Honestly I dont think there is any comparison. The Himalayan is more comparable to a 1982 Honda XL250. They are overweight underpowered and poorly built. Broken frames, crappy wheels, shitty brakes. I'd definitely say hard pass. The only caveat would be is if I was buying a bike in India to ride in India/Nepal only.

RE Himalayan vs 250cc Dual Sport - need your opinions!
 

Reports of broken frames are both historic and widely exaggerated, and to a degree Ill-informed. Remember the BMW GS forks that broke and killed a British bike journalist ? Massive recall issued and hardly mentioned now.

Have a look at this. Then decide.

https://youtu.be/fPaj10lHep4


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nathanthepostman youtube channel (Nathan rode from Australia to England on a Honda CT110 «postie bike») now has a fleet of different small-ish dual sport/travel bikes/adv bikes, amongst them several Himalayans, Honda Crf250 Rally and a Crf300Rally, BMW 310 GS, KTM 390 ADV, Honda CB500X, Honda CT125 Hunter Cub and of course the old postie bike CT110 and maybe a few others that I dont remember. If you want opinions on the different small-ish travel bikes - Nathans channel can be worth checking out…

Exaggerated? I saw a large number of broken Himalayans. The guided groups in Ladakh I would see broken down almost everyday. They are cheap for a reason. IMHO there is no comparison with the Japanese bikes mentioned. Each to their own though. They are easy to ride, easy to repair especially in India and quite cheap to do so, but overweight, underpowered and lacking in build quality.

How old were the Himalayans? Had they got many miles on them and how had they been treated in the time? Sure, they are cheaper than the Japanese equivalents and the quality may not be as good - but is the quality good enough on the new machines? Having something that never breaks down because it has been so over engineered is, generally, a waste of money - and with the Himalayan you get a lot of bike, with a standard of quality that is good enough for not a lot of money.

As regards the underpowered bit when do you need 80+HP? They are less than 200kg wet and the weight is carried low down, the gearbox is designed with the power output in mind. When I tested one it was very new and the engine felt a bit buzzy on UK dual carriageways but once on the single cariage country roads the engine / gearbox / chassis combination was great fun - they were designed as a system and they work well as a system.

It seems to me that this is the sort of argument where the two of you will have to agree to disagree. Hound_Dog has made it very clear he isn't interested in the Himalayan, and I doubt that there's anything you could say that would convince him otherwise.

I think you are right.

Royal Enfields are cheap for a reason. Like everything, they are built to a price point.

You are either happy with the product produced at that price point, or you are not.

There is no correct answer.

For example. I just replaced my 6” orbital sander with a Festool one.
$1190 AUD (~$890 USD).

Crazy money but the rolls Royce of sanders. In contrast, I bought a cheap shop vac for $90 as it will do the job good enough instead of $1000 Festool one.

Buy what you want and :mchappy: beer