400cc

[HondaMonk]

Hi,

anyone got information on the timings for the 400cc bikes' 0-100km/h sprint? Would like to know the timing for RVF, CBR-RL, CBR-RN, GSX400, ZXR400. thanks

[Korn]

CBR400 - 55bhp @ r/w - 13.5 seconds 1/4 mile @ 105mph - Top speed 128mph
VFR400 - 57bhp @ r/w - 12.3 seconds 1/4 mile @ 110mph - Top speed 135mph
RVF400 - 58bhp @ r/w - 12.1 seconds 1/4 mile @ 115mph - Top speed 140mph
ZXR400 - 57bhp @ r/w - 12.9 seconds 1/4 mile @ 109mph - Top speed 145mph
GSXR400 - 54bhp @ r/w - 13.2 seconds 1/4 mile @ 98mph - Top speed 125mph

Sorry couldn't find 0-60 times for many of them, 1/4 mile sprint is generally used in motorcycles instead of the 0-60 like with cars.

[Dan]

korn how much are you paying in insurance for your RVF? are you 18?

[Korn]

I paid £700 TPFT with £0 excess. When I took out the policy I was 18, 0 no-claims and 0 convictions. Bike Garaged.

[Scooby]

Hey Korn, how come 0 no claims??? Did you claim when you had the NSR??? Or couldn't you be arsed to wait for the NSR insurance to run out???

L8rs
____________________
A big enough hammer fixes anything!

[bikerboy]

does the insur go down even more if you have 0 convictions??
____________________
It's time to race!!! here i come!!!

[Dan]

that ant bad where from? what was it for fully comp?

[HondaMonk]

thanks! but thought the RVF is restricted to only 53, due to the jap laws??

[TiN]

The RVF should only be restricted electronically (I think), so it's just a case of snipping a wire, or shelling out for a little black box...

Tin

[batman]

hey kornel, what do ya reckon yourself, i want an rs250, but due to not being any over here and no1 to service, im lookin at an rvf
the rs should be quicker, but is the rvf really as fast as the claim above??
if it is, i may consider it over the rs, relaibility is a very tempting thing, as i will be usin it all the time and i amnt loaded!
although i will lose out on the 'look at the crappy 250, lets race that' fun :wink:

[Korn]

The RVF would bury the RS250, I've had a go with a few of them and there's no comparing the two in straight line speed

More usable power compared to the thin power band plus it's a few horses up at the peak (think the rs250 is 55bhp @ r/w). The RS would have sharper handling and be more flickable but overall I'd go for the four stroke, on usable power and reliability, plus you don't want to be riding around on something which sounds like a gerbil fart do you?

[Dan]

how much can u get pick them up for second hand korn? do they still make erm? ( what about the insurance details fully comp what company?) cheers
dan

[batman]

i knew the rs was faster than the other 400's over a 1/4 mile, but didnt realsie the rvf was that fast! jeez, it must go like a fuckin bullet
u have sewn the seeds of doubt, i may take dearer insurance and get the rvf(although a fireblade has same insurance for me in ireland!! 3700 quid 22 one year no claims!!)
i am truly lost!

[zaknafien]

omg if i could get insured (and legally ride) a fireblade i'd have one without a second thought, no matter what body part i had to sell.
____________________
02 Firestorm.

[batman]

maybe not legally!
in ireland u cant legally ride anythin above 33bhp until u have a full licence for 2 years!
nobody obeys this shit law, so im unsure what to do! but im gettin somethin faster!

[minesweeper]

Dont worry batman no one over here seems to obey it either

matt

[Korn]

[batman]

i have essential superbikes which clocked the (new model) rs 250 at 12.4 1/4 mile@113mph, 0-60 in 3.37 and 60bhp at rear wheel, it has 5 bhp more than the 1994-1998 model, so it should have all the other 400's :D

[Scooby]

Hehe whatever you say....my money's on the RVF
____________________
A big enough hammer fixes anything!

[TiN]

Most of the reviews that I have read say that the RS250 will make a great 2nd bike, but not so good for everyday use...and the sub 30 mpg from the RGV engine doesn't help either!

...so, if you want an everyday, every occasion bike, then a 400 should be the way to go...but obviously it's up to you...I reckon that you might spend a lot more on a 2-stroker 250 than a 4-pot 400...

...but my opinions don't really count for much in this case 'cos I haven't ridden either types of bike...

Tin

[Stevo]

There really isnt much between a 250 2 stroke, and a 400 4 stroke on the road. They both have similar power, but the likely outcome is fractionally better acceleration on the 2 stroke but more top end speed with the 400. The dependant factor is usually the rider, but ride magazine tested an RVF against a whole load of other bikes including an RS250 and they said it was the best handling and possibly the quickest on a twisty stretch of road. Where as 400's are revvy if not peaky, then the two stroke is much harder to ride. You only have 2-3k rpm band to play with at the most, so if the rider isnt right on the ball, and gets the gear selection out for one or two bends then the 400 has got im. The midrange will pull fairly well on the 4 stroke, but get one gear two high on a stroker and it will flop into corners, without being able to be picked up and powered out, unless the rider abuses the clutch. Overall as i said there aint much in it, but quite obviously the 250 stroker is harder to ride fast. When it comes to racing a Supersport 400 class will always favour the strokers, as a 250 is more capable of higher power output than a 400 four stroke.

[Stew]

Did anyone else read themarch 2002 issue of Bike magazine. In there they compared a RVF400(1997), a ZXR400R(1998), and a RS250(1997).

The only time the dyno recorded the Power (bhp) of the RS higher than the other 2 bikes was in the range of 9000-10000 rpm at which point the RS also produced more torque. However the other 2 bikes produced a much broader range of power and torque (as expected being 400 vs 250?) making these bikes more usable in general road use.

top speeds
RS250.................137mph
RVF400NC35........135.7mph
ZXR400R..............139mph

standing 1/4 mile
RS250..................12.8s
RVF400NC35.........13.14s
ZXR400R..............12.9s

May I also say that all the tested bikes were used bikes and the RVF was desribed as needing attention. General testers opinion was to go for the ZXR400R (the R version apparently is a bit rarer and has a few extra trick bits that the ZXR400 doesnt usually have).
My opinion would be to go for a Honda V-Four as the make the best sounds, and have loads of usable low end grunt.

[batman]

i love the looks of the rs, its why i bought the 125!
and also the new rs as i said has 5 bhp over 1997 model
however, i think the rvf is the better option, now, even though the insurance is insanely high. the accelration difference is not huge anyway, and the fact that it is more user freindly, easier to ride fast, and about 20 billion times more reliable, means that unless i have a tankload of money come the summertime, ill be buyin an rvf!

[zaknafien]

the RS is nice apart from when you look at it head on or slightly from the side, then it looks like a bloated fish.
____________________
02 Firestorm.

[Keen]

I like the look of the RS, but I love the early 90's styling on the 400's! they look fantastic.