C14 Prices Announced

[Midlifefjr]

1) Its a Kawaski - not exactly the dependability champ

2) Its f"ing ugly (well not as pretty anyway)

3) It's be like dating a girl with a lisp

<_< <_<

 

[mike25]

1) Its a Kawaski - not exactly the dependability champ2) Its f"ing ugly (well not as pretty anyway)

3) [SIZE=12pt]It's be like dating a girl with a lisp[/SIZE]

<_< <_<

Yea, but she has huge ****.

 

[twowheelnut]

It's heavier and the power difference ain't enough to overcome the pork. Plus, it's down on range.

Based on what? Kawaski hasn't published any weights. While it looks like a slightly bigger bike than the FJR, it's also a six-year-newer design and they could have easily matched or even bested the FJR's weight. And while they're down 0.8 gallons on gas, I'd bet a dollar to a donut, they get an easy 5 mpg better than the FJR with the VVT and more advanced engine management system. That would make range about a wash.

We'll have to wait and see.

- Mark

Based on the Euro sites published weights. They put it at 279 KG dry or 615 lbs v. 582 for the FJR. 33 lbs is a chunk, IMO and the added power won't overcome the difference. Plus, the Euro sites don't define if that weight is for the ABS or non version. We'll have to wait and see about the mileage. I think it won't be better...

 

[fjrchik]

That 3 year warranty would be nice.

Thats all i can give it. I paid less for my ABS 06 than they start the 14 at without ABS. And its too ugly to even consider.

 

[twowheelnut]

That 3 year warranty would be nice.
Thats all i can give it. I paid less for my ABS 06 than they start the 14 at without ABS. And its too ugly to even consider.

Yeah, but you make any bike look good!

 

[Flyguy]

It's heavier and the power difference ain't enough to overcome the pork. Plus, it's down on range.

Based on what? Kawaski hasn't published any weights. While it looks like a slightly bigger bike than the FJR, it's also a six-year-newer design and they could have easily matched or even bested the FJR's weight. And while they're down 0.8 gallons on gas, I'd bet a dollar to a donut, they get an easy 5 mpg better than the FJR with the VVT and more advanced engine management system. That would make range about a wash.

We'll have to wait and see.

- Mark

Don't have to wait. TWN is spot on. 679lbs which is +25 to 35 depending on your mag of choice. And that appears to e without ABS which will add another 10-13lbs.

Fuel economy will be a tough mark to better especially considering Kaw chose a 3.333 first gear to make sure the extra weight got off the line. Good for motorvation but bad for fuel economy.

I'll take that bet. An easy 5 mph better than these numbers? I think not . . . but would be neat if they could!

Method:

I used a running start at the chosen speed. The "average mpg" was reset at the start and recorded at the finish. The test run was 8 miles of very level road that formed a "U" shape thereby negating any wind effect. The throttle lock was tensioned before hitting the reset and there was about a mile runup prior to the startline to settle on the speed.

Conditions:

Bike 2006 FJR AE

Temp 77f

Wind calm

Fuel 87 ron

Tires BT020

Rear 42psi

Front 39psi

Rider 225lbs

Results:

MPH - MPG

50 - 59.0

55 - 57.8

60 - 56.5

65 - 54.8

70 - 52.2

75 - 50.0

80 - 48.6

85 - 46.1

90 - 43.4

 

[markjenn]

I looked up the Euro FJR site and they do publish a dry weight of 614 lbs for the ABS model. Yamaha publishes 582-lb for the A, so assuming they're both equally fudge-factored, that gives the FJR a 32-lb weight advantage. It's not trivial, but it's not that much either.

And there is absolutely no way a 32-lb weight advantage is going to keep things even on accleration, not even close. The Kawi is reported to be making about 145-hp at the rear wheel, an easy 20-25 over the FJR. It's going to be a lot faster. And with the VVT, it should have a much stouter midrange.

We'll have to wait and see but with the six-speed box and VVT, I fully expect the C14 to do significantly better on mileage. Given that a bike spends about 1% of its riding time in 1st gear, a difference here is going to have zip effect on mileage. What matters is turning lower RPMs in cruise and optimized cam timing for different loads and RPMs, both areas that the C14 should hold an advantage.

While there will undoubtedly be some teething problems the first year, just like there were with the FJR, you really have to be splitting hairs to draw any meaningful quality differences between the big-four Japanese mfgs. these days. They're all ultra-competitive with one another, all use the same suppliers, and even share assembly plants on some models. So it's no surprise that they're all roughly equally reliable as a marque.

- Mark

 

[shokdimn]

Now we’re talking! :bike:

 

[Constant Mesh]

The Kaw's max power is listed as 114 KW which is 153 hp. So it's not all that much stronger than the FJR. The max torques are almost identical.

Kaw engine size = 1352 cc

FJR = 1298 cc

4.2 % more displacement but torque is only 1.3 % more, 100.3 versus 99 lb ft.

I'd expect the Kaw will be stronger in the lower rpm's due to the VVT.

 

[Feejer/Weejer man]

I don't have the figures for the FJR but I think with the bags on the C14 is wider than the FJR

 

[boogahboogah]

Geez, I really don't see what all the fuss is about... A company with a lousy build quality & customer dis-service history build a fugly bike with a few more ponies & all of a sudden my wonderful FJR is last year's goombah ? I don't think so. I can't forget mammy yammie fixing all tickers even if out of warranty. Think the Kaw folks would do that ? LOL

 

[twowheelnut]

The Kaw's max power is listed as 114 KW which is 153 hp. So it's not all that much stronger than the FJR. The max torques are almost identical.
Kaw engine size = 1352 cc

FJR = 1298 cc

4.2 % more displacement but torque is only 1.3 % more, 100.3 versus 99 lb ft.

I'd expect the Kaw will be stronger in the lower rpm's due to the VVT.

True and I might add that 8 ponies might make a difference if I coulda added that to a 1968 Rupp mini bike, not so much this machine. The weight just ate that gain up.

 

[FlyingLow]

I think some very fine hairs are being split in this thread. For the average rider [most of us] we are looking at comparable pricing, and minimal differences in acceleration and gas mileage.

The decider [besides individual brand loyalty] that is going to win out is styling and this is hands down no contest.

As a long time time subscriber to Cycle World I do look forward to the first head to head comparo, though.

 

[markjenn]

Think the Kaw folks would do that ?

Probably. Or maybe they would have proactively recalled the bike and/or not taken four years of stonewalling to (perhaps) fix it. You're really streatching to now look back at the Yamaha ticking debacle as some kind of indicator of superior customer service.

The decider [besides individual brand loyalty] that is going to win out is styling and this is hands down no contest.
As a long time time subscriber to Cycle World I do look forward to the first head to head comparo, though.

Just like the GT, the Kawi will probably win. The latest bike usually does.

Styling is entirely up to the individual so pretty hard to "hands down" declare a winner there.

Hey, I own a FJR and think it's a great bike. It's proven, refined, and a great value. But time marches on, other competitors show up, and they usually up the ante as BMW did with the GT and Kawaski is now doing with the C14. Yamaha will respond or they'll do like Kawasaki did with the old Concours and keep throwing out a non-competitive design for twenty years to a every-smaller market. In any event, I'm pleased to welcome Kawaski to the party with a competitive bike. It makes everybody better.

- Mark

 

[mmonroe]

Geez, I really don't see what all the fuss is about... A company with a lousy build quality & customer dis-service history

I have had numerous Kawasaki's and ridden them all hard and fast. I have had great reliability from them and found the build quality to be excellent. On the ZX-14 boards, there are guys that drag race and thrash their bikes HARD and most all of them have virtually no problems. Many, if not most of these, are "first year" ZX-14's with no problems.

I love my 07 FJR, however, there is always room for another bike in my garage and a C14 might be nice addition.

Mark

 

[Flyguy]

I looked up the Euro FJR site and they do publish a dry weight of 614 lbs for the ABS model. Yamaha publishes 582-lb for the A, so assuming they're both equally fudge-factored, that gives the FJR a 32-lb weight advantage. It's not trivial, but it's not that much either.
And there is absolutely no way a 32-lb weight advantage is going to keep things even on accleration, not even close. The Kawi is reported to be making about 145-hp at the rear wheel, an easy 20-25 over the FJR. It's going to be a lot faster. And with the VVT, it should have a much stouter midrange.

- Mark

1. Acceleration is a function of HP/weight ratio. The ratio's are identical at 4.01 (dry) 4.4 (wet) so as far as the engine and chassis is concerned you are absolutely incorrect. The C-14 has yet to be dyno tested by an independent group as far as I know. Where did you come up with 145 RWHP? That would be only a 8hp loss from the shaft, or 5.2% from Kaw's own figure. Expected loss from shaft driven helical gears is 10% at best and probably closer to 12% total.

2. The Kaw has used VVT as a means of beefing up the torque at lower RPM's on a design that has been adapted from a platform intended to turn out max HP at higher RPM's and much higher compression. They are essentially compensating for an inherent design difference. The FJR was specifically designed with a 66mm stroke to haul heavy weight at low RPM's and low compression where Kaw chose a 60mm (10% shorter) stroke for lighter weight loads and better high RPM, high compression and ultimate HP capability. Perfect for the ZX mission. A challange at the SST weights especially since they also decided to use the lower compression to allow the use of lower octane fuels. They could have made a lot of power hungry riders happy and chosen the BMW road - 12.8 compression/60mm stroke. Would have made a much meaner (and fuel efficient) engine but only with expensive fuel. Lower compression extracts less energy from the fuel charge. Did they make the right choice? I think so, but I'm not a got-to-have-the-most-power guy. The large HP loss from the original design is understandable. I can see the real crazies putting in ZX pistons or whatever reversing whatever Kaw did to drop the compression. Hmmm, high compression AND VVT, That should be ornry!

Whether VVT has enough effectiveness to overcome the shorter stroke and lower compression only a dyno will tell. If it does though, it's my guess it wouldn't be by much.

So the FJR and the C-14 will be equal off the line? Nope. The gearing in the C-14 is very short and will certainly get the extra weight moving but it will be a much earlier shift than on the ZX or the FJR. At the other end the top gears are close to the FJR so forget about any fuel economy advantage , if the numbers in Superbike are correct.

CORRECTION The final drive was changed to reflect a 2.036 ratio instead of the 2.41 off the ZX which lowers top gear about 360 rpm. That WILL save a few coins and put the C14 in with the FJR. The new range is caculated to reflect that.

 

[shokdimn]

Geez, I really don't see what all the fuss is about...

No fuss from me. I like the feejer and love its looks, and I like to talk “shop” about bikes, but I’m not searching for the “cutting edge” SST. In any event, the GTR is on my “dream sheet” of bikes to own—for a while. Still, if it doesn’t pass muster on a test ride I’ll be looking to greener pastures.

A company with a lousy build quality

Yeah…know what ya mean. There’s an "ole boy" a couple miles down the road that still rides his (original owner I think) 70’s model Z1. :rsc: Who knows, maybe he’s expecting it to fail him any decade now! :no:

On a side note, found an article, “2006 Super Sport Touring Faceoff”, on MotorcycleUSA that posted a weight (sans fuel), on page 3, for the 06A and the GT.

:bike:

 

[Constant Mesh]

The dual throttle valve setup on the Kaw may offer a less touchy throttle response.

I'm expecting the 2008 FJR will have a throttle-by-wire system similar to the R1 and R6. Maybe they'll improve the throttle response with that system. Also the spring tension on the throttle grip would be reduced with that system.

 

[ZZR12]

At least one thing about the C14 is an undisputed fact: that single can is an abomination. Big STs are supposed to be dual exhaust, period.

That said, IMO all these build quality rants are unfounded. I've got two Kawis, and my wife has an '04 FRJa. Now, the FJR is certainly a cut above in terms of fit and finish and detailing compared to my '02 ZZR1200, but mechanically and functionally, there is nothing at all to be faulted with the ZZR - it's solid, well-built, and reliable.

Now, my other Kawi, an '07 ZX-14, is every bit as good as the FJR in terms of fit & finish and detailing. I see no reason to believe the C14 will be any worse.

Regarding fuel economy, well, let's just hope that VVT and gearing works some magic, because the ZX-14 is a thirsty pig, even taking it very easy. If I'm riding very conservatively, I can just barely sustain 39-40mpg in 6th at highway cruising speeds. That's with no luggage, no power-robbing shaft, alot less weight, and me tucked-in most of the time.

As much as I love my ZX-14, I just can't get excited about the c14... I think if I needed to replace my ZZR with another touring bike, it would be an FJR... I must confess to enveying my wife's bike a bit.

 

[Flyguy]

The ZX also has 12:1 compression where the C14 has 10.7:1 - that hurts power and milage. The offseting factor in favor of the C14 is a tall 6th and VVT although Kaw wants to use it for boosting the low end performance. You can configure it for performance OR economy but not both. Will be interesting to see what they did.