Kawasaki ER-6f 2009 vs. Honda CBR 650F 2017
Kawasaki ER-6f 2009
Honda CBR 650F 2017
Overview - Kawasaki ER-6f 2009 vs Honda CBR 650F 2017
The Kawasaki ER-6f 2009 and the Honda CBR 650F 2017 are both sport touring motorcycles with similar technical specifications. Both models have an in-line engine type, 4-stroke strokes, and a displacement of 649cc. They also share a steel frame and double disk front brakes. The front and rear tire diameters are the same at 17 inches for both models. However, there are some notable differences between the two.
In terms of engine power, the Honda CBR 650F 2017 has a clear advantage with 91 HP compared to the Kawasaki ER-6f 2009's 72 HP. This difference in power may result in a more thrilling and dynamic riding experience on the Honda CBR 650F 2017. Additionally, the Honda CBR 650F 2017 has a slightly higher torque of 63 Nm compared to the Kawasaki ER-6f 2009's 66 Nm.
Kawasaki ER-6f 2009
In terms of dimensions and weights, the Honda CBR 650F 2017 has a higher seat height of 810 mm compared to the Kawasaki ER-6f 2009's 785 mm. This may be a consideration for riders who are shorter in stature. The Honda CBR 650F 2017 also has a larger fuel tank capacity of 17.3 liters compared to the Kawasaki ER-6f 2009's 15.5 liters. This means that the Honda CBR 650F 2017 may offer a longer range before needing to refuel.
When it comes to strengths, the Kawasaki ER-6f 2009 is praised for its powerful sound, mobility, reasonable price, visually sophisticated design, and safe riding experience. It is also considered beginner-friendly, making it a good choice for riders who are new to sport touring motorcycles. On the other hand, the Honda CBR 650F 2017 is known for its supersport design, resembling the iconic Fireblade look. It has a well-tuned chassis, solid brakes, and easy handling, offering versatility for various riding styles. The Honda CBR 650F 2017 is also known for its Honda quality, which is often associated with reliability and durability.
Honda CBR 650F 2017
In terms of weaknesses, the Kawasaki ER-6f 2009 is criticized for its 72 HP, which may not provide the same level of acceleration and speed as some other sport touring motorcycles. On the other hand, the Honda CBR 650F 2017 is noted to have slightly outdated technology in some areas, which may not be as advanced as newer models in the market.
Overall, both the Kawasaki ER-6f 2009 and the Honda CBR 650F 2017 are capable sport touring motorcycles with their own strengths and weaknesses. The choice between the two ultimately depends on the rider's preferences and priorities, such as desired power, design, handling, and technology features.
Technical Specifications Kawasaki ER-6f 2009 compared to Honda CBR 650F 2017
Pros and Cons in comparison
Pros and Cons in comparison
Kawasaki ER-6f 2009
Regardless of whether you take it on the dull way to work or on extended tours, the comfortable seating position, the quiet, low-vibration in-line two-cylinder and the agility in the angular movement bring riding pleasure in every situation.
Honda CBR 650F 2017
In addition to its super-sporty appearance, which is strongly based on that of the Fireblade, it is above all its sovereignty and versatility that make it a tough competitor on the road with models with more prestige or more performance. It is as much a super sports bike as a faithful companion in everyday life. The visible and tangible Honda quality conveys to the owner that he will have a long, carefree life with the CBR650F.
Price Comparison Avarage Market Price Kawasaki ER-6f vs Honda CBR 650F
There are a few key differences between a Kawasaki ER-6f 2009 and a Honda CBR 650F 2017. It takes less time to sell a Kawasaki ER-6f with 70 days compared to 90 days for a Honda CBR 650F. Since model year 2006 1000PS.de editors have written 7 reviews for the Kawasaki ER-6f and 9 reviews for the Honda CBR 650F since model year 2014. The first review for the Kawasaki ER-6f was published on 1/25/2006 and now has more than 30,200 views. This compares to more than 23,800 views for the first review on Honda CBR 650F published on 11/6/2013.
