Iron Ninjas!! Battle of the 250s!

[kkim]

I own a 08 new gen 250R. For me, it is a wonderful bike and very close to being the ideal bike for my use.

It got me thinking, though, if the new gen bikes are close, how close was the previous gen 250 Ninjas? I have read of all the improvements Kawasaki made from the old gen to the new, but I have also heard rumors of how the pre gen bikes are faster up top and how much more fuel efficient they seem to be compared to the new gens.

So, the question is... is there anyone that has owned both gens and can give their opinion on how the bikes really stack up against each other in a real world environment?

Also, on the race track... how do the 2 bikes compare?? I've seen race reports from new gen owners and they seem to have a great time on their bikes. I've seen race reports from per gen owners as well, but has anyone had any experience racing the 2 gens and what do they have to offer over the other? Or even race results where both gens ran in the same race to see which came out on top?

So... which of these 2 bikes is really the true... "Iron Ninja"? Let the battle begin!!!

[Alex]

We've owned a 2004 and now own a 2008. I think that the prior-gen bikes had a clear advantage in straight-line performance. It's not a night and day difference, and both of them are still just 250cc 4-strokes, so nobody's arms are getting ripped out of their sockets under acceleration; but the older gen did feel noticeably quicker. There was more of a feel of acceleration as the revs got in the upper ranges, and the bike seemed to pull with more authority. Specs on the old bike have 0-60 listed as low as 5.7 seconds, specs on the new bike seem to be closer to 7.2 seconds. Personally I think the 5.7 is a little fast, and the 7.2 may be a little slow, but even with some data quibbling that's a significant difference.

In our experience the fuel economy may be a little worse on the new one, but not significantly. If you cane the heck out of either one, you can pull the mpg down into the 30's.

From a handling perspective, the new gen is much better out of the box. Much better OEM tires, with significantly better replacement options with 17's instead of 16's. The front fork is much, much stiffer and less prone to fork dive under braking. And the rear shock is much more sporty than the stock old one, and even provides some pre-load adjustment to fine-tune it a bit. The front brake is also much more responsive, with better feel and better ultimate performance.

Racetrack comparisons would be hard without laying out the test parameters. If the parameters include rolling both bikes off the showroom floor and doing nothing to them before taking them to the track, here's what I think:

- old gen would pull harder on top and likely be able to accelerate out of corners quicker
- new gen would be able to brake later with more control, and would be able to keep cornering performance much higher and longer due to stickier and more predictable rubber, along with a much more track-friendly suspension.

If the parameters include spending $1000 on each bike to make it more track-ready, then I'm not sure which one would necessarily come out on top in a true competitive situation. Stiffen up the suspension of the old one, put in better brake pads and a stainless steel line, upgrade the tires (and even wheels if you found some cheap), and it would definitely be a contender.

[islanderman7]

Nice pic kkim. You should photoshop in an 08 model in one hand and a pre-08 in the other.

Originally Posted by Alex

Specs on the old bike have 0-60 listed as low as 5.7 seconds, specs on the new bike seem to be closer to 7.2 seconds. Personally I think the 5.7 is a little fast, and the 7.2 may be a little slow, but even with some data quibbling that's a significant difference.

This is stock for both bikes? If so, why is this so? Is it because of the weight difference?

[Alex]

Originally Posted by islanderman7

This is stock for both bikes? If so, why is this so? Is it because of the weight difference?

Roughly 30 more pounds, a little less power, and more accurate measurement probably make up the bulk of the difference. Also, on such a moderately powered bike, the difference between a 120-lb rider and a 200-lb rider has a huge impact on acceleration times, so who knows who was at the controls for each run.

[islanderman7]

Originally Posted by Alex

Roughly 30 more pounds, a little less power, and more accurate measurement probably make up the bulk of the difference. Also, on such a moderately powered bike, the difference between a 120-lb rider and a 200-lb rider has a huge impact on acceleration times, so who knows who was at the controls for each run.

You're right about the weight difference of the riders. I forgot about that.

Anyways I thought I throw this video in. Pretty much on topic, but it is quite vague and subjective. He says that the New 08's have more power than the old generation. But then again, kkim would say, "naw its cuz its the green bike he tested".

Link to original page on YouTube.

[Kurosaki]

As I understand it, the midrange on the 08 was improved over the previous engine. So naturally some top end would be taken away.

If this is so, it's fine with me. I didn't buy mine to go fast anyway but a meaty area under the curve is nice.

Slower or not, the power is perfectly fine to me. Especially after a couple mods that helped improve the usable power.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by Kurosaki

As I understand it, the midrange on the 08 was improved over the previous engine. So naturally some top end would be taken away.

Yep. One of the ways they improved the midrange (and emissions, and probably reliability as well), was to lower the compression ratio. Even if someone gets the fueling and exhaust exactly to 1st-gen specs without regard to emissions, the top end will always be at a slight disadvantage due to that change.

[kkim]

Alex, if you could only pick between either bike from a purely riding perspective, which would you select as the "better" bike?

[Alex]

2008 is a better bike in just about every way, truly. All except for straightline performance. In a perfect world, I'd marry the prior-gen motor into a new-gen everything else. But if it was really a perfect world, maybe bump it up to 16k redline and 40 hp while we're at it.

[kkim]

Originally Posted by Alex

2008 is a better bike in just about every way, truly. All except for straightline performance. In a perfect world, I'd marry the prior-gen motor into a new-gen everything else. But if it was really a perfect world, maybe bump it up to 16k redline and 40 hp while we're at it.

in a drag reace, given everything else being equal, you're saying the pregen would win every time?

[Alex]

Originally Posted by kkim

in a drag race, given everything else being equal, you're saying the pregen would win every time?

Every time. Heck, even with identical motors the old gen would still win just because of the weight difference. 30 pounds is a big difference on a relatively light bike.

[kkim]

Originally Posted by Alex

Every time. Heck, even with identical motors the old gen would still win just because of the weight difference. 30 pounds is a big difference on a relatively light bike.

hmmm... I'll have to drag race my friend with a pregen and find out.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by kkim

hmmm... I'll have to drag race my friend with a pregen and find out.

And that pregen also has an aftermarket exhaust, no snorkel, a few washers in there, less restrictive airbox, and carbs in perfect sync like yours?

[kkim]

Originally Posted by Alex

And that pregen also has an aftermarket exhaust, no snorkel, a few washers in there, less restrictive airbox, and carbs in perfect sync like yours?

no, but I've got to hedge my bet somehow so I can come back to say you're completely wrong!

I figured with the mods I've done, I should be able to just keep up with him, if they are indeed faster.

if I do beat him, I'll know how effective my mods have been, at least.

[Sailariel]

I would love to see a test on the European version with fuel injection. My sister lives in Europe and is researching what I can do to retrofit my Ninja to fuel injection and what the cost would be. I suspect that a machine with FI can be tweaked with a Power Commander module or its equivalent.

[Alex]

Alex -

I have a hunch that a FI retrofit would bring zero gains. The FI bike makes less horsepower than the carbed bike, going right to Kawi's given specs. And a power commander adds almost nothing to a bike without doing other mods that can take advantage of increased fuel, it just smooths throttle response. If you want greater performance, look into jetting, exhaust, and airbox optimization.

EDIT: I've since seen the FI specs from the european service manual, and the FI doesn't make less horsepower, it is rated at roughly 1 more hp. Not particularly significant, and the variation between individual examples is probably greater than the nominal rated difference between a carbed and FI version. More info down in post #59 of this same thread.

[kkim]

Originally Posted by Alex

If you want greater performance, look into jetting, exhaust, and airbox optimization.

yeah, then maybe you'll be able to out run a pregen... maybe.

[islanderman7]

Can't we just swap the motors and remove the 30 lbs worth of equipment that is used to make the new bikes pass emission laws? The voila... problem solved.

[toku]

I'm with Alex on this one, the new gen ninja is loads better.
I've owned both the old gen and the new gen. Even setting looks aside the new gen still has a lot more going for it. It's suspension and handling are far superior to the old gen. Living in PA (read worst roads in the nation) the country roads are mangled by farm equipment, I would constantly bottom out my forks or rear shock going over potholes or just being on bumpy roads in general.
The old ninja did seem to have better drive and in general an engine that delivered power more appropriately. I'm not sure how much sense that makes, it's hard to describe that feeling in words. After swapping sprockets it seems that the new ninjas drive has improved considerably. The power kicks in at more appropriate rpms and in general each gear is more usable. Adding in the exhaust and jet kit I have on the bike I think it's drive will be able to match the old gen now. I'll let you know once w***er goes away

[kkim]

so, exactly where is Happey Valley?

...and why are you all so happy???

[toku]

Originally Posted by kkim

so, exactly where is Happey Valley?

...and why are you all so happy???

Lol happy valley = state college pa

right now the only reason everyone is happy is due to the
but when its not freezing out this place is awesome

[Sailariel]

Alex, Thanks for the heads up on the FI. At this point I am totally content with the way my bike performs.

[islanderman7]

Originally Posted by Alex

Alex -

I have a hunch that a FI retrofit would bring zero gains. The FI bike makes less horsepower than the carbed bike, going right to Kawi's given specs. And a power commander adds almost nothing to a bike without doing other mods that can take advantage of increased fuel, it just smooths throttle response. If you want greater performance, look into jetting, exhaust, and airbox optimization.

Alex what do you mean that the FI smooths the throttle response? Can you elaborate more as compared to a the carbureted.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by islanderman7

Alex what do you mean that the FI smooths the throttle response? Can you elaborate more as compared to a the carbureted.

I meant that a power commander installed on a FI bike smooths the throttle response compared to a FI bike without a power commander. In terms of carbs versus FI, many folks still feel that a good carb setup provides smoother throttle response than some FI systems, but most folks agree that FI has gotten much better over the years and the best ones are as good or better than carbs.

Carbs, being purely mechanical devices that are finicky but still rather simple, can't perfectly meter the fuel/air mixture at all points of operation from full throttle low revs to part throttle high revs and all combinations in between, let alone taking into account different temperatures and pressures. They do a reasonably good job at full throttle for peak power, and they do a good job at idle when they are synced properly.

Fuel injection, which today generally means computerized fuel injection, provides the engineers the ability to very finely decide how much fuel is required depending on throttle position, current engine speed, temperature, air pressure, and likely a few more factors. It can also decide exactly when to apply the fuel to the mixture. However, all of this flexibility is tuned on a production bike to meet emissions. And meeting emissions means the bike is not optimized for best performance, or even smooth performance. It can be particularly bad in part-throttle situations in low to mid revs. What a power commander does is piggyback on the normal engine computer, to instruct the injectors to provide more fuel than the ECU would provide otherwise. When people talk about dyno mapping for a power commander, what they are really doing is tweaking those settings at every 500 RPM or so to optimize power. It looks like +2, +4, +3, +1, +0, etc all the way up the rev chart, the numbers mean how much additional fuel is provided at that point in the curve. The benefit of a power commander on a stock (FI) bike is that the throttle response is smoother, and perhaps there is a small, very small, increase in power at the top end. But if it's 1 hp on a 110 hp 600cc, it's alot. What the power commander is more useful for is if you've opened up the exhaust and the intake, you can add fuel to take advantage of the other changes you've made.

[kkim]

Originally Posted by Alex

I meant that a power commander installed on a FI bike smooths the throttle response compared to a FI bike without a power commander. In terms of carbs versus FI, many folks still feel that a good carb setup provides smoother throttle response than some FI systems, but most folks agree that FI has gotten much better over the years and the best ones are as good or better than carbs.

Carbs, being purely mechanical devices that are finicky but still rather simple, can't perfectly meter the fuel/air mixture at all points of operation from full throttle low revs to part throttle high revs and all combinations in between, let alone taking into account different temperatures and pressures. They do a reasonably good job at full throttle for peak power, and they do a good job at idle when they are synced properly.

Fuel injection, which today generally means computerized fuel injection, provides the engineers the ability to very finely decide how much fuel is required depending on throttle position, current engine speed, temperature, air pressure, and likely a few more factors. It can also decide exactly when to apply the fuel to the mixture. However, all of this flexibility is tuned on a production bike to meet emissions. And meeting emissions means the bike is not optimized for best performance, or even smooth performance. It can be particularly bad in part-throttle situations in low to mid revs. What a power commander does is piggyback on the normal engine computer, to instruct the injectors to provide more fuel than the ECU would provide otherwise. When people talk about dyno mapping for a power commander, what they are really doing is tweaking those settings at every 500 RPM or so to optimize power. It looks like +2, +4, +3, +1, +0, etc all the way up the rev chart, the numbers mean how much additional fuel is provided at that point in the curve. The benefit of a power commander on a stock (FI) bike is that the throttle response is smoother, and perhaps there is a small, very small, increase in power at the top end. But if it's 1 hp on a 110 hp 600cc, it's alot. What the power commander is more useful for is if you've opened up the exhaust and the intake, you can add fuel to take advantage of the other changes you've made.

excellent response!!!

[islanderman7]

Too Alex,


SMART

[Suey250]

The biggest difference between the two generation is the suspension. The older model is very soft while the new version is a bit stiffer, and also the seating position is more upright on the older generation.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by Suey250

and also the seating position is more upright on the older generation.

I didn't notice that the seating position was changed much. If there was a change, it was relatively minor. (never sat on the 2 right next to eachother, though) The bars are still significantly higher than the seat, for an almost "standard" seating position compared to a more "sportbike" position with the bars close to level with the seat.

[Bill N]

Another enjoyable thread. I have zero experience with the previous Ninja but here is my impression of the 2008 model. I think the gearing is too close and low. I'm not impressed with gears 1-3 and off the line performance is not impressive. However, after about 40 MPH to 80 MPH I'm VERY impressed with its acceleration. Evidently thats the mid range the engineers improved on and I like it. Also I find the suspension to be very good if not stiff. For fast cornering I think this must be a big improvement over the soft front end of the premies. I'm really enjoying this small bike.
Bill

[kkim]

Originally Posted by Bill N

Another enjoyable thread. I have zero experience with the previous Ninja but here is my impression of the 2008 model. I think the gearing is too close and low. I'm not impressed with gears 1-3 and off the line performance is not impressive. However, after about 40 MPH to 80 MPH I'm VERY impressed with its acceleration. Evidently thats the mid range the engineers improved on and I like it. Also I find the suspension to be very good if not stiff. For fast cornering I think this must be a big improvement over the soft front end of the premies. I'm really enjoying this small bike.
Bill

shim your needles for more power down low.

[kkim]

okay... got to drag race with a completely stock 2003(motorwise) first gen bike. Ran a couple of times to verify the results, which were always the same. At the end, we even swapped off bikes with identical results.

Results are...

my bike with all the mods, jetting and tweaking had a huge jump coming off the line... say 2-3 three bike lengths, but once the old gen bike came up in the rev range, we ran the same speed with the separation between bikes staying the same until the end. (roughly 1/4 mile)

So what does this mean??? The mods I've done have given the bike a lot more power from idle to midrange. I suspect if my bike were stock, the older gen would have made up the difference at the end. As it was, our top ends were about equal.

It also means with all the work to improve the the power on my bike, my efforts have yielded a new gen bike that is as fast on the top end as the stock pregen. Now, if the pregens had my mods, the race would have been very interesting and would have ended up (my guess)with us in a dead heat or with the pregen pulling away on the top end.

Both bikes were geared stock.

The changes I have made makes the powerband much broader and more effective on twisty roads where one is constantly shutting down the throttle and accelerating out of corners.

Thanks Steve, for agreeing to compare and even swap bikes to verify results.

mahalo, brah!

[Alex]

Sounds good, but you also need a stock 2nd-gen in the mix. Kawi made a big deal about how the 2nd-gen motor itself had significantly greater mid-range than the 1st-gens (at some expense of top-end). It's unclear (from this test alone) if your mods are what made the low - mid range stronger than the 1st-gen, or if you already had that advantage off the showroom floor. I do believe that the intake/exhaust mods have helped on the top-end of the 2nd-gen, and the dyno charts from any of the ninjette exhaust manufacturers corroborate that.

[kkim]

well, I had a stock 08 at one point, remember? I can tell you the bike pulls harder now than the bike when it was stock. I know Kawasaki made a big deal about the added midrange, but frankly when the bike was stock, I was not impressed at all.

[Alex]

You may very well be right. But just like folks who swear their car performs better after a car wash, people want to believe that every change they've made to their machines means that an improvement was made. Without objective testing (dyno tuning, drag-strip measurement, and yes, even head-to-head repeated testing against a known standard), it never hurts to be somewhat skeptical about other's described performance gains, especially if the phrase "it feels faster" is used.

Get a 2nd-gen in there and show how your mods make the stock one look like a dog, and now we'll have something...

[kkim]

I see you've never ridden a modified 250R, have you?

[Alex]

Nope. Never been passed by one, either.

[kkim]

bring your bike around here.

[g21-30]

Alex kkim

[kkim]

Originally Posted by g21-30

Alex kkim

nope...

alex kelly

actually he's right about needing a control, but there is no stock 250R to act as one, so that's my results so far.

[CC Cowboy]

I never did any modifications to my 250 and I always had the fastest 250 in my garage. I'm not saying that I'm a great rider I'm only saying that I look good on the bike and if you look good and go fast then you're the good looking fast guy (or girl) and that means alot if you really want to go fast while looking good.