| |
CBR250 Specifications
Here are the specs for the 250RR 99 model, there are
a few blanks I would like to fill in, does anyone know them?
| Type |
4-stroke,
liquid-cooled, DOHC |
| Cylinder
arrangement |
Inline - 4
cylinder |
| Displacement |
249 cc |
| Bore
x Stroke |
48.5 x
33.8 mm |
| Compression
Ratio |
11.5:1 |
| Maximum
power |
40PS/
14,500 rpm |
| Maximum
Torque |
2.4kg-m @
11,500 rpm |
| Starting
System |
Electric |
| Lubrication |
Sump |
| Carburation |
In-line
slant x 4 |
| Transmission
Type |
Constant
mesh 6-speed |
| Gear
Ratio 1st |
2.733 |
| Gear
Ratio 2nd |
2.000 |
| Gear
Ratio 3rd |
1.590 |
| Gear
Ratio 4th |
1.333 |
| Gear
Ratio 5th |
1.153 |
| Gear
Ratio 6th |
1.035 |
| Ignition
System |
Digital |
| Final
Transmission |
Chain |
| Chassis |
|
| Overall
Length |
1975 mm |
| Overall
Width |
675 mm |
| Overall
Height |
1080 mm |
| Seat
Height |
735 mm |
| Wheelbase |
1345 mm |
| Minimum
Ground Clearance |
130 mm |
| Dry
Weight |
158 kg |
| Frame
Type |
Aluminium |
| Fuel
Tank Capacity |
13 L |
| Front
Suspension |
37 mm fork |
| Front
Shock Absorber |
|
| Rear
Suspension |
|
| Front
Wheel |
Aluminium |
| Front
Wheel Travel |
|
| Rear
Wheel |
Aluminium |
| Rear
Wheel Travel |
|
| Front
Brake |
275 mm
diam - dual disc - dual piston callipers |
| Rear
Brake |
220 mm
diam - single disc - single piston calliper |
| Front
tyre |
110/70 R17 |
| Rear
tyre |
140/60 R17 |
CBR 400 and other 400cc sports bike Specifications
| SPECS |
HONDA
CBR400 |
KAWASAKI
ZXR400 |
SUZUKI
GSX-R400 |
| OTR
Price |
£4,793 |
£3,499 |
£2,899 |
| ENGINE |
|
|
|
| Type |
Liquid
cooled 16-valve DOHC parallel four |
Liquid
cooled 16-valve DOHC parallel four |
Liquid
cooled 16-valve DOHC parallel four |
| Displacement |
399cc |
398cc |
398cc |
| Bore
x Stroke |
55x42mm |
57x39mm |
56x40.4mm |
| Carburation |
4
x CV carbs |
4
x CV carbs |
4
x CV carbs |
| Gearbox |
6-speed
constant mesh |
6-speed
constant mesh |
6-speed
constant mesh |
| Max
Power |
50bhp
@ 11,500rpm |
54bhp
@ 12,000rpm |
52bhp
@ 12,000rpm |
| Max
Torque |
24ft-lb
@ 9,200rpm |
24.9ft-lb
@ 9,200rpm |
25.8ft-lb
@ 10,200rpm |
| Cycle
Parts |
|
|
|
| Chassis |
Twin
spar aluminium |
Twin
spar aluminium |
Twin
spar aluminium |
| Suspension |
Front:
Telescopic forks, adjustable preload
Rear: Monoshock |
Front:
Telescopic forks, adjustable preload
Rear: Monoshock |
Front:
Telescopic forks, adjustable preload
Rear: Monoshock |
| Brakes |
Front:
4-piston calipers, twin discs
Rear: 220mm disc |
Front:
4-piston calipers, twin discs
Rear: 220mm disc |
Front:
4-piston calipers, twin discs
Rear: 220mm disc |
| Tyres |
Front:
120/60 17
Rear: 150/60 17 |
Front:
120/60 17
Rear: 160/60 17 |
Front:
120/60 17
Rear: 160/60 17 |
| Wheelbase |
1,375mm |
1,380mm |
1,375mm |
| Fuel
Capacity |
14.4
litres |
14
litres |
16
litres |
| Weight |
163kg |
168kg |
167kg |
I've decided to do a comparison because, many people
ask me what 400 they should buy. It all depends on what you have to
spend, and where ever or not you like punishment on your legs or
arms when riding. Here is a summary on them.
Conclusion
Review courtesy of
www.gsxr-online.co.uk
All three of these bikes were a shock
to me. Over the years I've tested quite a few 400s (albeit some time
ago) but I don't remember them being so, well... so damn slow. They
may have two-thirds of the capacity of 600s but there's no way they
come even close to offering up the same proportion of power. They
can't even match the delivery of an Aprilia RS250 and yet they carry
considerably more weight.
There's so little excitement to be had from the motors that you rely
on the handling, particularly conservation of momentum going into
corners, to get your jollies. Because speed is so hard to gain in
the first place, you find yourself pushing the limits of safe riding
further and further just so you don't have to touch the brakes,
however gently. 'I can make that gap.' 'I will nip between these two
trucks.' 'Why should I slow down for this roundabout when there's
bound to be a gap in the traffic?' It's a lethal game, but it is the
only way to ride these babies - flat out, everywhere. So which bike
is best at playing the game? Well that's easy, the Honda doesn't
just blow the other two into the weeds, it blows them right through
and out the other side. Then again, so it should because it is newer
and frankly, it's also bloody expensive.
Which one would I choose
myself? Ah, that's a completely different question, and brings my
Yorkshire background in to the equation. I have a healthy dose of
the stingy gene in my make-up and there's no way I could conceive of
paying so much for so little performance, no matter how well it
handles or how pretty it looks. Bye-bye Honda. So what of the
Suzuki? Well it's certainly a bargain, and the handling is still up
for it, but it has got that ridiculous engine and ludicrous riding
position, so that's out of contention too. I'd have the ZXR, and
wouldn't have to think twice about it. I reckon a bit of bargaining
would see it down to around the £3,200 mark. A moderate amount of
extra wedge and plenty of elbow-grease to get it back to full
fitness would leave you with a sorted example of the breed, which
I'm convinced would be a match for the Honda. At substantially less
than the CBR (even after it's been tidied up) the ZXR has got to be
the bargain of the bunch. Didn't expect that, eh?
|
|
