New CBR 300 Is Born

[Shurup]

don't get me wrong, i'm all for small cc sports bike but i really don't like the lastest trend of Kawasaki & Honda of dressing up budget bikes as sports bikes.... the Ninja 300 looks like a ZX10 from a distance

Would be great if Kawasaki went the extra mile and made a 300cc triple with USD forks, aluminum frame & swingarm....even with a substantial price hike they would fly out of the show-rooms !!

a 200.000 baht plus 300 cc bike flying out of the showrooms ? Don't think so. Some hardcore kawa fans might buy it but the mainstream will still go for the honda 500.

AFAIK, there is average of 1.5 months wait list for Ninja 300 all over Thailand, or at least is was the case a 1-2 months ago. If the 300 was a triple with even more better parts, a little hike in a price wouldn't have changed a thing for those who wanted it.

[KRS1]

Edited October 20, 2013 by KRS1

[yingyo]

What is different from the CBR250?

Actual CC? (CBR470 I'm looking at you. )

It will be interesting to see what changes they did to upgrade the cc. Everything else looks the same except for the faring.

Edited October 20, 2013 by yingyo

[Wong!]

^ Wheels and dash are different!

Edited October 20, 2013 by Wong!

[yingyo]

Wheels look the exact same.

If the fairings are different you would expect a different dash.

Everything but the fairing and associated parts look the exact same. I expect Honda went for a cheap update and kept everything they could off the CBR250. It will be interesting to see if the engine parts that bumped up the CC fit into the 250 model.

Perhaps the CRF will get an updated 300cc in another year or too as well.

Edited October 20, 2013 by yingyo

[ll2]

Pipe is from 500 series.

Apart from that all looks same with cbr250 apart from the engine, plastics and design.

But it is a good design. I liked it. Much more better than cbr250.

Sent from my GT-N7100 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[Wong!]

Wheels look the exact same.

Not the same as a 500, as I presume that's what we were comparing it to.

[yingyo]

No, the CBR250.

"What is different from the CBR250?"

"It will be interesting to see what changes they did to upgrade the cc. Everything else looks the same except for the faring."

[Wong!]

^ Uh. OK.

[CBR250R]

Here apparently are the new specifications for the upcoming CBR300R.

http://blog.motorcycle.com/2013/10/1...pecs-revealed/

In a nutshell:

Displacement: 286cc
Power: 30.4 hp @ 8500 RPM
Torque: 19.9 lb-ft @ 7250 RPM

The link provides specifications for the previous 2011 CBR250R that seem to be off.

Displacement: 249cc
Power: 23.7 hp @ 9900 RPM
Torque: 12.7 ft-lbs @ 7400RPM

How do I know they are off? Because virtually every review I've read that includes dyno figures shows results similar to this from the rear wheel - not from the crank. *Update* - it appears that Motorcycle.com grabbed these figures from the Wiki stub for the bike - based on a review by Cycle World.

The actual power and torque figures at the crank for the 2011 CBR250R appear to be:

Power: 25.8 hp @ 8500 RPM
Torque: 16.6 ft-lbs @ 7000 RPM

Strangely - these figures actually come from a previous Motorcycle.com article. So it appears they'd rather quote Cycle World than their own publication.

http://www.motorcycle.com/manufactur...iew-90193.html

So.... an increase of 4.6 HP and 3.3 ft-lb of torque. AND a decrease in weight too - now at 362 lbs with ABS, as opposed to 367lbs. It'd be nice if the non-ABS version was trimmed down to about 350 lbs.

Mike

[KRS1]

links dont work

[CBR250R]

Here are the links that didn't render in my previous message.

http://blog.motorcycle.com/2013/10/18/manufacturers/honda/2014-honda-cbr300r-specs-revealed/

http://www.motorcycle.com/manufacturer/honda/2011-honda-cbr250r-review-90193.html

[yingyo]

So it's going to be a CBR286. It would be cooler if they actually gave these new bikes their correct name.

If the 4hp increase is at the rear wheel, while also losing some weight then it is a nice little update. Especially if there isn't a big jump in price. If 130k they should sell well.

[KRS1]

286 cc......boo booooo....

hmmm maybe i wont get it.

[ll2]

286 cc......boo booooo....

 

hmmm maybe i wont get it.

But that extra 36 cc is giving nearly 50 percent more torque and 25 percent more hp if specs stated are true so not that bad.

Sent from my GT-N7100 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[KRS1]

Just calculated a bore change while retaining the same stroke...and it would have to have a bore size of 81.5mm vs 76mm (original)....

81.5mm x 55mm stroke = 286.92 cc

They could very well have just went with bore change, cam profiles, valve enlargement, larger throttle body, intake/exhaust runners and timing, as i think a redesigned cylinder barrel would accommodate the increase if they redesigned the external of the barrel which has 'bumps' on it for cooling, and reinforce it....radiator should also be larger, or the flow rate of the thermostat has changed.

The muffler is also a redesign for shorter exhaust gas travel length which usually results in an increase in top end and rev up, the old exhaust (muffler) is actually twice as long as it appears to be, because of the design....the total length is actually 2 mufflers.

The 250 internal piping runs to the end (1st chamber) then pipes into the middle chamber (2nd), then the 2nd chamber pipes into the 3rd chamber (front of muffler/pipe goes down one size), then a long pipe runs from the 3rd chamber out the back, straight through the 1st and 2nd chambers. (if you have trouble picturing this, the 1st chamber is at the rear of the muffler)

The 300 muffler looks to have a shorter design with stepped chambers, instead of running back and forth like the old design.

[William Osborne]

Just calculated a bore change while retaining the same stroke...and it would have to have a bore size of 81.5mm vs 76mm (original)....

81.5mm x 55mm stroke = 286.92 cc

They could very well have just went with bore change, cam profiles, valve enlargement, larger throttle body, intake/exhaust runners and timing, as i think a redesigned cylinder barrel would accommodate the increase if they redesigned the external of the barrel which has 'bumps' on it for cooling, and reinforce it....radiator should also be larger, or the flow rate of the thermostat has changed.

The muffler is also a redesign for shorter exhaust gas travel length which usually results in an increase in top end and rev up, the old exhaust (muffler) is actually twice as long as it appears to be, because of the design....the total length is actually 2 mufflers.

The 250 internal piping runs to the end (1st chamber) then pipes into the middle chamber (2nd), then the 2nd chamber pipes into the 3rd chamber (front of muffler/pipe goes down one size), then a long pipe runs from the 3rd chamber out the back, straight through the 1st and 2nd chambers. (if you have trouble picturing this, the 1st chamber is at the rear of the muffler)

The 300 muffler looks to have a shorter design with stepped chambers, instead of running back and forth like the old design.

These facts are pretty pointless considering you're talking about a budget, mass produced single cylinder lump... anyone who knows anything about sports/performance bikes know these bikes are just cheap sh*t underneath the Fireblade plastics..... .

[KRS1]

Just calculated a bore change while retaining the same stroke...and it would have to have a bore size of 81.5mm vs 76mm (original)....

81.5mm x 55mm stroke = 286.92 cc

They could very well have just went with bore change, cam profiles, valve enlargement, larger throttle body, intake/exhaust runners and timing, as i think a redesigned cylinder barrel would accommodate the increase if they redesigned the external of the barrel which has 'bumps' on it for cooling, and reinforce it....radiator should also be larger, or the flow rate of the thermostat has changed.

The muffler is also a redesign for shorter exhaust gas travel length which usually results in an increase in top end and rev up, the old exhaust (muffler) is actually twice as long as it appears to be, because of the design....the total length is actually 2 mufflers.

The 250 internal piping runs to the end (1st chamber) then pipes into the middle chamber (2nd), then the 2nd chamber pipes into the 3rd chamber (front of muffler/pipe goes down one size), then a long pipe runs from the 3rd chamber out the back, straight through the 1st and 2nd chambers. (if you have trouble picturing this, the 1st chamber is at the rear of the muffler)

The 300 muffler looks to have a shorter design with stepped chambers, instead of running back and forth like the old design.

These facts are pretty pointless considering you're talking about a budget, mass produced single cylinder lump... anyone who knows anything about sports/performance bikes know these bikes are just cheap sh*t underneath the Fireblade plastics..... .

i see youre still struggling to be human, just go with it and be the troll you were born to be.

[cornishcarlos]

Just calculated a bore change while retaining the same stroke...and it would have to have a bore size of 81.5mm vs 76mm (original)....

81.5mm x 55mm stroke = 286.92 cc

They could very well have just went with bore change, cam profiles, valve enlargement, larger throttle body, intake/exhaust runners and timing, as i think a redesigned cylinder barrel would accommodate the increase if they redesigned the external of the barrel which has 'bumps' on it for cooling, and reinforce it....radiator should also be larger, or the flow rate of the thermostat has changed.

The muffler is also a redesign for shorter exhaust gas travel length which usually results in an increase in top end and rev up, the old exhaust (muffler) is actually twice as long as it appears to be, because of the design....the total length is actually 2 mufflers.

The 250 internal piping runs to the end (1st chamber) then pipes into the middle chamber (2nd), then the 2nd chamber pipes into the 3rd chamber (front of muffler/pipe goes down one size), then a long pipe runs from the 3rd chamber out the back, straight through the 1st and 2nd chambers. (if you have trouble picturing this, the 1st chamber is at the rear of the muffler)

The 300 muffler looks to have a shorter design with stepped chambers, instead of running back and forth like the old design.

These facts are pretty pointless considering you're talking about a budget, mass produced single cylinder lump... anyone who knows anything about sports/performance bikes know these bikes are just cheap sh*t underneath the Fireblade plastics..... .

It isn't a sport bike, it's an economical run around. Capable of carrying 2 people and looks better than a phantom... Fits its place in the market perfectly

[William Osborne]

It isn't a sport bike, it's an economical run around. Capable of carrying 2 people and looks better than a phantom... Fits its place in the market perfectly

i think a lot of people are fooled by the fireblade lookalike plastics and think they are getting a more sportier bike..... a mate of mine who was a newbie to bikes was pretty under-whelmed after a couple of weeks of driving the 250.... he sold it and got a ER6 after a few of months.

[cbuddha]

i think a lot of people are fooled by the fireblade lookalike plastics and think they are getting a more sportier bike..... a mate of mine who was a newbie to bikes was pretty under-whelmed after a couple of weeks of driving the 250.... he sold it and got a ER6 after a few of months.

It sounds like the CBR did its job in that case, by helping the transition from newbie to a true sportsbike (more than 2x price and displacement) rider.

[William Osborne]

i see youre still struggling to be human, just go with it and be the troll you were born to be.

..Just stating my opinion... these bikes are cheap crap covered with shiny plastics.... clever marketing ploy by Honda, I suppose,

[yingyo]

Don't think I'll believe any HP claims until they start to hit independ dyno's.

I can't see too many people selling their 250 to upgrade to the 286. What it will probably do is convince more people that were considering either CBR150 or the Ninja 300 to buy it.

[KRS1]

Here are the links that didn't render in my previous message.

http://blog.motorcycle.com/2013/10/18/manufacturers/honda/2014-honda-cbr300r-specs-revealed/

http://www.motorcycle.com/manufacturer/honda/2011-honda-cbr250r-review-90193.html

ah, opened the links too late before my previous post.

63mm stroke vs 55mm

ok im interested again.

[yingyo]

22.7kw = 30.4 HP.

I guess this is at the crank. What do they say the current cbr250 is? 26?

[yingyo]

I just opened thaimocyc and it's on the front page:

[ll2]

Looking nice man! Cannot pass ninja 300 again though.

So extra 36 cc gives around 20 percent up in hp and torque. Not bad. Also i think you can rev it more now.

Sent from my GT-N7100 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[guzzi850m2]

So Ninja almost 9 bhp more and better looking too.

Unless huge difference in price not a hard choice.

[yingyo]

I agree, except that they are declared HP, which are presumably at the crank and presumable not exactly exact.

What does the Ninja 300 pull on rear wheel, 33-34HP? I think the CBR loses less power than the ninja between the crank and the RW so probably about 27-28 RWHP. Quite simply put there won't be 9HP difference of RWHP between them.

Still better off getting the Ninja though really for those that want to buy one.

[KRS1]

I think will also depend on the type of riding...straight lines or tight curves.