Kawasaki ER-6

[zadok]

When I was buying a new helmet on Monday, I came across the new ER-6 in one of the bike shops. Looks mighty fine in the 'flesh', let me tell you.:niceone:

[Wasp]

OOOooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhh yyyyyyyyeeeeeeeeessssssssss.....

I MUST have this once i trade in the vtz, they just look sooooo much alike.

[zadok]

By the way, that was in Perth. Don't know if you have them in N.Z yet.

[texmo]

Is that like a smaller version of the zed thou? Mt eden have a few me finks

[Bob]

Is that like a smaller version of the zed thou? Mt eden have a few me finks

Funny you should ask that - according to Kawasaki's press stuff "Any resemblance to the Z1000 is purely intentional".

I can't see it myself.

Of course, the actual smaller version of the Zed Thou is the Z750/Z750S - essentially the same, but with smaller engine, less funky pipes and a bit more budget in nature.

The ER-6n (and fully faired f to be released in April I beleive) is a 650cc parallel twin. Been reading a road test in Bike magazine today and they're raving over it... in every respect except the looks!

Personally, I don't like the looks of the front of the naked bike (from front on it looks too much like a scooter to me), but the fully-faired f version - if I can save the pennies between now and April(ish), I'm fully intending to get at least a test ride and probably buy one.

[cowboyz]

they have one in AFC in palmy town. The have it sitting next to a 636 and a zx10 and to be honest I dont like it at all. Much prefer the zx.

[snuffles]

By the way, that was in Perth. Don't know if you have them in N.Z yet.


sawyers have one in WGTN

[WRT]

Have they done a Buell on the zorst?

[Krayy]

By the way, that was in Perth. Don't know if you have them in N.Z yet.
I did a test ride on the demo they have at Mt Eden Motorcycles a couple of weeks back. Heres the link to the review: http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?t=21307

In short...very nice and good riding position, but I might wait for the Suzy GSR600 to hit the shores before I decide.

[ducatilover]

they have one in AFC in palmy town. The have it sitting next to a 636 and a zx10 and to be honest I dont like it at all. Much prefer the zx.
yep i saw that one. ewww fucken ugly. someone rode a new 636 :love: when i was in there. holy fuck it sounded and looked the shizzle. why didnt you get a zx10?:spudwhat:

[erik]

I've seen the ones in Mt. Eden Motorcycles. I reckon they look better in the flesh than in pictures. They look really smalll though, but I didn't try sitting on one. If I had the cash, they'd be on my list of possible next bikes...

[Angry Puppy]

Yeah, looks pretty good. theres a couple on www.bikepoint.co.nz. Personally I'm thinking of a Yamaha FZ6N for my next bike. If you like the ER, Check out the Yamaha.

FB

[Bob]

FZ6N? It is getting real slagging off in the bike press here in the UK.

Comment is that the engine - in stock "R6" tune, combined with a heavy clutch, means that it just doesn't happen where it needs to. No power low down (which you need for town riding... where a naked bike should excel) and the clutch makes it damned hard work.

If you want some more commentary, the January 2006 issue of Bike has a four-bike, naked middleweight comparison test - as far as I know you can get Bike out there. Well worth reading if you're looking at this type of bike.

[pritch]

Personally I'm thinking of a Yamaha FZ6N for my next bike. If you like the ER, Check out the Yamaha.
FB

I took a look at the Yamaha prices and moved right along... (last time I looked an FZ6 cost more than a 900 Hornet ffs!) Road tests I've read of the FZ are most unencouraging. None of the testers at one mag even wanted to ride the bloody thing. It's got a very peaky engine which would be OK if it had a slick box, but it very definitely doesn't. Couple that with a heavy clutch and it's all just too much trouble.

This post wasn't intended to slag off Yamaha though.

In the November issue of T.W.O. there is a photo of the ER6f, similar to the ER6n but has full plastic sprots bike body work with touring bars. Looks interesting. Has a standout colour scheme, black with magenta forks, frame and swingarm. Sounds odd but looks OK. The silver version apparently has gold bits instead of magenta. "A lot of fun for not a whole lot of money."

[Angry Puppy]

This post wasn't intended to slag off Yamaha though.

'sall good, bro. forums would be boring if we didn't say what we thought.

Personnaly, If I was going Kawasaki, I'd go Z750. The ER-6 just looks too contrived.

FB

[pritch]

Have they done a Buell on the zorst?
They have.

[fishb8nz]

The Kawasaki website lists both the faired and naked bikes as the same -$10,995. I like the look of this bike, small light and agile. Would suit the commuter/tourer role well. They have an optional extra windshield and I thought that would be a good choice but when I saw that the faired version cost the same as the naked, it seemed daft to pay extra for a windscreen when you can have the whole damn fairing for no extra cost.
Am I missing something?

[Hitcher]

And the ER-6n fits Mrs H. Kawasaki will sell thousands of them.

[zadok]

And the ER-6n fits Mrs H. Kawasaki will sell thousands of them.
Yeah, I think they could be on a winner.

[fishb8nz]

I like the look of the Kawasaki 650-E6, as my next bike but don't know if I'll be able to do a week of easy riding on 1 tank - 15.5 L for 300-330 km. I hate having to do supplementary fuel stops.
The V-Strom looks another suitable candidate, with its bigger tank.

[myvice]

Its on the upgrade list for next year, but I can get a speed 4 for the same kind of $$$
Looked long and hard at the Z750 but I think its a bit pricey for what you get.
Arggh! I know I need a new one but I don’t know what to get!
Maybe a Buell city X? Fuck it! Might just get a tank and cut though traffic in a whole new way!

[Bob]

I like the look of the Kawasaki 650-E6, as my next bike but don't know if I'll be able to do a week of easy riding on 1 tank - 15.5 L for 300-330 km. I hate having to do supplementary fuel stops.
The V-Strom looks another suitable candidate, with its bigger tank.

I don't have the figures to hand, but that little fuel tank is balanced by the bike being frugal with fuel use. In a comparative test between the ER-6n, FZ6, Ducati Monster ... and 600 Hornet, the Kwak recorded something like 42 miles to the gallon (which equates to... erm... ). Result was that it recorded about the same "total tank" range as the Hornet (which packs about another 4 litres into a tankful) - leaving both the FZ6 and Monster refuelling quite a way before.

[zadok]

I don't have the figures to hand, but that little fuel tank is balanced by the bike being frugal with fuel use. In a comparative test between the ER-6n, FZ6, Ducati Monster ... and 600 Hornet, the Kwak recorded something like 42 miles to the gallon (which equates to... erm... ). Result was that it recorded about the same "total tank" range as the Hornet (which packs about another 4 litres into a tankful) - leaving both the FZ6 and Monster refuelling quite a way before.
:scratch: My 1000GTR gets 50mpg

[James Deuce]

Result was that it recorded about the same "total tank" range as the Hornet (which packs about another 4 litres into a tankful) -

Hornet = 160kms. If you are very gentle. I ran out of gas on a 120km loop when I took a Hornet for a test ride. It was full to the brim when I left because I filled up before I went because it had the normal bike shop level of gas in it - just enough to get to the gas station (j/k).

[TONO]

I like the look of the Kawasaki 650-E6, as my next bike but don't know if I'll be able to do a week of easy riding on 1 tank - 15.5 L for 300-330 km. I hate having to do supplementary fuel stops.
The V-Strom looks another suitable candidate, with its bigger tank.
Now your talking!!!!:banana:

[fishb8nz]

I don't have the figures to hand, but that little fuel tank is balanced by the bike being frugal with fuel use. In a comparative test between the ER-6n, FZ6, Ducati Monster ... and 600 Hornet, the Kwak recorded something like 42 miles to the gallon (which equates to... erm... ). Result was that it recorded about the same "total tank" range as the Hornet (which packs about another 4 litres into a tankful) - leaving both the FZ6 and Monster refuelling quite a way before.
Hi Bob
Was that a UK or US test?
42 mpg Imperial = 42/2.83=14.84 km/litre=15.5 x 14.8=230 km per tank
If US gallons then 230x1.2=276 km/litre.
This is still short of a weeks riding, mind you, I ride like a nana at 85-95 kph, while travelling to work.
Wee Stormer - What's your fuel consumption?

[Bob]

It was a UK test - so imperial measurements apply.

I will try to remember to look up the actual distances tonight - the test was run on the "Bike 440" route - 440 miles of A and B roads, plus motorways etc. The route takes in just about everything (tarmac based) you're likely to have to handle. So they've got mpg figures for each type.

[Zapf]

Hornet = 160kms. If you are very gentle. I ran out of gas on a 120km loop when I took a Hornet for a test ride. It was full to the brim when I left because I filled up before I went because it had the normal bike shop level of gas in it - just enough to get to the gas station (j/k).

with my Hornet 900 does 270km before reserve. Riding nicely.... 250km if using it for fun.

[James Deuce]

with my Hornet 900 does 270km before reserve. Riding nicely.... 250km if using it for fun.

We're talking about a Hornet 600. Totally different kettle of fish. Neat engine, spoiled by a hinge in the middle chassis and the fuel economy of that Y2K turbine powered thing.

[Bob]

Right, got the actual figures from the test in front of me.

Er-6n did an average of 43.9 miles per gallon (imperial) - and a tankful of fuel is 15.5 litres. Compare this to 600 Hornet, which does 40mpg and 17 litres - so about the same distance to refuel time, but the ER-6 needs 1.5 litres less to do so. In the UK, this means you are saving about £1.35 a time - £70 over the course of a year, assuming one refill a week.

These two stuff the others on the test - S2R Monster returns an thirsty 37.5 mpg... and has a tiny 14 litre tank! Get used to filling this one up on a very regular basis! And the FZ6? It has a large 19.4 litre tank... but it needs it, acting like it is permanently parched at just 36.1mpg.

But back to the ER-6... that £70 will go towards replacing the OE tyres (Dunlop D221s), which all of the test riders slagged off as giving very poor grip. If it tips in like the testers reckon, then something nice and grippy would seem to be the way to go.

[Ixion]

Sheet - those are unbelievably piss poor figures. No wonder modern bikes have such short ranges. Speed Twin used to get over 100mpg. Velo had a 5 gallon (imp) tank, and a range of over 400 miles (not km) till resrve. That's cruising at a steady 85mph. 650cc Bonnies would get 70 to 80mpg in their day.

Why do modern bikes drink so much gas. The Alfatoy is a 3litre V6 and even it can get 30mpg on a trip. And performance would be pretty comparable (in sofar as bikes and cars can be compared) to an FZ6.

A sports 650 twin should get AT LEAST 70 mpg. Even when caned.

[zadok]

Sheet - those are unbelievably piss poor figures. No wonder modern bikes have such short ranges. Speed Twin used to get over 100mpg. Velo had a 5 gallon (imp) tank, and a range of over 400 miles (not km) till resrve. That's cruising at a steady 85mph. 650cc Bonnies would get 70 to 80mpg in their day.

Why do modern bikes drink so much gas. The Alfatoy is a 3litre V6 and even it can get 30mpg on a trip. And performance would be pretty comparable (in sofar as bikes and cars can be compared) to an FZ6.

A sports 650 twin should get AT LEAST 70 mpg. Even when caned.

I concur. That makes my heavy, old technology GTR, seem like fuel miser.:confused:

[James Deuce]

Why do modern bikes drink so much gas.

HP/L ratio. The specific HP output of most modern motorcycles is in the 150 to 200HP/L range. They flow a great deal more fuel mixture to get those outputs. Thermal efficiency is much better too, but again the amount of fuel and air consumed is much greater than "old" tech motorcycles.

All because people want to get to work first.

Bob, I'm intrigued by those test figures for the Hornet 600, because they are MUCH better than the ones I've seen in Peformance bikes or Motorcyclist. Both those publications had a similar experience to me, only getting 70-90 miles out of a tank of gas in "normal" to "sporting" use.

[erik]

Sheet - those are unbelievably piss poor figures. No wonder modern bikes have such short ranges. Speed Twin used to get over 100mpg. Velo had a 5 gallon (imp) tank, and a range of over 400 miles (not km) till resrve. That's cruising at a steady 85mph. 650cc Bonnies would get 70 to 80mpg in their day.

Why do modern bikes drink so much gas. The Alfatoy is a 3litre V6 and even it can get 30mpg on a trip. And performance would be pretty comparable (in sofar as bikes and cars can be compared) to an FZ6.

A sports 650 twin should get AT LEAST 70 mpg. Even when caned.Very interesting post... I didn't realise modern bikes were sacrificing fuel efficiency for power like that.

[ducatilover]

Sheet - those are unbelievably piss poor figures. No wonder modern bikes have such short ranges. Speed Twin used to get over 100mpg. Velo had a 5 gallon (imp) tank, and a range of over 400 miles (not km) till resrve. That's cruising at a steady 85mph. 650cc Bonnies would get 70 to 80mpg in their day.

Why do modern bikes drink so much gas. The Alfatoy is a 3litre V6 and even it can get 30mpg on a trip. And performance would be pretty comparable (in sofar as bikes and cars can be compared) to an FZ6.

A sports 650 twin should get AT LEAST 70 mpg. Even when caned.
hmmmmm but arent the newer bikes all high strung? and producing alot more power? then again my bros is fairly old tech and it uses 11l per 150 km or so. actually 184km cos it ran dry on the way home when i got it. my dads fj1200 uses more petrol then our mazda 323 1300:(

[Ixion]

The amount of peak horse power produced by the motor should be irrelevant.

Typical cruising speeds for bikes haven't increased in NZ in the last 20 years. They've gone down if anything. Yeah I know your sprotbike can do 250kph. But show me where in NZ you can maintain that for even 10km let alone 100. And mpg figures are taken over long distances -tankfulls. 20/30 years ago we cruised at 80 - 90 mph , about 130 - 140 kph. I think that CRUISING speeds now are if anything less, because of road congestion and poxy plods.

To propell a bike and rider over a given road against a given wind takes a certain amount of power. Less nowdays becos of fairings. So to propel me and the old Velo at 140kph would take x hp. To propel a sprotbike and rider over the same road at 140kph should take LESS hp becos of the fairing. Yet the bike is using MORE petrol to produce LESS horsepower. Go figure. Unless our roads have changed so that the same speeds require more power. Or the airs gotten thicker.

[fishb8nz]

Totally agree. Where's the progress in design when a 650 twin's making 43 mpg. My wife's Suzy Swift can do the same around town with 4 passengers.I'd realistically expect a modern designed 650 twin, ridden carefully, to be capable of 25 km/litre=70 mpg.
What's gone wrong? Are there any bikes with decent gas mileage and reasonable power?

[James Deuce]

Kevin Cameron wrote an article in Cycle World about 2 years ago about this phenomenon. He'd had the same thought as you guys about why modern bikes use so much petrol and it came down to what I said above. 4x 34mm throttle bodies as opposed to a 26mm Amal moves a heck of a lot more fuel mixture, plus bikes are cruising at RPM figures that would have been redline (or a nasty metallic bang) 40 years ago. They also make more HP at those cruising speeds than bikes of a similar cc made at peak. Obviously it was a lot more technical than my explanation, but Mr Cameron's genius is explaning complex motorcyle mechanics in a way that even I can understand. I can burr a titanium bolt by looking at it.

[Ixion]

.. plus bikes are cruising at RPM figures that would have been redline (or a nasty metallic bang) 40 years ago. They also make more HP at those cruising speeds than bikes of a similar cc made at peak. ...

But , if cruising speeds are no higher now than they were then, why do modern bikes need more hp to cruise at the same speeds ?

[James Deuce]

But , if cruising speeds are no higher now than they were then, why do modern bikes need more hp to cruise at the same speeds ?

I let you know when I find out how long this piece of string is :D

[Pixie]

To propell a bike and rider over a given road against a given wind takes a certain amount of power. Less nowdays becos of fairings. So to propel me and the old Velo at 140kph would take x hp. To propel a sprotbike and rider over the same road at 140kph should take LESS hp becos of the fairing. Yet the bike is using MORE petrol to produce LESS horsepower. Go figure. Unless our roads have changed so that the same speeds require more power. Or the airs gotten thicker.
It's a fact of life.Bigger intake tracts allow for greater efficiency at high revs and revs = hp,but are much less eficient at low revs.
If you want economy,put 20mm carbs on your R1
-we'll all be doing it in 10 years

[Milky]

But , if cruising speeds are no higher now than they were then, why do modern bikes need more hp to cruise at the same speeds ?

It does seem strange doesn't it. Possibly, the HP figures you are thinking of are under full throttle at X revs - the HP that you would find on a dyno chart readout. It simply cannot be true, given that bikes are more aerodynamic/transmission efficient today, that more power is required to push them forward. A smaller throttle opening would surely suffice on a modern bike to travel at the same speed and hence similar HP.

[fishb8nz]

Hey, I'm no religeous guy but i might be seeing the road ahead.
If I'm rearward looking and want a bike with the power and fuel consumption of the 60/70s, then I should look at either a 650 single or 250 twin.
So what's it going to be?

[pritch]

20/30 years ago we cruised at 80 - 90 mph , about 130 - 140 kph.

The more things change the more they stay the same.
In the 70s on my Honda four I used to do that.
In 2005 on the current model same deal.
That's about the cruise limit for a naked bike.

Protection from the wind allows elevated velocities though,
even unknowingly...

[Oscars dad]

Anyone here heard of a new dual purpose Kawasaki based on the Er 6 motor. Seems like a very logical step and if they make it compact, sparse and gravel friendly (unlike the V strom 650 or transalp) it should be a hoot. I would buy one tomorrow.

[Macktheknife]

I think Big Dave just did a write up in the latest kiwirider mag on this bike. looks pretty good.

[Troll]

Speed Twin used to get over 100mpg. 650cc Bonnies would get 70 to 80mpg in their day.

.


rose tinted glasses or what???

had a speed twin probably did more like 60 to the gallon and a triumph 650 saint did likewise

[SARGE]

When I was buying a new helmet on Monday, I came across the new ER-6 in one of the bike shops. Looks mighty fine in the 'flesh', let me tell you.:niceone:


have a look at the Suzuki GSR600 (http://colemanssuzuki.motorcycletrader.co.nz/DesktopDefault.aspx?UsedBikeID=1491655&TabID=5416&Alias=colemanssuzukinz)

[Ixion]

Nope. I did a lot of mileage on that 5T. Could often get over 100mpg. The 5TA unit bike was significantly thirstier, around 80mpg from memory (I remember the 5T figure more clearly cos of it being a "round number"). 6T , around 70 to 80 , the 6TA about the same maybe a bit less. Bonnie, ridden the same, about the same. I wasn't the most economical rider around, though not the least. Saint was very good unless you tried to keep up with non ex-plod bikes, cos of the low compression pistons.

A lot of fuel consumption does of course occur in your right hand, and those Triumphs the figure fell dramatically in the last bit of the throttle. I have a personal rule of "two-thirds". Avoid any prolonged use of more than two thirds max revs, or two-thirds throttle. That sets my cruising speed.

The A10 was more econimical than the 6T, by about 10mpg, despite being a heavier bike. Around 70 to 80.

The 3TA was the best, the only thing it did do well, could touch 120mpg.

The Velo would do 90mpg woofling, but fell to 70ish when pressing on.And to 55mpg on one occasion when I was really hammering it over a shortish distance.

Then of course there was the Kockasucky 500 triple. 30mpg. OMG.

[Troll]

Saint was very good unless you tried to keep up with non ex-plod bikes, cos of the low compression pistons.
.

my saint had a very light flywheel and wicked exhaust cams and would see off most bonnies ??????

they were built to give bloody good mid range acceleration and had no problem keeping up with other brit bikes

[Ixion]

Then it was hardly a Saint any more was it? I think maybe you speak of the non-Plod TR6. Never had one of them so can't comment on consumption. The genuine, police issue Saint had low (7:1 I think) compression and different, softer cams than the standard TR6.They could keep up quite well with the non-plod versions , but consumption suffered badly .

Not all NZ traffic forces used genuine Saints, many just bought standard TR6s. (and 6TAs before that) .

Sounds as if our riding styles and priorities on Triumphs differed, which no doubt explains the difference if fuel usage.

[grego]

I like the look of the Kawasaki 650-E6, as my next bike but don't know if I'll be able to do a week of easy riding on 1 tank - 15.5 L for 300-330 km. I hate having to do supplementary fuel stops.
The V-Strom looks another suitable candidate, with its bigger tank.


In comparison to the ER6n......................

[grego]

:scooter: [/QUOTE]

if you trundle along at the speedlimits or thereabouts.
the Er 6 is not quite as frugal as the GS 500 but can be a very tame little bike . The real problem is , that for some reason this bike rides so easy that you find you just would like to take that next corner a little bit faster and once the revcounter goes over 5000, the little beasty develops a kind of a angry growl and AWAY YOU GO, Fuck the petrol !!!!! If I can't afford the petrol anymore to ride the bike I will get a scooter......................

[Zed]

Apparently they perform well Marty, i've spoken to several owners of these (one who races one) and they were quite satisfied with their new ER-6. Not my style choice though...i'm a full fairing man from way back!

[Skunk]

i'm a full fairing man from way back!
The ER-6f has a full fairing... :yes: And a very nice looking one for a 'tourer'.

[Zed]

The ER-6f has a full fairing... :yes: And a very nice looking one for a 'tourer'.Not 'full' enough for me! :bye: