off road adventure bike. 

I would not be afraid to buy any of the new models. The company is completely different than the one that made the old UCE and iron barrel Bullets, the latter of which I own. That bike is a rustic trip into the past. They do require occasional fiddling and are truly a bike for more leisurely riding. The 500 Bullets have power delivery like a Japanese 250cc bike. But, if you get the charm of them, they deliver a smile-per-mile. Build quality is on par with Ural, which is to say, don't torque any of the fasteners too much.

My British made 1964 Interceptor 750 is a true classic. Very similar to riding an old Triumph or Norton, as you would expect. Oil leaks and fasteners that come loose, as you'd expect. Old British bikes require a lot of commitment but I find them extremely rewarding. I would not recommend for everyone, though.

The review I wrote last year after demoing the Meteor 350:

Royal Enfield Meteor 350

This is an eclectic throwback to the “good old days”.  I liked this bike, and I liked riding it.  It reminded me of my old Honda CB360 from when I was a high school boy, 40 plus years ago.  Though honestly my CB360 would run away from this machine.  OK, perhaps more it reminded me of my even older Honda CD175.  They both had about the same top speed.  More on that in a moment.

Leisurely.  That’s the best one word description of riding this bike.  It keeps up with traffic, barely.  But it’s not frantic about it either.  You spend most if your time at about ¾ throttle, but the bike isn’t buzzing or feeling unhappy about it.  Riding through town, or on the back roads it’s just fine.    

It’s a happy feeling bike.  I was grinning on it.  Royal Enfield has embraced their old bike origins and make it all work.  The funky old look of the switches, the ignition key down behind your knee.  The long throw clutch, all of it.  

Ergonomically, it’s 100% sit up and beg.  You ride upright.  It’s the sort of posture that you can do all day long, especially since the wind isn’t beating you up, and you’ve got excellent control of the bike in this position.  The seat is comfortable, as are the hand grips and the foot pegs.  The controls are obvious and instinctive.  

This is not an interstate capable bike!  At one point things opened up and I was able to let ‘er rip! As it were.  It finally got up to 57 mph before I ran out of room.  Downshifting only made the engine wail more, it didn’t go faster.  I was sitting upright, so maybe if I tucked down it could have reached 60, but I rather doubt it.  The bike wasn’t straining or buzzing (much), it just didn’t have the power to go faster.

There is nothing that stands out performance wise, which means the whole package works as a whole, for just what it is, a leisurely fun bike.

Yes, there were some warts.  And they deserve mention.

The gear shifter has a heel shifter for upshifting, and the toe shifter is positioned so that you all but can’t get your toe under it, forcing you to use the heel shifter.  I don’t like that, and would change it.  But, once you figure out the heel shifter, it ain’t bad.  It’s not intrusive the way many are.  It’s a small flat pedal you catch with the inside of your heel.  It doesn’t get in the way or prevent you from moving your foot around on the pegs.  In fact, I might try something like this on my big Harley.  So on the one hand I don’t like it, and on the other I’m thinking of copying it?  Yea, I’m confused too.

The engine makes some ugly noises.  Scraping clanking noises.  Noises that to me are a reason to stop and check the oil, and to start planning a major repair job for the winter.  This does not sound or feel like a high quality bike.  Which, at it kinda isn’t.  It is a Royal Enfield, and has a darn cheap price tag.  But…  

The bike also smells like burning plastic.  I never found it, but there was a very distinct burning plastic scent to it.

The rear view mirrors are pretty useless, somehow.  They don’t angle well and the visibility in them is small.

All in all, a really fun, nostalgic, bike.  If of questionable longevity.

And if you're thinking of the Himalayan, also from last year:

Royal Enfield Himalayan.

Underwhelming is the best one word description of this bike.

Yes, it’s faster than the Meteor, but not by much.  It’s more offroad capable too, but again, not by much.

In the same spot that I managed to get the Meteor up to 57 mph, I got this one up to a solid 60 mph.  It might have gone faster, given enough room.  I’d say 65 mph is possible.  But that’s also with me on it, and I only weigh 155 lbs.  If you’re a big fella, well the top speed is going to be less.

The engine on this bike ran much worse than the Meteor.  The idle wandered up and down, throttle response was sluggish, and the engine made even worse clanking scraping noises than the Meteor.  This was an engine that I wondered if it would be working by the end of the month.  

The ergonomics were bordering on awkward for me.  It was more of a stretch out reach to the bars, but since it isn’t fast, there’s no air support, so you’re resting your weight on your hands.  

The handgrips deserve mention, because I’ve never met ones before that flat out hurt, and that’s through my gloves.  Not sure if they are knurled metal or knurled rubber, but they’re sharp and managed to push through my gloves and hurt my palm of my hands where I was holding myself up on them.  

And then there’s the mirrors.  They are absolutely useless, and designed that way.  There is no vertical adjustment.  None!  You can only turn them side to side on their hinge swivel.  They are fixed on the end of the metal rods that stick up, and unless you bend the rods, you’re stuck with wherever they point up and down.  Come on!

The transmission shifter is better on this bike than on the Meteor, in that it’s conventional and you can put your toe under it to upshift.  

Nothing about the brakes stand out to my memory, so they must have been fine, but not more.

Turning was...odd.  It’s not that it was ponderous, or sluggish, but it sure wasn’t quick either.  It wasn’t awkward, but it wasn’t...right.  Don’t get me wrong, it never missed a turn, or caused any problems of anything spooky, it’s just that it wasn’t sweet and wasn’t right somehow.  

This bike also smelled of burning plastic, though less so than the Meteor.

All in all, I found this a very lackluster and disappointing bike.

RE bought a lot of new machine tools and related equipment over the past few years.  Major focus on tight machining process control, and willing to spend money to achieve that, within reason.  I am not at all surprised to hear of good quality powertrain from them these days!

We're up in the Yukon right now and did a day trip towards Skagway Alaska today from Whitehorse so you see all sorts of motorcycles and interesting overland vehicles. At one of the scenic pullouts there was a Himalayan with all the bags, boxes and gas cans strapped to it and an R1250GS also loaded up parked there. The RE took off down the road and the BMW rider was still taking his time putting on his gear, reading the specs on the two bikes I don't think it it took the Beemer very long to catch up once he was rolling. Doesn't mean he wasn't having fun though.

My good friend's fiancee has one of the Himalayans. She loves it as a first bike, and it was cheap as all get out for a new adventure bike. That said, we just took a trip from NJ to VA through Skyline Drive and holy cow did its power and gearing seem to have caught up to it once on the highway. I was on an 1150GS, the other two on a liter sports bike and an 80s Nighthawk 700S, and the Himalayan had us slowed down on the highways and the twisties. The twisties because of suspension limitations, and the highway because the gearing basically sets you at redline at 70ish mph. If you never intend to hit the highway and feel confident being in the slow lane, it's a great bike. That said, if you can handle the (admittedly massive) added weight of an oilhead BMW, I was able to get my 1150 for a couple thousand less than the RE was bought new. And chances are by being on this forum you're able to maintain them as they need to be, as they're very simple machines still in that vintage.

I'm really attracted to the Continental GT.

This is the Royal Enfield I want. INT 650 in Orange Crush. As a second bike, not a replacement for the Street Triple. I'm going to need a bike for gunner jr(ette) in a few years to learn on and to ride. Seems perfect.

I got to ride about every current model around mid Ohio last weekend. The Classic 350 is the most charming bike I've ever ridden. I had to keep it pinned on all the 55mph roads to keep up with the 650s, but it's clear to me that they would be a fantastic commuter at any speed below that.

The interceptor was a lot of fun, and that would be my pick over the continental GT just because of the ergos. The drivetrain felt great, the handling was good, and the shifter was butter. They liked mid-high revs more than the bottom, at least more than the singles.

I didn't care for the Himalayan. It felt less happy at 55 than the 350 did, and the engine didn't feel any better than the 350. Of course I only took it on pavement, and I'm so big I make my 1150GSA look small, so clearly I'm not the right guy for that bike. It felt like I would need to ride it on the ragged edge everywhere, whereas the 350 prompts you to slow down and enjoy the ride a bit more. The 350 can be hustled exceedingly well for something that's basically double the power of my pit bike, but it doesn't prompt you to live that life. The Himalayan on the other hand felt like it was out of breath most of the time. That said, it kept up, I just had to rag on it.

I would put a beginner on any of them. I didn't feel a heavy clutch or brake on at all that day, and the low speed manners were great all around.  I really want a Classic just as a cool beater bike, but I don't think I can justify it over keeping the R65 airhead I already own.

A friend has a Himalayan hitch-mounted onto the back of his converted camper bus. He uses it as a "shore boat" for his "ship", something that could get to the more rugged hiking trail heads with enough cargo space to run errands. Indeed it is not very quick and has a low top speed, but it's perfect for that role being lightweight, rugged, and simple.

A coworker of mine has a Himalayan, he seems to like it for what it does. It's definitely not fast though. I'd still go KTM for that realm personally, but it does look good.