Cbr 250 Vs Ninja 250

[dave_boo]

Honda claimed HP:

26

Honda real HP:

20

Honda claimed Torque:

17.6

Kawi's claimed HP:

32.5

Kawi's real HP:

25

Kawi's Claimed Torque

15.2

Kawi's Real Torque:

12.7

If you're to go by stock torque, the CBR has only 16% more torque (in a package that's lighter). Going with real world numbers the CBR has 14% more torque. Real world the Ninja has 21% more HP versus their fairy tail 25% greater amount.

Edited August 21, 2011 by dave_boo

[KRS1]

Honda claimed torque :

17.6

Honda real torque

14.49

an exageration of 3.11

I just looked at the Kawasaki site and cant find where they post the numbers for HP and torque, anyone see where it is?

[newf]

Anybody make it out to thailand circuit today. there was a CBR250 and a Ninja 250 racing in the 250/400 division and the Ninja finished ahead of the CBR.....

[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.

I read that - maybe he's planning to commute?

Oh dear, he's reduced to 'maybes'.

As for the rest of your post, didn't your mother ever tell you it's rude to shout?? If you're so desperate to cling to fantasies produced by 'professional reviewers' who can't give one piece of information - times, dynos, numerical information, anything else at all.... well, good luck to you. Despite they say they'd go for the CBR250R, like (and don't have a seizure) about 75% of motorbike reviewers I've seen give a comparison.

Let's get real, they're both only 250s, one has a bit more HP and good bit more weight, while having less torque despite it's added porkiness. One has been well priced (in Thailand) and offers a great option of ABS, and one has been over priced by the greedy corporation and many aspects remain in the dark ages (how many 2012 bikes are left with 1970's analog dashes?). Seeing Aussie Kawa drop their price by what, $1500(?) was telling of how much they overpriced the model due to their monopoly on the market.

Though seeing the 2012 Thai N250 copying the nose styling of the CBR was kind of amusing.

Edited August 21, 2011 by hehehoho

[JonnyF]

Honda claimed HP:

26

Honda real HP:

20

Honda claimed Torque:

17.6

Kawi's claimed HP:

32.5

Kawi's real HP:

25

Kawi's Claimed Torque

15.2

Kawi's Real Torque:

12.7

If you're to go by stock torque, the CBR has only 16% more torque (in a package that's lighter). Going with real world numbers the CBR has 14% more torque. Real world the Ninja has 21% more HP versus their fairy tail 25% greater amount.

Interesting that even though the CBR makes more torque, that torque curve seems to peak and dip quite quickly between 5.5k and 8.5k rpm. The Ninja, while making less peak torque, makes a fairly consistent amount of torque across a much broader range from 6k to 11.5k rpm. This kind of ties in with my real world experience of the Ninja, that the power is pretty solid from 6k to 12k rpm making it pretty easy to ride around town despite what people on here say about it being dead below 9k rpm. Not my experience at all.

Seems like you'd really have to short shift that CBR to make the most of it's 16% more peak torque. Hang onto a gear too long and you'd run out of steam. And it looks like it would be pretty slow climbing from 7k rpm to reach it's top speed in 6th gear. I'd love to see the figures of both bikes from 130-160 kph (assuming the CBR can get to 160). Anyone have them?

[dave_boo]

Interesting that even though the CBR makes more torque, that torque curve seems to peak and dip quite quickly between 5.5k and 8.5k rpm. The Ninja, while making less peak torque, makes a fairly consistent amount of torque across a much broader range from 6k to 11.5k rpm. This kind of ties in with my real world experience of the Ninja, that the power is pretty solid from 6k to 12k rpm making it pretty easy to ride around town despite what people on here say about it being dead below 9k rpm. Not my experience at all.

Seems like you'd really have to short shift that CBR to make the most of it's 16% more peak torque. Hang onto a gear too long and you'd run out of steam. And it looks like it would be pretty slow climbing from 7k rpm to reach it's top speed in 6th gear. I'd love to see the figures of both bikes from 130-160 kph (assuming the CBR can get to 160). Anyone have them?

You're quite right in regards to the very steep drop off in Honda's torque. The only thing I can imagine causing that is the exhaust. If it's choked enough that would explain it. It's also why I've always said that up to ~100 the CBR is quicker; after that and you're expecting it to be in too high of an RPM range with too tall of gearing; there's just no way it can fend of the Ninja with those working against it. If we're to look at 11 lb-ft of torque as the standard, the Honda produces more than that for some 5 500 RPM (52% of RPM range) compared to the 6 000 (50% of RPM range) that the Ninja does.

You're also correct about the 6-12K range. Anything below 6K, at least for me, is a no go (especially in the mountains). However it's not really fun until more than 9K; it will tool along, but it's just....blah. It gets the job done, and definitely leaves the scooters behind, but doesn't inspire any boy racer tendencies unless kept above 9K. I think that's what people are talking about. And since they're so fixated about HP, they see that it doesn't really get above 20 until then when it rises quite sharply and makes the bike seem more fun. Kinda like how the little 150cc 2T, which produce essentially the same power, are dogs below their power valve openings and then all of a sudden feel like you're flying (even though the effect isn't for long compared to the slow and steady raise in the 4T bikes.).

[JonnyF]

hmmmm I'd beg to differ about the CBR being quicker up to 100. My guess is that the CBR would be quicker until the Ninja hit 9k rpm in 1st gear, after that the Ninja would start moving away, with the difference between the 2 bikes acceleration increasing as the speed increased.

130-160 would be the most pronounced difference IMO as that's right in the meat of the Ninja's power while the CBR's power is falling off rapidly at those higher rpms. Be good to see real figures though.

[jackjones]

The article about the CBR being voted the best 250 sport bike of 2011 was on the website motorcycle.com. My mistake in thinking it was also a magazine. Sorry.

Edited August 21, 2011 by jackjones

[13budgies]

Honda claimed HP:

26

Honda real HP:

20

Honda claimed Torque:

17.6

Kawi's claimed HP:

32.5

Kawi's real HP:

25

Kawi's Claimed Torque

15.2

Kawi's Real Torque:

12.7

If you're to go by stock torque, the CBR has only 16% more torque (in a package that's lighter). Going with real world numbers the CBR has 14% more torque. Real world the Ninja has 21% more HP versus their fairy tail 25% greater amount.

Interesting that even though the CBR makes more torque, that torque curve seems to peak and dip quite quickly between 5.5k and 8.5k rpm. The Ninja, while making less peak torque, makes a fairly consistent amount of torque across a much broader range from 6k to 11.5k rpm. This kind of ties in with my real world experience of the Ninja, that the power is pretty solid from 6k to 12k rpm making it pretty easy to ride around town despite what people on here say about it being dead below 9k rpm. Not my experience at all.

Seems like you'd really have to short shift that CBR to make the most of it's 16% more peak torque. Hang onto a gear too long and you'd run out of steam. And it looks like it would be pretty slow climbing from 7k rpm to reach it's top speed in 6th gear. I'd love to see the figures of both bikes from 130-160 kph (assuming the CBR can get to 160). Anyone have them?

Are we looking at the same torque curve?

[dave_boo]

hmmmm I'd beg to differ about the CBR being quicker up to 100. My guess is that the CBR would be quicker until the Ninja hit 9k rpm in 1st gear, after that the Ninja would start moving away, with the difference between the 2 bikes acceleration increasing as the speed increased.

130-160 would be the most pronounced difference IMO as that's right in the meat of the Ninja's power while the CBR's power is falling off rapidly at those higher rpms. Be good to see real figures though.

You'd be wrong. The Japanese test (between the same bikes sold here; not the more powerful carb'd Ninja with shorter gearing) is quite explicit that the CBR wins all the way to the 400 meter mark.

A google search has the Ninja getting to 100 km/h at ~7,4 s (which I've seen on Youtube...but believe that was also a carb'd bike). That means the ~150 mark in the Japanese run. So either the CBR goes crazy and build such a large lead it's impossible for the Ninja to regain the lead in the last ~250 meters or the CBR actually does get to 100 km/h faster and stays a bit faster for a while.

Also looking at that link, it appears that the Ninja hits 88 mph at the 1/4 mile (or 140 km/h at 400 meter). Not much left (according to Kawasaki's numbers) to continue pulling away. However, if we're to assume that it actually takes some 11% more time to do the 1/4 on an FI bike than Kawi claims is possible on the carb'd we really should assume the bike would be ~11% slower (oversimplification I know) and would actually be running 124 and have plenty of RPM to pull away.

We could also look at the MCN report; it jives with the Japanese quite nicely in performance figures.

[JonnyF]

Honda claimed HP:

26

Honda real HP:

20

Honda claimed Torque:

17.6

Kawi's claimed HP:

32.5

Kawi's real HP:

25

Kawi's Claimed Torque

15.2

Kawi's Real Torque:

12.7

If you're to go by stock torque, the CBR has only 16% more torque (in a package that's lighter). Going with real world numbers the CBR has 14% more torque. Real world the Ninja has 21% more HP versus their fairy tail 25% greater amount.

Interesting that even though the CBR makes more torque, that torque curve seems to peak and dip quite quickly between 5.5k and 8.5k rpm. The Ninja, while making less peak torque, makes a fairly consistent amount of torque across a much broader range from 6k to 11.5k rpm. This kind of ties in with my real world experience of the Ninja, that the power is pretty solid from 6k to 12k rpm making it pretty easy to ride around town despite what people on here say about it being dead below 9k rpm. Not my experience at all.

Seems like you'd really have to short shift that CBR to make the most of it's 16% more peak torque. Hang onto a gear too long and you'd run out of steam. And it looks like it would be pretty slow climbing from 7k rpm to reach it's top speed in 6th gear. I'd love to see the figures of both bikes from 130-160 kph (assuming the CBR can get to 160). Anyone have them?

Are we looking at the same torque curve?

Not sure, which one you looking at? I'm looking at the one where the CBR peaks and tails off quite quickly whereas the Ninja stays around the same level for longer.

Care to expand on the one you're looking at?

[JonnyF]

hmmmm I'd beg to differ about the CBR being quicker up to 100. My guess is that the CBR would be quicker until the Ninja hit 9k rpm in 1st gear, after that the Ninja would start moving away, with the difference between the 2 bikes acceleration increasing as the speed increased.

130-160 would be the most pronounced difference IMO as that's right in the meat of the Ninja's power while the CBR's power is falling off rapidly at those higher rpms. Be good to see real figures though.

You'd be wrong. The Japanese test (between the same bikes sold here; not the more powerful carb'd Ninja with shorter gearing) is quite explicit that the CBR wins all the way to the 400 meter mark.

A google search has the Ninja getting to 100 km/h at ~7,4 s (which I've seen on Youtube...but believe that was also a carb'd bike). That means the ~150 mark in the Japanese run. So either the CBR goes crazy and build such a large lead it's impossible for the Ninja to regain the lead in the last ~250 meters or the CBR actually does get to 100 km/h faster and stays a bit faster for a while.

Also looking at that link, it appears that the Ninja hits 88 mph at the 1/4 mile (or 140 km/h at 400 meter). Not much left (according to Kawasaki's numbers) to continue pulling away. However, if we're to assume that it actually takes some 11% more time to do the 1/4 on an FI bike than Kawi claims is possible on the carb'd we really should assume the bike would be ~11% slower (oversimplification I know) and would actually be running 124 and have plenty of RPM to pull away.

We could also look at the MCN report; it jives with the Japanese quite nicely in performance figures.

Those figures don't seem to correspond with what reviewers say when they actually ride the bikes. Not only the one I quote yesterday, but the previous youtube reviews by the magazines that also had the Ninja walking away. There are also figures published that quote the Ninja being quicker on every segment except the first one. If I have time later I'll try to find them and post them up as I'm at work now (but I'm pretty sure you know the ones I mean anyway, pretty sure they were posted in this forum maybe even this thread).

[hehehoho]

People not being confused with the more powerful US ninja (than the Thai version) with its different gearing to boot is a good and important point.

Though most of the reviewers using the more powerful ninja (compared to the Thai ninja) give the verdict to the CBR250R anyway.

Interesting to note that this more powerful ninja is the same price as the CBR250R, but the less powerful Thai ninja is priced almost 50% more expensive than the CBR250R.... quite indicative of how Thai Kawa have tried to take advantage of their monopoly and refused to budge for the benefit of their potential customers, unlike Kawa Australia who saw the end of their monopoly and dropped their over priced product by $1500.

Edited August 22, 2011 by hehehoho

[dave_boo]

Those figures don't seem to correspond with what reviewers say when they actually ride the bikes. Not only the one I quote yesterday, but the previous youtube reviews by the magazines that also had the Ninja walking away. There are also figures published that quote the Ninja being quicker on every segment except the first one. If I have time later I'll try to find them and post them up as I'm at work now (but I'm pretty sure you know the ones I mean anyway, pretty sure they were posted in this forum maybe even this thread).

As hehehoho pointed out, you're looking at carb'd bikes (which generally post higher numbers on the dyno) that are geared lower and thus have better acceleration compared to their FI counterparts.

Example:

Ninja 250R fuel injected: 3,071

Ninja 250R carb'd: 3,21

A 4,5% higher gear ratio definitely affects the acceleration of the FI bikes...

[jackjones]

I have read that Kawasaki US have just released details of their 2012 Ninja. It is the same bike as 2011 and they are staying with the carburettors. However they must have been reading this forum because they have dropped the "R" from the name! I wonder if Honda will follow suit? Anyway, the new bike will be available in " Passion Red, Metallic Spark Black, and Candy Lime Green." All sounds a bit saucy!

[hehehoho]

the new bike will be available in " Passion Red, Metallic Spark Black, and Candy Lime Green." All sounds a bit saucy!

Check the N250 thread for pics of the Thai models, saucy doesn't quite describe them.

Think green, 1970's decals in black, then blue rim tape.

[JonnyF]

Thanks to Wana in the other thread for posting the figues I couldn't be bothered to search for...

Well written informative review.

http://www.cycleworld.com/motorcycle_roadtest/comparison_tests_articles/11q1/kawasaki_ninja_250r_vs._honda_cbr250r_-_comparison_test

But here's the bottom line.

SPECIFICATIONS Honda CBR250R Kawasaki Ninja 250R

Dry weight 337 lb. 356 lb.

Wheelbase 53.9 in. 55.1 in.

Seat height 30.5 in. 30.5 in.

Fuel mileage 57 mpg 53 mpg

0-60 mph 8.5 sec. 7.7 sec.

1/4-mile 16.15 sec. @ 77.54 mph 15.62 sec. @ 81.84 mph

Horsepower 23.7 hp @ 9900 rpm 25.5 hp @ 10,100 rpm

Torque 12.7 ft.-lb. @ 7400 rpm 13.5 ft.-lb. @ 9500 rpm

Top speed 87 mph 93 mph

[dave_boo]

Thanks to Wana in the other thread for posting the figues I couldn't be bothered to search for...

Well written informative review.

http://www.cycleworl...comparison_test

But here's the bottom line.

SPECIFICATIONS Honda CBR250R Kawasaki Ninja 250R

Dry weight 337 lb. 356 lb.

Wheelbase 53.9 in. 55.1 in.

Seat height 30.5 in. 30.5 in.

Fuel mileage 57 mpg 53 mpg

0-60 mph 8.5 sec. 7.7 sec.

1/4-mile 16.15 sec. @ 77.54 mph 15.62 sec. @ 81.84 mph

Horsepower 23.7 hp @ 9900 rpm 25.5 hp @ 10,100 rpm

Torque 12.7 ft.-lb. @ 7400 rpm 13.5 ft.-lb. @ 9500 rpm

Top speed 87 mph 93 mph

As hehehoho pointed out, you're looking at carb'd bikes (which generally post higher numbers on the dyno) that are geared lower and thus have better acceleration compared to their FI counterparts.

Example:

Ninja 250R fuel injected: 3,071

Ninja 250R carb'd: 3,21

A 4,5% higher gear ratio definitely affects the acceleration of the FI bikes...

Sorry to quote myself (and if people would read links, which is I know antethical to the CBR hater's ethos) but you're comparing two different things. As I've been saying, the US Ninja is higher power and has shorter gearing than the one offered in LOS. You're conflating apples with oranges.

Also interesting that the 'bottom line' leaves out this little nugget:

Well, kudos to Kawasaki; the Ninja is a great, frolicsome little motorcycle with cool styling and a fierce (for a 250) Twin. It’s a great way to get started in motorcycling and remains an excellent way to get around. But our editorial hat is off to Honda. The CBR just plain works better everywhere, eliciting more toothy grins wherever it goes. On the spec chart, it’s about as impressive as, well, as a 250-Single-powered sportbike.

I've also wondered about their top speeds; was that radar'd or indicated--it says 'instrumented' testing; is that the bike's instruments or what I assume is a trap/gun?

[hehehoho]

But here's the bottom line.

So your 'bottom line' is comparing the CBR to a version that Kawa doesn't even sell here.

Whilst leaving out that despite the bike you're comparing it to has more power than the Thai model:

our editorial hat is off to Honda. The CBR just plain works better everywhere, eliciting more toothy grins wherever it goes.

Sounds like a clear winner, thanks for the link.

Perhaps put the bold bit in your sig seeing as what they say is the 'bottom line' on matters, according to yourself.

Edited August 25, 2011 by hehehoho

[BigBikeBKK]

But here's the bottom line.

So your 'bottom line' is comparing the CBR to a version that Kawa doesn't even sell here.

Whilst leaving out that despite the bike you're comparing it to has more power than the Thai model:

our editorial hat is off to Honda. The CBR just plain works better everywhere, eliciting more toothy grins wherever it goes.

Sounds like a clear winner, thanks for the link.

Perhaps put the bold bit in your sig seeing as what they say is the 'bottom line' on matters, according to yourself.

Most reviews I've read recognize that the Ninjette is the better "sport" bike while the CB'r' get's better fuel economy and is more noob-friendly.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?app=core&module=attach&section=attach&attach_rel_module=post&attach_id=140529

Comes as no surprise that noobs like heho prefer the cb'r'

[dave_boo]

Most reviews I've read recognize that the Ninjette is the better "sport" bike while the CB'r' get's better fuel economy and is more noob-friendly.

http://www.thaivisa....ttach_id=140529

Comes as no surprise that noobs like heho prefer the cb'r'

Most? Please provide links from reputable motorcycle review sites.

It's amazing that the CBR haters ignore facts, like they love to seize on US reviews even though they're comparing apples to oranges. Or the fact that in the major publications they seemingly unaminously award the win to the CBR. Or the fact that at least 1/3 of all Ninja sales go to women in the States (number would I imagine be lower here due to the higher cost of entry however).

[BigBikeBKK]

Most reviews I've read recognize that the Ninjette is the better "sport" bike while the CB'r' get's better fuel economy and is more noob-friendly.

http://www.thaivisa....ttach_id=140529

Comes as no surprise that noobs like heho prefer the cb'r'

Most? Please provide links from reputable motorcycle review sites.

It's amazing that the CBR haters ignore facts, like they love to seize on US reviews even though they're comparing apples to oranges. Or the fact that in the major publications they seemingly unaminously award the win to the CBR. Or the fact that at least 1/3 of all Ninja sales go to women in the States (number would I imagine be lower here due to the higher cost of entry however).

You're welcome to go back through this thread to find numerous reviews that conclude that the Ninjette is still the better 250. FWIW I don't "hate" the CB'r' 250, I just think it's funny that there are some noobs who still think it's a Ninjette killer.

[wana]

lets be honest ,the ninja looks cooler and it is a little bit faster + but it is hardly 1 and a half times the bike as prices would indicate

as already mentionted in the usa they both cost exactly $3999 so the ninjas not going to lose there anytime soon

but here when one is 100k and the other is 150k that would make up my mind for me ,hands down the ninja is faster but its by fractions of a second,even the 1/4 mile race ,the ninja only takes it by around half a second

CBR250 R / NINJA 250

0-60mph 8.5 sec. 7.7 sec.

Top speed 87 mph 93 mph

1/4-mile 16.15 sec. @ 77.54 mph 15.62 sec. @ 81.84 mph

Fuel mileage 57 mpg 53 mpg

this will probably start more arguments than it will finish ............................................but .................................what mods could you do to the CBR with the saved 50,000 thb to make it as quick or quicker than the ninja ?

[hehehoho]

as already mentionted in the usa they both cost exactly $3999 so the ninjas not going to lose there anytime soon

Actually, having only been released since April/May the CBR250R looks like it will sell more in the US for 2011 than the ninja.

Remember that's the ninja with more power than the Thai version. And the prices are the same.

this will probably start more arguments than it will finish ............................................but .................................what mods could you do to the CBR with the saved 50,000 thb to make it as quick or quicker than the ninja ?

It's already quicker than the ninja... depending on what reference you're referring to. Off the line, in the bends etc.

But to answer your question, 50,000thb of mods would get you:

Pirelli Sport Demon tyres. - 6000thb.

Yoshimura full system. Around 25k perhaps.

And with 19,000thb left you could look at suspension or ECU powercomander/juicebox etc.

[dave_boo]

Most reviews I've read recognize that the Ninjette is the better "sport" bike while the CB'r' get's better fuel economy and is more noob-friendly.

http://www.thaivisa....ttach_id=140529

Comes as no surprise that noobs like heho prefer the cb'r'

Most? Please provide links from reputable motorcycle review sites.

It's amazing that the CBR haters ignore facts, like they love to seize on US reviews even though they're comparing apples to oranges. Or the fact that in the major publications they seemingly unaminously award the win to the CBR. Or the fact that at least 1/3 of all Ninja sales go to women in the States (number would I imagine be lower here due to the higher cost of entry however).

You're welcome to go back through this thread to find numerous reviews that conclude that the Ninjette is still the better 250. FWIW I don't "hate" the CB'r' 250, I just think it's funny that there are some noobs who still think it's a Ninjette killer.

Amazing. Have I made any claims that weren't backed up with facts? Should anyone reading this thread consider your opinion if you're arguing to the contrary if you do not back it with facts?

And, as you know, I have a decent memory. And the two reviews that I remember that did not give the nod to the CBR were the Popular Mechanics (and they didn't name 'best of the best' but rather presented their opinions on the bikes) and the review that was Kawasaki sponsored with the reviewers waxing nastologic about their old Ninjas. While I can admit I have Honda bias, another thing you know about me, could you admit that perhaps that review was Ninjette biased?

Here's my thoughts on the bikes. The Ninja is much more expensive (MSRP ~147% for similar models and ~128% more than the higher brake spec Honda). The Ninja needs more frequent servicing at fewer (although from the looks of it, better trained) shops. The Ninja seemingly, when ridden by professional racers, only really bests the CBR at top end. The resale loss on the Ninja is much larger (could be important to cheap charlies). The Ninja is less n00b friendly; this is important because how long are the riders going to keep the bikes before moving up? There was a large bailing on the Ninja when the ER-6* models came out. There is at least one forum member selling his CBR after owning for the same length of time; I'd imagine if bikes needed to be bought on credit than the smaller hit from reselling the CBR would make going up to the +600cc class easier on folks.

All those reasons are why I consider the CBR a Ninja killer. Add in the fact that it appears that in the first 6 months of sales in LOS it appears that Honda sold more (even at inflated pricing that those f@<king dealers charged) than Kawasaki sold in the total model run of Ninjas.

[hehehoho]

I really cannot see the point in spending 150k thb on a weak, stock 250 when 2 yr old kawa650s are available for around the same price.

[JonnyF]

I really cannot see the point in spending 150k thb on a weak, stock 250 when 2 yr old kawa650s are available for around the same price.

A Ninja is under 150k. Where are er6's available for under 150k? Ever. Please show me, I would buy it tomorrow. This is just yet more BS

Maybe some people want a good looking, quick 250 to learn on and are a bit scared of the 650's. You know, the same as you were too scared of the power that the awesome rainbow exhaust provided on the CBR, forcing you to sell it to some lucky punter :lol:

Edited August 26, 2011 by JonnyF

[wana]

I really cannot see the point in spending 150k thb on a weak, stock 250 when 2 yr old kawa650s are available for around the same price.

some people like to buy a new vehicle over a used one

some people want /need / prefer a 250 cc over a 650 cc for various reasons

id take the 650 for sure but for a woman ,learner driver.short distance commuter a 250cc might be plenty enough bike for their purposes

theres a guy in my appartment building recently bought brand new harley davison 1200 and its gorgeous

looks just like this one :

http://www.automatio...arleyxr1200.jpg

..........but he does more miles on his scooter and the harley sits in the car park with a blanket over it

expensive toy but he doesnt really use it at all.........its just an impractical vehicle for one of the most congested parted of bangkok so his honda click is racking up more miles and the sprank new harley is gathering dust

Edited August 26, 2011 by wana

[hehehoho]

I really cannot see the point in spending 150k thb on a weak, stock 250 when 2 yr old kawa650s are available for around the same price.

A Ninja is under 150k. Where are er6's available for under 150k? Ever. Please show me, I would buy it tomorrow. This is just yet more BS

I thought the 147500 price tag didn't include rego, tax or insurance, which presumably brings it within a whisker. (tax and insurance 1000thb and rego 1500thb?).

As for used 650s, Tony linked to one being sold for 145,000thb.

Your constant need to attack me is telling. Not happy at having spent more money on a lesser product perhaps.

[BigBikeBKK]

Most reviews I've read recognize that the Ninjette is the better "sport" bike while the CB'r' get's better fuel economy and is more noob-friendly.

http://www.thaivisa....ttach_id=140529

Comes as no surprise that noobs like heho prefer the cb'r'

Most? Please provide links from reputable motorcycle review sites.

It's amazing that the CBR haters ignore facts, like they love to seize on US reviews even though they're comparing apples to oranges. Or the fact that in the major publications they seemingly unaminously award the win to the CBR. Or the fact that at least 1/3 of all Ninja sales go to women in the States (number would I imagine be lower here due to the higher cost of entry however).

You're welcome to go back through this thread to find numerous reviews that conclude that the Ninjette is still the better 250. FWIW I don't "hate" the CB'r' 250, I just think it's funny that there are some noobs who still think it's a Ninjette killer.

Amazing. Have I made any claims that weren't backed up with facts? Should anyone reading this thread consider your opinion if you're arguing to the contrary if you do not back it with facts?

And, as you know, I have a decent memory. And the two reviews that I remember that did not give the nod to the CBR were the Popular Mechanics (and they didn't name 'best of the best' but rather presented their opinions on the bikes) and the review that was Kawasaki sponsored with the reviewers waxing nastologic about their old Ninjas. While I can admit I have Honda bias, another thing you know about me, could you admit that perhaps that review was Ninjette biased?

Here's my thoughts on the bikes. The Ninja is much more expensive (MSRP ~147% for similar models and ~128% more than the higher brake spec Honda). The Ninja needs more frequent servicing at fewer (although from the looks of it, better trained) shops. The Ninja seemingly, when ridden by professional racers, only really bests the CBR at top end. The resale loss on the Ninja is much larger (could be important to cheap charlies). The Ninja is less n00b friendly; this is important because how long are the riders going to keep the bikes before moving up? There was a large bailing on the Ninja when the ER-6* models came out. There is at least one forum member selling his CBR after owning for the same length of time; I'd imagine if bikes needed to be bought on credit than the smaller hit from reselling the CBR would make going up to the +600cc class easier on folks.

All those reasons are why I consider the CBR a Ninja killer. Add in the fact that it appears that in the first 6 months of sales in LOS it appears that Honda sold more (even at inflated pricing that those f@<king dealers charged) than Kawasaki sold in the total model run of Ninjas.

What's so amazing? You're welcome to go back through this thread to find numerous reviews that conclude that the Ninjette is still the better 250. FWIW I don't "hate" the CB'r' 250, I just think it's funny that there are some noobs who still think it's a Ninjette killer.

And so what if Honda sells more CB'r' than Kawasaki sells Ninjettes in Thailand? Does that mean the CB'r' is a better bike? Weird logic bro...