2013 zx 636!!!

[Malicious Logic]

Originally Posted by Reswob

If you've never heard of the 636, then frankly you probably don't know the first thing about motorcycles and you are certainly not the market Kawi is aiming for. The 636 pretty much dominated the middleweight category when it was made, and yes, it was all about the extra 37 cc's.

Not sure if this is sarcasm but meh, I agree. I knew about the 636 before I bought my ninja, just from doing my research and it's usually highly praised magazine shootouts. I imagine it's definitely popular for the 600 crowd and racers since the extra power can certainly come in handy.

*shrugs* I'm personally ecstatic that they brought it back and wish I could afford to get one. ABS and traction control might not be new to bikes but manufacturers certainly aren't throwing it out there. I'm not brand loyal at all, btw. I'm actually really wanting a CBR for my next bike due to high reviews on their build quality and the engine's power.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by Kevin2109

So lets start off... 37cc doesnt seem like a lot but its 7% more then a standard 599cc bike, which is generally a 10-20hp advantage over a 599cc engine. This also moves the torque range, most 600's need to be spun above 8k before they have any usable power, the 636 brings that down to about 3-4k.

This is gixxer quality logic. First, 37cc on top of 599cc is 6.1%. Which corresponds almost exactly to the increased torque. Calling that generally 10 - 20 hp advantage over a 599cc engine is poppycock, it was more like 5-7 hp with the same mods done to the 599, which again corresponds almost exactly to the increased displacement. Then saying that a 599cc bike needs to be spun above 8k to have usable power, and a 636cc bike brings it down to 3-4k is equally absurd. The originals were nice bikes, with nice marketing. As the new one will be.

[Jiggles]

[Kevin2109]

Originally Posted by Alex

This is gixxer quality logic. First, 37cc on top of 599cc is 6.1%. Which corresponds almost exactly to the increased torque. Calling that generally 10 - 20 hp advantage over a 599cc engine is poppycock, it was more like 5-7 hp with the same mods done to the 599, which again corresponds almost exactly to the increased displacement. Then saying that a 599cc bike needs to be spun above 8k to have usable power, and a 636cc bike brings it down to 3-4k is equally absurd. The originals were nice bikes, with nice marketing. As the new one will be.

You must be right, its not like I rode a stock 06 zx6r for a month, own a fully modded 06 zx6r, or have ridden a new 2010 zx6r more times then I have fingers...

You cant base your HP numbers between a 2006 zx6r and a 2006 zx6rr, the rr is much different then any other 599 out there, the engine is completely tuned (Timing, ported, polished, and a few other tweaks, along with a redesigned computer)

ok, maybe 10-20 was a little exaggerated but a 06 GSXT put 100-103HP to the wheel vs the 636 at 108-115 stock, with a better torque curve

[Gurk]

Originally Posted by Kevin2109

You must be right, its not like I rode a stock 06 zx6r for a month, own a fully modded 06 zx6r, or have ridden a new 2010 zx6r more times then I have fingers...

You cant base your HP numbers between a 2006 zx6r and a 2006 zx6rr, the rr is much different then any other 599 out there, the engine is completely tuned (Timing, ported, polished, and a few other tweaks, along with a redesigned computer)

ok, maybe 10-20 was a little exaggerated but a 06 GSXT put 100-103HP to the wheel vs the 636 at 108-115 stock, with a better torque curve

There are more hp 599cc bikes than the 06 636. what am i missing?

[Whiskey]

Originally Posted by Gurk

There are more hp 599cc bikes than the 06 636. what am i missing?

Current 600s are putting out almost as much hp as 10 year old thous, technology moves on.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by Kevin2109

You must be right, its not like I rode a stock 06 zx6r for a month, own a fully modded 06 zx6r, or have ridden a new 2010 zx6r more times then I have fingers...

The time you have spent crashing them hasn't helped your math or logic skills. The capabilities of the 636 are exaggerated by all owners of the bike, it reminds me of the spinal tap dude explaining how his amp goes to 11. It is a slightly larger motor. It's not magic.

Originally Posted by Kevin2109

ok, maybe 10-20 was a little exaggerated but a 06 GSXT put 100-103HP to the wheel vs the 636 at 108-115 stock, with a better torque curve

The GSX-R had a pretty weak motor in 06, and the 636 was undoubtedly stronger. But it is again interesting that you feel the Suzuki only varied between 100 - 103, yet the magic 636 went all the way from 108-115.

[Gurk]

Originally Posted by Whiskey

Current 600s are putting out almost as much hp as 10 year old thous, technology moves on.

Was being sarcastic vs Kev's post

[thurt88]

Not a total noob. I heard of the zx6 just didn't know the old ones were 636. Every time I see one now I just think "old @$s bike". Look guys it's just my opinion and I'm not even a 600 fan. Maybe I'm not the target crowd, im more about the liter bikes from kawi but I'm diggin that 300.

[Zombiphone]

Originally Posted by Alex

The time you have spent crashing them hasn't helped your math or logic skills. The capabilities of the 636 are exaggerated by all owners of the bike, it reminds me of the spinal tap dude explaining how his amp goes to 11. It is a slightly larger motor. It's not magic.

This statement is made ten times more hilarious knowing you're currently arguing with the same guy who argued his 636 would destroy the 2012 ZX10 in a drag race

[Jiggles]

Originally Posted by Kevin2109

You must be right, its not like I rode a stock 06 zx6r for a month, own a fully modded 06 zx6r, or have ridden a new 2010 zx6r more times then I have fingers...

You cant base your HP numbers between a 2006 zx6r and a 2006 zx6rr, the rr is much different then any other 599 out there, the engine is completely tuned (Timing, ported, polished, and a few other tweaks, along with a redesigned computer)

ok, maybe 10-20 was a little exaggerated but a 06 GSXT put 100-103HP to the wheel vs the 636 at 108-115 stock, with a better torque curve

Having an unnatural love for one's bike makes it go faster. I base this on science

Also

Originally Posted by alex.s

"no, kevin. you're wrong."

[kingkang204]

I like this thread.

[ninjaone]

These are popping up at dealers now too alongside the new 300. Finally got to sit on one of these and it turns out I don't fit at all. 6 foot with long legs and long arms it was way too cramped. Such a shame because I really wanted to like it, it seems like a great package.

Just FYI in case anyone else was looking to check these out too.

[choneofakind]

So is more like the R6 ergos? I sat on csmith12's R6 in a parking lot. It's tiny.

[backinthesaddleagain]

Sat on the green and blk one Saturday quite trick. $2600 more than a left over 600 though. That's a lot of track days and or mods. Can't get it out of my mind though.

[sharky nrk]

That commercial is awesome

[backinthesaddleagain]

Originally Posted by sharky nrk

That commercial is awesome

Hell yeah.

[Boom King]

The reviews are just starting to roll out:

Cycleworld
Motorcycle.com
Motorcycle USA
Motorcycle Daily

[Whiskey]

Ten grand sterling... Are they fcukin joking that's over 16k USD

For another 200 quid you can get a brand new Ducati 848

[choneofakind]

It's listed at $11,699 here. I guess things are just more expensive in the UK.

[DM2790]

I love these bikes. I know a guy who just bought one of these in blue. He loves it. Definitely considering this bike for my next purchase.

[Kevin2109]

Originally Posted by DM2790

I love these bikes. I know a guy who just bought one of these in blue. He loves it. Definitely considering this bike for my next purchase.

then he didnt buy a 2013... because it doesnt come in blue

[backinthesaddleagain]

I like it. But. I can get a leftover 2011 zx10 for $100 more and a bit less insurance cost. Hmmmm. 2great bikes but that 1000 is tempting.

[ninjaone]

Looks like cycle world did a dyno test on these, results seem a little underwhelming especially considering the price increase:

http://www.cycleworld.com/2012/11/28...-6r-dyno-test/

[Jiggles]

Originally Posted by ninjaone

Looks like cycle world did a dyno test on these, results seem a little underwhelming especially considering the price increase:

http://www.cycleworld.com/2012/11/28...-6r-dyno-test/

For sure, power is the only real thing that matters with these, who cares about those suspension upgrades and traction control. At 112hp this is a pussy cat

[choneofakind]

The tests were done on two different dyno's. They might as well be comparing apples and oranges, because dyno's are all different.

[ninjaone]

Originally Posted by Jiggles

For sure, power is the only real thing that matters with these, who cares about those suspension upgrades and traction control. At 112hp this is a pussy cat

Traction control I can go either way on for a bike with less then 50 torque anyway.

Suspension upgrades are a bit of a wash price and component wise. My understanding of the slipper clutch are it's actually a downgrade from the previous generation. The older generation already had BPF, so I'm not sure how much it's worth putting the adjustments on the top but it's a nice feature. Also they deleted the steering damper as standard equipment.

Adding displacement to break the rules of the 600 supersport class I was expecting a bit more in terms of raw numbers, that's all.

[choneofakind]

Again, differing dynos show different results. You can run the same bike on two different dynos and get numbers that are significantly different.

If the first dyno read high and the second dyno reads low, that would account for your lack of impressive raw numbers.

[NJfinest50]

http://www.iol.co.za/motoring/bikes/...4#.UMU98bbW7h0

[Alex]

?

[choneofakind]

I think you've been living under a rock for while.

[dave42]

Oh goody!

[NJfinest50]

Nope just thought I would shara an article written about it.

[Alex]

/merged

[ninjaone]

MotorTrend did a pretty vacuous comparison on the 2012 vs the 2013. Not much information except the 2013 is more street friendly. Again the dyno shows nearly no gains in terms of peak hp or torque, it must have all go to mid range but he didn't even comment on that at all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2NRPBjLlTY

[slowninja]

This looks like the Isle of Man in Ireland.

[Daks]

Wtf is with the need to make everything look "sharp"?

Call me old-fashioned, but I miss the look of older, more rounded fairings.
The more edges it gets, the more it looks like some plasticy toy.

*knows little about specs of various bikes but will bemoan modern styling to the grave*

[ninjaone]

Originally Posted by Daks

Wtf is with the need to make everything look "sharp"?

Call me old-fashioned, but I miss the look of older, more rounded fairings.
The more edges it gets, the more it looks like some plasticy toy.

*knows little about specs of various bikes but will bemoan modern styling to the grave*

I agree with you there. I hate the modern "transformers" trend with bikes which is absolutely everywhere from Ducati to Honda. I understand it might be more aerodynamic or whatever, but if designers took more creative license with their designs we'd have some more interesting and desirable bikes on the market no question about it.

Two of my favorite designs

Honda's VFR 750R:



Ducati's 900SS:



Honda's CB1000R and the Panigale are both incredibly ugly in my opinion and a far cry from what these companies are capable of designing bike-wise.

[Daks]

Originally Posted by ninjaone

I agree with you there. I hate the modern "transformers" trend with bikes which is absolutely everywhere from Ducati to Honda. I understand it might be more aerodynamic or whatever, but if designers took more creative license with their designs we'd have some more interesting and desirable bikes on the market no question about it.

Two of my favorite designs

Honda's VFR 750R:



Ducati's 900SS:



Honda's CB1000R and the Panigale are both incredibly ugly in my opinion and a far cry from what these companies are capable of designing bike-wise.

They don't need to look that old school, though I do like them. They just don't need to look so....complicated? They look unfinished. Don't even get me started on modern "naked" bikes. Look like crushed bugs.