What Bike? - New Zealand`s Rotary Car Club

•
•
MY 1990
£1.95
,
"
...
/
JJ
..
•
~
"
•
~
•
~
••
•
., ,
•
•
•
>,$
•
,
•
•
•
•
•
"'
••
•
•
•
~l~
.. ':ill.
I'
•
.,,
..
•
•••
•
••
•
...
•
.·•
•
...• .
•
•
•
-
-
•
••
4
•
~
•
USED TEST: BMW
RBO
1990
AHA
ER TZR125
'
•
11
DOUBLE TEST
'1\No racing bikes in civvies' is how Rosie Marston
describes these 250cc hot rods. No-one could deny
they are superb racing machines but pragmatists
would argue about their road-worthiness on today·s
congested highways. Does their performance defy
this logic?
THE 250cc racer class (described as such intentionally these two machines were designed first for the track and
secondly for the road) has hotted up again for 1990 with Kawasaki and
Suzuki battling it out for championship
honours with their KR-1 S and RGV
models respectively.
Performance on the race track cannot
be ignored when testing these two bikes.
Last year the KR-1 came out on top in the
British Super-Sports 400cc series para- .
doxically dominated by the 250s. Suzuki
had problems with top end power
resulting in blow-ups and the Kawasaki
reportedly handled better.
On the track the battles will continue
in 1990, accompanied by the spectre of
Honda's VFR400 joining the fray and
possibly upsetting the current status quo.
But what does all this have to do with
buying one of these bikes to use on the
road? Is the RGV or KR-1 S a practical
proposition for use on the Queen's
Highway?
34
I
-,..~-- --~
-'"'e
and Suz
::.+1:" ..,._!1 1 _,,.,; .... ~- r'-~
_ ....
.Jt
--.. _ peak po,.a-rc:_•,..:e _ •.::..• ...... .::: _. · · ::----.• - e- 'Ti ore
powerfu l -<.?-· S -=~·· 5-a;:.s e.e- closer
at the hee s ::::• :)..:
;>~ce l£3549
for the KR- • S ~= =::! ::::: ;o- :. e RGV).
Then the .. & s : -: : .. eaced legislative
brigade to cc-s :e.. .'G::Jr Cycle News
tested both b <es :.-..:...~gh timing lights
and (aided by ,., ;- ... ras) produced an
astonishing 1L3r::: ... .:..-am the KR-1S and
129mph from tre RGV!
In fact , Kawasaie seem almost ashamed of their KR-1 S as a road machine. All
through their entllusiastic sales brochure
little reminders say; ' get trained, ride
responsibly and obey all regulations', or
'please behave yourself, or if you can't
take your KR-1 S out on the race track.'
If they're afraid of folk taking this bike
on the road, why offer it as a road going
model? There lies the fundamental ques~
tion . And the answer will perhaps surprise
you ...
Of('
--
"::- • .::..,-,,.-
-
S-=-· :-
ENGINE/TRANSMISSION
KAWASAKI KR-1S
****
FIND it hard to allocate five stars to an
engine that only has around 1000 miles
under its belt - let's face it, it should run
perfectly well! Then again, after hearing of
one KR-1 owner who needed new piston
rings after 3,000 miles, I feel justified at
withholding a star.
With the exception of cold mornings after
leaving the bike outside all night, the motor
What Bike? July ' 90
•
Pictures:
Kawasaki KR -I S and Suzuki RGV250. Simi:ar !ooks maybe, but what about performance?
is an easy starter, with no more finesse than
full choke and a gentle prod on the kickstart
required. I didn't even need to balance on
the footpegs to get a decent swing. But I
wish Kawasaki had enabled the right
footrest to be folded away when kick starting - I constantly caught my foot on the
peg on the down swing.
Smokey, unwilling to pull and sounding
sick from cold initially, the choke could be
knocked home after a mile or so and the
Kawasaki started to sound and feel more
healthy - and less frenzied than the 1989
model.
lt is definitely a Jekyll-and-Hyde bike.
What Bike? July ' 90
The:e's a quite docile, almost four-strokeir<e character up to the 7000 rev mark. 1t
doesn't feel particularly 1roubled at lower
revs - good l"lews for anyone who has urban trave1 to contend ~Ail.h before the fun can
start out of town .
But wind it up to 11 ,000rpm (and beyond
into the red to 12,000 were it runs out of
steam) and the KR-1S pulls so fast
everything else goes into reverse . lt is a truly
amazing feeling as the bike changes from
a canter to a ful l scale gal lop with as mu ch
kick as a thoroughbred racehorse.
lt also runs much cleaner than last year's
model which , after any amount of town
tedium, left a smoke screen which was an
envi ronmental health hazard!
If anything it is the rider who feels more
frustrated below the 'hooligan rev band',
rather the bike. Racey looks and feel encourages a 'go for it' aggression if anything
gets in your way. 1t will run amicably at a
sensible rate but if you don 't keep it on the
boil, frankly, you ' re wasting your time.
Doodling along at 60mph is not this bike's
forte ... in fact it feels decidedly reticent at
that speed, creating a sensation similar to
that of running ·out of petrol.
Above (or indeed below) the no-man's
land of 5-6500rpm the story is monumen'
35
DOUBLE TEST
tally different and to get this sort of
behaviour from a 249cc two stroke parallel
twin (up .5ps to SOPS at 10,500rpm from last
year), Kawasaki have given the motor bigger exhaust ports, a larger electronically
operated two-stage KIPS valve that opens
earlier, and new expansion chambers.
The remaining engine specification mirrors the 1989 KR-1; a short stroke engine
with a bore and stroke of 56 x 50.6mm, compression ratio of 7.4:1 and carburation by
two 28mm carburettors.
But where the 'S' does score points is on
smoothness. There is none of the buzzy
mid-range resonance of the '89 model and
the KR-1S's balance shaft keeps the whole
package smooth right through the rev
range. On the down side, the engine and
exhaust note is ear-splitting. Even when
riding fast the noise does not disappear. My
head was ringing for hours after one 150
mile stint in the saddle.
Wrapped around this race-bred engine is
a cooling system (containing a water and
anti-freeze mixture) that is so effective that
the temperature gauge never indicated any
sign of distress.
A light clutch and six speed gearbox complement the motor but first gear seemed a
touch tall - clutch slipping being needed
to make a clean getaway. Knock-on effect
of this was that neutral was hard to find at
a standstill, when the motor was hot.
Impressively, improvements to the performance have made the 1990 model a better
road bike. Last year's KR1 was a great bike
but a pig in traffic - but I liked it so much
I was worried the extra power would make
the
version better on the track to the
detriment of its road manners.
Now I think the reverse is true. The 'S'
has far more pulling power, a strong midrange and a more controllable feel to the
lunatic power band. You know it isn't going
to suddenly lurch forward unless you really
gun it hard through the gears. You go looking for the power; it does not take you by
•
surpnse.
·s·
SUZUKI RGV250
***
HAT a culture shock! After the silky
smooth KR-1 S the RGV burst into
life with such frenzied activity that
it nearly took my fillings out. A one-kick
starter, I became increasingly fed up of untangling the kickstart from where it
repeatedly stuck under the footrest.
Although generally the same machine as
last year's, the Suzuki now receives increased mid-range torque, a com puter unit to
maintain optimum ignition timing and computerised throttle sensors on 'Siingshot'
34mm carburettors.
If you missed the RGV in 1989, for the
record, the motor is a development of half
the V4 500cc grand prix racer, a 249cc twincylinder 90 degree vee-twin with 56 x
50.6mm bore and stroke and 7.5:1 compression ratio. Liquid cooling comes courtesy of
a curved 'Radial Flow Radiator' which is
said to be 20 percent more effective than
a standard flat radiator.
Power is up slightly over the previous
model, now reaching peak power of 59PS
at anything between 10,600, 11 ,000 or
12,600rpm as even Suzuki's own
36
---------------------------------~
brochures ea-:=.;·==:- :. -; -·e! Even
though it rec -as~:··:::'"= -- ' a plump
for one of the {h'h e· ""c. ·;s
Increasing :rs- :~·:..-;·t: "as made the
1990 RGV a m... ~ ~:·e: :asant machine
to ride. There ·s SS£ - : : : ~= sl.p the clutch
excessively frorr s::c: :.s:.. a:~d the engine
will pull from lov,.er .,.. :.-e ·:. range. Engine
wise, this actually rr:a ·es :re RGV a less ti ring ride than the K~- · S
Accelerating from zero to bloodline produced an amazing.1 iast, but smooth,
delivery of speed. Ho.·.ever, this smooth
power flow hasn 't producea a motor that is
happy at low or mid-range revs- you need
to be over 8000rpm for the engine to smooth
out. For the (magistrates?) record, 9000rpm
in top equates to 1OOmph; 6000rpm to
70mph. Not exactly a licence-friendly
machine ... Neither bike will be good for relationships with 'the law' anyway.
There was an annoying flat spot around
7500rpm. At first I thought the plugs may
-
have been oiling up following town work but
even after extensive thrashing, it still felt odd
when the revs dropped to that level on the
overrun. This occurred near the end of the
test and there was no time for the tedious
business of dismantling the bodywork to
check if plugs were the culprit - but this
seems the most likely explanation.
The RGV has the racer-style cassette type
six speed gearbox - so called because it
can be removed independently from the
engine. Anyone with any knowledge of gear
ratios would be well advised to sort out first
and second gears which were not only widely spaced but incredibly crunchy to engage.
Personally, I found the RGV quite a
tiresome long distance machine as it HAS
to be ridden hard and well into three figures
to become a pleasant experience. Slower
riding just oils the thing up and lower revs
give a terribly 'vibby' ride. Sure, I like riding
fast, but it isn't always practical or possible.
What Bike? July '90
11--""'
Kawasaki KR-1S and Suzuki RGV250
--
•
•
•.;. less garish colour scheme could improve the
:·awasaki 's image.
-:Jte /airing is too narrow and too low to be
;;f/ective.
The Kawasaki 's instrumentation looks spartan by
ir. e Suzuki 's standards.
G848
Brakes are well up on par on both bikes which
:1lso share the same type of radial tyre.
YLP
•
•
•
•
strangely when getting off the brakes and
leaning into bends. A point to watch.
As fo r the brakes themselves (a hefty pair
o1 discs up front, backed up with a single
disc) there can be no doubt these are
designed for track riding, 135-0mph stopping. They're a touch fierce for lesser mortal
riding and it' s wise not to take too great a
handful of brake. Luckily I didn't have to try
any wet weather braking this year - a combination of w ate r and diesel had me on the
deck on the KR- 1.
With the lever adjustment on 'first' position of the available four, the front brake
lacked subtlety for the heftier chaps but, as
mentioned, a move to position two gave the
lever more feel. This adjustment has nothing
to do with the brakes (that is taken care of
automatically) but merely gives more or less
leverage for different hands or riding styles.
The only comment made about the rear
brake was by a British bike owner who
grimaced at the bottom placed caliper.
"That's a trick Triumph tried. It'll pick up all
the muck and wear the pads out in no time."
The rear disc in fact was more for race style
'balance' and took no serious part in braking proceedings - no need with such good
brakes at the nose.
The riding position is one of the mast
comfortable I have come across in the racereplica class. lt doesn't look very comfy with
nat hard thin seat, but it gave enough supco--: oel\veen the 120/140 mile fuel stops.
A.rd ~'le ;:>osition of the bars and footpegs
c~eated no undue pressure anywhere on the
body - and never any strain on the arms.
Usually a few slow miles with clip-ons will
see grown men (and women) cry with
aching wrists and forearms .
A low 29.5 inch seat height makes it a
perfect machine for short riders but even my
six foot husband Pete commented that it
was less cramped than the FZ600 Yamaha.
This year I was even bribed into perching
on that little pillion seat for 20 miles! A small
compromise to the KR's street aspirations,
I was pleasantly surprised, having once
overcome a feeling a vertigo all the way up
there. However, it does help if you trust your
pilot - one quick squirt of throttle will see
you dumped on the road.
Stability at all speeds was excellent and
~~~~~~~~===~=~~~~~~~~===~=~=~~:~~~~~~J lightweight
iwasparticularlyimpressedhowwellthis
2881b (131 kg) machine was total-
~~-
CHASSIS/BRAKES
KAWASAKI KR-1S
*****
UST looking at the size of :~e Js~-s
in the Kawasaki chassis pro.o--es :-e
thought that there'll soon be a ~-..~- c
shortage of alloy! But it does t'"'e :... : .
Nothing that road riding could thro.a, a::-:::·
bike could put it out of shape - :'"'o-; ·
could obviously be a different s:o'1 ·- a
racer's hands on the track. In fac1 : x_ ::
have my own 'Jim'll Fix lt' prize, :t .·,c ~ :: ,:,:
to lap the Isle of Man TT course on a "( =:- ~ S
Suspension is pure race track stt..:tf .... :
rear suspension hanging on to a huge :x>xsection s·winging arm with a r t·oge'lcharged shock absorber with the ..eservo r
bolted up beside the rear of the seat JLst
like on 'real' grand prix racing bikes- attention 9rabbing stuff.
What Bike? July '90
Tr.:·e s
--~:e:)oed
preload adjustment,
~::; _ ._,. ::_, -::::_~:::adj ustment and 22-way
:::-::--::-:55::- ::a"Pp'ng. Up front the 41 mm
::: • 5 -a.: ·- so ring preload settings. On
s-::..-j::.::: s_~::- s ngly the softest) setting,
::·:.• -; ~ a .,azardous operation from
~::e:
·- :-e front end nose diving
~a.-'Tiac. Our other (much
"'E-::!> :·· •· ;::;:;-s "Olllld this a problem during
-::. ·: : -; ~=ss :c11s on Rutland's bumpier
w:_ --, ·::..c-3 ::_: sjffening the forks by two
T
. ·:·~- e:s a-d altering the 'reach' of
· -;: "J- · : ·:t..·: e. e • did t he job.
.! s a ::;...:: -: ~ 1 ... :s:est. two of our team
cc-: a.-::::::;' a CL..'"Cus feel to the KR-1S
•'• -er go -g 'a· 1 -a·d into corners, so
et. .;o . . s 1a1 ed · ~c- 3.:my iound himself on
:."'e g·ass verge nea" ~op i ngh am one Sunaay n0''1 ~g! In tre process of stiffening the ·
fo:l<s to cope w ith his extra bulk (12 stone
compared to my seven) he discovered one
fork leg was one position different to the
other - causing the forks to rebound
·:" =·== ·-=
·== -
ly unbothered by side winds or wind buffeting from lorries.
Only negative point I felt was the screen
which , even for little old me at 5ft 3in was
set too low to tuck behind making sustained fast riding a neck-breaking experience.
Our lunatic fringe reported the same at three
figure speeds. 1t was definitely chin on the
tank stuff to keep the napper out of the air
stream. Just one inch higher at speed and
the visor and helmet became a blur. Much
inferior to the Suzuki 's fairing .
After a dalliance with 16-inchers on sports
bikes, wheels seem to be growing again.
The KR-1 S has 17 inch front/18 inch rear,
fitted with Dunlop K510F 110/70VR17 and
Dunlop K510 140/60VR18 respectively. Certainly no complaints about road holding from
these boots.
37
DOUBLE TEST
SUZUKI RGV250
*****
•
NOTHER huge aluminium chassis
holds the Suzuki together, ·a,lthough
I'm not sure I share the welder's
sense of humour - the joints are even
worse than the normal Japanese standard.
Described as a DC-ALBOX, the Suzuki's
frame has. an inner-ribbed dual-cell cor:~­
figuration, strengthened by cast aluminium
components. lt seems to work and is equal
to the Kawasaki's, albeit with different
handling characteristics. The RGV's
marginally taller 29.7 inch saddle made the
bike feel bigger than the KR-1 S despite its
marginally lighter dry weight at 2821b
(128kg). The very different riding position actually made it feel heavier than the KR
around town.
Front and rear suspension compliment
each other well and actually provide a softer,
less harsh ride than the KR-1 S without sacrificing tautness. With a slightly longer wheelbase and less sharp steering angle this
contributes to slower steerer and, at the risk
of being accused of posing, some amount
of body movement is required to keep the
bike on a tight line in sharp corners.
The rear suspension has been up-rated
for 1990 with spring preload fully adjustable
and a remote gas reservoir offering 19-way
compression damping and four-way rebound damping adjustment.
The brakes are absolutely superb.
Faultless, far more progressive the the KR's
and when a couple of heart-stopping
moments had me panicking the bike remained totally unflustered. Strangely, this
is in contrast to last year's model which
shared the same set-up; twin 290m m slotted discs with four piston calipers at the front
and a single 21 Omm drilled disc at the back.
· Perhaps the condition of the pads and/or
discs were better this year?
The Suzuki shares the same taste in
wheels and tyres as the Kawasaki with
Dunlop radials on front and back 17/18 inch
wheels. And with the exception of an
isolated back end shimmy round one sharp
corner, they never gave any cause for concern. As with the Kawasaki I never had to
ride the RGV over wet roads so cannot comment on the radials' ability here.
Great fun round a series of long twisty
bends; super for that burn up the dual carriageway; this bike needs to be kept away
from other traffic. The RGV is not happy in
a procession or standing at road junctions.
That previously mentioned riding position
is totally uncompromising for street work.
The bars are well forward and low, so most
of your weight is placed on your wrists. The
only relief comes, in true race-rep tradition,
when riding fast - and in the RGV's case
this means 'ton plus' .
However, it is not all doom and gloom as
the Suzuki's fairing knocks spots of the
Kawasaki's both in terms of effectiveness
and style - it really looks fantastic. And at
least the exhaust note is a few decibels less,
making it a more civilised experience for
your ears. Mind you, a look at the complicated exhaust plumbing under the engine
looks a nightmare.
Once up into those three figure speeds
the Suzuki has an eerie and fascinating feel
to it. Crouch behind the fairing and thrash
38
~?
-throug h the f>::E..~5 ~-: : _ · -:: 1 oJrself in
the Suzukf s r c..._·:. "=.c · ~: -~e revs reach
their perfect= · ~= ~-: · .... : E ~·r.e suddenly
goes quiet...a _.
s :.- e rushing of the
wind past the ~£.--; -- ..., :;~essive , almost
intimidatin~ ss-se:.-:- everything has
sudden ly corrs ~:.;:·-e~ ard the RGV is in
its racing eler=-· 3·ea~ But as for trying
it on the road .
All good ne.,.s 101 e racing brigade or
the forty mile x ... ..,:') lane scratcher and
Sunday mom;'"'~s o... t as for being user
friendly over a ;anel) of riding conditions,
forget it. After :-,.. o so ia days in the RGV's
saddle I was ir r-o mood for praise.
Even the fo llowing day my neck and bum
were so stiff and sore that I could hardly face
swinging my leg over the saddle fer the last
eight mile dash to Kettering to hand over the
keys.
Having braved the KR pillion I thought it
only fair to compare the RGV's perch.
Higher than the Kawasaki's I could hardly
=_--::.:
climb aboard, and once there you're so high
up with nothing to hold on to, you feel real.ly vulnerable. Still, it is there for those short
Journeys.
KAWASAKI KR-1S
***
HE KR-1S is not overly equipped, but
then it is far better than the race replicas I remember from the 1970s which
were literally track bikes with a few lights
tied on.
There's a handlebar mounted choke, ignition/steering lock combined, speedo, centrally mounted rev counter and all the switchgear you'd see on any bike. The poor points
all seem to emanate from the indicator
switch .
This is a horrid little Mickey Mouse job on
What Bike? July '90
Kawasaki KR-18 and Suzuki RGV250
SUZUKI RGV250
****
HE Suzuki's equipment is well up to
par with small but easily read clocks.
The layout is the same as on the 1989
model with a rev counter that doesn't
register anything below three grand and a
row of warn ing lights that are so dim they're
a waste of space.
The side stand is rather short and as this
leaves the bike at quite an angle, it was
sometimes hard to find somewhere to park
if the camber was wrong. And with a very
small foot, beware of soft tarmac.
Sharing a similar rear suspension to the
Kawasaki, this is as easy to adjust as with
the KR-1 S. Similarly, the oil tank under the
seat is just as inaccessible with the seat
needing to be unbolted to gain access to the
filler .
The paintwork finish is excellent with the
metallic silver and black finish looking far
more classy than the 'boy racer' blue and
white option.
The large mirror pods looked rather unsightly though. When parked together., the
KR-1 S looks brash and tarty ~gainst the
classier style of the Suzuki. And with the exception of the standard paint scuffing where
your jacket rubs the tank, the Suzuki's finish
was standing up well.
The RGV250 looks fast, even by at a standstill.
The /airing looks good and works well too.
Both. share a similar dial adjuster for suspension
settmgs.
THE PRICE YOU PAY
Both bikes use alloy like it's going out offashion!
KAWASAKI KR-1S
***
11---+- ----------------------------------.....
-
::m
the left handlebar and the warnina I :;~: ·,as
all but hidden from view in the dep~"s :::; :"'e
fairing, neatly obscured by tne r2.5s . e
brake master cylinder. The ~ c ca:-:J'S
themselves are nothing to shout abo .... : so reminiscent of six volt items that tre] re
hardly worth bothering with.
But I like the idea of the dial adjuster on
the front brake lever to alter lever distance,
and mirrors that are actually useful and remain clear. And I applaud the easy operation to alter suspension settings, just
needing an open ended spanner to turn the
adjusters on top of the forks.
lt's not a very bright idea to have the oil
tank under the seat. You have to remember
to carry an Alien key with you to take the
seat off (there are keys in the toolkit but
that's a palaver to get to) and the bolt well
collects water- just where you sit! Then ,
of course , the handbook doesn't tell you
about the effective plastic anti-theft cover
over. the bolt securing the seat. So effective
90
What Bike? July '90
~
at hiding the Alien socket that our designer
Anthony was fooled into th ink the bolt could
not be removed and spent a good hour trying to dribble oil into the tank without remov·ng the seat!
What is bright is the colour scheme- it's
definitely a bike to be seen with, and the
bike under test is what Kawasaki call the
'black model ' . Green wheels seem a little
ove'" the top and I would have preferred less
gree'1 and more black paintwork.
Petrol tank scuffing was to be expected
but seemed worse than normal and any
owner hoping to preserve the finish would
be well adv ised to protect the paintwork
here. And for the life of me can't understand
why a 250cc m"achine sports 500cc racing
plates.
The absence of a centre stand is to be expected but at least the bike is endowed with
a good hefty side stand that actually supports the bike at a sensible ang le.
•
VER £3500 for a 250cc? Not m my
day! But then in 'my day' 250s didn't
have this sort of performance. For
sure there's a fair choice of larger bikes you
could buy for the same money but you are
paying for top-class technology and performance. With both these machines you get it.
The Kawasaki's petrol consumption proved as variable as my moods - ranging
from a low of 40mpg to a high of 52mpg but no matter what your speed, the 16 litre
tank provides a reasonable range. Oil consumption could not accurately be gauged
but appeared to run at half a litre for 800
miles.
Spares are a mixture of reasonable and
expensive. Cheapest is the air filter at £2.06,
followed by brake pads at £16.09 a set and
final drive chain a massive £78.61.
Accident damage is another case of rising rates: clutch lever £4.63; indicator
assembly £9.30; front brake lever £10.13;
mirror £16.01; gear lever £16.91; front
mudguard £29.16; aluminium silencer
£39.95, exhaust pipes £119.90; complete
headlight £54.99; petrol tank £201.32;.
screen £62.92; fairing £306.03 and front
forks, complete with yokes, £464.67. All
prices retail plus VAT.
Service intervals are not surprisingly
close together on such a highly tuned
machine and after the first service, fall every
2,500 miles.
39
<
DOUBLE TEST
SUZUKI RGV250
***
HE Suzuki fared slightly better on fuel
with a low-of 50mpg to a wimpish
60mpg on one ride when I felt
rather fragile. However, I didn't like the way
the Suzuki spent around five miles deciding
whether to go into reserve or not - completely aut of character for a two-stroke.
Given a 17 litre tank, there's a fair range between fill-ups.
Spare prices run at the same level as the
Kawasaki over the long term with some
prices much cheaper and other much more.
lt makes you wonder how they arrive at their
price structures.
The final drive chain is cheaper than the
KR-1 S at £55.19 but the front brake pads
more at £17.87 (both plus VAT).
A complete fairing will set you back
£347.07, an inpicator £23.02 and gear and
clutch levers £14.97 and £8.06 respectively - plus VAT.
And for a complete comparison of price
with the KR-1 S, an air filter will empty your
wallet at £8.30 plus some more hefty prices
for accident damage. Front brake lever
£14.28, mirror £29.93 , front mudguard
£57.56, aluminium silencer £161.16, exhaust pipes £299.32, complete headlight
£99.00, petrol tank £139.43, screen £35.60
and front forks £308.56. All prices excluding
VAT.
Kawasaki KR·l S
Model
£3549
Price
249cc
Capacity
two stroke twin
Engine
liquid
Cooling
six speed
Gearbox
chain
Final drive
2881b
Weight (claimed, dry)
29.5 inches
Seat height
16 litres
Fuel capacity
Fuel consumption
46mpg
(avg.)
60bhp
Power
143mph
Claimed top speed
Suzuki RGV250
Kawasaki KR-1
£3699 '
249cc
two stroke V-twin
liquid
six speed
chain
2821b
29.7 inches
17 litres
249cc
two stroke twi
liquid
six speed
chain
2701b
29.5 inches
16 litres
55mpg
59 bhp
129mph
52mpg
55 bhp
132mph
***
*****
****
***
****
****
*****
***
***
****
*Prices correct at mid-May
•
I
Engine/transmission
Chassis/brakes
Equipment
Price
Our Verdict
****
*****
***
***
*****
OUR VERDICT
~SAKI
KR-1S
*****
SUZUKI RGV250
****
IKE I said at the start, this test is about
whether either bike is a practical pro- position for the road and if so, which
is best.
Well , they are both rideable road bikes,
accepting their uncompromising approach
to performance, but the Kawasaki is the better behaved of the two - particularly in
terms of town use and riding position.
For all it's more peaky motor, the
Kawasaki engine is probably more suited to
road work than the Suzuki but the RGV wins
on smooth power delivery. The Kawasaki,
however, refuses to oil up and remains a
comfortable machine to ride at all speeds
over reasonable distances. The Suzuki is
quieter has a much better fairing, and was
generally acclaimed as the better looking
bike.
But, at the end of the day neither can be
described as ' suitable' road riding
machinery. On the other hand, they are
great fun for an hour at a time ... whatever
you say about them tends to be totally subjective.
They do not represent a logical step-up for
learners just through their test, you wouldn't
dream of commuting on one in the winter,
but, in the right hands, both bikes offer the
experienced road rider superb performance
and adrenalin-pumping fun at a bargain
price when compared to the heavyweight
750-11 OOcc sportsters.
KR-1 S - Throw on some numbers and zhis could be a track shot!
40
What Bike? July '90
Kawasaki KR-18 and Suzuki RGV250
1 ('
pg
p
ph
Suzuki RG250
Kawasaki GPX250R
Morini Dart
249cc
two stroke V-twin
liquid
six speed
chain
2821b
29.7 inches
17 litres
£2969
347cc
two stroke twin
liquid
six speed
chain
3551b
31.5 inches
17 litres
247cc
two stroke twin
liquid
six speed
chain
2871b
29 inches
17 litres
£2729
248cc
two stroke twin
liquid
six speed
chain
3031b
30 inches
18 litres
£3995
349cc
four stroke V-twin
•
atr
six speed
chain
3301b
n/a
13.6 litres
45mpg
58 bhp
123mph
34mpg
63bhp
108mph
:"136mpg
.!9bhp
• ~ am ph
54mpg
38bhp
110mph
57mpg
30bhp
102mph
***
****
****
**
***
****
***
**
****
****
****
•***
****
****
****
*****
****
*****
****
****
n/a•
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Suzuki RGV250 ('89)
Yamaha RD350F2
•
. RGV 250 - Heavier steering but ic 's still a near fuulcless haru!ler.
90
What Bike? July '90
41