Kawasaki Ninja 250R vs. Honda CBR250R – Comparison Test

ike Warren Buffett says, nobody knows who’s swimming naked ’til the tide goes out. In much the same way, nobody knows who’s riding naked ’til the horsepower plug gets pulled. On the CW dyno, the Honda CBR250R makes a piddly 23.7 horses, the Kawasaki Ninja 250R just 25.5. Whoopee! All that means on our favorite roads, as it turns out, is that the guy who really knows how to ride will open up an even bigger gap over the one who can’t.

And in absolute terms, I’ve been up and down this particularly twisted SoCal route enough times on so many kinds of motorcycles, it’s hard to imagine anybody riding a bigger bike being able to catch our test mule Cernicky on either of these 250s—downhill, anyway. (MC says he even surprised himself, getting both ends of the CBR airborne in one tight left-right transition. That’s our Mark…)

With 20-some horses to blastout of corners, the only way to go fast is to never slow down. So go ahead and trust the IRC Road Winner rubber on both bikes, and then you can dive into those tight curves like little else on two wheels. Well, some people can— trusting sorts. With dry weights of 337 pounds (CBR) and 356 (Ninja), these two bikes have nearly all the laws of physics on their side. Beginner bikes? If you insist.

Well, we already knew what a cornering fool the little Ninja is. But we were a little surprised at how well the innocent-looking new Honda was able to keep up. Not only does it keep up with the Ninja, it actually ekes away from it corner by corner. Both bikes use 37mm damper-rod forks and preload-adjustable, linkage-mounted shocks, but the CBR’s damping does a better job controlling its wheels and mass, its fuel-injected dohc Thumper does a smoother job turning the “power” on and off, its six-speed gearbox shifts a bit more positively, and its 19-pound weight advantage and 1.2-inch-shorter wheelbase all conspire to make the Honda ridiculously easy to ride pretty damn quick. And the beauty of the thing is it continues to function at a high level even under expert floggage. Ridden by itself, the Ninja’s a great corner carver. Ridden alongside the CBR, it’s a bit squidgy/snatchy/plungey, and not as neutral or graceful. The CBR, in fact, conjures up sweet memories of one of the best backroad Hondas of all time, the dearly departed Hawk GT (a 650cc V-Twin that made about twice the power, weighed 56 pounds more and sold for $4 less in 1988).

Once back down the mountain, both of these little bikes are far better commuter/travelers than you’d expect, and, again, particularly the Honda. Can a 250 Single long survive 80-mph freeway cruising? Can the rider? No problem. With the tachometer needle pointing dead-ahead at the “7” on its big, centrally mounted analog dial (in its really nice instrument panel complete with LCD clock and fuel gauge), the CBR is rolling along at a smooth and steady 68 mph indicated, with only a light Thumper pulse coming through the grips.

If you need to pick up the pace from there, that’s no problem, either. You’re right on the cusp of the torque peak. And instead of having to be trucked to the top-secret desert test facility, the CBR’s happy to complete Top Speed Testing right there in the carpool lane: 95 mph indicated at 10,000 rpm is all tapped out at L.A. level, but a steady 80 is easily doable for miles on end. Maybe not hours, but miles. (In actual instrumented testing at 2500 feet on level terrain, the CBR managed 87 mph.)

Honda exerted quite a bit of effort to make the little CBR a smooth runner. This brand-new engine marks the first use of a plain-bearing crank in a Honda Single, which allows a rigid, compact crankcase; and the connecting-rod big-end uses a roller bearing, allowing it to be relatively light. The end result, says Honda, is less friction, vibration and noise. A primary balance shaft is wedged in tight, just forward and beneath the crank, where its spinning weight invades the same space used by the connecting rod, hopefully not at the same time. What you get at cruising speed is a light rumble that you only feel in the grips; and though you know the 76mm piston is down there working its little rings to the bone, it doesn’t feel that way from the saddle—which is nicely shaped and comfortable, by the way.

The Ninja runs smoothly, too, but at 80 mph on the centrally mounted speedometer, you’re looking at 10,000 rpm or so, though it’s hard to make it out on the crowded little analog tach (which is the same size as the too-big gas gauge on the other side of the Ninja’s Playskool-plastic dashboard). The dohc, 62.0 x 41.2mm, 180-degree Twin runs without a balancer, so a bit of sizzle comes through, but it’s nothing to get upset about. Still, like an insensitive escort, the Ninja never lets you forget you’re not so well-endowed in the cc department: It’s not buzzy but it’s definitely busy.

But it is getting a lot of work done: Its extra top-end power helps the Ninja sprint through the quarter-mile a half-second quicker, reach a 6-mph-faster top speed and, most importantly, run 0-60 mph 0.8 of a second quicker.

Both bikes combine upright, standard-bike-comfy ergonomics with full-coverage wind protection (an idea Kawasaki rediscovered on big bikes with the new Ninja 1000). And light weight and low power mean they don’t require boxcar springs to support themselves and keep between the ditches, so both bikes soak up broken pavement and freeway slabs better than you’d expect. The Ninja is especially good at filtering out the small bumps, while both remain perfectly stable all the way to terminal velocity.

2013 Honda CRF450R – First Ride

Honda is hot to regain its dominance in the 450cc motocross class. How much so? Well, its 2013 CRF450R is almost completely new from the ground up; that’s a pretty good measure of “hot.” The people at Honda are so jazzed about the new 450 that they invited us to an early introduction at the Zaca Station MX track in California’s Central Coast area. The bike we rode was a pre-production unit, but we were assured that it was fully representative of the actual production machines.

This is Honda’s fourth-generation CRF450R, which has come a long way since its introduction in 2002, and there are very few similarities between the 2012 and the 2013 models.

For one thing, Honda is going to extremes to centralize mass and lower the CRF’s center of gravity. Where the frame’s twin aluminum spars meet the steering head, for example, they join near the center rather than at the top—a small but significant lowering of chassis weight. Ground clearance is the same, though, and the new design allows a slightly larger fuel tank (up from 1.5 to 1.6 gallons). Complementing the redesigned frame is a new swingarm with greater vertical rigidity.

Also helping to drop the cg are new twin mufflers. Although combined, they weigh a touch more than a single muffler, their weight is placed lower and more centralized compared to a longer, single silencer that hangs way out by the rear fender. Ergonomically, the new 450R is similar to the previous model, although the seat feels like it dips in a little lower rather than staying flat all the way to the gas tank.

Other big news is the adoption of KYB’s new Pneumatic Spring Fork (PSF), saving weight and adding superior adjustability; Kawasaki’s 2013 KX450F also uses this same fork. Removing the steel spring drops nearly a pound from each fork leg, and it keeps the oil from getting dirty as quickly because there is no metal-to-metal rubbing inside the leg. Additionally, heavier riders will no longer need to buy stiffer springs; and if you’re a van owner, you can let the air out to lower the front end before loading. The fork does require that you check air pressure on a more frequent basis, just as you do with tires. But once it’s at the proper pressure, the fork is good for the day. Out back, there’s a new shock that’s a half an inch shorter and sits lower in the frame.

Also heavily revised is the CRF’s Unicam engine. A new piston and higher compression ratio (from 12.0:1 to 12.5:1) work with revised intake and exhaust ports as well as 1mm larger exhaust valves to increase performance. Plus, the transmission has been beefed up, and the clutch is a new design that uses six springs instead of four.

The net effect of all these seemingly small changes is an entirely different motorcycle; there is no comparison to the 2012 model. What’s most astonishing is how light the 450 feels on the track; it’s more like a CRF250R, with the same kind of flickable, put-the-bike-anywhere-you-like character. The chassis has impressive balance and improved high-speed stability compared to last year’s bike.

At first, however, I wasn’t impressed with the air fork. With the “stock” 33 psi air pressure, the front end behaved strangely: The front wheel felt as if it was wandering, and there was too much up-and-down movement in the smaller chop. Bumping up the pressure just 2 psi allowed the fork to ride on top of the bumps, completely fixing the problem, and I didn’t have to touch the compression or rebound clickers. The PSF action is so completely natural that if I hadn’t known better, I would have thought it was a traditional spring fork. The track was bumpy but didn’t get gnarly, so I’ll have to try the fork on rougher terrain before giving it two giant thumbs up. But if the plushness and damping I felt at Zaca Station are any indication, it should work great.

Certainly, the overall handling has been elevated to a new level. Steering in slick corners is about the same, and the front wheel doesn’t grab as nicely as a Suzuki’s, but the bike’s lightness nevertheless allows riders to pick where they want to go and get there without any problems.

Lots of improvement in engine performance, too; it finally has the bark the previous engine lacked. Improved fuel-injection mapping provides crisp, immediate throttle response everywhere. There are heaps more low-end and midrange power, yet the delivery is smooth and precise, making it is easier to control the amount of traction on corner exits. The bike hooks up well enough that it usually lifts the front wheel while it drives forward. The engagement of the new clutch is better than before but not the best; I didn’t use the clutch very much, though, because there is controllable power on tap everywhere in the rpm range.

One of Honda’s goals for 2013 was to make the CRF450R better while retaining the same $8440 MSRP as the 2012 model. As of press time, the price wasn’t firm, but Honda’s staff was confident it will meet that goal.

It already met the other goal of improving the CRF across the board: It handles better, feels lighter (even though isn’t) and is significantly faster. With so many improvements on a bike that was already in the hunt, I have to believe that it will be tough to beat in 2013.

2012 Honda CBR1000RR – First Ride

While a majority of its competitors have jumped aboard the traction-control bandwagon, Honda remains a “natural” throttle holdout for 2012. We have to admit it was a bit surprising to not be greeted with a major redesign and TC this model year, considering the CBR-RR is celebrating two decades of cutting-edge technology and large-engine, light-is-rightness. Nonetheless, throughout the pre-TC era, the CBR1000RR earned a reputation for providing an uncanny sense of connection between the throttle and rear tire’s contact patch. Perhaps the pride and belief in such an achievement helps explain why Big Red has yet to bring its own flavor of race-developed TC to market. Or just maybe the next-generation CBR1000RR is being readied to electrify the rider-aid revolution. Whatever the case, for at least another year we can revel in having total throttle control of the most capable performance Honda right in the palm of our hand.

During CW comparison tests in recent years, the immediate confidence instilled by the CBR has made it my ride of choice for getting up to speed at the track or when facing difficult conditions. Thankfully, the press introduction for the 2012 Honda CBR1000RR was held at Sonoma, California’s Infineon Raceway and had me at a familiar circuit, although conditions were far from ideal, both during our lapping sessions and on the street ride the following day.

On our track day, a damp morning fog descended and had me shivering in my perforated Teknic leathers while I struggled to see the tarmac ahead. The new CBR’s instant familiarity and predictability were heartwarming, though, and I was further stoked knowing that our track-test Dunlop Sportmax GP-A supersport race radials had been cooking on tire warmers. But no amount of tire heat or warm cuddlies from the bike could help me see through my visor and prescription glasses; trust me, hustling a powerful liter-class missile around what’s arguably the busiest and most physically demanding circuit on the AMA roadracing calendar had me huffing like a fog machine.

We had clarity in the afternoon, and I got to knock off some good sessions riding both the new bike and a 2011 model. The most notable revision to the RR is the suspension update. The change to a Showa Big Piston Fork and Balance Free shock have improved handling composure and chassis feedback.

The BPF handled hard braking into the track’s hairpins and chicanes with a reduced rate and amount of fork dive. Further, the front end also exhibited better bump absorption when compressed by braking or hard cornering load.

At the rear, Honda says the new shock eliminates damping lag time when transitioning from compression to rebound to compression for greater chassis control and grip. While last year’s bike is certainly no slouch in rear-suspension performance, the new RR did feel more composed over midcorner bumps and the Balance Free shock handled the transition to extension when charging hard over a few hilltop crests extremely well. As for the improved rear grip Honda claims for the new Pro-link setup, I can’t honestly report that I experienced a true difference. Fact is, neither the 2011 nor ’12 model I rode broke loose and spun up despite some particularly feverish drives off the Carrousel pinned in second gear. Rather odd considering the track not only appeared slick, but actually was: The occasional midcorner tire squirm while crossing glossy sealer patches was a good reminder. That said, the suspension upgrades have led to a better handling CBR1000RR.

I sampled the optional C-ABS version of both model years, but didn’t find its recalibration—a slight reduction in the amount of front brake application when using the rear pedal—to be very noticeable on the street or track, due mostly to the less-than-ideal riding conditions at the two-day test. Honda said the change was tailored to hard sport/track use of the rear brake, but conditions at Infineon weren’t quite confidence-inspiring enough for me to trail-brake as aggressively as I normally might, so I will leave the jury out on this one. I can certainly say that I was glad to be on a C-ABS model during our brief, wet-road street ride because it is a superb ABS setup for public roads. The CBR1000RR remains a great choice for the street rider, offering good ergonomics, compliant suspension, light neutral steering, great throttle response and awesome midrange punch.

Styling changes include a new layered fairing design said to create a large pocket of calm air around the rider; I’m still thinking about that one! The new integrated under-nose chin fairing (said to reduce aerodynamic lift for improved handling) probably wasn’t fully put to the test because our top track speeds were limited to wringing out third gear. I can say I do dig the look of the new 12-spoke wheels, which Honda also claims are a part of the chassis improved feedback.

The CBR’s all-new multi-function LCD instrument cluster looks sweet and offers a full suite of the normal info, plus a lap timer, a five-level shift indicator, a gear-position indicator and four different tachometer display modes. Honda definitely got it right with the anti-reflective lens that makes the display readable in varied lighting conditions. Also a nice touch is the sequential shift-light display located directly above the tach’s red zone. But there is still room for improvement, because the shift-indicator’s white LEDs are too faint to be of use in direct sunlight.

Based on Honda’s current MotoGP dominance, there is no doubt that the company had the means and technical prowess in TC development to have holeshot last year’s traction-controlled Kawasaki ZX-10R or easily fallen in step with the new TC’d Yamaha YZF-R1 for 2012. But we often hear of “Honda engineering standards,” which tend to preclude simply adding TC features to an existing bike, but rather demand a new machine top to bottom, designed from the outset with full electronica in mind. As good as the revised $13,800 CBR1000RR (add $1000 for C-ABS) looks to be, here’s hoping that the near future brings more than just a brighter shift indicator.

2012 Honda NC700X – First Ride

When the big economic crisis struck and the going got really tough for the motorcycle industry, the tough kept going. Honda upshifted and responded like the world leader that it is, redefining the sport to attract a new generation of riders and revitalize the battered old legion searching for a new direction after years of “new-and-improved” machines that have steadily grown more potent and, in some cases, less user-friendly.

Honda started this revolution with a blank screen; nothing stored on an existing hard drive was capable of accomplishing this mission. Besides being a terrific value for the money, the new package had to be highly versatile. It had to show conceptual flexibility. How many variations could be extrapolated from a single design? In this case, there are three: the Integra maxi-scooter and two motorcycles, the naked NC700S and NC700X adventure-touring crossover.

In creating these three machines, Honda has once again surged to the technical/technological lead with a rational project using unequalled synergies to drastically cut production costs without reducing quality. The heart of the package is a compact parallel-Twin with cylinders inclined forward 62 degrees. A massive steel trellis frame tightly “encages” the engine, following its low profile and using it as a stressed member of the same structure.

This design is superbly functional not only for its solidity but also for its highly innovative low profile that leaves plenty of usable space between the steering head and seat. Honda used that space for a false gas tank/luggage compartment; the actual 3.72-gallon tank is located under the seat.

The frame itself is linear, consisting of two 38mm tubes running a curved line from the base of the steering head to the rear of the engine cases. Smaller, 35mm tubes triangulate down to the main spars from the top of the steering head in stiffening-member mode, with additional 35mm tubes mating to the main ones at the bottom of the steering head and running down to the front engine mounts. A pair of 32mm tubes provides further triangulation midway down the main tubes. The structure is clean and has excellent torsional rigidity.

From a geometrical point of view, the rolling gear of the NC700X follows tried-and-true rules, spanning a 60.6-inch wheelbase and sporting rather conservative steering geometry: 27 degrees of rake and 4.33 in. of trail. This same rolling gear is shared by the Integra and naked NC700S. Only difference is that the NC700X stands a little taller than the other two due to its longer-travel suspension: 6.04 in. for the 41mm fork and 5.9 in. for the Pro-Link shock. It follows that seat height goes from 31.1 in. on the Integra/NC700S to 32.6 in. on the NC700X.

On the other hand, the all-new parallel-Twin is the same for all three models. Honda poured a lot of its automotive experience into this project to make the Twin user-friendly and maybe even more “sober” than its other motorcycle engines. It all begins with a 73mm bore and an 80mm stroke for an actual displacement of 670cc. The only other current Honda two-wheel examples of this “undersquare” type of engine design are the VT1300X chopper and little CBF125.

But these types of measurements are rather commonplace on Honda’s automotive side. The smaller bore means more-compact cylinder spacing, making the engine narrower and easier to wrap in a neat frame. Consequent to the smaller bore are the compact combustion chambers, semi-Heron-style, that breathe through four valves of relatively small diameter set at a narrow included angle to further maximize efficiency and reduce fuel consumption.

Distribution is by a chain-driven sohc featuring large base-circle cam lobes to better control and smooth accelerations on the valvetrain. L-shaped rockers have roller-type cam followers to reduce friction. The profile of the combustion chamber is so clean that it only demands 12 degrees of spark advance at idle and not more than 20 degrees at full power. An advanced electronic ignition/injection system takes care of the feeding through 36mm throttle bodies. The manifold for the 2-into-1 exhaust begins immediately downstream of the exhaust ports, inside the head casting.

First Ride: 2008 Honda CBR1000RR

Honda was tired. Tired of losing in Superbike racing. Tired of finishing as an also-ran in bike-mag Open-class comparisons. Tired of having its CBR1000RR described as a “nice” motorcycle in a class of ferocious, pavement-ripping literbikes. So Big Red shifted its R&D department into high gear and performed major surgery on its flagship performance bike. The end product is the 2008 CBR1000RR, which could be one of the finest repli-racers ever produced by anyone.

We say “could be” because we’re basing this WebRide on our on-track riding impressions from the bike’s U.S. introduction at Mazda Raceway Laguna Seca. But during those few on-track sessions, the big Honda dazzled us with its spectacular power, light, agile handling and rock-steady stability.

Among Honda’s goals with the new CBR was the reduction of weight and physical size. The engine alone is more than 5 pounds lighter, and despite a bore that’s 1mm larger (combined with a 1.4mm-shorter stroke), the cylinder is no wider. The cylinder head, however, is 15mm shorter and carries the weight of its valve train lower than before. Such details all contribute to centralizing mass, as does the underslung exhaust that replaces the under-seat system used previously.

In the chassis, the frame is stronger and more rigid, yet is 5.5 pounds lighter and 1.2 inches narrower. Wheelbase is the same as on the ’07 bike, but the more-compact motor allows the use of a longer swingarm that works through Honda’s Unit Pro-Link rear suspension. More than a pound of weight was pared from the alloy wheels, with the front-brake system shedding another 1.5 pounds of unsprung weight. The dual 320mm floating front rotors now have four fewer attachment buttons, reducing the rotational inertia of the rotor/carrier assembly for easier steering.

A lighter, more compact Honda Electronic Steering Damper (HESD), like the one on last year’s CBR600RR, hides beneath the fuel-tank cover. The stability afforded by the damper allowed a 2.5mm increase in triple-clamp offset, resulting in reduced trail for even quicker steering response.

Two interesting features make their debut on the new 1000RR. One is the Ignition Interrupt Control (IIC), which, contrary to early rumors, is not traction control. It’s a system designed to minimize the effects of drivetrain lash when the throttle is first cracked open. It does this by reducing initial power output just long enough to more gradually take up the freeplay between shift dogs. IIC only functions between 2500 and 6000 rpm, and the amount of interrupt is uniquely programmed for each gear in the six-speed box. Also, with this big 1000, Honda has finally joined the current slipper-clutch movement. The CBR’s clutch incorporates a unique design that not only allows the plates to slip slightly during abrupt downshifts, it employs an undercut ramp mechanism that applies greater pressure-plate force under acceleration.

Though the new 1000RR is noticeably more compact than last year’s model, it’s not uncomfortably so. And the handling is nothing short of sensational. The ease with which the bike turns in and makes side-to-side directional changes is uncanny for a liter-class machine, yet the bike is extremely stable. It has perfectly neutral steering that makes holding a lean angle or a line through corners a no-brainer.

So, too, is the power exceptional. It delivers a midrange hit of acceleration that gives the bike an element of adrenaline-pumping excitement that has gone somewhat missing on many of today’s electronically “managed” literbikes. During roll-ons from low revs on the straightaways, steps could be felt in the power delivery around 4000, 5000 and 7000 rpm, the latter producing the most effortless second-gear power wheelies in recent memory.

The only problem we experienced was the transmission’s occasional reluctance to complete the second-to-third shift. Other riders in attendance also reported similar shifting woes on other bikes, so the problem was not indigenous to our assigned 1000. All of the bikes were pilot production models, however, and Honda reps were confident that the problem would be ironed out on actual production machines.

Our racetrack experience with the new CBR1000RR certainly was not conclusive, but we can’t help but believe that Honda has produced a winner here. Any motorcycle that is as easy to ride on a racetrack as this one is bound to be an exceptional streetbike.

2009 Honda CBR600RR vs. 2009 Kawasaki ZX-6R – Comparison Test

Green, it seems, is the freshest buzz-word to sweep the planet. “Green this, green that,” exhort the Capital Hill privileged that purportedly represent us overtaxed payers. While politicians produce enough hot CO2 to feed a forest and burn through newly printed notes as if they grew on trees, my idea of eco-friendly transportation is the pair of irrefutably green machines we have here.

The latest in a long line of green sportbikes, Kawasaki’s lime-colored Ninja ZX-6R has been thoroughly reworked for 2009. Now even Big Red has boarded the G train, offering its CBR600RR in a timely metallic-green-on-black paint scheme. Either of these middleweight sportbikes represents a righteous purchase at a time when excess may be viewed as a self-indulgent character flaw. Fact is, both of these bikes are powerhouse performers well capable of running with the liter-class elite on many roads and racetracks.

Honda has locked down the honor of Best Middleweight Streetbike the past two years in Cycle World’s Ten Best Bikes balloting. Aside from offering a sport-ABS option(our testbike was the non-ABS version), Honda has elected to play out its hand in 2009 with no significant changes to the 600RR. Kawasaki has risen to the challenge with a host of 6R updates aimed at improved midrange delivery and sharper handling. Headlining the list of ZX-6R chassis changes is the use of a Showa Big Piston Fork, providing improved damping control, primarily during the stroke’s change of direction.

Before we pitted the two bikes head-to-head at the track and on the street, each was rolled onto the Cycle Worldscales and dyno. At 398 pounds without fuel, the Kawi has shed an impressive 16 pounds, closing up on the 386-pound class-featherweight CBR. Comparing dyno charts reveals the fruits of Kawasaki’s labor. A very broad torque spread builds steadily off idle and hits its stride at 8000 rpm, maintaining 40-plus foot-pounds beyond 14,000 rpm. The Honda holds a slight edge in torque production from 8000 to 12,000 rpm, but it rolls over on top with a 10-hp disparity to the 6R’s impressive 110.2 peak horsepower at 14,000 rpm. Both offer generous over-rev with power tailing off out to their respective 15,000-rpm rev-limiters.

Pulling cleanly away from a stop is equally easy aboard either bike, with very little throttle application or revs above idle required to do so. Neither bike suffers from any hint of hesitation at basement revs in its lower gears, making each a pleasure to ride in town. The same holds true for the slick shifting action when working through their six-speed gearboxes. A tangible difference is revealed at freeway cruise speeds: Both run in the same 6500–7000-rpm range at an indicated 70–80 mph, but the ZX-6R clearly stands out, with only a hint of vibration seeping through its bars. Not that the mild, high-pitched tingle felt in the CBR grips is a deal-breaker, but the difference is noticeable.

Larger riders will find the ZX-6R more spacious than the CBR, its riding position a bit more spread out with a slightly longer reach to the bars. The tinted ZX windscreen is also taller, offering a little more wind protection, but shorter riders may find that the turbulent airflow over the top of the screen rocks their helmets. Both have very roomy saddles allowing plenty of fore/aft movement and making it easy to fold into a full-tuck position.

Both saddles are narrow where they meet the tank, resulting in less leg-reach to the ground, with the ZX’s slimmer midsection and .4-inch-lower seat height favoring shorter riders in that regard.

While ride comfort over freeway slabs is no big priority for either of these supersports, both are adept once the suspension clickers have been dialed back. Even standard settings provided a tolerable degree of stiff compliance on the highway, and steering response and chassis composure proved excellent for backroad blitzing.

Back-to-back runs to the top of nearby Glendora Mountain Road provided as much of a distinction between the bikes’ power delivery characteristics as had the freeway transit for comparative vibration levels. A spirited street pace on this twisty stretch of two-lane made frequent use of second and third gear, with an occasional visit to fourth throughout the uphill climb. The CBR’s 599cc inline-Four pulled with an electric rheostat-like connection between twistgrip and rear tire exiting every corner—even uphill third-gear bends that saw revs drop to 7000 rpm. Despite sharing identical bore-and-stroke dimensions with the Honda, the ZX-6R, by contrast, displayed softness below 8000 rpm that had previously gone unnoticed. A discernable rush of acceleration comes on at 8000 rpm, lending credence to the newly restyled tachometer face that places visual emphasis on rpm increments at 8000 revs and above.

Both felt wonderfully surefooted when hustled corner-to-corner, never giving the slightest hint of instability. The CBR’s weight advantage and 1-inch-shorter wheelbase make for slightly lighter steering, most evident in quick side-to-side transitions between linked corners.

A steady tailwind influenced our dragstrip results with hero times and trap speeds through the quarter-mile. The CBR’s upper-midrange strength gave it a holeshot advantage that the ZX’s top-end surge was unable to overcome. Our test site is located 2500 feet above sea level, so it stands to reason that at lower elevation the ZX would require much less clutch slip to get off the line with authority.

Our final phase of testing took us to the bumpy and technically busy Streets of Willow Springs road course. It proved an ideal venue for the Ninja’s BPF front end to strut its stuff, the most perceptible difference being a reduced rate of dive when aggressively applying the brakes compared to the CBR’s conventional inverted cartridge fork. The ZX also exhibited less fore-aft chassis pitch than did the CBR, characteristic of a firm setup, yet it matched the CBR’s level of bump absorption. Both bikes are equipped with a steering damper, an electronically auto-adjust unit on the CBR and a manually adjustable Öhlins damper on the ZX. While both machines exhibited headshake while crossing the same couple of patches of rough surface, the Kawasaki maintained superior composure and instilled greater rider confidence. The Ninja’s slight edge in handling competence and top-end power proved an unbeatable combination, posting a best lap time of 1:23.10 to the CBR’s quickest of 1:23.55.

Quality of fit and finish is superb on both, but we give the nod to the Kawi for its more inspiring styling. It also offers a more feature-rich instrument cluster with its gear-selection indicator, shift light and lap-timing mode.

The middleweight performance environment has never looked better. While I’m no tree-hugger, picking a winner between this pair of green machines feels like felling a beautiful redwood. While each is deserving, Kawasaki has grown stronger while Honda has stood still. Price is a factor, as well; at $9799 the Ninja undercuts the CBR by $700.

Husqvarna TE630 – Long-Term Test Wrap-Up

When we first rode the 2011 TE630 in Italy, we knew that we wanted to add one to our long-term test fleet. The bike impressed us in stock form, but we had a totally different concept in mind for our evaluation: Make it a lightweight adventure-touring machine.

We figured that with its relatively low weight and powerful Single, the TE630 would run off-road circles around bikes like the BMW F800GS, Triumph Tiger 800XC, Kawasaki KLR650 and Honda XR650L yet perform quite well on the asphalt. A few bolt-on modifications were all it needed.

Husky’s revisions to the TE for 2011 focused on making the bike more versatile on the road and off. The engine received updates that increased power by a claimed 20 percent, including more displacement (576 to 600cc), a revised cylinder head, larger throttle body (up from 42 to 45mm) and a new dual-can exhaust system. A 45mm Marzocchi fork, Sachs shock and 21-inch front and 18-in. rear wheels position the TE more toward the off-road side of the dual-sport spectrum, which is exactly what we were after.

Despite having the TE in our fleet for a year and a half, we put only 3150 miles on the odometer after a series of setbacks kept the bike on a workstand in the Cycle World garage instead of out on the trail. As documented in previous updates, these setbacks were more our fault than the bike’s.

Still, we did get some high-quality seat time on several epic trips. To help us meet our nomadic goals, we went to the aftermarket. While support isn’t nearly as extensive for the TE as it is for some of the more popular adventure-touring bikes previously mentioned, some savvy choices helped us meet our needs perfectly.

After sidelining the TE by punching a hole in the magneto cover on not one but two occasions, we finally learned our lesson. One of the first pieces we added to protect the engine and frame rails was a full-coverage aluminum skidplate ($195) from Uptight Husqvarna (www.uptitehusky.com). A pair of Acerbis Rally II handguards ($90) was also mandatory to keep our levers intact and protect our paws on the tight trails we explored in California’s Sierra Mountains.

Our adventure aspirations required the ability to haul some gear while keeping the TE svelte, which jibed with the Touratec-made luggage rack ($198) and tailbag ($133) from Husqvarna’s accessory catalog. Combining these with a light backpack, we had enough capacity for our personal belongings on a four-day, 800-mile adventure ride in Baja California, Mexico.

Speaking of that tour south of the border, the 630 proved to be the class of the field. While other participants tip-toed cautiously through mud, sand and whoops on heavier KTM Adventures and KLRs in the Sierra de San Pedro Mountains and on the Baja 1000 race course, the TE may as well have been a “works” racer by comparison. The big Single also proved to be a great dual-sport bike, as the incredibly tight, twisty and fun paved road up the mountain to our overnight accommodations at Rancho Meling in the Parque Natural Sierra de San Pedro Martin proved.

For sure, the single biggest key to the TE630’s versatility and performance over the course of our test was tires. We tried multiple sets, including the stock Metzeler MCE Karoos, Michelin Desert TT Rallys ($238) and Dunlop Rally Raids ($507). But the best combination was a mismatched Pirelli MT 21 Rallycross ($70) front and Dunlop D606 ($89) rear, which provided really good off-road traction but also proved to have excellent on-road grip and stability, too.

Unfortunately, right as we were hitting our stride with the TE, Husqvarna asked for its bike back. So, not only did we fail to accumulate as many miles as we would have liked, we were unable to try some aftermarket solutions that we had our eyes on, including a larger-capacity fuel tank and tall windscreen.

Over the duration of the test, the TE proved reliable and never suffered a failure that wasn’t inflicted on it by us while also providing a great platform for our vision of a lightweight adventure-tourer. We were disappointed to learn that the 630 was discontinued for the 2012 model year; it filled a void that is now occupied by only the KTM 690 Enduro. Perhaps Husky will produce the Concept Baja. We’d like to take another swing at building a lightweight adventure bike.

SPECIFICATIONS
Price as tested (2011):	$8999
Current NADA value (not inc. options):	$7465
Warranty:	12 mo./unlimited mi.
Engine:	liquid-cooled, four-stroke Single
Bore & stroke:	100.0 x 76.4mm
Displacement:	600cc
Valve train:	dohc, four valves per cylinder
Fuel injection:	45mm throttle bodies
Weight-Tank empty:	331 lb.
Weight-Tank full:	351 lb.
Fuel capacity:	3.2 gal.
Wheelbase:	58.5 in.
Rake/trail:	30°/4.53 in.
Total miles:	3150
Miles since last report:	395
Average fuel mileage:	44 mpg
Repair costs:	$260.99
Maintenance costs (incl. tires):	$1340