HONDA SLR650 (1996 - 2001) Review

At a glance

Owners' reliability rating: 3.9 out of 5 (3.9/5)
Power: 39 bhp
Seat height: Tall (33.3 in / 845 mm)
Weight: Low (355 lbs / 161 kg)


New N/A
Used £3,000

Overall rating

Next up: Ride & brakes
3 out of 5 (3/5)

The Honda SLR650 is a fairly joyless machine that barely redeems itself as a reasonably efficient commuter. Essentially it’s a more heavily road-biased Dominator built at Honda’s plant in Spain, back in the days when the Continental factory’s quality control occasionally went adios. A Honda CB500 is simply miles better.

Ride quality & brakes

Next up: Engine
3 out of 5 (3/5)

The Honda SLR650 copes well with city riding – it has a decent turning circle, it’s nicely-balanced and the brakes cope with its low’ish weight and low speeds. The front gives little to no feedback and feels weirdly remote when you begin riding harder. The SLR can cope with farm tracks and the like, but it’s no off-roader despite the styling. Pillions like it, with a decent seat and comfort.


Next up: Reliability
3 out of 5 (3/5)

The Honda SLR650's SOHC air-cooled motor produces decent torque, but few thrills. The 100mm piston thumps the bike eventually to about 90mph, but you’re a cruel master if you keep it there - and a masochistic one as at that speed the vibes will quickly turn your fingers white. The Honda SLR650 is reliable, though.

Reliability & build quality

Next up: Value
3 out of 5 (3/5)

Can be a bit hit and miss. Some bikes suffered from poor wheel bearings, a poor finish and paint on the fork legs flakes off if not protected (clear nail varnish works a treat).

Value vs rivals

Next up: Equipment
2 out of 5 (2/5)

The Honda SLR650 was only made for three years and it wasn’t a sales success in the UK. Unless you’re only looking for a workaday commuter then the SLR is easily beaten on value by bikes like the Honda Hornet 600 or CB500, Suzuki Bandit 600 and Yamaha’s excellent Fazer 600. Unless it’s an unbeatable bargain avoid. Find a Honda SL650 for sale.


1 out of 5 (1/5)

Bum basic is over-egging it. The Honda SLR650 is a no frills bike – so no tacho, a poor headlight and no centrestand. There’s virtually no unique aftermarket products available, either.


Engine size 644cc
Engine type 4v single, 5 gears
Frame type Tubular steel cradle
Fuel capacity 13 litres
Seat height 845mm
Bike weight 161kg
Front suspension None
Rear suspension Preload
Front brake Single 276mm disc
Rear brake 200mm disc
Front tyre size 100/90 x 19
Rear tyre size 120/90 x 17

Mpg, costs & insurance

Average fuel consumption 43 mpg
Annual road tax £96
Annual service cost -
New price -
Used price £3,000
Insurance group 8 of 17
How much to insure?
Warranty term Two year unlimited mileage

Top speed & performance

Max power 39 bhp
Max torque 40 ft-lb
Top speed 92 mph
1/4 mile acceleration 15.9 secs
Tank range 123 miles

Model history & versions

Model history

1995: Honda Dominator released.
1997: Honda releases the SLR650 – a more road-biased version of the Dommie.
1999: Honda cans the SLR650, but re-releases it as the FX650-Vigor.
2001: The Honda SLR650 Vigor is deleted.

Other versions


Owners' reviews for the HONDA SLR650 (1996 - 2001)

10 owners have reviewed their HONDA SLR650 (1996 - 2001) and rated it in a number of areas. Read what they have to say and what they like and dislike about the bike below.

Review your HONDA SLR650 (1996 - 2001)

Summary of owners' reviews

Overall rating: 3.3 out of 5 (3.3/5)
Ride quality & brakes: 2.7 out of 5 (2.7/5)
Engine: 3.1 out of 5 (3.1/5)
Reliability & build quality: 3.9 out of 5 (3.9/5)
Value vs rivals: 3.4 out of 5 (3.4/5)
Equipment: 3.4 out of 5 (3.4/5)
4 out of 5
05 September 2015 by Bruce

Year: 1999

Fun to ride, good on lanes and in traffic. Not for boy racers. I bought mine to go on a trailer behind a motorhome, for which it is idea, being light to tow and push on and off the trailer. Great fun to ride round the lanes and go exploring on. Rode mine to Germany last year, great for A roads but not much fun on motorways. This year rode around Brittany for which the Vigor was ideal, especially on coastal tracks and byways. Worst points are the vibration if you thrash it and the small tank. Been very reliable and easy to work on. most parts are easy to get and usually cheap-ish. Would recommend the Vigor if you want a fun bike for pottering and exploring. not for racing along the bypass!

Ride quality & brakes 3 out of 5

Capable bike for slower mixed roads, and handles well two up. Not so good when well loaded with luggage. Comfortable for about two hours before a leg stretch and fine for gentle touring. Pure hell on a motorway unless you stop regularly.

Engine 4 out of 5

Big thumpy single engine, loads of pull but does vibrate if you crank it at low revs. Really smooth above half revs. 60 mpg if your gentle with it.

Reliability & build quality 4 out of 5

Paint and tin work corroding a bit. Very reliable. A few minor problems, usually fixed on the spot buy never let me down.

Value vs rivals 4 out of 5

Easy to service. Running costs about average for a middle sized single.

Equipment 3 out of 5

Bit basic. A good top box is useful. Get decent dual use tyres as cheap ones make the bike feel skittish. Don't gear the bike up, as this makes it sluggish and lumpy.

1 out of 5 Poor at best
24 October 2012 by

Now I’ve ridden some poor bikes but this is a shocker. After a few beers on e-bay bought one of the last ‘01 FX’s, having read some of the articles on here I thought it would be a reasonable winter bike. The bike itself is a little scruffy but looks well looked after. Generally I take the MCN reviews with a pinch of salt, but the front end of this bike gives absolutely no confidence what so ever, with a fairly good death weave at about 70mph. It makes my old Diversion which I had 2-3 years ago, which was 12 years old at the time; seem like a completely planted race bike. The engine is fairly gutless for a single, but will rattle the rest of the badly put together bike to bits. Don’t try and buy any after market bits for this bike, you’ll spend ages on the internet believing there must be some useful bits of luggage, exhausts or anything to make the bike more interesting but there isn’t! I’m going to plod on through winter and hopefully ditch it or scrap it in the spring. Avoid – there aren’t any redeeming features.

Ride quality & brakes 1 out of 5
Engine 1 out of 5
Reliability & build quality 1 out of 5
Value vs rivals 2 out of 5
Equipment 2 out of 5
4 out of 5 Underrated
31 December 2011 by stevieboyni

This is somewhat a negative review from MCN but i must agree with the previous reviewer that a lot of people place the bike in the wrong class. It's a great bike for all kinds of weathers and conditions and yes it can handle some of the rough stuff although nothing too crazy as the clearance isn't great. As a standard bike it can be a little dull but with a few modifications can turn this into a real fun machine. MCN point to the fact that there isn't a lot of aftermarket parts for the bike but this isn't true. Without plugging any companies i managed to source exhausts (which gives the bike the soul and power a RFVC engine should), handguards, heated grips, screen, bars, top box etc, etc.. None of this was a problem. These bikes are a lot more popular in Germany and other parts of Europe so you can source more on the aftermarket there. I really can't fault the bike, it's lovely and torquey and comfortable enough for a days riding. With the mods i've done turns it into the bike it should be... A cut price adventure bike. It could do with a bigger tank but i'm working on that too! Bulletproof reliability so far and you can get decent tyres on it. If you fancy one and see one at decent money go for it :)

Ride quality & brakes 3 out of 5
Engine 5 out of 5
Reliability & build quality 4 out of 5
Value vs rivals 4 out of 5
Equipment 2 out of 5
4 out of 5 Better than you think
02 February 2011 by ranorthe

The SLR is a lot better than I thought it would be. Comments about lack of equipment are just daft, it has a speedo and a fuel tap, what more do you need? Think of it as a trail bike and you're about there, it's basic and solid. I think a lot of the complaints about the SLR is because people put it in the wrong category. It's not a sports bike, a tourer, or a commuter, it's a trail / enduro bike so it should be compared to F650 / XT660 / XF650 etc, not bandits and SVs... It's surprisingly good off road, only limited by the 19" front wheel and certainly better than the BMW F650 I used to own. It has a (small) bash plate and the frame goes right under the engine so you don't have to worry about grounding the crankcases. The brakes are very good (twin piston Brembo up front) and the very large diameter forks give good handling. Maintainance is a doddle, screw and lock nut tappets and a couple of litres of oil and you're done. It will sit at 75 to 80MPH all day, but it's hard work on the upper body. For a trip to France I'll fit a windscreen. The engine is a gem, great thunking gobs of torque from very low revs makes overtaking easy at any speed and cruising along at a relaxed pace is enjoyable with the reassuring throb from the big lump to keep you company. I get about 55MPG, which gives about 110 miles to reserve, not ideal but the seat is designed for off road so you're ready for a break. They hold their value really well, because people who know about these things know how good they are..

Ride quality & brakes 4 out of 5
Engine 4 out of 5
Reliability & build quality 5 out of 5
Value vs rivals 3 out of 5
Equipment 5 out of 5
3 out of 5 Marmite
25 January 2011 by Ovski

I love it at times and detest it at others. Have been using one for last 10months for 30mile a day commute over mainly dual carriage ways. Absolutely fantastic in town when stuck in traffic, its slim and light enough to really throw about and squeeze through tight gaps. It will quite happily plod along at 60-70mph but the front is so light that the slightest breeze will have you blown about all over the road. Brakes are fine for commuting but take carry a pillion at your peril. Ridiculously cheap to run. It does like a drop of oil but will run for ever on not a lot of petrol - I average 60mpg on my commute. The lack of feedback from the front wheel mentioned by MCN is spot on - its very un-nerving. Coming from a sports bike before this I was bored of it within in a week and have only kept it whilst saving up for another bike. That sad, if you only want it for a commute through town/city you cant go far wrong!

Ride quality & brakes 2 out of 5
Engine 2 out of 5
Reliability & build quality 5 out of 5
Value vs rivals 5 out of 5
Equipment 2 out of 5
4 out of 5 Grins per mile
15 May 2010 by oldblokebiker

I have had one of these for a short while. Having had many different bikes over my 35 years of riding I was looking for something to make me grin on the way to work. It is basic, it is a single thumper, it doesn't have a lot of power, it doesn't have lots of goodies. But isn't that the point? Not as cheap to buy as some people like to make out. There is a following who will grab one of these when they are up for sale. I commute 42 miles a day. Mostly back A roads with a few miles of national speed limit duel carrageway then a few miles of traffic laden mixed roads. The bike takes it all in it's stride. 55 MPG on average. It is the kind of bike that wants you to take it 'the long way round' and I grin as I get off it every day. You can even get decent rubber for it (I run Tourance EXP's). Cheap to run, a blast to ride and not much to go wrong. It could do with a 6th gear and a bigger tank but apart from that I LOVE it.

Ride quality & brakes 4 out of 5
Engine 5 out of 5
Reliability & build quality 5 out of 5
Value vs rivals 5 out of 5
Equipment 4 out of 5
3 out of 5 Cheap, reliable, comfortable biking.
26 May 2006 by Grey Crow

This bike goes a lot better than it looks, although that's not saying much! It pulls strongly and cleanly from low revs and makes a great sound as you would expect from a big single. I find the handling quite confidence inspiring, within it's limits, but the brakes could be a little sharper. The seat comfort is nowhere near as bad as the KLE500 I once owned and you could actually ride this bike as far as the fuel tank will take you. Speaking of which, fuel economy isn't bad at between 50 and 60mpg depending on how it's ridden. Strengths: Cheap to buy and run while still being fun to ride at sensible speeds. Weaknesses: Could look slightly more aggressive. Brakes not the best.

Ride quality & brakes 2 out of 5
Engine 2 out of 5
Reliability & build quality 5 out of 5
Value vs rivals 3 out of 5
Equipment 4 out of 5
4 out of 5 No frills fun commuter
12 February 2005 by stephencornes

Fun for round town, but dont even try to keep up with other bikes on a ride out. Really reliable and just about copes with the British winters if you keep an eye on things. Strengths: Cheap 2nd hand and cheap to maintain. Weaknesses: Not as economical as expected & tank too small, around 90 miles between fill ups.

Ride quality & brakes 3 out of 5
Engine 3 out of 5
Reliability & build quality 5 out of 5
Value vs rivals 3 out of 5
Equipment 4 out of 5
3 out of 5 My Review
16 October 2001 by mengrb

Used mainly for commuting. The business on twisty country roads. Forget motorways and serious distance, especially 2-up. Under powered (but it is cheap to run). The brakes are apalling (for a motorcycle). Ultra reliable, no problems to date (although it hasn't been thru a British winter yet). Has the potential to become the favourite hack.<br><br>

Ride quality & brakes 2 out of 5
Engine 2 out of 5
Reliability & build quality 3 out of 5
Value vs rivals 2 out of 5
Equipment 4 out of 5
3 out of 5 My Review
25 July 2001 by PaulHalfpenny

A good bike for shortish, punchy rides on country roads. Excellent as a 'back-to-biking' machine, available at low prices. Mine had only done 294 miles (on an 'X' plate) when purchased. Not the prettiest but neither am I! With a small front screen and top-box the SLR would be ideal for practical commuter work.<br><br>Strengths<br><br><br><br>Weaknesses<br><br>

Ride quality & brakes 3 out of 5
Engine 3 out of 5
Reliability & build quality 2 out of 5
Value vs rivals 3 out of 5
Equipment 4 out of 5
Back to top