Cbr 250 Vs Ninja 250

[KRS1]

But what if you don't like to ride slow and don't want to listen to a loud drivetrain?

Then what?

quote from site:

"Drivetrain lash is much worse with the Honda CBR250R even though the chain is a bit on the tight side of the spec. I wonder if there is a way to improve this"

"CBR rear brakes are very weak."

" Anything like a race it will win. (He's talking about the Ninja 250)

" The CBR's windscreen is harder to get under on the highway and makes a weird tearing noise if you get your helmet into the boundry layer".

"The single cylinder engine bogs more if you load too low a gear. It will really chug if you come around a corner and twist into 4th at 2000 rpm when you should be in 2nd. The twin in the Ninja doesn't buck as hard in the same situation."

Just messing around with you, enjoy your bike.

(if you enjoy riding slow)

[KRS1]

Thaicbr, just having a poke at hehehoho, relax mate.

[hehehoho]

How do you propose to rejet the fuel injection system on the Thai 'ninja'?

Um, you're not really that dumb, are you?

Umm, sorry you didn't pick up on the sarcasm given the post above was on about rejetting the ninja to keep up with 600s.

Didn't know the Thai ninja with its FI could be rejetted krs1.

[KRS1]

Powercommander if they make it, or just install a resistor on the o2 sensor, if you really want to get tricky install a potentiometer for adjustability.

Come to think of it, i dont think there is a powercommander for the ninja, the resistor will work though.

Edited July 19, 2011 by KRS1

[thaicbr]

YEP... THERE surely is a Powercommander for the Ninjette AND one for the Cbr250r (Ciber)

The only decent map for the Ciber is from Sportisi in Indonesia (who also do some good stuff for the Ninjette as well)

Ps.. It is easy to take the piss out of hehehe

Edited July 19, 2011 by thaicbr

[hehehoho]

Ye got me, I never heard the term 'rejet' with reference to powercommanders, only carbs.

How many fuel injection systems have you 'rejetted' K?

[hehehoho]

PC for the CBR is here.

For those who want to 'rejet' their CBR.

[KRS1]

How about the term electronic jet kit?

as in electronicjetkit dot com?

btw, you have the 1/4 mile time for your bike? Im about to modify a cbr 150 to see if it can keep up with a cbr 250.

Edited July 19, 2011 by KRS1

[Gary A]

I am now at the scooter age. I want my feet in front of me. Years ago when I was younger and still bullet proof, I was addicted to torque, especially low end torque. The high revving bikes never appealed to me.

My all time favorite bike was a a Honda XL 500. We used to call them thumpers. When I moved to Australia I bought another XL 500. When I moved to Thailand, naturally I couldn't find even an XL 250, so I bought a Kawasaki Boss. If I were younger, my choice would be the new Honda 250.

I also NEVER liked any bike that required me to ride with my feet behind me. And yes, I have ridden those high revving crotch rockets. Leaning forward with your stomach on the gas tank is not a comfortable riding position for me.

[metisdead]

Some crude off topic posts and replies have been removed.

[hehehoho]

The CBR showing some ninjettes how a bike should perform on the track.

[visions]

The CBR showing some ninjettes how a bike should perform on the track.

Be nice if it could wind out another 3000RPM and have air/fuel to suit. ranging from 7k to 9k sounds like its still on idle.

[jackjones]

I see the American mag Motorcycle have just published an article about the best bikes of 2011 and the CBR has taken over from the Ninja as the best quarter litre sports bike. They say it has more useable power and is much better value for money. Interesting in that the US spec Ninja has carbs, yet the CBR is still thought to produce more useable power.

[thaicbr]

The CBR showing some ninjettes how a bike should perform on the track.

Be nice if it could wind out another 3000RPM and have air/fuel to suit. ranging from 7k to 9k sounds like its still on idle.

Why if thats were the power is. especially on the short courses here in Thailand.... Any way a pipe and powercomander do open up the revs somewhat

[visions]

The CBR showing some ninjettes how a bike should perform on the track.

Be nice if it could wind out another 3000RPM and have air/fuel to suit. ranging from 7k to 9k sounds like its still on idle.

Why if thats were the power is. especially on the short courses here in Thailand.... Any way a pipe and powercomander do open up the revs somewhat

Cuz the HPand torque would be greater and the higher revs would give higher speeds (given the same gearing) Simplistic thinking I know.........Check out the HP and torque and power band and speeds of the Moto3 track version of the CBR. I have no idea on what mods/changes to the engine to achive the 45hp ( double the HP of the standard engine) and of course it would not be suitable for road use, but a half way performance upgrade would be a nice addition to the performance of the stock CBR250 for those looking for enhanced peformance

Edited August 20, 2011 by visions

[BigBikeBKK]

The CBR showing some ninjettes how a bike should perform on the track.

Mebbe I need to have my eyes checked but I didn't see any Ninjettes in that vid...

[hehehoho]

Check out the HP and torque and power band and speeds of the Moto3 track version of the CBR.

Where's the info on HP, torque and power band?

[thaidiver]

After reading this thread switched for PTT 91 to Shell v-power "red" 95 gasohol, with the tank as far down to empty as possible. It ran a lot better.

[kermitzkitchen]

Heres another write up about the CBR vs Ninja from Australia

250 comparo Australia

[JonnyF]

Heres another write up about the CBR vs Ninja from Australia

250 comparo Australia

Interesting review. Once again the Ninja takes it in terms of performance and the CBR in terms of practicality.

For those who cannot be bothered to click on the link.

"A series of standing starts revealed the Ninja as the strongest performer in terms of straight-line acceleration. It steadily pulls clear of the Honda, which was just a smidge ahead of the Hyosung. The Ninja's higher rev ceiling plays its part here – it redlines at 13,500rpm, 2500rpm higher than both the Honda and the Hyosung, and that makes an appreciable difference. It's something of a double-edged sword, however, as the Ninja's donk spins considerably faster at highway speeds – in 100km/h in top gear, the Kawasaki is pulling 7850rpm, versus 6250rpm for the Hyosung and 6000rpm for the Honda.

The Ninja was king in the 60km/h and 80km/h top-gear roll-ons too, where it marched away from the others. In these tests the Hyosung marginally outclassed the Honda, which really wasn't too surprising – the Honda is just a single, after all"

So there you have it - by professional reviewers (as opposed to spammers/trolls who sign up to forums just to claim on their second post that they own both bikes but the CBR is a beast in comparison). In terms of references to the Ninja being porky by our very own resident CBR spammer, after the first ride on the 250 Ninja with my girlfriend back in 2008 she commented that "it's really fast, but it's too light we get blown around". It was a pretty windy day on the way to Khao Yai that day but I'm not sure I'd want a bike 15kg lighter than that at 160+ kmh (assuming the low revving single cylinder CBR can actually make it to those speeds, which by most accounts it can't). And if at 10-15kgs heavier the Ninja is still quicker than it's competition - as reported consistently by reviews such as the one quoted above then it's win win - unless of course you're using the bike as a pretend sports bike on the 711 run and get a bit out of breath pushing it into the space between the Nouvos and Waves.

Edited August 21, 2011 by JonnyF

[dave_boo]

I see the American mag Motorcycle have just published an article about the best bikes of 2011 and the CBR has taken over from the Ninja as the best quarter litre sports bike. They say it has more useable power and is much better value for money. Interesting in that the US spec Ninja has carbs, yet the CBR is still thought to produce more useable power.

Actually CycleWorld, if that's the mag you're referring to, calls it their best bang for buck bike (honourable mention went to the Yamaha fizzer 800).

Heres another write up about the CBR vs Ninja from Australia

250 comparo Australia

Interesting review. Once again the Ninja takes it in terms of performance and the CBR in terms of practicality.

For those who cannot be bothered to click on the link.

"A series of standing starts revealed the Ninja as the strongest performer in terms of straight-line acceleration. It steadily pulls clear of the Honda, which was just a smidge ahead of the Hyosung. The Ninja's higher rev ceiling plays its part here – it redlines at 13,500rpm, 2500rpm higher than both the Honda and the Hyosung, and that makes an appreciable difference. It's something of a double-edged sword, however, as the Ninja's donk spins considerably faster at highway speeds – in 100km/h in top gear, the Kawasaki is pulling 7850rpm, versus 6250rpm for the Hyosung and 6000rpm for the Honda.

The Ninja was king in the 60km/h and 80km/h top-gear roll-ons too, where it marched away from the others. In these tests the Hyosung marginally outclassed the Honda, which really wasn't too surprising – the Honda is just a single, after all"

So there you have it - by professional reviewers (as opposed to spammers/trolls who sign up to forums just to claim on their second post that they own both bikes but the CBR is a beast in comparison). In terms of references to the Ninja being porky by our very own resident CBR spammer, after the first ride on the 250 Ninja with my girlfriend back in 2008 she commented that "it's really fast, but it's too light we get blown around". It was a pretty windy day on the way to Khao Yai that day but I'm not sure I'd want a bike 15kg lighter than that at 160+ kmh (assuming the low revving single cylinder CBR can actually make it to those speeds, which by most accounts it can't). And if at 10-15kgs heavier the Ninja is still quicker than it's competition - as reported consistently by reviews such as the one quoted above then it's win win - unless of course you're using the bike as a pretend sports bike on the 711 run and get a bit out of breath pushing it into the space between the Nouvos and Waves.

Funnily enough, going back a month or two, Cycle World ran the same comparison. And the two amatuer chicks picked the Ninja and the road racer picked the CBR.

I do agree with your assessment about the light weight; most bikes get blown around fairly easily and more so for these fairly light ones. Doesn't change the fact that the less weight for these HP deficient machines is only a bonus!

Also interesting that they don't list the time differences in their standing starts nor their 60 and 80 roll ons. 'Steadily pulling away' and 'King of' is irrelevant without reference (like saying you won a gold medal in the Olympics and neglected to mention the "Special" before Olymics). Also noticed the comment about the sharper handling CBRs has been left out of this thread; seems like most professional riders have commented similar thoughts as to who handled better.

[KRS1]

Power cbr 26bhp ninja 32.5bhp

Torque cbr 17.6ftlb ninja 15.2ftlb

Weight cbr 161kg ninja 165kg

The Ninja isn't severely under torqued as claimed, looks like way less HP than the Ninja 250 though !

Taken from:

Motorcyclenews.com

Relationship between HP and Torque defined here and why gearing throws a monkey wrench into claims of torque superiority :

HP vs Torque

Edited August 21, 2011 by KRS1

[hehehoho]

^^^ Interesting that Johnny F left this bit out of his selective quoting, from the 'professional reviewers':

Personally I’d go for the Honda, ahead of the Kawasaki

Seems to be a recurring theme among the 'professional reviewers' that review models for motorbike magazines.

[hehehoho]

Power cbr 26bhp ninja 32.5bhp

Torque cbr 17.6ftlb ninja 15.2ftlb

Weight cbr 161kg ninja 165kg

The Ninja isn't severely under torqued as claimed, looks like way less HP than the Ninja 250 though !

Taken from:

Motorcyclenews.com

Relationship between HP and Torque defined here and why gearing throws a monkey wrench into claims of torque superiority :

HP vs Torque

Not quite the real picture though is it, perhaps use the RWHP figures, the weight for the standard CBR250R and not the ABS model, then work out the torque/HP to weight ratios.

[hehehoho]

Also interesting that they don't list the time differences in their standing starts nor their 60 and 80 roll ons. 'Steadily pulling away' and 'King of' is irrelevant without reference

Shhhhh. It is a professional review by professional reviewers.

Also noticed the comment about the sharper handling CBRs has been left out of this thread; seems like most professional riders have commented similar thoughts as to who handled better.

Yes, I've noticed a few bring this up, usually when they award their verdict to the CBR250R, as most do.

[JonnyF]

^^^ Interesting that Johnny F left this bit out of his selective quoting, from the 'professional reviewers':

Personally I'd go for the Honda, ahead of the Kawasaki

Seems to be a recurring theme among the 'professional reviewers' that review models for motorbike magazines.

I read that - maybe he's planning to commute? In which case the Honda would personally be a good choice for him.

Cold hard stats like 0-60 and top speed are of much more interest to me. Don't forget it's pretending to be a sports bike after all. Almost every review I've read (apart from the one with the borrowed second hand modded Ninja) say the Ninja is the quicker bike, in a straight line and on the track/twisties. Sorry if that doesn't fit with your agenda though.

Will you at least conceded that the Ninja is the sportier of the two? In case you missed it....

A series of standing starts revealed the Ninja as the strongest performer in terms of straight-line acceleration. It steadily pulls clear of the Honda, which was just a smidge ahead of the Hyosung. The Ninja's higher rev ceiling plays its part here – it redlines at 13,500rpm, 2500rpm higher than both the Honda and the Hyosung, and that makes an appreciable difference.

The Ninja was king in the 60km/h and 80km/h top-gear roll-ons too, where it marched away from the others. In these tests the Hyosung marginally outclassed the Honda, which really wasn't too surprising – the Honda is just a single, after all"

[dave_boo]

Power cbr 26bhp ninja 32.5bhp

Torque cbr 17.6ftlb ninja 15.2ftlb

Weight cbr 161kg ninja 165kg

The Ninja isn't severely under torqued as claimed, looks like way less HP than the Ninja 250 though !

Taken from:

Motorcyclenews.com

Relationship between HP and Torque defined here and why gearing throws a monkey wrench into claims of torque superiority :

HP vs Torque

Not quite the real picture though is it, perhaps use the RWHP figures, the weight for the standard CBR250R and not the ABS model, then work out the torque/HP to weight ratios.

Leaving aside rwhp for the moment, let's look at his "Pro Civic" link (a site where guys who still live with mama go to and attempt to justify why they put a 6" fart pipe on said mama's car instead of hunkering down and buying a real 'sporty' car).

While I am not sure, I think this may be where the OP is stuck:

A transmission essentially makes engine torque meaningless because it can multiple your flywheel torque to any amount it pleases

That's leaving out this important part of the article:

So what advantage does a higher horsepower engine have compared to a lower one, assuming they both have similar torque curves?

And perhaps more importantly:

If you take away anything from this article, let it be that gearing is extremely important in determining a car's overall performance.

Without wanting to repeat myself from earlier in the thread, there's a pretty big difference between the gearings in regards to both these bikes. Theoretical max speed in each gear for the bikes has the Ninja having a higher one (except for final which both bikes would be lucky to see stock) to the tune of +9,+6,+1,+3,+2,-4. I.E., the link that the poster used points out that better gearing (even disregarding the torque superiority of the CBR) will allow it to out accelerate in at least the first 3 gears (everything below ~100 km/h)...that is assuming you're in the correct gear as theon test from the earlier link was done in top gear.

The article's writer also made a good point, although it's fairly easy to gloss over since he did not expound upon it, concerning gearing. Obviously you want the shortest gearing for the speed you're at while keeping you inside the meat of the torque. This shorter gearing will amplify the torque being produced and allow the rear wheel to spin that much faster allowing better acceleration.

**edit**

reading comprehension

Edited August 21, 2011 by dave_boo

[KRS1]

Power cbr 26bhp ninja 32.5bhp

Torque cbr 17.6ftlb ninja 15.2ftlb

Weight cbr 161kg ninja 165kg

The Ninja isn't severely under torqued as claimed, looks like way less HP than the Ninja 250 though !

Taken from:

Motorcyclenews.com

Relationship between HP and Torque defined here and why gearing throws a monkey wrench into claims of torque superiority :

HP vs Torque

Not quite the real picture though is it, perhaps use the RWHP figures, the weight for the standard CBR250R and not the ABS model, then work out the torque/HP to weight ratios.

Post a link to where you get your horsepower and torque numbers for both bikes. At the rear wheel or sprocket for both bikesm I really want to see where you are getting your claims from.

The weight of the ABS system is neglible, and take into consideration the aerodynamics of the fairings when going over 50 mph or whatever kph.

Post link to bike power specs please. I want to see why you keep claiming the Ninja 250 is severely under torqued, i cant seem to find anything that states it, only other links claiming up to 22 ft/lb of torque, but of course that may not be real.

[KRS1]

Power cbr 26bhp ninja 32.5bhp

Torque cbr 17.6ftlb ninja 15.2ftlb

Weight cbr 161kg ninja 165kg

The Ninja isn't severely under torqued as claimed, looks like way less HP than the Ninja 250 though !

Taken from:

Motorcyclenews.com

Relationship between HP and Torque defined here and why gearing throws a monkey wrench into claims of torque superiority :

HP vs Torque

Not quite the real picture though is it, perhaps use the RWHP figures, the weight for the standard CBR250R and not the ABS model, then work out the torque/HP to weight ratios.

Leaving aside rwhp for the moment, let's look at his "Pro Civic" link (a site where guys who still live with mama go to and attempt to justify why they put a 6" fart pipe on said mama's car instead of hunkering down and buying a real 'sporty' car).

While I am not sure, I think this may be where the OP is stuck:

A transmission essentially makes engine torque meaningless because it can multiple your flywheel torque to any amount it pleases

That's leaving out this important part of the article:

So what advantage does a higher horsepower engine have compared to a lower one, assuming they both have similar torque curves?

And perhaps more importantly:

If you take away anything from this article, let it be that gearing is extremely important in determining a car's overall performance.

Without wanting to repeat myself from earlier in the thread, there's a pretty big difference between the gearings in regards to both these bikes. Theoretical max speed in each gear for the bikes has the Ninja having a higher one (except for final which both bikes would be lucky to see stock) to the tune of +9,+6,+1,+3,+2,-4. I.E., the link that the poster used points out that better gearing (even disregarding the torque superiority of the CBR) will allow it to out accelerate in at least the first 3 gears (everything below ~100 km/h)...that is assuming you're in the correct gear as theon test from the earlier link was done in top gear.

The article's writer also made a good point, although it's fairly easy to gloss over since he did not expound upon it, concerning gearing. Obviously you want the shortest gearing for the speed you're at while keeping you inside the meat of the torque. This shorter gearing will amplify the torque being produced and allow the rear wheel to spin that much faster allowing better acceleration.

**edit**

reading comprehension

If you google 'horsepower equivalence to torque'...every site will have the same basic information posted, just worded differently.

So if you don't trust fart pipe mama's boys, im sure the same info is posted elsewhere.

[dave_boo]

^^^ Interesting that Johnny F left this bit out of his selective quoting, from the 'professional reviewers':

Personally I'd go for the Honda, ahead of the Kawasaki

Seems to be a recurring theme among the 'professional reviewers' that review models for motorbike magazines.

I read that - maybe he's planning to commute? In which case the Honda would personally be a good choice for him.

Cold hard stats like 0-60 and top speed are of much more interest to me. Don't forget it's pretending to be a sports bike after all. Almost every review I've read (apart from the one with the borrowed second hand modded Ninja) say the Ninja is the quicker bike, in a straight line and on the track/twisties. Sorry if that doesn't fit with your agenda though.

Will you at least conceded that the Ninja is the sportier of the two? In case you missed it....

A series of standing starts revealed the Ninja as the strongest performer in terms of straight-line acceleration. It steadily pulls clear of the Honda, which was just a smidge ahead of the Hyosung. The Ninja's higher rev ceiling plays its part here it redlines at 13,500rpm, 2500rpm higher than both the Honda and the Hyosung, and that makes an appreciable difference.

The Ninja was king in the 60km/h and 80km/h top-gear roll-ons too, where it marched away from the others. In these tests the Hyosung marginally outclassed the Honda, which really wasn't too surprising the Honda is just a single, after all"

I'd like to see you take care of this quote please:

Almost every review I've read ^{[citation needed]} (apart from the one with the borrowed second hand modded Ninja) say the Ninja is the quicker bike.

Because this head to head (with a Thai CBR and a Thai Ninja) had the CBR within 3.5% of the Ninja's race time. And that was with a mal-adjusted (if the front is pogo-ing after adjustment, reduce rear pre-load) suspension and the Ninja ridden right past its edge.

And there's Cycle World's head to head that has the CBR going faster through the mountains. The exact quote is thus: Well, we already knew what a cornering fool the little Ninja is. But we were a little surprised at how well the innocent-looking new Honda was able to keep up. Not only does it keep up with the Ninja, it actually ekes away from it corner by corner.

I mis-spoke earlier; it was Motorcycist that ended up with the two chicks picking the Ninja and the road racer choosing the CBR.

Let's not forget that Japanese link that had the 0-XXX meters times of the two fuel injected bikes. Think that 0-400 (1/4 mile, no?) is about the time it takes the Ninja to reach 100 km/h (60 mph). And the CBR beats it there.

There's the Motorcycle News comparo that had the CBR coming out ahead in 60% of their metrics. I understand you would like this thrown out since it was a pre-owned Ninja that had a slip-on and may have not been running 100%, but at the same time, how broken in (or broken up from other tests) was the CBR?

And I'm sure there's more, but I can't be arsed to find them since you're most likely going to produce that one review that was obviously Ninja biased, if you can match the number of reviews with ones that support your position, and are from real riders (not fanbois), I'll either find even more that support what I've been saying from the begining of this thread or humbly apologise.

I'd would say that for all the evidence, the "pretending to be a sports bike after all" seems to be working for the cheaper bike...at least for your metrics (Cold hard stats like 0-60 and top speed....quicker bike, in a straight line and on the track/twisties)

**edit**

Also, isn't the standard ~8% deviation on the Ninja and the *nearly* 100% of the CBR meaning that without real timings their top speed could be quite close?

Edited August 21, 2011 by dave_boo