Model Comparison: 250cc Sportbikes Compared

Model Comparison

250cc Sportbikes Compared Honda’s CBR250R vs. Kawasaki’s Ninja 250R vs. ATK’s GT250R

text and photos by Scott Rousseau

W

HILE MCN CONTINUES to recommend lightweight, sub400cc-displacement motorcycles for new riders, we also understand that few contemporary lightweights are capable of capturing the imagination of newbies and experienced motorcyclists alike. The stereotypical lightweight serves the beginner well but is quickly outgrown as his or her performance demands increase in proportion to experience and skill. And many lightweights lack the performance and/or the latest technology of most popular 600cc-and-up streetbikes, making them even less attractive. However, in a time when $5 per gallon gasoline prices are again a very real possibility, goodperforming, fuel-efficient motorcycles may win over costconscious riders regardless of their skill levels. This trio of 250cc sportbikes certainly attempts to address the needs of both camps. The defending 250cc sportbike champion, the Ninja 250R has been a best-seller for Kawasaki for nearly 25 years. Perhaps under-appreciated among experienced riders, it’s a user-friendly machine whose high-strung parallel twin-cylinder performance isn’t easily outgrown. The Ninja 250R underwent major engineering and styling revisions in 2008, receiving a retuned engine for increased mid-range torque and updated styling that looks more like the latest ZX-10R than the older version’s 1984 GPZ900 Ninja facade. But lately, some strong contenders have emerged to challenge the Ninja 250R’s perennial dominance. Honda is hoping to change the way all riders think about lightweights with the introduction of its all-new 2011 CBR250R, a nimble-handling, hightech single-cylinder motorcycle that’s beginner-friendly and still packs enough punch to satisfy experienced riders, complete with sporty up-to-the-minute looks and state-of-the-art technology. The third challenger arrives thanks to Korea’s S&T Motors (formerly known as Hyosung). Utah-based ATK has made a multi-year, $100-million deal with S&T to rebadge some familiar Hyosung models, and after further development, eventually manufacture them in the US. One of these is the GT250R, a

12

APRIL 2011

●

MOTORCYCLE CONSUMER NEWS

sportbike that mirrors the look of the Hyosung GT650R midsized sportbike. In place of the 650R’s liquid-cooled 90° V-twin, the GT250R carries a free-revving air/oil-cooled 75° V-twin . So there you have it. With three solid contenders, it was time to wring their necks and see who makes the best little sportbike in motorcycling. We figured it would be close, but in the end we had no idea how close.

Engines—CBR250R 1st; Ninja 250R 2nd; GT250R 3rd This one is going to take a little explaining, as our testers favored the CBR250R’s torquey single over the slightly more powerful parallel twins—by the slimmest of margins. The Kawi topped our performance trials; the Ninja 250R was able to rev its way to a 97.7–mph terminal velocity and accelerate from 0–60 mph in 7.89 sec. Its best quarter-mile time was 15.73 sec., @ 80.56 mph. By comparison, the Honda’s best top speed was 91.2 mph, its best 0–60 mph time was 8.79 sec., and its best quarter-mile run was 16.32 sec., @ 75.83 mph. The ATK managed a top speed of 90.7 mph with a quarter-mile time of 16.78 secs. @ 75.09 mph and a 0-60 mph time of 9.72. No doubt about it, the Kawasaki is the strongest on top, making 26.09 peak hp @ 11,000 rpm—600 rpm higher than the Honda can even rev—whereas the Honda achieved 21.9 hp @ 8500 rpm. The ATK GT250R made its best power numbers at 10,500 rpm, recording a peak of 23.03 hp. But what the CBR250R lacks in outright horsepower to the other two engines here is more than made up for by its ability to out-torque them and to do it at a much lower, real-world riding rpm. Both the twins make marginally more torque at 5000 rpm, but the Honda has a more robust feel through the middle of its rev range, and the dyno graph shows that the CBR achieves its peak 14.65 lb.-ft. figure @ 6750 rpm and stays above 14 lb.-ft. for another 1000 rpm before trailing off ever so gently as the little single screams toward its 10,400 rpm redline. The ATK makes a best of 14.12 lb.-ft. of torque @ 6750 rpm but can’t sustain it

like the Honda does, and the Ninja 250R waits until 10,000 rpm to achieve its lower 13.32 lb.-ft. peak torque figure. Those numbers backed our seat-of-the-pants impression that the CBR250R has the heartiest-feeling engine over the road, especially when getting on and off the gas while cruising around town. Throttle response through its PGM-FI fuel injection at lower rpm (the CBR uses a single 38mm throttle body) is excellent, although some of our testers detected the faintest lurch in on/off throttle transitions. The CBR’s four-valve, DOHC engine (76.0mm bore, 55.0mm stroke) bristles with state-of-the-art technology, and Honda engineers worked tirelessly to make the most efficient power from its 249.4cc as possible by reducing reciprocating weight and parasitic drag. For starters, in order to best position the CBR’s 30.0mm intake and 24.0mm exhaust valves, Honda went with a unique DOHC cylinder head design rather than the Unicam design popularized on its four-stroke motocross bikes and also used on the VFR1200F sport-tourer. Inside the head, patented, forked roller rockers bumped by single-lobe camshafts actuate the pairs of intake valves and exhaust valves during each combustion cycle. Deeper inside the motor, Honda designed a lightweight piston with a very short, molybdenumcoated skirt that also has striations on it to catch more oil from the cylinder wall. Both design characteristics greatly reduce drag inside the engine, but Honda did not stop there. To reduce power-robbing piston-tocylinder wall friction during the power stroke, the cylinder centerline is offset 4mm toward the exhaust side of the engine. The CBR’s crankshaft design is also unusual in that it utilizes a combination of plain bearings for the mains and a roller bearing on the big end of the connecting rod. Speaking of compact, the crank flywheels are just wide enough to miss the CBR250R’s gear-driven counterbalancer as it swings between them. The Ninja 250R’s 62.0mm bore x 41.2mm stroke, liquidcooled, DOHC, parallel twin was seriously updated for the 2008 model year. In what Kawasaki described as “70% new” motor, the most significant engine changes included revised intake and exhaust ports, new camshafts with different timing and reduced duration and jetting changes to its dual 30mm Keihin CVK carburetors in an effort to alleviate any dips in its low-to-mid rpm transition. Reshaped piston crowns contributed to a lower compression ratio—11.6:1 vs. the older motor’s 12.4:1—and other efforts, such as thinner oil control rings on the pistons and thinner valve stems were made to reduce drag and lighten the engine’s reciprocating mass. A 2-into-1 exhaust system also replaced the 2-into-2 system of the older 250R. The end result was an engine that makes more torque between 4500 and 5750 rpm and horsepower that peaks 1000 rpm lower in the powerband than the previous version in exchange for about 1 hp lost off the top end. Out on the road, we noticed that Ninja 250R builds its torque so gradually that it almost feels slow when revved below 10,000 rpm, right where its peak torque occurs. And while the Ninja

revs quite a bit higher than the CBR—all the way to 13,000 rpm before its rev limiter cuts the fun—it builds those revs more slowly than the CBR engine does. The Ninja’s smooth power delivery is deceptively quick, as the rider waits to feel a lunge that never really comes. But the CBR simply feels more lively and fun despite giving up some outright high-rpm performance to the Kawasaki. However, the Ninja’s throttle response and driveability were excellent in all conditions, reaffirming our belief that well-tuned carburetors yield nothing to the fuel-injection systems on the market today—at least in terms of driveability. Although the ATKGT250R’s air/oil-cooled, fuel-injected 75° V-twin makes nearly as much torque as the Honda, gives up less peak power to the Kawasaki than the Honda does and revs higher than the Honda does, its power delivery feels more like the Ninja’s—slow to build rpm. Designed in Hamamatsu, Japan, by some of the same engineers responsible for Suzuki’s sporting V-twin designs, the GT250R features 57.0mm bores and a 48.8mm stroke, fourvalve DOHC heads with dual-squish combustion chambers and a compression ratio of 10.3:1. Hyosung-designed twin 28mm throttle bodies (49-state models can be had with twin downdraft Mikuni carburetors) feed the intake charge past steel 18.0mm intake valves and 14.5mm exhaust valves. Like the Ninja, the ATK features a 2into-1 exhaust system. But even with nearly as much torque and more horsepower than the Honda, the ATK was slower than both of its competitors during our performance testing. It posted a top speed of 90.7 mph while seriously lagging in acceleration. One ride on the ATK, and we knew exactly why that was the case, and it really isn’t the fault of the engine, but we’ll delve into that later. In its favor, the ATK’s fuel injection offers excellent driveability, and its throttle response is smooth and linear all the way up to its 11,000 rpm redline, and its lunge is stronger than the Ninja 250R’s as the ATK’s tachometer needle sweeps past 7000 rpm. However, we also noticed some engine vibration through the handlebars below 7000 rpm. It should be noted that all three of these displacement-challenged sportbikes were plenty competent in the hustle and bustle of Southern California freeway traffic, with the Kawasaki’s superior top-end power giving it an edge over the Honda and ATK when passing slower vehicles at 70-75 mph.

Transmissions & Clutches—CBR250R 1st; Ninja 250R 2nd; GT250R 3rd All three machines use cable-operated, wet, multi-plate clutches, but the Honda CBR250R and the Kawasaki Ninja 250R have 6-speed transmissions, while the ATK makes do with a 5speed. It should come as no surprise that our test crew unanimously voted the CBR250R’s clutch and transmission as the best of the bunch. Regardless of one’s personal or subjective feelings toward one or more attributes of any Honda model, the company is pretty consistent in its ability to produce transmissions that Visit us at WWW.MCNEWS.COM

●

APRIL 2011

13

Model Comparison shift with Swiss watch-like precision, and the CBR250R is no different. Its buttery clutch action requires but a single finger pull to negotiate gear changes, and its well-spaced gear ratios make getting out of the hole and up to speed a fun challenge. The Ninja’s clutch is just as smooth as the CBR’s, although it requires a little more effort at the lever. Also, its shifting action has a notchy feel that is noticeable even though the change from gear to gear is positive and we never missed any shifts. More refinement is necessary if the Ninja 250R ever hopes to match the CBR250R’s refinement in this category. That goes double for the ATK, which had a heavy, balky clutch feel with a narrow range of engagement that occurs too far away from the handlebar. Its transmission also lacks a sixth gear, which certainly doesn’t help the ATK’s outright performance or value score. The GT250R’s transmission action feels smoother than the Kawasaki’s, but it cannot match the Honda’s feel, and we noted that its shift lever throw is unnecessarily long, causing numerous missed shifts if your ankle expected less movement would suffice.

Chassis & Handling— CBR250R/Ninja 250R tie; GT250R 3rd As all three of these machines are built to a price point, exotic materials are nowhere to be found in their chassis structures. All three use twin-spar steel chassis and steel box-section swingarms, but the Kawasaki and the Honda main frames are comprised of tubular members whereas the ATK utilizes larger, heavier rectangular steel tubing. The CBR’s 53.9" wheelbase is the shortest in the group by over an inch, and its 25.0° rake, 3.74" of trail and 366.0-lb. wet weight make for an incredibly agile, flickable motorcycle in all riding conditions without sacrificing even a hint of straight-line stability at speed. And its balance is excellent; the Honda whips through turns with authority, and its transitions from side-toside the easiest of the group. About the only criticism noted is that the CBR250R sometimes feels as if it’s almost too light and lacks the solid connection to the road that the Ninja 250R exhibits when ridden through fast twisties at an aggressive pace. The Ninja’s 55.1" wheelbase is longer and its 26.0° rake slightly more relaxed, although its fork offset gives it a shorter 3.2" of trail that ensures quick steering. It’s 16.5-lbs. heavier than the Honda, weighing 382.5 lbs. fully fueled, but the Kawasaki’s 30.25" seat height is also the lowest in the group (the Honda’s is 30.5" and the ATK’s is 31.0") enhancing the chassis’ long, low feel. The Ninja may not feel as flickable as the CBR does, but it is more stable at mid-corner, which increases rider confidence. In the end, we realized that the category was a toss-up between the CBR and the Ninja. Both provide agile, predictable handling with slightly different but equally appealing attributes. The ATK GT250R handles like a grossly underpowered 600. It rides on a long, 56.5" wheelbase with a 25.5° rake and 3.54" of trail, and it has a wet weight of 414.0 lbs.—a whopping 48 lbs. heavier than the CBR250R and 31.5 lbs. heavier than the Ninja 250R. Granted, some of the weight disparity is due to the fact that 14

APRIL 2011

●


the ATK has a massive 4.6-gal. fuel tank while the Honda’s tank carries 3.4 gal., and the Kawasaki carries 3.2 gal. So, by merely subtracting 1.2 gallons of fuel from the ATK, you could save about 7.5 lbs. of excess weight, but the bottom line is that the GT250R is still too big and too heavy to be truly competitive with the Honda and the Kawasaki. While its straight-line stability is excellent, its heavyweight chassis does little to inspire confidence when attempting to coax it into fast turns, and the problem is exacerbated by the ATK’s rear suspension and tires—but more on that later. In fact, we originally suspected that the GT250R was merely the GT650R chassis with a smaller engine in it, but ATK officials assured us that the two models are different, even though the dimensions of the two machines are practically identical, which begs the question: If Hyosung could’ve built a smaller chassis for the smaller GT250R motor, then why didn’t it? The obvious answer is that the sharing of components between the two models lowers production costs, but that certainly doesn’t help the GT250R’s plight in the face of its tough Japanese competition in this class. However, it is our understanding that these are the types of issues that ATK hopes to address as its agreement with S&T Motors moves forward. Let’s hope it addresses them sooner rather than later.

Suspension—Ninja 250R 1st; CBR250R 2nd; GT250R 3rd Because of their sensitive price point, this trio of 250s uses cost-effective, less-sophisticated suspension components. Up front, the Honda CBR250R and the Kawasaki Ninja 250R use 37mm Showa conventional telescopic non-cartridge forks while the ATK GT250R uses a Hyosung 41mm male slider non-cartridge fork. None of the three are adjustable, making it all the more crucial for the manufacturers to dial-in settings that offer the best compromise between road control and bump absorption for a wide variety of riders. We’re happy to report that all three forks do an excellent job on the road, with none of them drawing any complaints from our test corps. The Ninja’s 4.7" travel fork and the CBR’s 4.65" may look virtually identical, but the majority preferred the Kawasaki’s fork to the Honda’s fork, as it does a marginally better job of communicating road feedback while remaining plush. The Honda’s fork is firm and controlled, but it is slightly harsher than the Kawasaki’s, especially over scattered, broken pavement. The ATK’s fork is also plush, but it could use just a bit more compression and rebound damping at both ends to slow its action as it goes through its stroke. Our resident 250cc GP guru, Danny Coe, suggested that a simple oil change might be all the ATK needs. Overall, the forks on all three bikes are very good. There is a greater disparity in the rear suspension among the three contenders, however. As competent as the Honda’s ProLink mounted, preload-adjustable Showa shock is at soaking up single large and small bumps, the Kawasaki’s bottom-link Uni-Trak suspension, also preload-adjustable, exhibited greater composure over rough pavement sections. The difference is

slight but noticeable, as the Honda’s rear end felt a little more “confused” over rippled sections. Even so, the Honda deserves some credit for rear suspension quality over quantity. It has only 4.07" of rear wheel travel whereas the Kawasaki has 5.1". Like its big and heavy chassis, rear suspension quality is one area where the ATK really suffers by comparison to the Honda and the Kawasaki. Its Hyosung linkage monoshock rear suspension supposedly offers 4.33" of rear wheel travel, but early in our testing we doubted that it had even an inch of travel, as even the smallest road undulations were transmitted straight through the seat to the rider’s spine. Pushing down on the seat to compress the suspension revealed that the shock on our test bike was rebounding very slowly, which was causing the rear suspension to “pack” over multiple bumps. The shock seemed to loosen up considerably as we put more miles on the GT250R, but even at its best, the ATK’s rear suspension action left a lot to be desired.

Brakes, Wheels & Tires—Ninja 250R 1st; CBR250R 2nd; GT250R 3rd No doubt about it, the Kawasaki Ninja 250R handily wins this combined category by virtue of the fact that it exhibited the best stopping performance and braking feel while effectively tying the Honda in terms of wheel and tire selection. The Ninja 250R’s petal-style discs—a single 290mm semi-floating front with two-piston, pin-slide caliper and a 220mm rear with a two-piston, pin-slide caliper—hauled it down from 60 mph in just 121.5', an identical stop to the one we achieved in our test of the 2008 Ninja 250R in the June 2008 issue of MCN. In addition to their power, we love the truly modern sportbike feel of the Ninja’s brakes. The front is especially precise and linear, with excellent initial bite. Even so, while we never locked the front brake during our braking drills, that strong initial bite might be intimidating to some beginners. The Honda CBR250R’s front 296mm semi-floating rotor also uses a two-piston, pin-slide caliper, and its 220mm rear rotor is clamped by a single-piston, pin-slide caliper, but our test bike was also equipped with Honda’s excellent Combined Anti-lock Braking System (C-ABS), which links the brakes back-to-front so that depressing the rear brake pedal also activates the front brake as well. It isn’t the fully electronic C-ABS version found on Honda’s CBR-RR performance bikes and other premium models, but rather a more cost-conscious version with mechanical linkage, which Honda originally devised for some of its scooter models. Even so, the C-ABS’ performance is extremely impressive. Our test bike posted a best 60–0 mph stopping distance of 124.3'. Although ABS is safer because of its ability to keep the wheels from skidding in emergency scenarios, it usually adds stopping distance during performance testing because our professional test rider can practice for the hardest possible stop. While the CABS also adds $500 to the price of the CBR250R, we feel it’s worth the extra dough. Our only actual complaint is that the CBR’s front brake lacks the initial bite and clearly linear feel of

the Ninja 250R’s front brake. This was especially noticeable when trail braking the CBR into a corner. Despite being the only bike in this shootout with dual front discs (300mm semi-floating rotors with two-piston, pin-slide calipers, backed up by a 230mm rear disc with single-piston pinslide caliper rear), the heavier ATK GT250R failed to match the braking performance of its competition, managing a best 60–0 mph stop of 128.3'. The ATK’s front brakes offer decent power but lack initial bite and suffer from a spongy lever feel that is the worst of this trio. On the plus side, the ATK does offer a six-position rotary dial on the brake lever to tailor its reach to various hand sizes. Its rear brake, however, offers a surprisingly linear feel that makes it easy to dial-in the proper amount of force without locking the rear wheel. All three machines ride on spoked, cast-alloy wheels, and all are shod with tubeless biasply tires that reflect their budget pricing. The Kawasaki’s six-spoke wheels measure 2.75" x 17" up front and 3.50" x 17" out back and carry IRC RX-01 Road Winner tires (120/70-17 MC54S front and 130/70-17 MC62S rear). The Honda’s five-spoke wheels measure 2.75" x 17" up front and 4.00" x 17" out back and are also shod with IRC RX-01 Road Winners (120/70-17 MC54S front and a wider 140/70-17 MC66S rear). In most cases, we found that the IRCs were well-matched to the capabilities of both bikes, offering decent feedback and fair grip, although we would love to have tried either bike with stickier tires, which would be a tremendous improvement without making any other modifications. The ATK’s six-spoke front wheel is the widest in the group, measuring 3.00" x 17", and its rear wheel is the same width and diameter as the Honda’s, a 4.00" x 17". Its tires are Shinko SR741s, a 110/70-17 MC 54H front and 150/70-17 MC69H rear. The Shinkos have very tall sidewalls that seem to flex rather than bite under the weight of the massive GT250R during hard cornering. The front tire is particularly poor, offering very little feedback or traction and undoubtedly contributing to the ATK’s vague steering. Although the front Shinko gives the queasy feeling that it is going flat, seemingly sliding out with any appreciable lean angle, we always double check tire pressure before heading out, so that wasn’t the case. Either the tire’s sidewall construction is inadequately stiff or the compound is especially low-traction, but if we were ATK, ditching the Shinko tires is the first improvement we’d make to the existing GT250R.

Ergonomics—CBR250R 1st; Ninja 250R 2nd; GT250R 3rd Sportbikes with racetrack ergonomics are usually fun in smaller doses, but only those with a Slinky for a spine would enjoy super-long rides on most models. However, both the CBR250R and the Ninja 250R offer very relaxed, quite upright seating positions that don’t tax your back or force the weight of your upper torso onto your wrists. Both offer low footpegs, high handlebar profiles and well-shaped seats that make longer distances tolerable. In sort of a Goldilocks and the Three Bears tale, choosing a winner in this category came down to a simple Visit us at WWW.MCNEWS.COM

●

APRIL 2011

15

Model Comparison The Kawasaki Ninja 250R is a little more hard-core in the sense that its high-winding twin is best enjoyed at a feverish pitch, although it is civil enough to handle the urban mean streets. It offers a comfortable riding position and good wind protection, and it feels as if it would make an excellent beginner bike on the track as well as the street. For that reason alone, we felt that the little Ninja deserved a tie with the Honda in this category even though its twin-cylinder engine is thirstier than the Honda’s single, averaging only 45.7 mpg during our testing. Remember, too, that the Kawi’s fuel tank is also .2 gal. smaller, meaning that the Ninja rider may have to pull over about 50 miles sooner to refuel. The ATK GT250R is the least compromising of this group, forcing the rider to deal with a repli-racer control layout in order to fit the cockpit. We can’t overstress how its size, excess weight, stiff rear suspension and cheesy tires detract from its fun V-twin engine, which might have had a chance if cradled in a more appropriate package. In the end, the GT250R is left sucking wind behind the Honda and the Kawasaki. matter of finding the one that was just right, and that was unanimously the Honda CBR250R. The CBR has a very slim waist, low 30.5" seat height, a flat, upright handlebar that’s slightly wider than the Ninja’s and therefore offers more leverage, and low footpegs that complete its ergonomic triangle perfectly. On the road, the CBR is hush quiet and vibration-free, leaving the rider to enjoy any trip in perfect harmony. While the CBR’s thinly padded seat will eventually force you to get off and stretch your legs, the bike’s upright riding position, combined with the seat’s slim mid-section and relatively flat seat base allow you to progress pretty far down the road before you feel the need to stop. The CBR’s obviously VFR1200F-inspired bodywork also does a good job of shielding the rider from the wind, and it has the tallest windshield in the group. The Ninja’s riding position and wind protection are just as comfortable as the CBR’s. Its handlebar is positioned similarly to the CBR’s—despite the fact that the Ninja’s bars are still of the “clip-on” variety—but it loses to the Honda because it’s noisier, it vibrates through the bars and because taller riders might find its 30.25" seat height to be just a tad too low. While we did not find any of these to be severe flaws, it just goes to show how much Honda has stepped up the game in this class. The ATK GT250R offers the stereotypical sportbike seating position. Its 31.8" seat height is the highest in this group, and its 34.75" high handlebars (measured from the ground) are positioned the lowest and offer the least steering leverage in the group, especially at parking lot speeds. Its bulbous fuel tank feels as if it hinders fore and aft movement, and its highangled seat also feels rock hard. The ATK does offer some relief in the form of adjustable-height footpegs (we tested with them in the low position), but its overall seating position is downright uncomfortable compared to the Honda and the Kawasaki, and it isn’t one that we’d recommend for beginning riders.

Riding Impression—CBR250R & Ninja 250R tie; GT250R 3rd If there’s a single word that best describes the character of the Honda CBR250R, it’s “flexible.” The Honda feels equally at home in the canyons, on the freeway or in the middle of downtown. Its peppy single offers a broad spread of torque and hp that simply makes it the easiest of these three bikes to ride, its ergonomics make it the easiest to ride farthest, and even with our aggressive test riding the CBR managed to knock down a miserly 56.5 mpg, which equates to roughly 192 miles between stops to fill its 3.4-gal. fuel tank. 16

APRIL 2011

●


Instruments & Controls—CBR250R 1st; Ninja 250R & GT250R (tie) The Honda CBR250R simply has the best instruments and controls in this group. Its throttle movement and levers have a quality feel, and its multi-function digital instrument cluster is easy to read. Its large-faced, 12,500 rpm analog tachometer is located smack dab in the middle of the instrument cluster, exactly where we like it, and the Honda also has a digital speedometer, clock, odometer, single tripmeter, fuel level gauge and temperature gauge—generous features for a motorcycle in its price range, to be sure. The Kawasaki Ninja 250R and the ATK GT250R tie for second place in this category not so much because the Kawasaki has any undesirable traits but because ATK’s dash offers many of the same features as the Honda’s. The ATK is also equipped with a digital speedometer, an easy-to-read analog tachometer (that loses points for being located on the left side of the dash rather than in the center), dual tripmeters, a fuel level gauge and a temperature gauge. The Ninja would do well to join the digital age, as its all analog instrument cluster looks like a leftover from Kawasaki’s old snowmobile days of the early 1980s. Its center-mounted speedometer is flanked by a tachometer on the right and a fuel gauge on the left, and its odometer and tripmeter are mechanical. We can’t complain

the Honda’s $3995 MSRP, bringing it to $4495. While we’re fans of good ABS systems like the Honda’s, non-ABSequipped machines tend to stop shorter than their ABSequipped counterparts. So, could the standard CBR have possibly stopped shorter than the Kawasaki and won the braking category as well? Possibly. Still, we’d recommend that unless you’re on a strict budget, pony up for the C-ABS version. For $3999, the base-model Ninja 250R packs a lot of value in an easy-to-ride package, although our Ninja was swathed in Kawasaki’s Special Edition paint scheme, adding $250 to the price, for an MSRP of $4249. The ATK falls short in the value category because its weight drastically affects its performance, and its overall package exhibits less attention to detail. The GT250R’s MSRP is $4295 for the fuel-injected version, making it almost as expensive as the CBR250R equipped with C-ABS, although the 49-state carbureted version is $3995, exactly the same as the standard Ninja 250R and base-model CBR250R. about their function, but they look dated when compared to the rest of the machine. The Kawasaki’s hand and foot controls are first-rate, however. The ATK’s hand and foot controls simply lack the refinement of their Japanese competition. Our testers cited the GT250R’s aforementioned long shift lever throw, and others noted that the GT250R’s throttle and hand controls were high-effort when compared to the CBR250R’s and the Ninja 250R’s.

Attention To Detail—CBR250R 1st; Ninja 250R 2nd; GT250R 3rd Price point be damned, everything about the Honda CBR250R looks and feels like it was built with jeweled precision. It’s pretty clear that Honda intends not only to compete but to wrestle away a good chunk of the 250cc sportbike market from Kawasaki. The CBR looks good from the moment you approach it, and it feels good from the moment you first swing a leg over it. Nothing on the machine looks or work like an afterthought. The Kawasaki Ninja 250R upholds the performance tradition of its larger siblings. Other than its old-school instrument pod and its notchy transmission action, it matches the Honda in fit and finish, and it’s faster in top speed and acceleration. It may be designed for beginners, but just as with the Honda, that probably won’t be the first thought that crosses someone’s mind when they see the Ninja because it doesn’t look like a toy. And, like the Honda, experienced riders will dig it, too. The ATK GT250R doesn’t look like a beginner’s bike, either. In fact, its size and weight project the most robust image of the three, but the ATK doesn’t match the Honda or the Kawasaki in attention to detail even though the package is punctuated by moments of brilliance, such as its twin disc brakes and adjustable footpegs. We’re convinced that the GT250R has the heart of a contender, but it’s going to take some serious work on the rest of the package if ATK wants to compete head-to-head with the Japanese bikes here.

Overall—CBR250R 1st; Ninja 250R 2nd; GT250R 3rd When all is said and done, the Honda CBR250R is the winner here. The Honda wins the most categories because it offers the the most comfortable riding position, the best fuel economy and the most exciting feel in everyday riding conditions. The little CBR may not be the fastest bike here, but it has the strongest 250cc single-cylinder motor we’ve tested, and we’d be willing to bet that it can bring a smile to the face of all but the most hardcore sportbike riders. For its primary audience, new and inexperienced riders, the CBR is just about perfect, offering around-town comfort and civility with just the right amount of spunk in good-looking bodywork. And with the option of CABS to protect your investment and backside, how could you go wrong? If sheer performance is all you’re after, and you’re not concerned with fuel economy, then the Kawasaki Ninja 250R is still a great choice. We still love the little Ninja and we’re glad that it continues to sell well for Kawasaki. What would we look for in a next-generation version? A little more torque in the tuneup, smoother shifting, a wider rear tire and a digital instrument would be great updates, but that’s about all. The ATK GT250R finishes a distant third for all the reasons we already explained—no need to beat a dead horse. We hope that someday soon ATK will sort out the details and make the GT250R a more legitimate contender.

Value—CBR250R 1st; Ninja 250R 2nd; GT250R 3rd Despite being the most expensive bike in this test, the Honda CBR250R wins the value category over the Kawasaki Ninja 250R based on the number of victories in the preceding categories. And, even if we had tested the base-model CBR250R against the Ninja 250R and the ATK GT250R, the outcome might have tilted even more in the Honda’s favor. Why? Recall that Honda sent us an optional C-ABSequipped test bike for this comparison—which adds $500 to Visit us at WWW.MCNEWS.COM

●

APRIL 2011

17

Model Comparison Below: The Honda’s silencer is relatively huge for its engine size, but that must be part of the key to its remarkable output. The sound it emits is deeper than you might expect and the cornering clearance is also generous, so only the footpegs touched during hard charging. Above: The CBR’s instrument panel was our favorite, neat and easy to read at a glance with a large analog tach above a digital speedo. A clock, temperature gauge and fuel level are also provided. The riding position was our unanimous favorite as well, slightly more upright than the Ninja’s and worlds better than the ATK’s.

Above: Honda’s engineers went all-out on the CBR’s remarkable 250cc powerplant, using a variety of friction reduction technologies to achieve a remarkable torque output that feels larger than its size together with a quick-revving quality that improves its acceleration and riding impression. Plus, it gives by far the best gas mileage, averaging 56.5 mpg even when ridden hard. Below: The Honda’s seat was judged the favorite by a small margin. While it wouldn’t suffice for an allday perch, for the bike’s expected use, it will be fine. The passenger’s end is also the best design of the three and shaped to hold the pillion in place. Right: Honda looks out for the needs of new riders by providing optional ABS for the low price of $500. Although it didn’t have the crisp feel of the Ninja’s brakes, it gave the rider great confidence in its stopping abilities and also includes a combined braking system, linking the back brake to the front with a mechanical delay valve. The tires are the same IRC RX-01 models as the Ninja’s but the back is a larger 140 size.

TESTERS’ LOG The Honda was my favorite 250. Its feel over the road was the most like a bigger bike’s, with a pleasant torquey character and a beautiful transmission with excellent gear spacing. Because the motor doesn’t have to be screaming to make power, it feels more relaxed and also doesn’t generate the very powerful gyro force from the crankshaft of the Ninja, so that its agility doesn’t tend to go away as the tach reaches for the sky. I personally felt its handling was the most fun, although it could use just a touch more damping at both ends on the local bumpy canyon roads. And it was more than fast enough to handle the local high-speed freeway traffic, which can travel over 75 mph, and it was still plenty stable at such speeds. I can say I’m honestly surprised that I could imagine owning the CBR250R. It provides perfectly adequate performance, its light weight is a treat that greatly improves its handling and braking performance and it’s beautifully put together. Priced the same as the 250 Ninja, and with the option of ABS, Honda has a winner on their hands. —Dave Searle

18

APRIL 2011

●


For a new entry, the Honda CBR250R has a very familiar feel, I'd say comparable to the 250VFR of the past, but with a more conservative and relaxed rider’s triangle and the advantage of current 17" wheel and tire sizing. From the outside looking in, it’s almost oxymoronic to talk about engine power from a 250cc single, but Honda's tiniest CBR makes the most of what it generates. I appreciated the response and pull of this DOHC 4-valver, which makes enough midrange torque that less of my attention has to be spent on searching for the optimum rpm to maintain forward drive and working the gearbox up and down to maximize thrust. The CBR’s bottom end and mid range get the nod, while peak power and performance for me goes to the Ninja 250R. If I had to spend all day on one of the three in this tiddler comparo, the CBR’s higher bar placement, low seat height and super light handling would ensure that its key would be the one in my jacket pocket. —Danny Coe

2011 Honda CBR250R SPECIFICATIONS AND PERFORMANCE DATA ENGINE

PERFORMANCE

Type: liquid-cooled, four-stroke singleValvetrain:DOHC, 4 valves per cylinder, shim-over-valvestem adjustment Displacement: ........................249.4cc Bore/stroke: ................76.0 x 55.0mm Comp. ratio: ............................10.7:1 Fueling: ..PGM-Fi, 38mm throttle body Exhaust: ................................ 1 into 1

Measured top speed ......91.2 mph 0–1/4 mile ..................16.32 sec. @ 75.83 mph 0–60 mph ....................8.79 sec. 0–100 mph ..........................n/a 60–0 mph ........................124.3' Power to Weight Ratio ........1: 16.7 Speed @ 65 mph indicated......65.1

DRIVE TRAIN MC RATING SYSTEM Transmission:........................6-speed Final drive:..................................chain RPM @ 65 mph*/rev limiter: 6940/10,400

EXCELLENT VERY GOOD GOOD FAIR POOR

*actual, not indicated

57.4" 48.0"

SUSPENSION Front: ..37mm female-slider fork, nonadjustable, 4.65" travel Rear: ......Pro-Link monoshock, 5-way preload adjustable, 4.07" travel

F

G HI J

MISCELLANEOUS

: : :

FUEL Tank capacity: ........................3.4 gal. Fuel grade:.......................... 87 octane High/low/avg. mpg: ......59.5/54.3/56.5

: : :

Vertical (ground to) F: Handlebar (center). G: Rider footpeg (top). H: Rider seat (lowest point). I : Passenger peg (top). J: Passenger seat (middle).

:::::

–––Lightweight Sportbike––– ::::: Engine ::::: ::::: Transmission ::::: ::::. Suspension ::::: ::::; Brakes ::::: ::::: Handling ::::: ::::: Ergonomics ::::: ::::: Riding Impression ::::: Instruments/Controls ::::: ::::: ::::: Attention to Detail ::::: ::::: Value ::::: OVERALL RATING

::::: :::::

DYNAMOMETER DATA Low end Mid-range Top end

::::: ::::: ::::.

Honda’s high-tech single feels like a 350cc motor, it makes such good torque; out-pulling the twins below 8000 rpm with better acceleration, so that its lower peak power isn’t obvious until you’re flatout on the freeway. Plus, it scores with the best mpg.

TEST NOTES PICKS Very agile handling and torquey engine power Exceptional fuel mileage Slick transmission PANS It doesn’t have quite the freeway power of the Ninja 250 Suspension needs a bit more damping control for bumps The brakes don’t have the power of the Ninja 250

21.92 hp

•

• 14.65 lb.-ft.

SAE CORRECTED REAR-WHEEL TORQUE, LB. FT.

ELECTRICS

Horizontal (nose to) A: Passenger seat (middle). B: Rider seat (middle). C: Handgrip (center). D: Passenger footpeg (center). E: Rider footpeg (center).

SAE CORRECTED REAR-WHEEL HORSEPOWER

Instruments: ....Digital speedo, analog tachometer, odometer, 2 tripmeters, engine temp. gauge, clock, fuel level Front:.................. Single 296mm disc, Indicators: .. hi-beam, t/s, neutral, low two-piston sliding caliper fuel, EFI fault, oil pressure, ABS fault Rear: ..............................220mm disc, MSRP: ......................................$3995 Single-piston sliding caliper Price as tested (w/ABS): ..........$4495 Routine service interval:........8000 mi. TIRES & WHEELS Valve adj. interval:..............16,000 mi. Warranty: ....1 year, unlimited mileage Front: ....120/70-17 IRC RX-01 Road- Colors: ........Metallic Black, Red/Silver winner MC 54S on 2.75" x 17" wheel Rear: ......140/70-17 IRC RX-01 Roadwinner MC 66S on 4.00" x 17" wheel BRAKES

Battery: ................................12V, 6Ah Ignition:..............Digital/transistorized Alternator Output: 340W @ 5000 rpm Headlight: ..............................60/55W

35.25"

26.5"

19.75"

D E

51.8"

30.5"

C

62.5"

13.0"

Wheelbase: ................................53.9" Rake/trail:..........................25.0°/3.74" Ground clearance: ........................6.0" Seat height: ................................30.5" GVWR: ..................................750 lbs. Wet weight: ........................366.0 lbs. Carrying capacity: ..................384 lbs.

A B

37.4"

DIMENSIONS

ERGONOMICS TEMPLATE

RPM, THOUSANDS

STANDARD MAINTENANCE Labor Parts Item Time Oil & Filter ................0.5 ..........$25.00 ..........$40.00 Air Filter....................0.5 ..........$15.00 ..........$40.00 Valve Adjust..............2.0 ..........$25.00 ........$160.00 Battery Access..........0.3 ............MF ..............$24.00 Final Drive ................0.3 ................................$24.00 R/R Rear Whl. ..........0.5 ................................$40.00 Change Plugs............0.5 ..........$12.00 ..........$40.00 Synch EFI..................1.0 ................................$80.00 $448.00 $77.00 5.6 Totals * Parts and Labor charges are best-guess estimates, not official prices

Visit us at WWW.MCNEWS.COM

●

APRIL 2011

19

Model Comparison Left: Although its styling isn’t as fresh as the CBR250R’s, the Ninja is still a remarkably fun motorcycle, with the best 1/4-mile and top speed of the trio. Its ride quality is surprisingly good and its handling is excellent, with the best high-speed stability as well. Its transmission action was subpar but certainly acceptable, and it represents great value for only $3995. Our Special Edition graphics model was $4245. Above: The Ninja’s fully analog dash is beginning to look old-fashioned and we prefer the tach in the center. But it does offer a fuel gauge, which you might not expect at its low price. The little Ninja has been America’s best-selling sportbike for many years now. And if freeway commuting is a primary use, it’s still a great choice.

Right: The Ninja’s seat is virtually as comfortable as the Honda’s but slopes forward a bit, so you are essentially held against the tank. It sits the lowest, however, which can be a plus for the inseam challenged. Left: The Ninja muffler has gone stylishly black since our last test in June, ’08, although peak power is essentially unchanged. The Ninja’s rear wheel and tire, a 130/70 on a 3.50" rim is the narrowest of the three contenders and looks less macho. But the 220mm rear brake is powerful with good feel. Right: The Ninja’s front brake has the best power and feel in the test and gave our best stopping distance, just 121.5' from 60 mph. The striped rims are part of the Special Edition package.

TESTERS’ LOG I was never a big fan of the 250 Ninja—too high-strung. I was reminded of its lack of low-end torque in dramatic fashion when attempting to enter a fast-moving side street when leaving Kawasaki’s nearby headquarters. The bike seemed stuck in slowmotion as the traffic raced toward me. I’d forgotten how slowrevving the motor could be! It does actually make the most power, but it needs 9000 rpm to beat the other two, and if clutchfanning drag-race starts aren’t your thing, the Honda will easily pull away leaving a stoplight. Its transmission is a bit clunky, but hey, it’s a 250, so even a little harsh action doesn’t make it actually hard to shift. And it does have the best brakes, although, in my opinion, they may be a bit too powerful for beginners, who might find themselves skidding the tires without meaning to. The Ninja feels lower than the Honda, and it is. It has a few details that reveal the age of the design, the analog instruments especially, but it is still a very fun and capable machine. If you like playing roadracer, it’s the one! —Dave Searle

20

APRIL 2011

●


If I were in the market for a 250cc streetbike, and I wanted the best performer for me, the impressions gained from this comparison place the Kawasaki Ninja 250R atop the sporting category, without a doubt. The Ninja 250R accelerates, stops and turns better than its closest rival, the Honda CBR250R, and noticeably so. And although this is not a dance, at higher speeds the Ninja’s handling is certainly stable and graceful, and it makes a great dance partner with exceptional agility on twisty road sections, although not at the expense of being overly sensitive to steering input. Although it’s classed as an entry-level motorcycle, I also think that the little Ninja will serve new riders and more experienced motorcyclists equally well. In this test group, I might pick the CBR250R for its slightly more conventional riding position and stoplight-to-stoplight torque, but if we were gone all day out riding, I guarantee that I’d be the first person back to the office with this little Kawasaki—it’s a blast to ride. —Danny Coe

2011 Kawasaki Ninja 250R SPECIFICATIONS AND PERFORMANCE DATA ENGINE

PERFORMANCE

Type: ..........liquid-cooled parallel twin Valvetrain: ................................DOHC, shim under bucket valve adjustment Displacement: ..........................249cc Bore/stroke: ................62.0 x 41.2mm Comp. ratio: ............................11.6:1 Carburetion: ....Keihin CVK, 2 x 30mm Exhaust: ................................2-into-1

Measured top speed ......97.7 mph 0–1/4 mile ..................15.73 sec. @ 80.56 mph 0–60 mph ....................7.89 sec. 0–100 mph ..........................n/a 60–0 mph ........................121.5' Power to Weight Ratio ......1: 14.66 Speed @ 65 mph indicated......58.5

DRIVE TRAIN

MC RATING SYSTEM

Transmission: ......................6-speed Final drive: ................................chain RPM @ 65 mph*/rev limiter 8330/13,000


ERGONOMICS TEMPLATE


61.25" 49.5"

SUSPENSION Front: .............. 37mm telescopic fork, 4.7" travel Rear: ......Bottom-link Uni-Trak, 5-way adjustable preload, 5.1" travel

TIRES & WHEELS Front:................110/70-17 IRC RX-01 MC 54S on 2.75" x 17" wheel Rear: ................130/70-17 IRC RX-01 MC 62S on 3.50" x 17" wheel

MISCELLANEOUS Instruments: analog speedo, tachometer, fuel gauge, odometer, tripmeter. Indicators: ........ hi-beam, t/s, neutral, low fuel MSRP: ....................................$3999 Price as tested (w/Special Edition graphics): ................................$4245 Routine service interval ........7500 mi. Valve adj. interval: ..7500 mi., 15,000, 24,000, every 24,000 thereafter. Warranty: ..................................1 year Colors: ..Lime Green, Ebony, Passion Red, Candy Plasma Blue

ELECTRICS Battery: ................................12V, 6Ah Ignition: ......................................TCBI Alternator Output: 228 W @ 5000 rpm Headlight: ..............................55/55W

: : :

FUEL Tank capacity: ........................3.2 gal. Fuel grade: ........................ 87 octane High/low/avg.mpg: ......48.3/42.5/45.7

: : :

OVERALL RATING

::::; :::::


::::. ::::; :::::

The 250 Ninja is the hpchamp in this group, with a 3-hp advantage over the ATK and 4.3hp more than the Honda. But it makes the least torque below 9000 rpm, so you have it wring its neck. But it doesn’t mind and is very smooth running.

TEST NOTES PICKS Best performing 250cc sportbike Excellent brakes with great power and feel Great stability and handling PANS Analog instruments look dated The transmission is a bit clunky The mirrors are too narrow for a good rear view

26.09 hp

•

• 13.32 lb./ft.


Front: .................. single 290mm disc, two-piston caliper Rear: ..............................220mm disc, two-piston caliper

G HI J



BRAKES

F

36.75"

28.75"

20.25"

D E

53.4"

30.25"

C


68.0"

13.0"

Wheelbase: ................................55.1" Rake/trail................................26°/3.2" Ground clearance: ......................5.75" Seat height : ..................................31" GVWR: ..................................750 lbs. Wet weight: ......................382.5 lbs. Carrying capacity: ..............367.5 lbs.

A B

36.9"

DIMENSIONS

:::::

–––Lightweight Sportbike–––– ::::; Engine ::::: ::::. Transmission ::::: ::::: Suspension ::::: ::::: Brakes ::::: ::::: Handling ::::: ::::; Ergonomics ::::: ::::: Riding Impression ::::: Instruments/Controls ::::. ::::: ::::. Attention to Detail ::::: ::::; Value :::::

RPM, THOUSANDS

STANDARD MAINTENANCE Time Parts Labor Item Oil & Filter ................0.4 ..........$16.20 ..........$32.00 Air Filter....................0.2 ............$8.42 ..........$16.00 Valve Adjust..............2.4 ..........$17.80 ........$192.00 Battery Access ..........0.2 ............MF ..............$16.00 Final Drive ................0.2 ................................$16.00 R/R Rear Whl. ..........0.3 ................................$24.00 Change Plugs............0.5 ............$9.80 ..........$40.00 Adjust carbs..............0.7 ................................$56.00 Totals 4.9 $52.22 $392.00 * MCN has changed the estimated labor rate to $80 starting March 2007


●

APRIL 2011

21

Model Comparison Left: With its stacked headlights, the GT250’s face is distinctive. And with dual front discs (the only competitor so equipped) we imagined it would have an edge in braking performance, but it doesn’t. Either its much greater weight or poor equipment let it down. The Shinko front tire, although bigger than the others here, has terrible traction feel and seems to get greasy as soon as the bike is leaned slightly. Above: ATK’s dash arrangement is pretty good with an analog tach and digital speedo, but the clip-on handlebars are much too low for longterm (or even short-term) comfort. Below: The seat is comfortable enough, but its cover is marred by what looks like wrinkled material underneath. Overall detailing, paint quality and control feel (a long shift throw and too much brake lever movement) feel a decade behind.

Right: The ATK’s 250 motor is a 75° DOHC V-twin that actually beats the Honda for hp, but it revs so slowly (either flywheel weight or a porky chassis) that it subjectively feels much slower than its competitors. Left: Although the GT250R has some good detailing, like an adjustable reach front brake lever and adjustable footpeg positions (above), the handlebars are so low and narrow that the bike’s handling feels truck-like by comparison with the 250 Ninja and CBR250R.

TESTERS’ LOG You can’t fully appreciate just how good the Kawasaki 250 Ninja and new Honda CBR250R really are unless you ride the ATK GT250R for comparison. It feels like a 650cc chassis powered by a slow-revving 250 engine. Although its fuel injection has less on-off abruptness at low speeds than the Honda, its gas mileage is much worse, too. A riding position that induces neck-aches while you struggle to keep up with its competition on twisty roads isn’t helped by the fact that the front tire keeps trying to slide out whenever the bike is leaned over even a little bit (and when Danny Coe can’t bring himself to scrape a footpeg, you know something’s not right). Its long-throw transmission often missed shifts (probably because I wasn’t lifting my foot far enough), the front brake lever had too much movement before creating slowing, and the throttle grip seemed to need considerable effort to make it go. Orange peel in the paint, a lumpy seat cover, and weak contrasts between surface finishes make the ATK look cheap, but its MSRP isn’t. —Dave Searle

22

APRIL 2011

●


The ATK GT250R left me with some concerns, the first of which was its tire performance. Cornering traction was always vague, and before I would test the ATK again, I’d replace its sketchy Shinkos. Vertical grip and stability were good while braking, but entering turns and leaning with the slightest aggression had the bars turning-in, a very unsettling feedback with impending doom seemingly only an apex away. I suspect that a change in tires alone could transform the ATK into a different mount and then I’d love to spend a couple of days testing it, because I believe it has decent potential. It’s noticeably heavier than the other 250s here, and lacks low-end acceleration and top-end punch, especially when the going gets hotter, but its riding position, front fork performance and brakes are competitive. Overall, its weight and engine output diminish my impression—with the exception of its performance at highway speeds. It also doesn't help that we compared the GT250R against two very polished and serious contenders. —Danny Coe

2011 ATK GT250R SPECIFICATIONS AND PERFORMANCE DATA ENGINE

PERFORMANCE

Type: .......... Air/oil-cooled 75° V-twin Powertrain:.. DOHC, 4 valves per cylinder, shim-under-bucket adjustment Displacement: ..........................249cc Bore/stroke: ................57.0 x 48.8mm Comp. ratio: ............................10.3:1 Fueling: ..........................Hyosung EFI ....................2 x 28mm throttle bodies Exhaust: ................................2-into-1

Measured top speed ......90.7 mph 0–1/4 mile ..................16.78 sec. @ 75.09 mph 0–60 mph ....................9.72 sec. 0–100 mph ..........................n/a 60–0 mph ........................128.3' Power to Weight Ratio ......1: 17.98 Speed @ 65 mph indicated......59.8 MC RATING SYSTEM

DRIVE TRAIN


Transmission: ......................5-speed Final drive: ................................chain RPM @ 65 mph*/rev limiter:7220/10,750 ERGONOMICS TEMPLATE


D E

62.6" 53.2"

SUSPENSION

Front:....................Dual 300mm discs, two-piston sliding calipers Rear: ..............................230mm disc, single-piston caliper TIRES & WHEELS Front: 110/70-17 MC 54H Shinko /SR741 on 3.00" x 17" wheel Rear: 150/70-17 MC 69H Shinko /SR741 on 4.00" x 17" wheel

MISCELLANEOUS Instruments: ......speedo, tachometer, ....odometer, 2 tripmeters, fuel level, ............................coolant temp., clock Indicators:..........hi-beam, t/s, neutral, ......................................check engine MSRP: ......................................$4295 Routine service interval:........6000 mi. Valve adj. interval: ......1000 mi., every 6000 mi. thereafter Warranty: ........1 year, unlimited miles Colors: Carbureted: Red, Black/Red,Silver/Black, Orange/Black, EFI: Black, Red, White/Black, Red/Black, Silver/Black

ELECTRICS Battery: ..............................12V, 12Ah Ignition:..............................Digital TCI Alternator Output: ........................ N/A Headlight: ..............................55/55W

: : :

FUEL Tank capacity: ........................4.5 gal. Fuel grade: .......................... Premium High/low/avg. mpg: ......36.8/44.7/41.3

G HI J

: : :


–––Lightweight Sportbike–––– :::;. Engine ::::: :::;. Transmission ::::: ::;.. Suspension ::::: :::.. Brakes ::::: ::;.. Handling ::::: ::;.. Ergonomics ::::: :::.. Riding Impression ::::: Instruments/Controls :::;. ::::: ::;.. Attention to Detail ::::: ::;.. Value ::::: OVERALL RATING

:::.. :::::


:::.. ::::. :::;.

ATK’s 75° V-twin generates more power than the Honda CBR250R below 5250 rpm and above 8300 rpm with a useful edge on top. But over the road, the engine is very slowrevving, and its heavy chassis makes it feel even more sluggish.

TEST NOTES PICKS Good driveability from the fuel-injection Foot peg placement and front brake are adjustable Good freeway performance PANS Front Shinko tire gives poor grip, hurts handling Nearly 50 lbs. too heavy for its class Low, narrow handlebars hurt riding impression

23.02 hp

•

• 14.12 lb.-ft.


BRAKES

F



Front: ..41mm male-slider telecscopic fork, non-adjustable, 4.72" travel Rear: ........monoshock, adj. preload, 4.33" travel

22.75"

24.5"

31.8"

C

37.5"

53.4"

14.6"

Wheelbase: ................................56.5" Rake/trail:..........................25.5°/3.54" Ground clearance: ......................5.75" Seat height: ................................31.8" GVWR: ..................................748 lbs. Wet weight: ........................414.0 lbs. Carrying capacity: ..................336 lbs.

66.0"

34.3"

DIMENSIONS

A B

:::::

RPM, THOUSANDS

STANDARD MAINTENANCE Item Time Parts Labor Oil & Filter................0.75 ............$5.20 + $20 $60.00 Air Filter....................0.5 ..........$20.43 ..........$40.00 Valve Adjust..............3.0 ............16.56 ........$240.00 Battery Access ..........0.4 ............MF ..............$32.00 Final Drive ................0.4 ................................$32.00 R/R Rear Whl. ..........1.4 ..............................$112.00 Change Plugs............1.0 ..........$11.90 ..........$80.00 Synch EFI..................1.0 ................................$80.00 Totals 8.45 $74.09 $676.00 * MCN has changed the estimated labor rate to $80 starting March 2007


●

APRIL 2011

23