Motorcycle Forum

Motorcycle Forum (http://www.motorcycle.com/forum/)
-   Motorcycle General Discussion (http://www.motorcycle.com/forum/motorcycle-general-discussion/)
-   -   2012 Kawasaki Ninja ZX-14R Preview (http://www.motorcycle.com/forum/motorcycle-general-discussion/19528-2012-kawasaki-ninja-zx-14r-preview.html)

czsummy 10-14-2011 07:09 PM

that is more bike than anyone needs, that has quite the kick to it8) i dig it

schizuki 10-15-2011 04:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seruzawa (Post 267878)
Well, I for one and glad that they did something about the old ZX-14's lack of power.

Buy now and they'll throw in a free bottle of Extenze.

sarnali2 10-15-2011 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by schizuki (Post 268137)
Buy now and they'll throw in a free bottle of Extenze.


"You'll need every one of those 200+ HP to haul your tackle around when you try new and improved Extenze! "

rsalco 10-17-2011 08:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin_Duke (Post 268058)
Back in '06, OEMs were still using their bogus "dry weights," which was basically invented numbers that had no basis in reality. The last few years have seen the emergence of curb weights, which are pretty much factual. Re the 14R, it'll accelerate quicker, I'm sure.

Yes, that's true, for years the published or advertised weights were calculated from the bill of materials for the particular bike, not a physical weight. Still, 100+ lbs.??? I just don't think that's likely. And, since my first post, info has been posted up in Europe that the new bike is 197 hp at the crank, 207 at speed with the ram-air. Seems t'me if it's faster tho' heavier that can only come about with an increase in mid-range torque which would make sense with the added displacement. And some tuning to focus on that. After all, in 1/4 mi. acceleration - what Kawi is touting - the first 60' are critical, and that's mid-range torque.

Anyway, it'll be interesting to see the road tests.

Kevin_Duke 10-17-2011 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rsalco (Post 268219)
Yes, that's true, for years the published or advertised weights were calculated from the bill of materials for the particular bike, not a physical weight. Still, 100+ lbs.??? I just don't think that's likely. And, since my first post, info has been posted up in Europe that the new bike is 197 hp at the crank, 207 at speed with the ram-air. Seems t'me if it's faster tho' heavier that can only come about with an increase in mid-range torque which would make sense with the added displacement. And some tuning to focus on that. After all, in 1/4 mi. acceleration - what Kawi is touting - the first 60' are critical, and that's mid-range torque.

Anyway, it'll be interesting to see the road tests.

I managed a 9.85 on the old one, uncorrected, which converts to about a 9.60 when corrected for temperature and elevation. The new one's gotta be at least two-tenths quicker, maybe three. We'll find out how quick in about a month.

rsalco 10-17-2011 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin_Duke (Post 268227)
I managed a 9.85 on the old one, uncorrected, which converts to about a 9.60 when corrected for temperature and elevation. The new one's gotta be at least two-tenths quicker, maybe three. We'll find out how quick in about a month.

Be lookin' foward to it!

There may be a new bike in my future! :D


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:24 PM.