Concept comparison: Kawasaki, Triumph, Yamaha

Posted on by admin

Table of contents

Concept comparison: Kawasaki, Triumph, Yamaha
K

motorcycles

Concept comparison: Kawasaki, Triumph, Yamaha

Concept comparison: Kawasaki, Triumph, Yamaha
Fabric for Zoff

Content of

The liter is a handy reference value in many contexts: some contemporaries even only take motorcycles seriously when they have a capacity of 1000 cm3. For those who find this a little too short-sighted, a sibling comparison from this side and beyond the liter limit follows.

Volkmar Jacob

02/13/2008

Fabric for Zoff

It has always been the same game for generations: First the little ones look up proudly at their older siblings. Then they start to emulate them. In the end, they want to be able to do everything better. High time to show the teenagers where the hammer hangs. Put Kawasaki Z 1000, triumph Speed ​​triple and Yamaha FZ1 Fazer their weaker relative Z 750, Street Triple and FZ6 Fazer S2 in the bag? Or, apart from the lower price, does the new generation of cubic capacity have qualities that the bigger siblings lack? More agile handling, better manners, easier controllability perhaps?

Baby street fighters. This designation fits the new Triumph Street Triple perfectly without disdain. The British skilfully designed the small offshoot based on the model of the top seller Speed ​​Triple. Although almost no component comes from the same shelf, the differences are only noticeable on closer inspection. Not the Speedy, but the super sports car Daytona 675 provides the most important parts for Triumph’s youngest nude model. Among other things, the frame, swingarm, wheels and tank come from the racer. In addition, the Daytona engine works in a modified form in the Street Triple: camshafts, pistons and exhaust as well as a modified programming of the ignition / injection electronics distinguish the casing from the racetrack burner.

The little triplet sends 104 hp to the gearbox, which is of course enough to let it rip properly. The lively Street Triple engine provides enough juice at every speed, hangs cleanly and directly on the gas, without any performance holes it whets through the speeds ?? ingenious. For the pilot, this means the greatest driving pleasure, which the three-cylinder sound perfectly accompanies. However, the drive train has to put up with criticism: Pronounced load change shocks cloud the picture, the Street Triple reacts somewhat roughly to command here? The downside of the direct throttle response. There is also scolding for the bony gear.

Can the big sister, the Speed ​​Triple, do that better? Determined to win the sibling dispute, she rushes up. At first she can’t easily get rid of her cheeky challenger, but out of tight corners, the 1050 with her original big big block powers out so powerfully that the Street Triple is left behind. If a longer straight follows, the 675 loses more meters. If the big sister is serious, the young wild one has to admit defeat.

But the little one still has one trump up its sleeve: its handling. The 190-kilo flyweight scurries around the arches and swings through the zigzag so that the Speedy, which weighs over 220 kg, gets dizzy just by watching. It behaves comparatively sluggishly in the meandering and needs significantly more muscle fat when turning than the young rascal.

The crucial question: What is more fun? Savor the exuberant power of the Speed ​​Triple or celebrate light-footed changes of direction with the Street Triple? It’s a matter of taste. In any case, when it comes to driving pleasure, both test persons score highly.

There are clear differences when comparing the chassis: The Speed ​​Triple takes the sporty, taut path, while its little sister does it comfortably and dampened. But the setup of the Streety suspension elements is too much for a little: the front dips quickly and far when braking, the rear section swings wildly up and down when accelerating. Despite the comfortable coordination, the fork and shock absorber do not respond particularly sensitively.

There are no setting options, here the red pen was clearly in charge. At least a very fair basic price of 7350 euros (without flyscreen) jumped out, but that doesn’t leave much room for top material. The Speed ​​Triple is taut and stable. She can even take a brisk pace. Your suspension elements respond properly, and the fork in particular works sensitively. The rear rumbles occasionally rough over rough faults. The braking performance of both Triumphs is great, although they are the only one of the three pairs that do not (yet) offer ABS.

Two fighters in a suit


Concept comparison: Kawasaki, Triumph, Yamaha


K

Kawasaki Z 1000 and Z 750. Twice “Zett” – ZZ top, instead of ZZ flop!

Typically Kawasaki. Pure provocation, such an aggressive design with rough edges. Z 750 and Z 1000 you can not only see their relationship most clearly, they are also the greatest from a technical point of view. The frame, radiator, headlights, crankshaft including the primary drive and the connecting rods have the same part number for both sisters. The gears are also very similar, only at the very end of the drive train shows the thousands that it is the big sister: It allows itself a three-tooth longer ratio on the sprocket.

Anyone who fears that it will take revenge on the start is completely wrong: the Z 1000 pulls off brutally even at low speeds and with its punch cuts fist-sized holes in the asphalt. Weakness phases when revving up? Nothing. Up to the locking speed of just under 11,000 rpm, the liter four-cylinder won’t let up? a power pleasure of the first order. It runs extremely smoothly, takes up the gas smoothly, and the gearbox is extremely easy to shift ?? no trace of provocation.

Small downer: the system for the second, electronically controlled throttle valve apparently reacts a bit sluggishly, which slows down commands from the right wrist by the blink of an eye.

This property shares the small with the large Zett. In general, both engines behave very similarly: The 750 also unfolds its ?? of course much lower ?? Performance linear. With less bore and the same stroke, it is more of a tamer unit than the big block, and acts a little less Kawa-typical. Thousands are more loyal to the brand image, mimicking the daring rebels. The attraction of the seven and a half lies in the ease with which it can be controlled ?? and your package is always sufficient for shooting country roads. In terms of pure engine performance, as it plays a role on the test bench and on the racetrack, the 750 cannot hold a candle to its big sister.

If maneuverability is in the foreground, things look different. Although the 750 weighs only 4 kg less than the Z 1000, at 232 kilograms, the small Zett stands on a narrow rear wheel rim with 180 mm tires that are ideal for country roads. Thousands are walking an unnecessarily fat 190 skin on a 6-inch rim. Therefore, the Z 750 poaches through the curve maze much more manageable, the thousands can only conquer curves with increased use of force. In addition, the Z 1000 sometimes stands up spontaneously on bumps in an inclined position ?? another bad habit of the broad slack. This phenomenon is also evident in the 750 series, but to a much lesser extent.

Another thing the two have in common: On the brakes, the Kawas block something against turning. This suggests that the two tires do not work well with the Dunlop Qualifier tires. PS tested new qualifiers with the addition ?? RR ?? on different bikes and loved them. Appeal to the Kawa developers: Please try these rubbers out on the Z 750 and Z 1000!

The chassis of the Z 1000 is cause for joy. The fork and shock absorber are tightly damped and work extremely sensitively. But the gods set the spring preload before heating, because the Kawa is extremely rear-heavy as standard. So pretension the monoshock so that the stern sinks in by a maximum of 15 millimeters. Relax the fork from the original value by 5 to 7 turns in order to lower the front. So the balance is right and nothing stands in the way of driving pleasure.

The 750 does not need such a procedure. It is sufficient to pretension your shock absorber to the maximum. The little one does not come close to the qualities of the thousand-meter chassis ?? its spring elements do not respond as creamy as those of the big sister.

Common sense meets power


Concept comparison: Kawasaki, Triumph, Yamaha


K

Whether these two models are worthy opponents remains to be seen: Yamaha FZ6 Fazer S2 against its sister FZ1 Fazer.

?? At most three percent. ?? What sounds like a mocking prognosis by opposing parties for the next election, quantifies the technical agreement of the FZ1 Fazer and FZ6 Fazer S2, according to Yamaha. The two do not have much more in common than a splinter of names; At first glance, completely different motorcycles with different philosophies. On closer inspection, there are similarities again, for example both carry the moderate version of a supersport engine, prefer an upright seating position and focus on proper wind protection.

This is where the little Fazer trumps: The test machine features accessories such as a full fairing (499 euros) and a touring screen (100 euros). The high-rise window provides exemplary protection for the driver’s head and upper body. Disadvantage: From 100 km / h, wind noise flows around the helmet. The small pane of the FZ1 Fazer does not protect quite as effectively as the accessory part of the FZ6, but the breeze blows pleasantly quietly and evenly on the head and upper body.

Enough talking about hot air, now the real joys are waiting ?? off to the country road. The abbreviation ?? S2 ?? stands on the FZ6, among other things, for its open power (98 hp), which in the test field represents the most insurable variant. In addition, the S2 houses one-piece brake calipers and, compared to the basic FZ6, higher-quality spring elements. As with the other pairings, the little one sprints much more nimbly through the tangled bends than her bigger opponent. 12 kg less weight and a narrower rear tire (180 size) make the difference. The inactive sitting position on the little Fazer is a bit in the way of the hunt. The driver sits deepest on it of the entire test field. In return, the handlebar sits high above the fork. Also annoying with increased canter: the soft chassis. When the pilot lets it smoke, there is clear unrest in the framework. On top of that, the footpegs scrape across the asphalt quite early. As a small compensation, the fork and shock absorber respond first class.

The latter also applies to the spring elements of the FZ1 Fazer. They transform even the worst of the terrain into a smooth strip of asphalt. Unlike the six hundred, the vote of the thousands is also suitable for burning. If you close the rebound stage of the shock absorber up to 2 clicks, it lies very well on the track. The big Fazer, however, would like to be asked to lean and be kept on course. Both of these things are not very easy, because the handlebars are mounted close to the driver and also dead straight, which forces forearms and wrists into an uncomfortable, but definitely unfamiliar position.

And the engines? At least the small Yamaha can hardly convince in this category. Below 9500 rpm, the six hundred engine delivers only moderate pressure, from this mark onwards it gets down to business quickly and intensely; but already 2500 rpm later, the power curve shows downhill again. No question about it, the modified drive from the super sporty R6 doesn’t really fit the touring-oriented character of the FZ6 Fazer S2.

In direct comparison, the FZ1 is a steam hammer. Like an angry bull, the 148 hp engine pushes from a standing start and roars out of reach and away. The big Yamaha is the only motorcycle in the sextet to go from 0 to 200 km / h in less than 10 seconds. An impressive figure that only plays a subordinate role in everyday life and with this type of motorcycle. Other qualities count here, for example, draft. From 50 to 150 km / h in the last gear, the big Yam leathers the FZ6 mercilessly, but even the much weaker Triumph Street Triple stays on the Yamaha FZ1 for up to a tenth of a second. Not to mention the other displacement giants who clearly distance the big Fazer in this exercise. Finally, there remains the realization that the modified R1 engine produces power without end, but unfortunately only late, in other words: it starts at high engine speeds.

Conclusion: I would have laughed if the big siblings hadn’t got their little snot noses under control: In all three pairings, the thousands emerge as the winners of the power struggle. If you don’t need the power of a full liter (or more), you can still find happiness with the smaller offshoots. The significant price reductions of up to 3900 euros (Triumph) should make it easier to reach for the little sister. The winner across all borders is once again the Speed ​​Triple.

Data Triumph Street Triple


Concept comparison: Kawasaki, Triumph, Yamaha


K

Fighter in a fine English way: the Triumph Street Triple.

Drive:
Three-cylinder in-line engine, four valves / cylinder, 78 kW (106 hp) at 11700 / min *, 68 Nm at 9200 / min *, 675 cm3, bore / stroke: 74.0 / 52.3 mm, compression ratio: 12.7 : 1, ignition / injection system, 44 mm throttle valves, mechanically operated multi-disc oil bath clutch, six-speed gearbox, G-Kat, secondary air system

Landing gear:
Light alloy bridge frame, steering head angle: 65.7 degrees, caster: 95 mm, wheelbase: 1395 mm, upside-down fork, Ø inner fork tube: 41 mm, not adjustable, central spring strut with lever system, adjustable in the spring base, spring travel front / rear: 120 / 126 mm

Wheels and brakes:
Light alloy cast wheels, 3.50 x 17″/5.50 x 17″, Front tires: 120/70 ZR 17, rear: 180/55 ZR 17, initial tires: Dunlop Sportmax Qualifier, 308 mm double disc brake with two-piston floating calipers at the front, 220 mm single disc with single-piston floating caliper at the rear

Measurements and weight:
Length / width / height *: 2110/860/1250 mm, seat / handlebar height: 810/1010 mm, handlebar width: 710 mm, 190 kg fully fueled, v./h .: 49.1 / 50.9%, rear wheel performance in last gear: 70.8 kW (96 PS) at 227 km / h

Driving performance:
Acceleration 0 100/150/200 km / h 3.7 / 7.0 / 13.8 s,
Pull: 50 100/100 150 km / h 4.8 / 5.8 s
Top speed: 216 km / h *

Consumption:
Fuel type: Super, average consumption: 6.4 liters, tank capacity / reserve: 17.4 / k. A. liters, range: 272 km

Price ***: 7350 Euro (plus utilities)

Data Triumph Speed ​​Triple


Concept comparison: Kawasaki, Triumph, Yamaha


K

Can the Speed ​​Triple actually beat her little sister??

Drive:
Three-cylinder in-line engine, four valves / cylinder, 97 kW (132 hp) at 9250 / min *, 105 Nm at 7500 / min *, 1050 cm3, bore / stroke: 79.0 / 71.4 mm, compression ratio: 12.0 : 1, ignition / injection system, 46 mm throttle valves, mechanically operated multi-disc oil bath clutch, six-speed gearbox, G-Kat, secondary air system

Landing gear:
Light alloy bridge frame, steering head angle: 66.5 degrees, caster: 84 mm, wheelbase: 1429 mm, upside-down fork, Ø fork inner tube: 45 mm, adjustable spring base, compression and rebound damping, central spring strut with lever system, adjustable spring base, Compression and rebound damping, spring travel v./h .: 120/140 mm

Wheels and brakes:
Light alloy cast wheels, 3.50 x 17″/5.50 x 17″, Front tires: 120/70 ZR 17, rear: 180/55 ZR 17, initial tires: Michelin Pilot Power, 320 mm double disc brake with four-piston fixed calipers at the front, 220 mm single disc with two-piston floating caliper at the rear

Measurements and weight: Length / width / height *: 2115/780/1250 mm, seat / handlebar height: 840/1010 mm, handlebar width: 735 mm, 220.5 kg fully fueled, v./h .: 48.3 / 51.7%, Rear wheel power in last gear: 92 kW (125 PS) at 236 km / h

Driving performance:
Acceleration 0 100/150/200 km / h 3.3 / 5.8 / 10.2 s
Pulling speed: 50 100/100 150 km / h 4.1 / 4.7 s
Top speed: 240 km / h *

Consumption:
Fuel type: Super, average consumption: 6.9 liters, tank capacity / reserve: 18/4 liters, range: 261 km

Price: 11240 Euro (plus ancillary costs)

Data Kawasaki Z 750


Concept comparison: Kawasaki, Triumph, Yamaha


K

The Z 750 looks a lot like its big sister, at least outwardly.

Drive:
Four-cylinder in-line engine, four valves / cylinder, 78 kW (106 PS) at 10500 / min *, 78 Nm at 8300 / min *, 748 cm3, bore / stroke: 68.4 / 50.9 mm, compression ratio: 11.3 : 1, ignition / injection system, 32 mm throttle valves, mechanically operated multi-plate oil bath clutch, six-speed gearbox, G-Kat

Landing gear:
Steel central tube frame, steering head angle: 65.5 degrees, caster: 103 mm, wheelbase: 1440 mm, upside-down fork, Ø fork inner tube: 41 mm, adjustable spring base and rebound damping. Central spring strut with lever system, adjustable in spring base and rebound damping, spring travel front / rear: 120/125 mm

Wheels and brakes:
Light alloy cast wheels, 3.50 x 17″/ 5.50 x 17″, Front tires: 120/70 ZR 17, rear: 180/55 ZR 17 First tires: Dunlop Qualifier ?? PT ?? and ?? NK ??, 300 mm double disc brake with two-piston floating calipers at the front, 250 mm single disc with single-piston floating caliper at the rear, ABS

Measurements and weight: Length / width / height *: 2006/840/1230 mm, seat / handlebar height: 810/1000 mm, handlebar width: 690 mm, 232 kg fully fueled, v./h .: 49.2 / 50.8%, rear wheel performance in last gear: 69.9 kW (95 PS) at 209 km / h

Driving performance: Acceleration 0 100/150/200 km / h: 3.7 / 7.0 / 14.3 s
Pull-through 50 100/100 150 km / h: 5.6 / 6.2 s Top speed: 230 km / h *

Consumption:
Fuel type: Super, average consumption: 6.2 liters, tank capacity / reserve: 18.5 / k. A. liters, range: 298 km

Price: 7895 Euro (plus utilities)

Data Kawasaki Z 1000


Concept comparison: Kawasaki, Triumph, Yamaha


K

The Kawasaki Z 1000 may have a lot in common with its sister, but it still has its own character.

Drive:
Four-cylinder in-line engine, four valves / cylinder, 92 kW (125 PS) at 10000 / min *, 99 Nm at 8200 / min *, 953 cm3, bore / stroke: 77.2 / 50.9 mm, compression ratio: 11.2 : 1, ignition / injection system, 36 mm throttle valves, mechanically operated multi-disc oil bath clutch, six-speed gearbox, G-Kat

Landing gear:
Steel central tube frame, steering head angle: 65.5 degrees, caster: 103 mm, wheelbase: 1445 mm, upside-down fork, Ø fork inner tube: 41 mm, adjustable spring base and rebound damping. Central spring strut with lever system, adjustable in spring base and rebound damping, spring travel front / rear: 120/150 mm

Wheels and brakes:
Light alloy cast wheels, 3.50 x 17″/6.00 x 17″, Front tires: 120/70 ZR 17, rear: 190/50 ZR 17 First tires: Dunlop Qualifier ?? PT ??, 300 mm double disc brake with four-piston fixed calipers at the front, 250 mm single disc with single-piston floating caliper at the rear, ABS

Measurements and weight:
Length / width / height *: 2100/830/1255 mm, seat / handlebar height: 805/1005 mm, handlebar width: 700 mm, 236 kg fully fueled, v./h .: 48.7 / 51.3%, rear wheel power in last gear: 84.5 kW (115 PS) at 220 km / h

Driving performance:
Acceleration 0 100/150/200 km / h: 3.3 / 6.0 / 10.6 s
Pulling speed 50 100/100 150 km / h: 4.7 / 4.8 s
Top speed: 245 km / h *

Consumption:
Fuel type: Super, average consumption: 7.2 liters, tank capacity / reserve: 18.5 / k. A. liters, range: 257 km

Price: 10 395 euros (plus ancillary costs)

Data Yamaha FZ 6 Fazer S2


Concept comparison: Kawasaki, Triumph, Yamaha


K

Its cat-like headlights give the FZ6 Fazer S2 visual charm.

Drive:
Four-cylinder in-line engine, 4 valves / cylinder, 72 kW (98 PS) at 12000 / min *, 63 Nm at 10000 / min *, 600 cm3, bore / stroke: 65.5 / 44.5 mm, compression ratio 12.2: 1, ignition / injection system, 46 mm throttle valves, mechanically operated multi-plate oil bath clutch, six-speed gearbox, G-Kat

Landing gear:
Light alloy bridge frame, steering head angle: 65.0 degrees, caster: 97.5 mm, wheelbase: 1440 mm, conventional telescopic fork, Ø inner fork tube: 43 mm, not adjustable, central spring strut directly hinged, adjustable in the spring base, spring travel front / rear: 130 / 130 mm

Wheels and brakes:
Light alloy cast wheels, 3.50 x 17″/5.50 x 17″, Front tires: 120/70 ZR 17, rear: 180/55 ZR 17 First tires: Bridgestone BT 020 ?? GG ??, 298 mm double disc brake with two-piston floating calipers at the front, 245 mm single disc with single-piston floating caliper at the rear, ABS

Mass and weight:
Length / width / height: 2095/755/1285 mm, seat / handlebar height: 795/1000 mm, handlebar width: 670 mm, 217 kg with a full tank, v./h .: 50.0 / 50.0%, rear wheel performance in the last Gear: 66.3 kW (90 PS) at 255 km / h

Driving performance:
Acceleration 0 100/150/200 km / h: 3.7 / 7.0 / 15.6 s,
Pulling speed 50 100/100 150 km / h: 6.6 / 8.5 s
Top speed: 210 km / h *

Consumption:
Fuel type: normal, average test consumption: 6.0 liters / 100 km, tank capacity / reserve: 19.4 / 3.4 liters, range: 323 km

Price ***: 7650 Euro (plus ancillary costs)

Data FZ1 Fazer


Concept comparison: Kawasaki, Triumph, Yamaha


K

Its massive headlights give the FZ1 expression.

Drive:
Four-cylinder in-line engine, 5 valves / cylinder, 110 kW (150 PS) at 11000 / min *, 106 Nm at 8000 / min *, 998 cm3, bore / stroke: 77.0 / 53.6 mm, compression ratio 11.5: 1, ignition / injection system, 42 mm throttle valves, mechanically operated multi-disc oil bath clutch, six-speed gearbox, G-Kat

Landing gear:
Light alloy bridge frame, steering head angle: 65.0 degrees, caster: 109 mm, wheelbase: 1460 mm, upside-down fork, Ø fork inner tube: 43 mm, adjustable in spring base, rebound and compression stage, central spring strut with lever system, adjustable in spring base and Rebound, front / rear travel: 130/130 mm

Wheels and brakes:
Light alloy cast wheels, 3.50 x 17″/6.00 x 17″, Front tires: 120/70 ZR 17, rear: 190/50 ZR 17 First tires: Michelin Pilot Road ?? S ??, ?? D ??, 320 mm double disc brakes with four-piston fixed calipers at the front, 255 mm single disc with Single-piston floating caliper at the rear

Mass and weight:
Length * / Width * / Height: 2140/790/1205 mm, seat / handlebar height: 810/1010 mm, handlebar width: 685 mm, 229.5 kg with a full tank, v./h .: 50.8 / 49.2% , Rear wheel power in last gear: 97 kW (132 PS) at 267 km / h

Driving performance:
Acceleration 0 100/150/200 km / h: 3.5 / 5.7 / 9.8 s
Pulling speed 50 100/100 150 km / h: 5.3 / 5.2 s
Top speed: 252 km / h *

Consumption:
Fuel type: Super, average test consumption: 7.5 liters / 100 km, tank capacity / reserve: 18 / 3.4 liters, range: 240 km

Price: 10650 Euro (plus utilities)

reviews


Concept comparison: Kawasaki, Triumph, Yamaha


K

Now there is no turning back, the die has been cast …

Triumph Street Triple

drive
It’s hard to only give the lively Streety three stars here. But some of the competition has more powerful engines and less pronounced load changes.

landing gear
It just turns on: the Street Triple is nimble like no other. Her chassis was clearly too soft and she has no ABS.

ergonomics
The active, front-heavy seating position fits perfectly with the character of the little naked woman. Triumph exchanges the seat, which was initially much too soft, on a guarantee.

Driving fun
Wonderfully lively, youthful and dynamic, and quick as a madman: the Street Triple simply turns on. Full points despite the undercarriage being too soft.

verdict
Only one star is missing from the cheeky Street Triple in second place. That says a lot about its qualities. There has never been so much driving fun for so little money.

4th place / 14 points

Triumph Speed ​​Triple

drive
PS bows to British engineering ?? what a cool propellant. I beg your pardon? Load changes and bony gears? The Speedy is forgiven for that.

landing gear
The spring elements of the Speedy work at a high level, but do not quite achieve the qualities of the best. The handling is okay, there is no ABS.

ergonomics
Widest handlebar and highest seat in the test field. The handlebar is mounted far forward, but the driver does not have to stretch. Very active driving position.

Driving fun
Celestial drive, excellent seating position and stable chassis: a first-class fun device. Weaknesses: load change reactions, gearbox stuck.

verdict
Once again advanced to first place undisputed, the Speed ​​Triple shows its competition what is going on. A great bike with minimal weaknesses.

Place 1/17 points

Kawasaki Z 750

drive
The power is okay, the transmission is great. The drive turned out to be almost too good for a real Z-Kawa. The delayed throttle response is irritating.

landing gear
The Z 750 doesn’t quite come close to the quality of its sister’s chassis. It is more manageable than this one, but others can do it even better.

ergonomics
Upright and with the upper body leaning forward, the sitting position is ideal for happy milling. Tight seat pad, the knee grip is okay.

Driving fun
Aggressive looks, too good manners. The 750 gives the philistine a punk look. The high weight slows down their dynamics a little. Unfavorable initial tires.

verdict
A few dots here, a few stars there: Contrary to what its appearance suggests, the Z 750 is an inconspicuous collector, not a merciless hunter.

5th place / 12 points

Kawasaki Z 1000

drive
The jewel of the Z 1000. Strong, cultivated drive with only two problems. 1st: delayed throttle response and 2nd: the existence of British three-cylinder engines…

landing gear
Class spring elements. However, circular strokes in uneven curves ruin line and mood. Other, narrower tires would certainly help.

ergonomics
As on its smaller sister, the pilot on the Z 1000 is very front-wheel-oriented. Sport is the order of the day, there is other material for touring riders.

Driving fun
Your engine puts you in a good mood, the fork and shock absorber are top notch. The balls in and around some bends are annoying, the tires do not fit the Z 1000.

verdict
The Z 1000 lands in second place, especially the engine, suspension elements and seat position. Detail care for throttle response and tires would be good.

2nd place / 15 points

Yamaha FZ6 Fazer S2

drive
The FZ6 only delivers usable punch from 9500 rpm, at lower speeds the R6 drive is rather bland. After all, it yodels with a cheap 98 hp.

landing gear
The fork and shock absorber are too soft for increased speed. The footrests touch down quite early. We liked handling and neutrality.

ergonomics
Low seat, mounted far back. The handlebars are high and far away from the driver. Touring is all the rage. The knee angle turned out to be very comfortable.

Driving fun
Tired engine, lax chassis, inactive seating position: the FZ6 is only of limited use for a sporty pace. The little Yam finds her salvation while touring.

verdict
Your engine is weak, the chassis is slack, the seating position is comfortable but inactive. The super sports drive does not match the touring character of the FZ6.

6th place / 9 points

Yamaha FZ1 Fazer

drive
The FZ1 has a maximum output of 148 hp and four stars. In everyday life, however, it can hardly implement the power. The competition snaps around the bottom, sometimes more forcefully.

landing gear
The big Fazer feels comfortable everywhere and the bottom line is that it has the best chassis of the sextet. In the same, however, more manageable bikes curve.

ergonomics
Getting used to. The wide tank spreads the driver’s legs quite wide. The handlebar is almost straight and mounted very close to the driver. Narrowest knee angle.

Driving fun
When the FZ1 bites around at the top, it’s party. But the price for this is quite high, below 7000 rpm is too little for a thousand. Great road holding.

verdict
The FZ1 Fazer shares second place with the Z 1000. A bike with great potential. If only the power boost from your drive came earlier.

2nd place / 15 points

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *