ER-6n

[JokerSeven]

Has anyone seen the ER-6n up close. The more I see it, the more I like it.
I have never rode the 650 parrallel twin. How does it compair to a 600 inline-four.

This ER-6n looks like fun

[ScraitT]

In general, twins have more midrange and are a bit more torquey, while I4s have more in the high-end. A twin you can usually feel the power and bike pull as soon as you give it gas, while an I4 you have to get to the upper end up the RPM range before you really feel the bikes power.
For racing, the bike usually stays exclusively in the upper RPMs, which is why so many bikes use I4s. Bikes like Ducatis that use twins usually have lower RPM ranges to stay in the power zone of the engine and usually accel out of corners a bit better then the I4s.

One major difference though is that most 600s you look at with I4s are race based machines with high performance engines. The ER6n is not, so it's twin isn't trying to put out the numbers that it could (if it was designed to race). So in comparing say a ninja 6r to the ER6n, there just isn't a comparison.

I personally would love a 650 for its slower yet torquey engine. It makes the bike fun without getting you in trouble as easily (it still is extremely fast though).

If anyone knows more or anything I sad is wrong, please chime in

[JokerSeven]

Thanks Tyler,

Having just sold my R6 a few months back, I can appreciate the high end performance you are talking about with the I4. I really want to test ride the 650 twin. I'm thinking the Ninja 650R or the ER-6n will be in my sights soon.

[Daeldren]

Also you may want to look at a BMW fs800 (800cc parallel twin) sweet bikes. However I do agree the ninja 650 looks like fun.

[sharky nrk]

I have saddled up on a er6n and really kinda liked it, feels smaller than a 650R. It has some odd instrument panel and the styling is polarizing at best. having spent about 500 miles on 650R and owning a 6R I feel like I can add some insight. Comfort obviously is much better on the 650R. Its narrower and more upright doesn't demand you to pretzel up. Its a solid bike for multi-purposing. The suspension and brakes are not up to the level of a supersport but feel adequate. The motor is a torquey thing for sure. Down low it will stomp a 600cc inline four. To clarify, if you start both bikes in the same gear, at the same low (read like 3k-4k) rpms, and throttle stop it - the 650R will up and start walking on a 6R. Once you get into the 6Rs powerband it will suck up the difference and easily walk on by the parallel twin. But we are talking the difference between 65 rwhp and 100 rwhp, its to be expected. Its very linear and seamless in its power delivery, and almost more intimidating to grab a fistful of throttle at times due to the here now torque delivery. I personally think that a modded up 650R would be a hell of a fun bike for sure. Also I saw well over 50 mpg from the 650R and my 6R is lucky to stay in the 40s even when putting around.

[Davidb1986]

I like the ER-6N though I'm not a fan of naked bikes. It has kinda grown on me and it might be my next bike.

[ckholloway]

Originally Posted by ScraitT

In general, twins have more midrange and are a bit more torquey, while I4s have more in the high-end. A twin you can usually feel the power and bike pull as soon as you give it gas, while an I4 you have to get to the upper end up the RPM range before you really feel the bikes power.
For racing, the bike usually stays exclusively in the upper RPMs, which is why so many bikes use I4s. Bikes like Ducatis that use twins usually have lower RPM ranges to stay in the power zone of the engine and usually accel out of corners a bit better then the I4s.

One major difference though is that most 600s you look at with I4s are race based machines with high performance engines. The ER6n is not, so it's twin isn't trying to put out the numbers that it could (if it was designed to race). So in comparing say a ninja 6r to the ER6n, there just isn't a comparison.

I personally would love a 650 for its slower yet torquey engine. It makes the bike fun without getting you in trouble as easily (it still is extremely fast though).

If anyone knows more or anything I sad is wrong, please chime in

I am going to have to disagree and yet agree with you all at the same time. First of I have no problem with the parallel twins, all of them I have ridden have been fun bikes including the little 250. Yes an I4 does have more top end power then a parallel but they also have power in the low end. The zx6, gixxer600, and R6 are all race tuned motors and thats why they ride in the top end (this is were I agree with you) because they are in there upper RPM range all the time. Take zx7, gixxer750 or any of the liter bike and they are all crazy off the bottom end. I can't speak for the zx14 because I haven't had the pleasure of riding one but my hayabusa feels like it's ripping your arms out of there sockets from 2k all the way 10.5k which is when it starts to level out. So back to the subject of agreeing and yet disagreeing, I agree that 600 I4's have all there power in the high end= I agree. All I4's having all there power in the top end= disagree.

[sharky nrk]

Originally Posted by ckholloway

I am going to have to disagree and yet agree with you all at the same time. First of I have no problem with the parallel twins, all of them I have ridden have been fun bikes including the little 250. Yes an I4 does have more top end power then a parallel but they also have power in the low end. The zx6, gixxer600, and R6 are all race tuned motors and thats why they ride in the top end (this is were I agree with you) because they are in there upper RPM range all the time. Take zx7, gixxer750 or any of the liter bike and they are all crazy off the bottom end. I can't speak for the zx14 because I haven't had the pleasure of riding one but my hayabusa feels like it's ripping your arms out of there sockets from 2k all the way 10.5k which is when it starts to level out. So back to the subject of agreeing and yet disagreeing, I agree that 600 I4's have all there power in the high end= I agree. All I4's having all there power in the top end= disagree.

Definately not to start any kind or an argument but its most definately not the I4 motor configuration that is delivering that power down low in your post, its the increased displacement. There are many many items to discuss in why and how a powerband is shaped. Bore and stroke considerations, rod/stroke ratios, piston design, pin orientation, and many other things have effects on piston speed and stress. Then you have, cylinder head flow, valve setup and timing, camshaft selection, ect ect ect ect.

Typically, I4 setups have been chosen for a several of reasons. One that plays a large role in our conversation about powerbands comes from using short stroke setups that have geometry, weight, and balance to turn many RPMs. The simple way to look at is it, a single punch from a piston produces a torque. The torque value is in direct relation to the size of the punch. A bigger punch, the more torque regardless of where you are in the powerband. The more revolutions, the more punches you get, the more punches the more overall horsepower. Take a 1000cc displacement. You can have any reasonable number of pistons in many orientations. But lets take a parallel twin and and I4. To have the same 1000cc, the bore and stroke of the twin have to have a larger piston and/or a longer stroke. Both of these will drive stresses up and piston speeds increase, limiting revolution ceilings. Less revolutions, less punches to add up, and generally less overall power.

[SteveL]

The Ninja 650R and the ER6 N are the same bike the 6 n is just the naked version. I had a test ride in the Ninja 650R last year road well a bit noisy much better gear change than the 250R and stiffer front end. There was a fair amount of vibration and plenty of low end torque in the end I bought a GSX 650 F the in line four is a better motor all round

Steve

[JokerSeven]

Thx for the input guys

[maglin]

Here in Greece is very popular.

It's low and mid end power it's able to kill an I4 600 with more horsepower in a full throttle start.

Here's the most modified one in our forum..


http://www.youtube.com/user/stratisp.../7/C71p5SxHh9o

[ckholloway]

Originally Posted by sharky nrk

Definately not to start any kind or an argument but its most definately not the I4 motor configuration that is delivering that power down low in your post, its the increased displacement. There are many many items to discuss in why and how a powerband is shaped. Bore and stroke considerations, rod/stroke ratios, piston design, pin orientation, and many other things have effects on piston speed and stress. Then you have, cylinder head flow, valve setup and timing, camshaft selection, ect ect ect ect.

Typically, I4 setups have been chosen for a several of reasons. One that plays a large role in our conversation about powerbands comes from using short stroke setups that have geometry, weight, and balance to turn many RPMs. The simple way to look at is it, a single punch from a piston produces a torque. The torque value is in direct relation to the size of the punch. A bigger punch, the more torque regardless of where you are in the powerband. The more revolutions, the more punches you get, the more punches the more overall horsepower. Take a 1000cc displacement. You can have any reasonable number of pistons in many orientations. But lets take a parallel twin and and I4. To have the same 1000cc, the bore and stroke of the twin have to have a larger piston and/or a longer stroke. Both of these will drive stresses up and piston speeds increase, limiting revolution ceilings. Less revolutions, less punches to add up, and generally less overall power.

I agree 100% with all of that. I just wanted it know that I4's are more then capable of producing insane amounts of torque. I like all motorcycle and all different types of engine configurations, but there is nothing (that I have found so far) the gives that hang on for your life feel like a big I4. All motors have there place and it's just a shame that I am not independently wealthy and can't have one of each..

[sharky nrk]

^^ indeed

[JokerSeven]

^^ indeed x2

[null0]

Doesn't this have the same issues as a SV650/FZ6/650R? The manufacturers skimped on the suspension to offer it a lower price point. I see a lot of the above mentioned bikes with either GSXR, R6 or 636 front end conversions and brakes.

[sharky nrk]

yes, suspension and brakes are budget - ie you wouldn't want to race on them. They work fairly well in their intended arena, which is not the racetrack

[null0]

Originally Posted by sharky nrk

yes, suspension and brakes are budget - ie you wouldn't want to race on them. They work fairly well in their intended arena, which is not the racetrack

Your logic is flawed. A good suspension setup can be appreciated off the track. Having a high quality suspension makes a difference in recreational riding as well.

[sharky nrk]

my logic is not flawed - the intended arena is a pricepoint as well. While your statement is a very true one, that indeed a properly set up, high quality suspension does pay dividends in many aspects of a bikes life - including recreational riding, it does not fit under the bell curve of the bikes intended market and in turn its general intended use.

[backinthesaddleagain]

Yam FZ6R uses the R6 engine, but is retuned (some would say detuned) to sacrifice top end power for low end and midrange. I am not sure how they do it on the Yam (probably fuel map and igntion), but can also be accomplished with smaller throttle bodies, smaller valves, cam timing, etc. Its all where the engine designer or tuner wants the meat of the powerband to be.

[ScraitT]

Originally Posted by backinthesaddleagain

Yam FZ6R uses the R6 engine, but is retuned (some would say detuned) to sacrifice top end power for low end and midrange. I am not sure how they do it on the Yam (probably fuel map and igntion), but can also be accomplished with smaller throttle bodies, smaller valves, cam timing, etc. Its all where the engine designer or tuner wants the meat of the powerband to be.

True to a certain extent, however, this is quoted from SportRider magazine in a text amongst the FZ6R, En6R, and a Duc and Suz.

"Whereas the three twins on the previous pages utilize their torque and prefer to be lower in the rev range, the FZ6R doesn't truly come alive until after 5000 revolutions-which is still slow when compared to all-out supersports-where peak horsepower then takes over. "

Also, on another note, they mentioned the suspension on the FZ6R as horrible and rated the En6R much better since it can tackle twisties much better. However they mentioned that the FZ6R had the better brakes and the En6R lack severaly in that department (though they said putting steel brakelines on would certainly fix that).
BOTH bikes use budget parts to make then a value and a good daily rider and both bikes are more then capable. They won't hold up to a race replica 600 on a track of course, but they handle daily riding perfectly.

And some performance numbers for the hell of it to compare the two bikes (since the FZ6R doesnt use an insanely tunes race engine).
FZ6R:
* 0-60: 3.8 sec
* 1/4 mile: 12.26@106.93
* HP: 66.5@8950
* Torque: 40.0 ft-lb @8325
* Top speed: 124 mph

Ninja 650R (which should be identical to the En6R)
* 0-60 3.6 sec
* 1/4 mile: 12.03@108.50
* HP: 64.8 hp @ 8660 rpm
* Torque: 43.9 ft-lb @7325
* Top speed: 126

Technically it's a 600 compared to a 650, but it shows that under normal tuning, a twin is just as capable as a 4 cyl.

[backinthesaddleagain]

Hey Tyler. True the I4 comes alive around 5k rpm, but I think the R6 comes alive around 9k rpm. I know a guy who has an older Honda 500 single. That things comes off lower speed corners like crazy, then signs off a bit earlier than a twin or multi, but man the torque is strong off the bottom.

[cnichols79us]

I have been researching the Crap out of the so called "Budget Bikes" because my next will likely be one of them. Cycle World, Sport Rider, Street Bike, and a Plethora of other mags started doing write ups on these. The overwhelming response I get, IMO, is that they are ALL fairly good Bikes. The FZ6R, GSX650R, ER6n, 650R, and now we have the Gladius also! From what I gather of the all the write ups I have read lately is that along the lines of this engine (650cc) , the Kawis are right up there. Engine is on par or above the rest in the same class, and generally, brakes and suspension are mostly better than the rest, but still lacking to a degree. As someone pointed out, its all about Price Point. I am a Kawi Guy now and either the 650R or the Er6n will be my next. Just have to figure out if I can live without the windscreen and fairings.....

[backinthesaddleagain]

Hey Jeff, and I think you can have a pretty good time in the price point.

[ScraitT]

If your riding a 250 now, any of those bikes are going to be monsters in comparison. If you look back around the year 2000...The 600 race replicas were running the quarter mile in the mid-low 11s. The Ninja 650 does it in almost 12 flat. Not a huge difference in an economy "beginner" bike now days compared to a race bike 10 years ago.
Even current 600s only run mid 10.5s. Faster, definitely, but not a huge difference on the streets when you dont go over 60 most of the time.

But as mentioned, you can't go wrong with any bike. The one thing I do like about the FZ6R is that you'll have that 4cyl exhaust note....however the 650s seem a bit more fun to ride with the low down power.

[JokerSeven]

I was at the dealership most of the morning. I my friend was buying his first bike (2010 Ninja 250R). I was able to put my hands on all of the new naked bikes. The Gladius was really cool, but I favor the ER-6n. I can agree with Jeff, my next bike will mosy likley be the 650R or its naked sister.

[Banzai]

The whole "...lacking to a degree" point is over used when refering to the 650 twin powered bikes. Most of the 650 twins are yesterday's tech. 1 generation removed from current inline 4s in front/rear suspension, but on par with frame tech, brakes, and engine management tech. Compare that to the 1980s tech of our little Ninjette(even the 08+), and it's much less of an issue.

Actually RIDE one, and you'll see it's even less of an issue. I think, probably, the 600 class twins, with all of their low end torque, easy dual purpose suspension, light weight, easy to manage throttle response, long legs on gas, and semi-sport bike saddle are about the perfect daily driver. You'll only notice that they're "lesser" bikes if, and only if, you're comparing them to the inline 4 super sports.

Heck, one of the things I actually don't like about my ZX6 is having to tach it up from a start to keep from stalling it. Useable torque starts above 4K, which can be an issue when stopped uphill, or in a heavy grease strip, or when wet. The twins don't have that issue, as they have plenty of low end torque for getting going and pulling well throughout their RPM range. They're (the twins) actually peaked about where the inline 4s are just starting to make real power.

Another cool thing is that there are so many different types and styles, you can get exactally what you want, unlike the relatively cookie cutter 600 or liter bikes.

[headshrink]

650r
The only thing I REALLY don't like is the new dash and old banana seat.

Question: Is there any performance difference between an I2 and a V2 (all other things held constant)?

[Sailariel]

Good thread and good discussion---had to scroll past the Red. It hurts my eyes and is obnoxious. Don`t plan on my involvement in any of the threads punctuated by Red.

[ckholloway]

Originally Posted by Sailariel

Good thread and good discussion---had to scroll past the Red. It hurts my eyes and is obnoxious. Don`t plan on my involvement in any of the threads punctuated by Red.

OK

[nate-bama]

Originally Posted by sailariel

good thread and good discussion---had to scroll past the red. It hurts my eyes and is obnoxious. Don`t plan on my involvement in any of the threads punctuated by red.

sal is like 85 or so..red is the devil

[cnichols79us]

Originally Posted by Banzai

The whole "...lacking to a degree" point is over used when refering to the 650 twin powered bikes.

I do TOTALLY AGREE!! GREAT POINT!! The fact that these are written up by the mags this way leaves me with mo other words to describe them. Bumbs me out, cause you know that the general public picking up a mag to research their 1st bike sees the words "Beginner or Ladies Bike" attached to the 650 class, which in turn makes Mr. Ego run to the Dealer and by a CBR that he can't control. Perception is in the eye of the beholder, but is becoming all to politically incorrect with all the advances in the motorcycle industry. Wow, I don't usually rant. My bad y'all.

P.s. If the 650's are truly lacking, where does that leave us 250 riders? Kawasaki will be including a set of training wheels with all the 2011 250 Ninjas??

[ScraitT]

Originally Posted by cnichols79us

I do TOTALLY AGREE!! GREAT POINT!! The fact that these are written up by the mags this way leaves me with mo other words to describe them.

What I think is amazing is when you really look at the numbers.

Take the ninja 650r.
0-60 in 3.6 seconds with a quarter mile around 12 flat.

Now find me a car that matches that, or close to that...
WRX STI does 0-60 in 4.7 and a quarter in 13.4
Chevy Corvette ZR1 does 0-60 in 3.8 and a quarter in 11.5
Lambo Gallardo (lp560-4) does 0-60 in 3.7 and a quarter in 11.9

Your really getting into "supercar" territory with cars that cost usually over 100k to meet or beat a stock 650r. Most people wouldn't suggest driving cars like that until you have had some driving experience because that much power can overwhelm someone....yet something just as fast, only on 2 wheels and open instead of 4 wheels in a cage is considered something to begin on?

How does that make the least bit of sense? Yes the 650 is slower then a 600 or 1000 race bike....but calling it a real beginners bike is like saying you should start in a Z06 Corvette (the base just isn't fast enough, common), because cars like the Lambo Murciallago, Ferrari Enzo, and Bugatti Veyron are faster then a Vette, so it must be the beginners car.

It's just funny when you look at it in perspective.

[almost40]

I own an FZ6 and am planning on tracking it this summer. I had the front forks redone by a race shop. (a must) As far as brakes go, I bought stainless lines and EBC HH pads. Motorwise the FZ6 is alot closer to the 2003-2006 R-6
Its 98 HP stock. (down 15 horse or so from the R6) A revised FI map and a different intake along with a SLIGHTY milder cam is the only difference between the 2 motors. The FZ6R motor isnt even in the same stadium as either of the 2 above motors.

[sharky nrk]

Originally Posted by headshrink

650r
The only thing I REALLY don't like is the new dash and old banana seat.

Question: Is there any performance difference between an I2 and a V2 (all other things held constant)?

It all depends on the design of the two engines honestly. Some things to consider in that situation is crankshaft timing, balance, intake and exhaust tracks, cylinder head design (one head vs two), engine packaging, weight. You could very very easily have a parallel twin and a v-twin with the same bore and stroke and they could feel completely different.

[sharky nrk]

Originally Posted by ScraitT

What I think is amazing is when you really look at the numbers.

Take the ninja 650r.
0-60 in 3.6 seconds with a quarter mile around 12 flat.

Now find me a car that matches that, or close to that...
WRX STI does 0-60 in 4.7 and a quarter in 13.4
Chevy Corvette ZR1 does 0-60 in 3.8 and a quarter in 11.5
Lambo Gallardo (lp560-4) does 0-60 in 3.7 and a quarter in 11.9

Your really getting into "supercar" territory with cars that cost usually over 100k to meet or beat a stock 650r. Most people wouldn't suggest driving cars like that until you have had some driving experience because that much power can overwhelm someone....yet something just as fast, only on 2 wheels and open instead of 4 wheels in a cage is considered something to begin on?

How does that make the least bit of sense? Yes the 650 is slower then a 600 or 1000 race bike....but calling it a real beginners bike is like saying you should start in a Z06 Corvette (the base just isn't fast enough, common), because cars like the Lambo Murciallago, Ferrari Enzo, and Bugatti Veyron are faster then a Vette, so it must be the beginners car.

It's just funny when you look at it in perspective.

I agree with alot of your post , but as the owner of a car that would keep up with a 650R in a straight line and that would probably put the hurt on one at the race track - something to think about is that even in fast car its something you are vastly more familiar with. The sensations of driving an automobile are very different from that of a motorcycle as we all know. People spend time being taught how to drive a car in a generally more structured and time tested fashion. People grow up riding in cars. People do it more often, the transit infastructure is designed for it; its commonplace. You also have to protection and isolation factor. You are surrounded by a structure to protect you, you are isolated from the environment to a greater degree, and you are in an environment that is laid out in the same fashion as most every other automobile. People that are new to motocycles have none of that to their advantage, so their perception and awareness of the dangers of piloting a motorcycle lead to a hightened sense of what that power can get them invovled in.

[ScraitT]

Originally Posted by sharky nrk

I agree with alot of your post , but as the owner of a car that would keep up with a 650R in a straight line and that would probably put the hurt on one at the race track - something to think about is that even in fast car its something you are vastly more familiar with. The sensations of driving an automobile are very different from that of a motorcycle as we all know. People spend time being taught how to drive a car in a generally more structured and time tested fashion. People grow up riding in cars. People do it more often, the transit infastructure is designed for it; its commonplace. You also have to protection and isolation factor. You are surrounded by a structure to protect you, you are isolated from the environment to a greater degree, and you are in an environment that is laid out in the same fashion as most every other automobile. People that are new to motocycles have none of that to their advantage, so their perception and awareness of the dangers of piloting a motorcycle lead to a hightened sense of what that power can get them invovled in.

That was part of what I was trying to say ...I think someone would feel much more confident in a supercar then on a bike, especially a beginner, but noone suggests going and buying a supercar as your first car because it's crazy and partially a deathwish. Why would a bike, just as fast, be considered a beginner bike.

And yes, definately agree, any of these bikes would get killed on the track against any of the cars I listed, BUT most of the riders are concerned with their straight line speed...they couldn't push the bike (or car) to their limits on a track anyways. It's all about 1 redlight to the next (applying to the general new bike owner that thinks the 650 is a beginners bike and wants to start on a Busa...there are of course responsible riders out there, just far more stupid ones )

And yes, the FZ6 is a far different machine then the FZ6R. Why they kept the same name for the bike is beyond me. They should have either renamed it to help distinguish the two bikes, or gave it the same power (though that would probably eat into r6 sales)