Cbr 250 Vs Ninja 250

[dave_boo]

Adolescent comments? No need to start name calling Dave as I've refrained from doing so and I'd appreciate it if you did as well. I was just paraphrasing the reviewers comments so maybe your disdain should aimed at the reviewer.

Yes that was the article I was referring to and I thought it was 8mph not 8kph, my apologies. If you asked me if I'd like the extra 8kph or not then my answer would still be yes and since cruising at 130-140 is sat right in the meat of the Ninja's powerband then I believe it will be a more capable highway bike for cruising and overtaking. I'm sure you will disagree.

I believe the validity of the times you previously quoted in the test by (MCN?) have been queried nearly everywhere, by all accounts it was a borrowed second hand Ninja vs. a brand new CBR so who knows what had been done to it. As I said the guys in the YouTube review and the videos taken at a track in Thailand showed the Ninja to be the faster bike in most circumstances.

Anyway, this is getting a little bit silly now so let's agree to disagree. I have to say that I was really excited when I heard about the CBR250R being released as I remember the previous inline 4. If they'd have released what I was expecting then I'd have dropped the Ninja like a hot potato as I believe brand loyalty is pretty foolish and I buy my bikes based on the spec not the name on the tank. As it was I was genuinely disappointed by the looks and the spec of the bike when it was released. My defense of the Ninja is not based on the fact I own one, as I would have happily switched without a second thought if the Honda caught my imagination. I genuinely believe it to be the better bike and if I were buying a 250 again I would buy another Ninja even with the extra choices available to me.

So when are you buying the CBR?

Apologies for sounding burquse (you are the most civil debater of the 'opposition'). Unfortunately there was another poster that was raising my ire and I allowed that to spill over into the reply to you. I remember having cocked an eyebrown at the 'Honda huggers' comment but didn't intend on making a fuss about that particular turn of phrase.

I don't understand why calling people on relying strictly on a single source is a bad thing; especially when that source is so contradictory to other, professional, reviews.

Eight km/h is a fairly large spread, I will give you that. I assume that you are still utilising cruising as not being tucked in and refering to the indicated speed, correct?

I would like to see these 'nearly everywhere' references. Perhaps they can shed some light on the subject and I'll have to reappraise my stance. While the Ninja was a borrowed, broken in bike (with performance mods) it was running against a new bike of unknown milage...and still wasn't able to pull out a significant victory in pretty much anything.

I agree with you about the original CBR 250RR (or the ZX-2R); those are the bikes that should be being built, perhaps alongside these two beginner bikes. With the technology now-a-days, even a catalysed 2T with direct injection should get anybody with a slight amount of testosterone excited. Unfortunately those types of bikes aren't being offered and instead we're arguing about the fact that a cheaper bike that will be able to be serviced pretty much any where in the Kingdom (and sold, currently at a fairly hefty markup over MSRP) is able to best another bike in quite a few categories.

[dave_boo]

Dave...

Let the hysterical ideologues whine. It's amusing to see them twist and turn. Not so amusing to see them stoop to personal attacks rather than the issues.

The only thing they can hang their hat on, at the moment, is the fact that many Honda dealers in Thailand are taking advantage of the undeniable demand for the CBR 250R to add a premium to Honda's MSRP. Time will sort this issue. Didn't Sumet Cycle say above that he is getting more CBRs these days?

The only issue here is that dave does not know how to extract the most power from ANY bike.

and as a result is making misleading conclusions, appointing himself as the authority on bikes - and all this with a grand total of 3 months riding experience in the wrong gear.

Is this a personal attack ? or is it something that has to be brought to light ? Will dave ever figure out that its ok to downshift and up it 2k rpm, then gas it and go? Obviously not, because the Ninja doesn't require being in top gear to do 120kph (speedo) then accelerating to 160kph (speedo) shifting along the way, and at an adequately nippy pace.

If he knew how to ride he would know this.

I have over 3000 posts, but if you can find a single place where there is even a hint that I suggest that acceleration is acheived through shifting to the highest gear and gunning it I will retire from this thread and do everything I can to get a moderator to close it, delete all posts and leave a single post stating the following:

dave_boo is a dumbarse who is really good with numbers and yet still can't figure out that using the torque multiplication of lower gears increases the acceleration of a motorcycle.

Oh, and CBR 250R sucks and Ninja 250R rulz!!!!!!

Now it very well could be in there, but I highly doubt it. If you wish to contort (much nicer than calling someone a liar isn't it) facts to make a point, by all means go ahead. If you wish to change the subject, by all means go ahead. But would you kindly refrain from putting words in my mouth or intentions in my mind, especially since you haven't ridden with me....ever. If you really want dirt on me, contact Tony. He's been on a couple of rides with me and you two seem to share a common disregard for decorum. Or even mbox. Or perhaps billd. Point being, and put as nicely as I can, you're talking out of your arse.

[CBR250R]

Dave, I was referring to the front cover of a Japanese bike mag that quoted the top speed of both bikes, I think the difference in speed was around 8-9mph (I could be wrong) but I don't have the time/will to search for it. Even if I found it then suddenly top speed would once again become irrelevant to the CBR huggers so not much point. Not sure which thread Snowflake posted on but he remarked on wishing the bike had more top end speed and looking forward to upgrading to a Kawasaki 650.

MCN did a comparo recently that pitted the CBR250R against the Ninja250R. Has this been posted already?

These are the figures from the MCN comparo.

..................................Honda............Kawasaki

Top Speed..................94.2MPH.........97.4MPH

0-60 mph.................... 8.76sec...........10.18sec

Standing 1/4 mile........16.63sec...........16.93sec

4th 20-70....................14.68sec...........13.78sec

6th 30-80....................26.42sec...........27.79sec

Apparently they liked both bikes and generally conclude that if you want the sportier bike - go for the Ninja 250R - if you want the more practical bike - go for the CBR250R.

Mike

I stopped trusting reviews back in 1994, after i figured out half of them were bogus and leaned towards whoever gave them more advertising revenue.

Fine. Then consider this report from a forum contributor who had previously owned a Ninja 250R (and many other bikes) and now owns a CBR250R.

Ride Report from previous owner of 2009 Ninja 250R

Here is his report on the CBR250R:

"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!

Cheers!

[KRS1]

Dave...

Let the hysterical ideologues whine. It's amusing to see them twist and turn. Not so amusing to see them stoop to personal attacks rather than the issues.

The only thing they can hang their hat on, at the moment, is the fact that many Honda dealers in Thailand are taking advantage of the undeniable demand for the CBR 250R to add a premium to Honda's MSRP. Time will sort this issue. Didn't Sumet Cycle say above that he is getting more CBRs these days?

The only issue here is that dave does not know how to extract the most power from ANY bike.

and as a result is making misleading conclusions, appointing himself as the authority on bikes - and all this with a grand total of 3 months riding experience in the wrong gear.

Is this a personal attack ? or is it something that has to be brought to light ? Will dave ever figure out that its ok to downshift and up it 2k rpm, then gas it and go? Obviously not, because the Ninja doesn't require being in top gear to do 120kph (speedo) then accelerating to 160kph (speedo) shifting along the way, and at an adequately nippy pace.

If he knew how to ride he would know this.

I have over 3000 posts, but if you can find a single place where there is even a hint that I suggest that acceleration is acheived through shifting to the highest gear and gunning it I will retire from this thread and do everything I can to get a moderator to close it, delete all posts and leave a single post stating the following:

dave_boo is a dumbarse who is really good with numbers and yet still can't figure out that using the torque multiplication of lower gears increases the acceleration of a motorcycle.

Oh, and CBR 250R sucks and Ninja 250R rulz!!!!!!

Now it very well could be in there, but I highly doubt it. If you wish to contort (much nicer than calling someone a liar isn't it) facts to make a point, by all means go ahead. If you wish to change the subject, by all means go ahead. But would you kindly refrain from putting words in my mouth or intentions in my mind, especially since you haven't ridden with me....ever. If you really want dirt on me, contact Tony. He's been on a couple of rides with me and you two seem to share a common disregard for decorum. Or even mbox. Or perhaps billd. Point being, and put as nicely as I can, you're talking out of your arse.

You need to make it clear who posted that remark about you being a dumbass above, it wasnt me and you have conveniently left the name out.

Im not going to drag anyone in (like yourself) Just accept the fact that you still need practice, and the courage in knowing how far you can push your bike without damaging it. In the future im sure you will improve and find out alot of your statements will become contradictory once you gain experience and learn how to extract power.

Your mind is too linear.

[KRS1]

Dave, I was referring to the front cover of a Japanese bike mag that quoted the top speed of both bikes, I think the difference in speed was around 8-9mph (I could be wrong) but I don't have the time/will to search for it. Even if I found it then suddenly top speed would once again become irrelevant to the CBR huggers so not much point. Not sure which thread Snowflake posted on but he remarked on wishing the bike had more top end speed and looking forward to upgrading to a Kawasaki 650.

MCN did a comparo recently that pitted the CBR250R against the Ninja250R. Has this been posted already?

These are the figures from the MCN comparo.

..................................Honda............Kawasaki

Top Speed..................94.2MPH.........97.4MPH

0-60 mph.................... 8.76sec...........10.18sec

Standing 1/4 mile........16.63sec...........16.93sec

4th 20-70....................14.68sec...........13.78sec

6th 30-80....................26.42sec...........27.79sec

Apparently they liked both bikes and generally conclude that if you want the sportier bike - go for the Ninja 250R - if you want the more practical bike - go for the CBR250R.

Mike

I stopped trusting reviews back in 1994, after i figured out half of them were bogus and leaned towards whoever gave them more advertising revenue.

Fine. Then consider this report from a forum contributor who had previously owned a Ninja 250R (and many other bikes) and now owns a CBR250R.

Ride Report from previous owner of 2009 Ninja 250R

Here is his report on the CBR250R:

"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!

Cheers!

I'd never trust a review from someone with a grand total of 2 post....the original poster has not made another posting since he opened that thread on 4/22 it is now 5/3

I've never said anything bad about the cbr 250, look back...but i have pointed out the misanalyzation of the ninja 250 do to riding style.

Heck I'm hoping the cbr250 will be all that as people claim, its cheaper...next month I will know for sure and there will be a brand new cbr 250 for sale if it isn't. I've ridden some modified cbr 150's that had no problem keeping up with a Ninja 250 , except for the very top end. So im guessing the cbr 250 should be fairly capable, but until i actually ride one i wont be trusting any reviews. Why? because when i first read about the ninja 250 many sources said it lacked bottom end.

When i actually rode the ninja 250, i knew the people making these claims were mistaken.

[jackjones]

I suppose there will never be an end to this discussion? If I was trying to decide which one to buy over here, I would rent both of them and try each of them out for a few days and see which one I liked the most for the type of riding I would be doing. The decision would be a personal thing and hopefully I wouldn' t be overly concerned what other people thought about it.

Edited May 2, 2011 by jackjones

[barakla]

I suppose there will never be an end to this discussion? If I was trying to decide which one to buy over here, I would rent both of them and try each of them out for a few days and see which one I liked the most for the type of riding I would be doing. The decision would be a personal thing and hopefully I wouldn' t be overly concerned what other people thought about it.

WORD!

[jahsoldier]

I would buy the ninja for its better looks, who cares which one got the highest top-speed , they are both slow-ass bikes.

[skybluestu]

Another comparison, this one gives it to the 'Micro-Ninja'

http://www.sportrider.com/bikes/146_1105_kawasaki_ninja_250r_honda_cbr250r_hyosung_gt250r_comparison_test/index.html

[flying]

Another comparison, this one gives it to the 'Micro-Ninja'

http://www.sportrider.com/bikes/146_1105_kawasaki_ninja_250r_honda_cbr250r_hyosung_gt250r_comparison_test/index.html

Good review actually & the results not surprising.

Given Sport Rider is a performance oriented magazine

All 3 testers went Kawasaki

Also to note most of the new riders interviewed ( 2 out of 3 ) they interviewed went CBR except one I think that went Hyosung

[CBR250R]

Another comparison, this one gives it to the 'Micro-Ninja'

http://www.sportride...test/index.html

Good review actually & the results not surprising.

Given Sport Rider is a performance oriented magazine

All 3 testers went Kawasaki

Also to note most of the new riders interviewed ( 2 out of 3 ) they interviewed went CBR except one I think that went Hyosung

I thought the SportRider review was quite informative and descriptive. Overall, one of the better reviews I've read. However, I find it hard to accept their statement that the "CBR250R struggles past 60 mph" when the bike has been reviewed consistently to have a top speed of around 93 mph. The bike must be a real champ to struggle past 60 mph, yet continue to struggle for an extra 33 more miles per hour. It's like hearing about a weight lifter who starts to struggle past 60 reps, then manages to eke out 33 more!!!

Mike

[skybluestu]

Yeah, nonsense about the 60mph, I happily cruise at 140kph (speedo) at just over 8000rpm and redline starts at 10500rpm so doesnt feel like its struggling.

[dave_boo]

Since that review is so light on objective details, why worry?

In fact they make sure they mention that all the bikes reviewed are priced the same so the value proposition wasn't there for them.

Finally, the group of people that would actually by one of these bikes in the States only had one person select it over the Honda....the WOMAN.  Guess the Kawi really is a b_tch bike?

Of course I don't know what that says about me since I'm riding one....although my wife did buy it for me (yet another example of it being a woman's bike?)

[JonnyF]

I think they meant that it's slower to accelerate above that speed, not that it couldn't. It's one of the trade-offs having a lot of mid range power that trails off up top, when you're already in top gear you can't shift up any more to get the engine back down into the meat of the powerband. The Ninja having it's peak power higher in the rev range suffers less from this at highway speeds, as confirmed by the reviewers.

[KRS1]

I bet the cbr 250 becomes even more of a woman's bike than the ninja with its smaller girth.

[chunkylover53]

Why not have a test? Get some CBR and Ninja owners, meet at a track, put the bikes through their paces, swap riders and compare. It could also be done on the street, if your not looking at track performance out of these bikes.

[dave_boo]

I think they meant that it's slower to accelerate above that speed, not that it couldn't. It's one of the trade-offs having a lot of mid range power that trails off up top, when you're already in top gear you can't shift up any more to get the engine back down into the meat of the powerband. The Ninja having it's peak power higher in the rev range suffers less from this at highway speeds, as confirmed by the reviewers.

You've actually hit the nail on the head.

The gearing between the two bikes makes all the difference in the world when in top gear.  The Ninja is geared much shorter than the CBR because it relies on the extra 2500 RPM range it has. Will be interesting to see what the CBR does when unchoked.

[dave_boo]

I bet the cbr 250 becomes even more of a woman's bike than the ninja with its smaller girth.

Well I suppose those of us who actually dangle will appreciate being able to drape on down each side of the bike....IIRC women don't need to have this option....

[dave_boo]

Why not have a test? Get some CBR and Ninja owners, meet at a track, put the bikes through their paces, swap riders and compare. It could also be done on the street, if your not looking at track performance out of these bikes.

I offered to set a shoot-out up in another thread and there weren't any takers.  Of course that was before widespread availability of the CBR.

**edit**

BTW nice nick.  Made me think of this album for some reason I can't put a finger on.

Edited May 4, 2011 by dave_boo

[CMX]

Another comparison, this one gives it to the 'Micro-Ninja'

http://www.sportride...test/index.html

Not exactly "gives it...." The article also attributes advantages to Honda, but states that their (3) staff (experienced) test riders preferred the Ninja 250 bike overall. Lower gas mileage, slower speeds up to 100, and the same price were also attributed to the Ninjette. Doubtless these three riders are devoted to their own "big" bikes and their preferences lie with those. 2 of 3 new riders liked the CBR better. That of course is the aim of Honda in Asia - moving up increasingly affluent motorbike riders to motorcycles.

This was a v. good article and confirmed many reasoned views given here on this thread. It showed advantages and disadvantages of the two and a third bike. But the prices for all three are the same in the U.S.

Not here. They did not test the "CBR" 250 with ABS, for example, and that model here, even with profit-taking by dealers, sells for less than the Ninja. Another difference is that the U.S. Ninja has a carb - which may raise questions. Nevertheless, the summary article claimed that the Ninja 250 went faster after 120 (where the Honda was finished) and presented a better bike for long distances. But it was a question of degree, and financial differences did not enter into it.

They described other differences between the two, often, as being slight or somewhat, this way and that.

Edited May 4, 2011 by CMX

[CBR250R]

I think they meant that it's slower to accelerate above that speed, not that it couldn't. It's one of the trade-offs having a lot of mid range power that trails off up top, when you're already in top gear you can't shift up any more to get the engine back down into the meat of the powerband. The Ninja having it's peak power higher in the rev range suffers less from this at highway speeds, as confirmed by the reviewers.

Perhaps that is why the CBR250R achieved 70 mpg overall compared to the Ninja 250R's 46 mpg overall after their requisite flogging. The Ninja 250R needs to rev extremely high (and it can due to a much higher redline) to experience its top end power and can scream its heart out on the highway at super legal speeds a little easier than the CBR250R, but when it does so it suffers from poor fuel economy. That is the tradeoff for the Ninja 250R. I know some people on this forum don't consider fuel economy important in a bike. However, for those who do - I suspect this difference in fuel economy would be hard to ignore.

Not sure if this has been posted yet, but Popular Mechanics magazine has recently tested 250cc bikes. Here is their testing data. At least from these figures, it doesn't look like the CBR250R struggles that much compared to the Ninja 250R past 60 mph. And it certainly seems to struggle less than the Hyosung GT250. Assuming the GT250's mechanicals are the same as the GT250R, I'm surprised that SportRider didn't comment about how the GT250R struggles past 60 mph as well.

Ninja250R

0-60mph (secs)...........7.23 sec

40-70mph (secs)..........6.66 sec

1/4mile.......................15.56 sec @ 82.5 mph

60-0 braking................129 ft

Overall fuel economy.....59.7 mpg

CBR250R

0-60mph (secs)...........7.85 sec

40-70mph (secs)..........7.84 sec

1/4mile.......................16.11 sec @ 77.6 mph

60-0 braking................121.6 ft

Overall fuel economy.....71.4 mpg

Hyosung GT250

0-60mph (secs)...........8.64 sec

40-70mph (secs)..........8.94 sec

1/4mile.......................16.58 sec @ 75.6 mph

60-0 braking................138 ft

Overall fuel economy.....60.2 mpg

Kawasaki KLX250SF

0-60mph (secs)...........8.38 sec

40-70mph (secs)..........8.96 sec

1/4mile.......................16.47 sec @ 75.4 mph

60-0 braking................120.5 ft

Overall fuel economy.....67.4 mpg

Yamaha V-Star 250

0-60mph (secs)...........9.38 sec

40-70mph (secs)..........10.83 sec

1/4mile.......................16.98 sec @ 72.1 mph

60-0 braking................131.4 ft

Overall fuel economy.....81.0 mpg

Suzuki GZ250

0-60mph (secs)...........11.51 sec

40-70mph (secs)..........N/A

1/4mile.......................18.01 sec @ 67.4 mph

60-0 braking................132.4 ft

Overall fuel economy.....68.9 mpg

The article doesn't really go into much detail in describing any of the above bikes - only providing a summary paragraph outlining the strengths and weaknesses of each. Having said that - they seem to be most enamoured by the Ninja 250R for its fun factor and sportbike reflexes (they even admit that they "want one") - though they concede that its fuel economy is low for this group.

Mike

Edited May 4, 2011 by CBR250R

[JonnyF]

I'd be quite interested to see that 0-60 time split into 2 sections (maybe it has been already). 0-30 and 30-60. My guess is that the CBR would be quicker 0-30 but 30-60 would be about even depending on whether that involved an extra gear change on either bike.

I think the 0-60 time is also the most dependent on rider skill of all the tests. Not sure how aggressive the testers have been but to get the quickest time out of the Ninja you'd have to be super aggressive, and I mean hold the thing wide open bouncing off the rev limiter before dumping the clutch (leaning over the tank might be a good idea!). That would limit the time it spent at low rpm. The CBR would be a little more forgiving to a less aggressive style if both bikes pulled away relatively sedately.

[dave_boo]

I think they meant that it's slower to accelerate above that speed, not that it couldn't. It's one of the trade-offs having a lot of mid range power that trails off up top, when you're already in top gear you can't shift up any more to get the engine back down into the meat of the powerband. The Ninja having it's peak power higher in the rev range suffers less from this at highway speeds, as confirmed by the reviewers.

Perhaps that is why the CBR250R achieved 70 mpg overall compared to the Ninja 250R's 46 mpg overall after their requisite flogging.   The Ninja 250R needs to rev extremely high (and it can due to a much higher redline)  to experience its top end power and can scream its heart out on the highway at super legal speeds a little easier than the CBR250R, but when it does so it suffers from poor fuel economy.  That is the tradeoff for the Ninja 250R.  I know some people on this forum don't consider fuel economy important in a bike.  However, for those who do - I suspect this difference in fuel economy would be hard to ignore.

Not sure if this has been posted yet, but Popular Mechanics magazine has recently tested 250cc bikes.  Here is their testing data.   At least from these figures, it doesn't look like the CBR250R struggles that much compared to the Ninja 250R past 60 mph.   And it certainly seems to struggle less than the Hyosung GT250.   Assuming the GT250's mechanicals are the same as the GT250R, I'm surprised that SportRider didn't comment about how the GT250R struggles past 60 mph as well.

Ninja250R

0-60mph (secs)...........7.23 sec

40-70mph (secs)..........6.66 sec

1/4mile.......................15.56 sec @ 82.5 mph

60-0 braking................129 ft

Overall fuel economy.....59.7 mpg

CBR250R

0-60mph (secs)...........7.85 sec

40-70mph (secs)..........7.84 sec

1/4mile.......................16.11 sec @ 77.6 mph

60-0 braking................121.6 ft

Overall fuel economy.....71.4 mpg

Hyosung GT250

0-60mph (secs)...........8.64 sec

40-70mph (secs)..........8.94 sec

1/4mile.......................16.58 sec @ 75.6 mph

60-0 braking................138 ft

Overall fuel economy.....60.2 mpg

Kawasaki KLX250SF

0-60mph (secs)...........8.38 sec

40-70mph (secs)..........8.96 sec

1/4mile.......................16.47 sec @ 75.4 mph

60-0 braking................120.5 ft

Overall fuel economy.....67.4 mpg

Yamaha V-Star 250

0-60mph (secs)...........9.38 sec

40-70mph (secs)..........10.83 sec

1/4mile.......................16.98 sec @ 72.1 mph

60-0 braking................131.4 ft

Overall fuel economy.....81.0 mpg

Suzuki GZ250

0-60mph (secs)...........11.51 sec

40-70mph (secs)..........N/A

1/4mile.......................18.01 sec @ 67.4 mph

60-0 braking................132.4 ft

Overall fuel economy.....68.9 mpg

The article doesn't really go into much detail in describing any of the above bikes - only providing a summary paragraph outlining the strengths and weaknesses of each. Having said that - they seem to be most enamoured by the Ninja 250R for its fun factor and sportbike reflexes (they even admit that they "want one") - though they concede that its fuel economy is low for this group.

Mike

There's an important question that AFAIK nobody, myself included, has been asking.  Namely, what, if any differences are their between the US CBR 250 and the one available in LOS are there?

It's an extremely valid question, considering that the UK site has the Ninja 250 as having a 14/43 gearing and the US site doesn't have the final drive listed however google has it at 14/45.  Meaning that the International (fuel injected) is geared some 5% taller than the US version.  Dynos on the International version have it down on power also; usually around 5%.  This always struck me as odd since the US is set up for more high speed riding then most of the rest of the world (and anyone that has been there knows there are many roads that are flat and level for as far as an eye can see).

Considering the widely different results seen and the fact that nobody is publishing the specs of the bikes they're testing, perhaps we should look askance at all results coming from the States and focus on where there are models sold that mirror that offered in Thailand.

[CBR250R]

I think the 0-60 time is also the most dependent on rider skill of all the tests. Not sure how aggressive the testers have been but to get the quickest time out of the Ninja you'd have to be super aggressive, and I mean hold the thing wide open bouncing off the rev limiter before dumping the clutch (leaning over the tank might be a good idea!). That would limit the time it spent at low rpm. The CBR would be a little more forgiving to a less aggressive style if both bikes pulled away relatively sedately.

Good point. I've always been a fan of 5-60mph (street-start) tests rather than the conventional 0-60mph tests where the bikes might be subjected to a 10,000 rpm clutch drop launch to obtain the best 0-60 mph time possible. I just think a 5-60mph street-start type test would better resemble how you would normally accelerate on a bike, and provide a more realistic real-world acceleration figure.

Mike

[CBR250R]

There's an important question that AFAIK nobody, myself included, has been asking. Namely, what, if any differences are their between the US CBR 250 and the one available in LOS are there?

It's an extremely valid question, considering that the UK site has the Ninja 250 as having a 14/43 gearing and the US site doesn't have the final drive listed however google has it at 14/45. Meaning that the International (fuel injected) is geared some 5% taller than the US version. Dynos on the International version have it down on power also; usually around 5%. This always struck me as odd since the US is set up for more high speed riding then most of the rest of the world (and anyone that has been there knows there are many roads that are flat and level for as far as an eye can see).

Considering the widely different results seen and the fact that nobody is publishing the specs of the bikes they're testing, perhaps we should look askance at all results coming from the States and focus on where there are models sold that mirror that offered in Thailand.

Gearing and horsepower differences would certainly explain the unusual performance figures for the Ninja 250R that MCN obtained in their recent European performance comparo.

............................Honda CBR250R.......Kawasaki Ninja 250R

Top Speed..................94.2MPH....................97.4MPH

0-60 mph.................... 8.76s.........................10.18s

Standing 1/4 mile........16.63s........................16.93s

4th 20-70....................14.68s........................13.78s

6th 30-80....................26.42s........................27.79s

Mike

[skybluestu]

Below are a couple of quotes from another site from a new CBR owner whose previous bike was a Ninja 250.

'As far as sitting on the CBR250R, it feels taller, thinner, lighter and even longer than my new-gen Ninja 250R (which is strange considering the shorter wheelbase.) The seat is very flat and comfortable and does not slope into the gas tank like my Ninja's does (even with the addition of a Corbin saddle) and in fact feels more like my old Yamaha 400 than my Ninja 250. That's a HUGE plus in the CBR's favor, IMO. My legs (I'm 6'+) weren't as cramped as on the Ninja either. It seems the pegs are a tiny bit lower, but what makes all the ergos work better than the Ninja is the position of the saddle. It just feels like it's in the right place for the optimum reach to the bars and a comfortable leg position. I didn't feel cramped at all as I often do on my Ninja.'

'I've riden the Ninja 250 for 2 years now and it's a great bike, but the low-end torque starting out from traffic lights is a bit lacking. It tends to stumble a bit until you get the RPMs up. Once you're up past 9000 RPM it becomes a different bike, very fast and responsive, but I usually run out of road pretty quickly. My Ninja is heavily modded, with shimmed carbs and air pods replacing the restrictive airbox, but even so it still has a noticeable hesitation starting from a dead stop. The stock CBR250R, by comparison, has great low-end torque and is more responsive at lower RPMs. Electronic fuel injection on a bike this small and cheap is a big deal also. I just find it a much more refined machine that I think will suit my riding style better than the Ninja. Now that I've actually sat on one and experienced how much more roomy and comfortable the cockpit is for a guy my size, I was completely sold on the CBR250R. The Ninja 250 was the only decent sport 250 on the market when I bought it 2 years ago. This CBR250R is the bike I really wanted to buy at the time, but it hadn't been engineered yet.'

[taichiplanet]

A couple of comments from guys in the US on the CBR250.

"My first ride home review by Mad Trapper

I'll be honest after riding bikes in the 750-883 range I was a little worried that I made a mistake buying the lil 250. Well after riding it home those thoughts are gone. Probaly one of the funnest rides in a long time. Only got to ride it 30 miles home, started lightly raining a couple blocks from home.

Most of my trip home was on highly congested 4 lane highways. It was great, plenty of get up and go and it maneuvered like a dream. Sittin up high and being able to see above the cars ahead was great. Did a short expressway cruise got it up to 75 with no problem. Its geared perfectly for the heavy traffic too. Best part was that it soaks up bumps like nothing. With my cruisers I usually zig zag around any little pot hole. The CBR goes right over them like they arent there. You dont feel it in your back at all like a cruiser. Only thing was that my left wrist got a little soar, but I fixed that by changing my riding position. Really only bad thing was that even with that short ride my jacket already scuffed up the tank pretty bad.

Its a great bike with plenty of power and the fun factor is awesome.

The fairing and windshield do a great job of blocking the wind. also even with some decent crosswinds it didnt push the bike around at all.

The bike is so forgiving and easy to ride that if youre a new rider dont let that get you to over confident. Even with me I had to slow down a bit as I started to think I was a GP racer."

And this one from BigWill

"i wanted to give a ride report on my trials so far so here goes. Will start out with this, im just under 30 years old and have never rode any kind of bike in my life. This is one of the reasons i decided to even look in the 250 class only. After comparing the cbr and the ninja for about a month i decided to go with the cbr (even tho i had to wait a month to even have to chance to get one). well after i got the bike delivered to my house, because the dealer would not let me take it home cause of my license. i spent the first day or so just riding around the area i live in to first of all figure out how do ride a bike. Picked up on it surprisingly fast. started hitting some of the roads in town with only about 30 miles of riding experience. i dont really have any experience to base the bike to another bike but to me it handles like a dream. has plenty of power and handles better then i would have ever imaged it would. Today was the real test i took it out on the Highway for about a 80 mile round trip. The bike got up to 75 with no problem at all sitting about about 8000RPM. i didn't really push the bike much further than that because truthfully my riding skills are not ready for what i just did, and also didn't want to push it too hard cause the bike only has 230 miles on it now and its still getting broken in. i read there was lot of vibration in the 6-9000 rpm range but i didn't really feel it or it was not much a vibration to be an inconvenience. as for power dont be fooled its there. doing about 60 i can get on it and be at 75 with ease."

[KRS1]

just thinking out loud...the internet wasnt really even around when the ninja 250 first came out.

[taichiplanet]

just thinking out loud...the internet wasnt really even around when the ninja 250 first came out.

Yeah, the fight between VHS and Betamax video tapes was still in it's death throws!

Seems the CBR is doing the job it was intended for; introducing more people to (or back into) riding. The trouble is that in many markets there is slow delivery, seems the factory in Thailand is not doing its job properly.

[snowflake]

just thinking out loud...the internet wasnt really even around when the ninja 250 first came out.

Yeah, the fight between VHS and Betamax video tapes was still in it's death throws!

Seems the CBR is doing the job it was intended for; introducing more people to (or back into) riding. The trouble is that in many markets there is slow delivery, seems the factory in Thailand is not doing its job properly.

how can you say that the factory in thailand is not doing its job?

If anyone is to blame it should be the factory in India...

or honda for underestimating the demand for this bike...

We cant expect one factory to supply the whole world when it is not designed to...