2011 Ninja 400R

**brendonjw** · 18th October 2010, 15:26

http://www.visordown.com/motorcycle-...rge/12334.html

Its a bit of a porker at 203kg wet and only has 44hp but some new blood in the 400cc market

**yod** · 18th October 2010, 15:40

an ER6-F with a smaller engine by the looks

**trailblazer** · 18th October 2010, 19:10

not a bad bike wonder if it will come to nz.

**Dutchee** · 18th October 2010, 20:17

It's coming to NZ, but not sure when.
With Mt Eden's losing the Kawasaki dealership (or whatever happened there), Kawasaki sent a letter which included an A4 page with new bikes coming in for 2011 and the 400 definitely caught my eye (I only really ride a 250 as I don't want to ride a 600 or an old bike). Will be booking in for a test ride (wonder how long I'll be waiting for that, I was hoping to check it out next week lol).

**Jonno.** · 18th October 2010, 23:14

Sounds like a fat zxr 250.

**bistard** · 19th October 2010, 06:43

I had heard from a good source they were going to retail for a bout $13000.00,so that makes for a bloody expensive 400!!

**Gibbo89** · 19th October 2010, 10:15

Originally Posted by bistard

I had heard from a good source they were going to retail for a bout $13000.00,so that makes for a bloody expensive 400!!

That doesn't sound right? it's only a parallel twin...

**Urano** · 24th October 2010, 20:30

it's a downsizing of the er6f.
i'm kinda of a fan of the 400cc segment, but this is terribly wrong.

the er6f is such a fun bike, cheap, not thirsty, but light, agile, and reasonably powerful.

of you make a 400cc it would be great if you contain the weight within 160-170 kg.
but this one weights and cost exactly as the er6f: what's the point of having an er6f with 30 hp less??

what a pity...

**Pace Cadet** · 27th October 2010, 13:27

Yup. Wasted opportunity. I'm sure there is a market for full fat 400cc sportsbikes. I've just gone from a '90 VFR400 to an '06 CBR600 and I kind of regret it. If I could have bought an '06 400 I would have.

The 600 is so capable as to be almost irrelevant as a fun road bike, if you fancy your license that is. The 400 required a little more rider involvement on the road and was still shits'n'giggles on the occasional track day. It was also a nice, obvious, step from a 250. It I'd gone to the 600 from my 250 I'd have smeared myself all over the road after about two corners (I'm a little surprised I haven't).

If Kawasaki, who are, I believe, enjoying great success with their new 250 'sportsbike' had grown a pair and released a proper 400cc road-burner they could have stolen a march on the others (hell, if they released a proper 250cc sportsbike they'd stand to gain a following of crash happy, parts replacing, foaming at the mouth teenagers).

I guess the economics don't make much sense though. A 600 and a 400 are going to be similar sizes and similarly equipped but you'd have to sell the 400 for $3-4000 less, also those foamy mouthed teenagers would probably regard the 400 as a lesser, masculinity questioning option, making it less obvious as a stepping stone.

Hmmm. Maybe Kawasaki know what they're doing after all. (I'd still buy a brand new VFR/ZXR/R/GSXR400 though).

**Gibbo89** · 27th October 2010, 14:15

Originally Posted by Pace Cadet

stone.

Hmmm. Maybe Kawasaki know what they're doing after all. (I'd still buy a brand new VFR/ZXR/R/GSXR400 though).

pretty much agree with everything you said, even a late 1990's version of the above bikes mentioned (even early 2000's) would be a sweet step up from my 250.

**Eyegasm** · 27th October 2010, 14:33

Maybe with the power to weight ratio coming in 2012 this could be learner legal??

**Morcs** · 27th October 2010, 14:39

whats with all the parrallell twins? they are absolute wank. except the TRX850 motor.

Kawasaki should make a crazy big bore v-twin rather than fucking around making these shit noob bikes. a cross between a 04 ZX10R and a TLR will do nicely

**Urano** · 28th October 2010, 06:26

well...
vtwin and parallels twin have slightly different performance.

on one side the parallel buzzes a bit more and it has a little lower torque curve, but it's capable of higher revving, it's lighter, it's simpler and it's cheaper.

the er6 engine it's phenomenal: it pushes hard from 3.500 to 10.000 rpm, and with a normal use you can reach easily 20-22 km/l.

still, vibrations exist...

**HenryDorsetCase** · 2nd November 2010, 10:07

Originally Posted by Urano

it's a downsizing of the er6f.
i'm kinda of a fan of the 400cc segment, but this is terribly wrong.

the er6f is such a fun bike, cheap, not thirsty, but light, agile, and reasonably powerful.

of you make a 400cc it would be great if you contain the weight within 160-170 kg.
but this one weights and cost exactly as the er6f: what's the point of having an er6f with 30 hp less??

what a pity...

agree but maybe theyre doing it with an eye to the future of LAMS: maybe the 600 doesnt meet the power to weight ratio requirements, but this does?

**HenryDorsetCase** · 2nd November 2010, 10:08

Originally Posted by Morcs

whats with all the parrallell twins? they are absolute wank. except the TRX850 motor.

Kawasaki should make a crazy big bore v-twin rather than fucking around making these shit noob bikes. a cross between a 04 ZX10R and a TLR will do nicely

an owner of a Hinckley Triumph twin, such as myself, might take issue with that statement