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.

ZXR250 vs. CBR250 Review

Discussion in 'Bike Reviews, Questions and Suggestions' at netrider.net.au started by TOMatoPASTE, Mar 25, 2008.

  1. just a quick comparo for anyone considering a zxr250 or cbr250 while its still fresh in my mind...(these observations are based on my relatively restricted experience with my zxr, a mates zxr and a mates cbr which iv ridden)

    ZXR PRO'S: much larger in general (pro/con), seems to have smoother more responsive throttle response, scorching top end, audio (roars in the lower ~10 thousand, sounds like a bloody F1 car screaming past any higher than that, gets deafening at the upper few thousand k before red line), smooth responsive steering, more 'sporty' riding position and i think higher pegs, twin discs up front (vs cbr 1), more suspension adjustment, feels like its on rails around corners (sometimes not a good thing when you direct those rails at the wrong point haha)

    CON'S: more sporty position (ouch! after several hours), bigger (heavier?) (again, pro/con depending on individual), seems to take a tad longer off the line (ie in the lower rpm range, this could also be clutch related with my bike), the position, although sporty, doesnt seem to be confidence inspiring compared to the cbr but i would say is more rewarding when you push yourself, ROCK hard seat :S

    CBR PRO'S: comfort! much plusher seat and upright riding position, this seems to lend itself to confidence when pushing, smaller (pro/con), audio (both bikes sound awesome, the cbr is more of a high pitch scream compared to the kwaka roar. it is also noticeably quieter than the zxr while riding), generally comes in a greater range of colour schemes and more availability.

    CBR CON'S: slightly lower spec (ie single disc up front, less suspension adjustment. i assume engines are effectively equivalent), smaller (pro/con), less focused riding position (pro/con), less coverage by fairings and screen (the screen is just crap compared to the zxr to be honest), common (zxr is bit more interesting you might say, very personal though, as is the styling)

    Well thats about as much as i can think about at the moment. Hope that helps some of you! I know how hard the choice was when getting my bike but i must say that, with heindsight, i am very happy that i ended up with the kwaka and would repeat the choice if given the chance (maybe the C version if i had the cash :p haha)

    Everyone feel free to add your own comparative experiences, try and avoid commenting if you dont have experience with both bikes. Cheers

    p.s. fuel consumption differences with these bikes are just stupid. I generally ride the most sedately around town out of my mates and get lowish (comparitively) k's out of the tank and my mate who rides like a nut everywhere gets the highest milleage by far! id suggest a nice tune up if your worried bout it
  2. Good review although you are comparing the ZXR to the CBR250R. The RR is the later version with twin discs, a different riding position, different swing arm and other minor differences. Seeing the R's were '89 the engine would be a lot worse than a '99 RR.
  3. How so? They're both very similar 40ps engines and given a '99 RRs engine would have been built sometime between '94 and '96 there's not that big an age difference between the two either (at least not enough for that to be more important than the condition of the bike).
  4. 7 years, especially when it is comparing 19 years old to 12 years old can make quite a significant difference to an engine
  5. 10 more years of the chance of thrashing and lack of proper servicing. Not to mention the only official imports were late 90s.

    IMO the condition of these bikes is more relevant than which model is best. Comparing these bikes back to back, the best one to buy is the one in best condition.
  6. Exactly, which is why I wouldn't go assuming the older bike is necessarily worse. In fact given most racer-wannabes are drawn more to the RR model an R model may in fact been thrashed a lot less - so I wouldn't go passing one up just because of its age.
  7. I did heeps of research before buying my ZXR250.

    I think the CBR250RR & ZXR250 from an engine perspective are very similar, depending which article you read one is a little faster than the other (although I'm yet to be betten by a CBR250RR or RS125).

    Where the ZXR250 stands its ground is the suspension. Its the same rig used on the ZXR750 of the day fully adjustable and is what helps the bike grab those rails you talk of.

    If you are on a A series the C series has severla steep ups and you will find an even better bike, what may be stalling your take off is the chain. As soon as I upgraded to a Bling XW gold chain my take off improved instantly.

    I agree the ZXR250 looks better, though I wounder if more ZXR and less CBR on the street would we think the opposite.

    I think without the riding skills I have mastered on my ZXR250 I would be ready for my next bike ZX6R (can't wait!)
  8. I'm pretty sure anyone who actually wanted to beat you could, but most people don't use every set of traffic lights as a race start. :LOL:
  9. haha .... read the specs. The CBR250RR model used the same 45 bhp engine as the CBR250RR model. it was one of the few things that never changed between the two. in 1994 however the engine was modified to comply to japanese law and i was restricted by 5 bhp.

    so the difference between the two is that a CBR250R or CBR250RR pre 1994 model is better than a 1999 model.

    i went out and got myself a 1990 model CBR250RR and it goes pretty quick. my brother bought a suzuki across and those things are really slow in comparison.
  10. Go the little cibblet! hehe

    You're right though , a tune should make a difference in mileage. Mine used to get me the same no matter how hard or soft it was ridden.