Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

GSXR600 vs GSXR750

Discussion in 'Bike Reviews, Questions and Suggestions' at netrider.net.au started by blaringmike, Jan 13, 2008.

  1. Hi all,

    I was just wondering whats the difference if any between the 07-08 GSXR 600s and 750's? Besides the obvious engine capacity. I have a mate from work who says the 600's are rubbish and I should be looking at a 750. He reckons the 750's share more technology with the 1000's.

    Any thoughts from people who have ridden both or know about them. I'm interested in a 07-08 bike for my next ride.


  2. Yes the 600s are obviously rubbish :roll:
  3. You would be happy with either, test ride both and see which you like better
  4. Your mate doesn't know what he's talking about. You could pretty much exchange every part on a 600 & 750 apart from the obvious ones that effect the capacity difference. But, I don't know any parts that are interchangeable with the 1000.

    Are you interested in an '07 or an '08? The '08 bike is a new model being released later in the year. Anything you get now until then is a '07 model with an '08 build date, but still the old model.
  5. The 750 shares more technology with the 1000? Don't wanna sound rude mate, but that is BS. Anything in the 600 class has to really be at the pointy end of technology, any 'flab' (in overall weight, engine output, handling) will really leave a bike behind its opposition as the competition in this class is pretty cutthroat. Especially now that the jap manufacturers (esp yamaha) seem to be foccussing a little more on mid range grunt, instead of absolute peak power at high revs with reletively little down low.(wonder if the daytona 675 has anything to do with that? :wink: ). That said the Suzuki gixxer 600 is pretty much the oldest out of all the 600's and, judging by reviews, its starting to show. I'll let someone that has actually ridden them answer the rest of your question, i just thought your mate saying that the 600's (does he mean all of them or just the zook?) are rubbish isnt really helpful advice for you. If it was me i'd be going straight to either the honda cbr600 or the daytona 675. Best to ride them all and decide what you like :cool:
  6. cant go wrong with either bike coz all the new bikes are very competitive but each has their own character. the 07 gsxr600 is a nice bike but still lacks that torque so perhaps you want to jump to a 750. power diff is not massive when you compare it to a 1000 and the 750 handles just like a 600 and i think they weight about the same.
    ride both and tell us what you think.
  7. The only difference will be your perception of speed.

    Get some quotes on insurance and maintenance and let that be the deciding factor.
  8. 1/ gsxr600 top speed 260km/h , 11.9sec quater mile pass.

    2/ gsxr750 top speed 272km/h , 10.7sec quarter mile pass.

    Hope this helps mick
  9. Thanks for the info guys. I'm still 12 months away from my unrestriced licence but i'm trying to gather info on all the middle weights. Your help on this is appreciated. Why dont the other three Jap companies make 750 sports bikes anymore?
  10. Don't need to, their 600 and 1000cc bikes do well enough
  11. Not sure where you got those figures but they are well out

    2007 GSXR600 Weight: 407 lbs (empty tank)
    Weight Distribution: 51.7% F (w/full tank)
    Peak HP: 101.8 @ 13,400 rpm
    Peak Torque: 43.2 lb-ft @ 11,100 rpm
    1/4-mile: 10.75 @ 132.8 mph
  12. ^^^ Holy smoke!
  13. The CBR900RR started the trend back in the early 90's. Honda proved that using a big capacity powerful motor didn't have to mean a bike that was heavy and difficult to turn quickly. In fact, the CBR900RR pretty much used a bored out 750cc motor in a trimmed down 750cc sized chassis.

    That was the beginning of the end of the 750cc class.

    World Superbike racing was still 750cc I4's, but the rules were stacked in Ducati's favor, allowing them to field 1000cc V2's against the Japanese 750cc I4's. This went on for long enough to prove that it simply wasn't feasible to use a 750cc I4 bike to defeat a 1000cc V2, although there were plenty of races and even one season where the Honda RVF750 did manage to take the championship.

    Meanwhile, back in the real world, CBR900RR Fireblades were selling crazily well, as was the Yamaha YZF-1000 ThunderAce, with sales strong enough to support spin-off litre-bike racing classes in most countries. Sales in the litre bike class were so strong that the Japanese makers had to have a piece of the action, and the R1 was released in 1998, and the GSX-R1000 in 2001. Kawasaki followed with the ZX-10R soon after.

    The Jap makers were still faced with the reality of fielding competitive 750cc bikes against the 1000cc Ducati's. A spate of special (read expensive) homologation models followed as it was clear to the Jap makers that they weren't able to modify their regular 750cc road bikes to defeat the Ducati's. A few Japanese makers went with 1000cc V2's themselves (Honda & Suzuki) in order to beat Ducati at their own game, and Honda at least was successful.

    The reality in the marketplace though was that most people were buying the powerful 1000cc I4's, and not the 750cc or 1000cc V2 homologation specials, and it simply became a matter of economics. Why continue to build and race bikes that very few people were buying all to beat Ducati in a rule-system that favored 1000cc V2's?

    So the Japanese makers pulled out of World Superbike, which in 2003 pretty much just left Suzuki with their 750, and Ducati.

    The market had spoken. The 750cc class was dead, both as a racing class, and as a class of bikes that people wanted to buy. The 1000cc bikes only weighed a few kgs more than the 750cc bikes, but make so much more power.

    So in a brief nutshell, that's why there's no real sporting 750cc bikes on the market. Suzuki persists, probably because the market is large enough to still support and justify at least one 750cc model, and Suzuki through sheer stubborness has managed to be the maker to fill that niche.
  14. I think the niche is growing and the market returning, evidenced by alot of comment on here and elsewhere. The litre bikes are overkill and 600's not enough where you want it most. Be it a 675 triple, 750 I4 or 849 twin, alot of riders want a filckable happy medium. Bring back the ZX7r!!!

    The Yamaha R7 that was a limited release...I don't know if they ever came to Australia...around 1999-2000 era...that was a good looking bike.
  15. Thanks Flux for the detailed response :applause:
  16. Cheers for the info Flux :grin:
  17. Oh, I wholly agree. I think you'll find that I was one of the people making the comments.

    Historically speaking, the old 600cc bikes of the early 1990's made around 85hp at the rear wheel, and the 750cc bikes around 100-105rwhp.

    When the CBR900RR was released in 1992, it put down around 115rwhp. In fact, today's Daytona 675, after compensating for the different revs as per the higher revving smaller engine, has a power curve shape almost identical to the original CBR900RR, albeit about 7rwhp down, but also weighing substantially less. With bike + rider aboard, the 675 accelerates just as hard as the old CBR900RR used to. That's how far engine technology has come in 15 years.

    Even in the last 10 years, the original 1998 R1 put down around 125-130rwhp, and the newer model GSX-R750's have the same sort of peak power, but are naturally a touch weaker in the low-end. Given the lighter weight of the modern 750 though, and you have a bike that is every bit a match of the 1998 R1, and the 1998 R1 was legendary in terms of the way it redefined the sports-bike market. The 1998 R1 was also a bike that many journalists at the time deemed was bordering on "too much power" for average rider on the public road, but that didn't stop the bike being bought, and crashed, in droves.

    Since then litre bikes have gotten even more powerful. Crazily so. We now have bikes with 160rwhp from the store-room floor, which are power levels that the old 750cc superbikes in full factory race trim barely achieved.

    Nowadays, a modern 750cc I4, an 800cc triple (my dream config), or an 850cc twin, pretty much harken back to the days of late 90's litre-bike power, but with a super-sport weight that those old litre-bikes could only dream of achieving, all wrapped in a user-friendly power-delivery.

    Bring on the "maxi-sport" class I say. That class would make much more sense for the public road.

    Sadly though, the phrase "too much power is not enough" is what generally wins sales at the end of the day, and it is evidenced by the number of people who ask me why I "stepped down" from an R1 to a 675. The average wide-eyed bike hoon simply doesn't understand that a perfect balance of power, weight, and handling will match or even trump outright power in far more scenarios than many think.
  18. Always enjoy reading your posts [FLUX], thanks.
  19. Indeed...lol. :wink:

    An interesting side note, while we're on the subject of technological progression and gixxers. The K4/K5 and K6/K7 750's produced similar horsepower, yet the earlier bike produced 65ft/lb's of torque to the newer bike's 56. Has it regressed?
  20. Engine torque output figures, and the interpretation of them is increasingly becoming one of my biggest pet peeves.

    power = torque x rpm

    The torque at the crank though means almost nothing in terms of what you feel in terms of push, because there's the primary drive, gearbox, and final-drive gearing in between.

    If one engine is producing 10Nm of torque, and another engine is producing 20Nm of torque at the crank, this tells you absolutely nothing about the power you'll feel at the rear wheel, because you don't know anything about the final gearing being used.

    If a 10Nm engine is spinning twice as fast as a 20Nm engine, and the gearbox gears the 10Nm engine down twice as much as the 20Nm engine, then to the rider both engines will feel exactly the same, the only difference being that the 10Nm torque providing engine is spinning twice as fast.

    I could make a gearbox sufficient for a mouse on a running wheel to move a locomotive up a hill. A mouse on a running wheel provides a very low torque, yet with sufficient gearing, that locomotive will still move, albeit slowly. Make the mouse run fast enough though (it'd have to be extremely fast), and you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the mouse on the running wheel, or the original diesel engine, in terms of how the locomotive moves.

    So no, a regression in crankshaft torque doesn't necessarily mean a step backwards, so long as the revs are higher by the same amount (or more) that the torque went down by.