Cbr 250 Vs Ninja 250

[hehehoho]

Okay, so it has gobs of torque compared to a triple or inline four, but not a single.

Anyway, the results of what everybody has been waiting for is in. MCN's 7 page head to head. Released today, the PDF is available here:

You'll need to register first though.

http://www.ninjette.org/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=11624&d=1303301809

Just glancing quickly as I'm in a rush. Ninja showed 107mph and the CBR 102mph.

REAL times were:

CBR: 94.2

Ninja: 97.4

I'm afraid the Honda whooped the Kawa in the 0-60mph.

CBR: 8.73

Ninja: 10.18

1/4 mile and it had nearly caught up, but being a bit anemic it couldn't catch the CBR.

CBR: 16.63

Ninja: 16.93

From 20-70 in 4th. Ninja takes it:

CBR: 14.68

Ninja: 13.78

Roll on from 30-80, CBR is back showing it how it should be done:

CBR: 26.42

Ninja: 27.79

Haven't read the full thing yet, but certainly worth a download.

Later peeps.

[hehehoho]

By the way in all the pics of their comparison has the ninja with a nice slip on muffler.

Just finishing off the main article and they also say '...their brakes are more than adequate, with the Honda stopping slightly quicker than the Kawa'.

Non-ABS Honda tested btw.

Overall winner in the 'Verdict' section, the CBR.

It really is quite embarrassing for 'Team Green'.

Edited April 20, 2011 by hehehoho

[BigBikeBKK]

Good, simple video comparison/head-to-head.

http://www.bikechannel.com/node/4396

Yet this review gives it to the Ninjette saying the Kwacker is more fun to ride, but the Honda more practical. Guess it really depends on your riding style.

[hehehoho]

Guess it really depends on your riding style.

Or if you're interested in 0-60 times.

1/4 mile times.

30-80mph times.

More torque.

less braking distance.

Which they all gave to the Honda.

While giving it to the CBR in the final verdict section they also say 'its build quality is higher than the Kawasaki'.

Almost a total whitewash.

Edited April 20, 2011 by hehehoho

[BigBikeBKK]

Guess it really depends on your riding style.

Or if you're interested in 0-60 times.

1/4 mile times.

30-80mph times.

More torque.

less braking distance.

Which they all gave to the Honda.

While giving it to the CBR in the final verdict section they also say 'its build quality is higher than the Kawasaki'.

Almost a total whitewash, without even mentioning the CBR's dashboard equipment.

Yet the other review you posted says the Kwacker has more power and better brakes... http://www.bikechannel.com/node/4396

Neither of these bikes are going to post impressive times on a drag strip.

All the reviews still seem to agree that the Honda is the better bike for beginners and commuters while the Ninjette remains the more capable bike for tracks and twisties.

To each their own- the more choices the better!

Ride On!

Tony

[BigBikeBKK]

While giving it to the CBR in the final verdict section they also say 'its build quality is higher than the Kawasaki'.

Tell that to all the people with broken Hondas...

[hehehoho]

All the people?

[13budgies]

Twins have gobs of torque

Though less than a single it seems.

You're quoting me out of context- I was comparing twins to triples and inline fours.

Why out of context? This is a thread about a single.

[skybluestu]

Yet another win for the CBR and yet more drivel from Tony

[BigBikeBKK]

Honda CBR 250

Kawasaki Ninja 250

Any questions?

[jackjones]

Maybe the CBR rider used a little too much front brake and slid off. It can happen.

[skybluestu]

Maybe the CBR rider used a little too much front brake and slid off. It can happen.

Don't feed the droll troll.

[jackjones]

I am sorry. I just wasn't thinking. What is going to happen? What have I done? It's not going to suddenly grow or replicate, is it? I don't want that on my conscience.

[hehehoho]

Any questions?

Sure.

Why are you comparing stock tyres to racing tyres? Don't you know the difference?

[skybluestu]

Funny how Tony was quick to post links to positive reviews about the er6n and versys yet chooses to ignore that those same magazines are picking the cbr over the ninja!

[dave_boo]

And last but not least.

(all taken from Thaivisa)

[BigBikeBKK]

Funny how Tony was quick to post links to positive reviews about the er6n and versys yet chooses to ignore that those same magazines are picking the cbr over the ninja!

I've never seen a poor review of the ER6 or Versys... Have you?

The reviews I've read regarding the Ninja 250 / CBR 250 seem split, generally saying the Ninja is more fun, the CBR more practical, etc etc.

Happy Trails!

Tony

[skybluestu]

Funny how Tony was quick to post links to positive reviews about the er6n and versys yet chooses to ignore that those same magazines are picking the cbr over the ninja!

I've never seen a poor review of the ER6 or Versys... Have you?

The reviews I've read regarding the Ninja 250 / CBR 250 seem split, generally saying the Ninja is more fun, the CBR more practical, etc etc.

Happy Trails!

Tony

I've read 5-6 comparisons between the Ninja & CBR now and, apart from one which was sponsored by Kawasaki, they all gave their overall verdict to the CBR. The most recent one I read was by MCN and the Ninja used was sporting an aftermarket exhaust yet was still beaten by the CBR in many of the tests. And lets not forget, as you love to point out, the CBR is 'only' a single while the Ninja is a mighty twin so it's pretty embarrassing.

So apart from a few kph top speed advantage the CBR is the better bike, must be hard for any current or previous Ninja owner to accept, especially one with a large mouth, but you're gonna have to deal with it sooner or later

[jackjones]

I am more than a bit disappointed with MCN. Why didn't they keep both bikes completely standard? The after market pipe on the Kawasaki probably helped with the top speed but perhaps didn't do it any favours with the 0-60 mph times.

[taichiplanet]

This posted on another forum:

"Well, I took delivery of my new C'eeber yesterday, being one of the first people in the US to own one, and the only person, until today, to own one in the DFW metroplex. My previous bike was a 2009 Ninja 250R.

Here are some first thoughts:

-Wow. What a stunner. Looks 500% better in person- This bike is a supermodel.

-The bike has excellent agility. It looks bigger than I thought, and has a much more refined cornering experience than my previous Ninjas.

-The bike sounds far better than the videos you hear... I feel recording the sound brings out the "thump" of the thumper more than you actually experience. Not bad, especially if you're a previous owner of a KLR650.

-Far better mileage- I have put 35 miles on it and the gas gauge hasn't budged. It still has full bars, and the tank still looks full.

-The clutch doesn't feel as "soft" or "flabby" as the Ninja's. It's definitely geared for beginners who need to learn about the zone of engagement, but still acts like a bigger bike with more precision.

-It's easier to make quicker gear changes.

-Believe it or not, it feels smoother at 70 than the Ninja, and it's lower power curve makes speeding up a bit easier. It doesn't feel as though it suffers as much.

-Though it's all aesthetic, the digital setup with analog tachometer feels worlds more advanced than the Ninja's setup. It feels like it's a bit more "grown up."

-I wish the foot pegs were a tiny bit farther forward. Some of the upright position from the Ninja will be missed.

-A small nuisance, the windscreen tends to vibrate a lot, thought the rest of the bike doesn't. I will invest in a windscreen made with a more rigid material.

-I got the Seat Cowl: BUY IT. The bike looks much better, and I will probably even paint it. It's also comfortable to be against that than the rear seat.

I will keep updating this thread every other day with more ride reports. This bike is incredible. I understand why Honda did what they did, now!"

Edited April 23, 2011 by taichiplanet

[hehehoho]

*ahem*

Any questions?

Sure.

Why are you comparing stock tyres to racing tyres? Don't you know the difference?

Edited April 23, 2011 by hehehoho

[JonnyF]

Just got back from a 10 day holiday in the UK and picked up the latest copy of Bike magazine, one of the best selling bike mags in the UK. Their summary of both bikes is as follows...

CBR - "Smaller, easier and with a less revvy engine than a Ninja 250. Cheaper too, but the Kawasaki feels more authentic". They rated it 1.5 out of 5 for sportiness, 1 out of 5 for desirability and 1 out of 5 for their "techno" rating (whatever that is!)

Ninja - "Ninja is stretching it, but it's a capable, confidence inspiring entry level 250. Pricier than CBR but more substantial". They rated it 2.5 out of 5 for sportiness, 2 out of 5 for desirability and 1 out of 5 for "techno".

I've always found this magazine to be very pro-Honda so I was quite surprised by the extra points awarded to the Ninja. There's some very strange reviews out there though, some saying the total opposite of others although personally I'd have to agree with the extra points awarded for sportiness and desirability.

[hehehoho]

Any report listing the two bike's 'techo' rating as the same is pretty laughable.

lol

And ABS (market first)... how many patents does the new engine have again, twenty something isn't it?

[jackjones]

I thought Bike magazine was a sister magazine to MCN and then they give 1.5 for techno for the CBR even though MCN wrote an article entitiled " How the new CBR250 out-techs superbikes", published 19/1/2011. The article talks about the competely new design with an off set cylinder design, " Desax " which the new ZX10R is also using. It also mentions the spiny cylinder sleeve, the striations on the bottom of the pistons and my favourite, as quoted by Honda in the article, ' The world's first combination of DOHC with roller type rocker arms." and then there is also the 18 patents on the frame alone. It makes you wonder where they get the journalists from and so disappointing that they couldn't even read what their sister paper had written this year, or perhaps have even researched the subject a little bit before giving their uninformed opinions. Unbelievable.

Edited April 24, 2011 by jackjones

[taichiplanet]

Some vids comparing; same old same old stuff! Sorry if they have been put up before.

[taichiplanet]

[JonnyF]

Two out of three good reviews I thought (the shorter film of the three was weak and offered no opinion at all so not worthy of comment) so thanks for posting taichiplanet. 2 things stood out for me. In the first review the guy concluded that if he was buying for himself then he'd spend the extra and get theNinja - but if he was buying for his son or daughter he'd buy the CBR. Kind of sums up the differences for me.

The second review was a bit strange being that he was reviewing 2 bikes claiming to be sports bikes. He conceded that the Ninja was the faster and the more sporty of the two – to quote "the hp makes a huge difference" and then comparing it to the other two in the twisties "it's just pulling away". He then gave the victory to the CBR based on the Ninja having a carb (not an issue in Thailand), and the CBR being a superior commuter bike, user friendliness etc.

Given that that the article was titled "beginner bikeshootout" I can kind of understand the conclusion. If the article was "most fun 250" then I'm guessing he'd have gone for the Ninja. So the Ninja is the better sports bike and the CBR is the better commuter/beginner bike, who'd have thought it?

Edited April 25, 2011 by JonnyF

[dave_boo]

If you saw these two headed toward you, which one is more desirable?

[dave_boo]

The fat pregnant one or the sleek modern one?

Or perhaps the Ninja is more desireable since it will lose pretty much any stoplight drag race?

[hachii]

1 conclusion I made is that the CBR 250R is a commuter bike with single cylinder 250cc engine wich is made for its purpose and the ninjette is a small bike but aim big to become a superbike. It is a superbike wannabe or a poser then. But it's not.