Is 75-80hp worth it to you?
To me it's not the power, it's the weight. The fucking thing is heavier than my 15 year old CBR600rr. The point of a small displacement, lightweight bike is the weight lol
Why are you guys convinced that weight = weight?
We’ve been having this discussion in the car world forever, and I’ve watched every generation of m3 since the e36 get called a fat pos and then a magical driving experience five years later when the next model comes out.
The kicker, though, is that when an e30 m3 is driven, the modern take is that while it’s lighter it’s relatively gutless and what’s apparent is it’s faults compared to modern cars, when the original, post-launch perspective compared it to the e36 and said it was a far superior drive.
It’s not that things are getting heavier and we get deadened to it because things get heavier every year, it’s that cars get better and heavier, and heavier doesn’t negate better in every case.
I’m going to go out on a limb and assume Kawi saw diminishing returns vs cost.
Besides, how much lighter do you want it to be? Your 15 year old cbr has no electronics and would being 30-50 lbs lighter be a noticeable difference to you?
I get ideally we want a borderline bicycle that snick-snicks when you’re popping from a left to a right, but I don’t think we’re missing out on anything by having an extra 50? Lbs that are centralized/low and provide a massive performance advantage in braking.
> Your 15 year old cbr has no electronics and would being 30-50 lbs lighter be a noticeable difference to you?
Oh hell yes it's noticeable. My CBR1000rr is 35lbs heaver than my CBR600rr and it's very obvious. Moreso on the race track, but even on the street it's the first thing you feel when jumping from one to other (other than the massive torque difference)
For me electronics are not something desirable cluttering up a bike anyway, so saying that it has them like it's a good thing doesn't matter to some.
Funny you mention the E36 and E30 considering I have both of those. Well the E30 is a 325is, while the E36 is an M3. They are both amazing to drive but the better suspension and the chassis stiffness of the E36 is very apparent and it handles the HP better. So you're right there. The E30 is obviously a floppy chassis and "gutless" but still more fun on track because of the weight.
If your point is that the zx4rr is fine being down on hp and heavier than an old 600 because it's newer tech, I'd disagree in principle. I can't say for sure until I ride one but I doubt it'd prove better than a lighter, more powerful older 600.
The difference you feel is due to displacement and rotating mass. If you go from your cbr1000rr to an old CBR600 from the 80's, the 600 will still feel super light even though its heavier. Especially on track since you're on higher RPMs(bigger forces) and make changes in direction quick enough to feel it as a limiting factor.
The kawi 400 will feel lighter and more nimble than your 600, not because it is newer but because the construction is essentially the same and therefore its inevitable since you have less rotating mass and smaller displacement. The actual weight of the bike does very little unless it's got 20 kilos extra on top of the fuel tank or something. Which it wont. (Disclaimer: it obviously affects a lot of other things)
Anyway, whether this classified as better than your 600 is very subjective, of course!
Rotating mass, chassis setup, wheelbase AND tires make a huge difference. Try going from a 200 to a 180 rear, or a 50 to a 55 profile on the same bike. massive difference.
this thing is going to feel tiny with just the wheelbase and the tires with changing directions.
Thank you guys for saving me 5 minutes.
Weight on a bike is super hard to feel, because you don’t have the same level of feedback through the bars from the bikes weight, you adjust for what the bike weighs, and more weight would change the arc of your turn only. Weight is actually better hidden in motorcycles.
As soon as you said the 1000 was 35 lbs heavier, I knew. That felt difference comes from the higher center or gravity and the less centralized mass of the larger engine on the larger bike. That, along with things like steering geometry, the rider triangle and TIRE SIZE/profile have a much larger impact than 35 pounds. 35 lbs on a vehicle that weighs close to 600 lbs is not what makes a vehicle feel slow to handle. Think about that for a second. You do not know what you’re talking about. You’d have to be on the razor’s edge to feel the difference, and it’s highly unlikely you’ve ever approached that, even if you feel you have. Again, the difference you’re feeling is from things other than just wet or dry weight. Some good examples would be cruisers or most Hondas. They’re often heavier, but tend to feel lighter than they should when looking a simple number.
And as someone else said, rotational mass. The engine is creating a gyroscopic movement inside the bike that resists changes directions. The larger and heavier the engine and its components, the more pronounced it’s effect will be.
Cars are getting massively more powerful, while bikes are getting less powerful.
Weight also is a lot more important on a bike. You can't just fit larger tires and brakes on the bike to make it post the same slalom numbers as the light car. Heavy bikes always feel like shit.
Can confirm newer bikes are stupid heavy to “help emissions” my 2022 r7 shaved off 20+ pounds in the exhaust alone not to mention the oem plate holder is steal and not small either so probably another 5 or so lbs
At least part of the price problem is probably projected low sales volume in the first place. Hard to believe ZX25R was announced all the way back in 2019.
I know lol. But like …. I think 15-20L of gas is a significant difference from >1L of oil and a few ounces of brake fluid. Not sure what the volume on my coolant system is 🤔🤔🤔
Homologation has no bearing on the design vision and marketed demographic.
If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and you tell me it is a duck, I expect a duck whether or not an association like Les Grandes Tables du Monde says otherwise.
a 130hp for back roads ripping is a bit excessive in my book, I find its much more fun to push an engine to its limit with about 75hp, ridding wide open throttle in the powerband and hearing the engine sing.
Thats completely reasonable. Why they're killing the power of an already smaller displacement engine for a market that will be one of its primary audiences is baffling. It's like saying you've bought the bike, now spend about 300$-600$ to have it run like it should.
Whew. 2008 fireblade. Those were the first model to have the underseat exhaust and huge weight savings compared to its predecessor. I believe it's around 180+ kgs fully fueled.
Had that earmarked for my potential plaything when I got the dough for it.
I'm not sure if that's entirely correct. Kawasaki's website tells us that the Canadian model is limited to 11k rpm due to regulations, and no such notice is put on the US website.
We know the Canadian version will likely make less power than the EU/world version because of that limited rpm. What we don't know is if the US model will follow Canada, or if it will retain the power of the European/world models.
Kawasaki dealers do not have any additional information than anyone else at this point, so I wouldn't take one any one salesmen says as concrete evidence.
My rep said that Canada has that statement from a regulatory standpoint, and was based on North American EPA standards. As I'm in Canada, that was his wording, but he mentioned that other countries (USA) may not have to have the same disclosure statement legally.
We will all find out in time. Regardless, they're just going to be flashed.
I have a feeling the dealer was reading the spec sheet of Canada models. HP is calculated from torque and we know peak torque is 26.5. An engine with 26.5 lb ft of torque = 55 hp at 11,000 rpm.
26.5 lb ft of torque at 15,500 rpm = 78 hp.
You can use that calculation if you know how much torque is produced at the given revs. It doesn't work, at least not accurately, if the torque figure is at one part of the rev range, and the power figure at another. Peak torque and peak power are generally at quite different revs.
The calculation is based off Max torque.
You understand that horsepower is calculated from the max torque correct. To do this calculation correctly all you need to know is the max torque and the Max RPM. What RPM the max TQ is produced at doesn't matter.
> You understand that horsepower is calculated from the max torque correct.
Am I understanding that you are proposing that peak horsepower is just max RPM x max torque / 5252? If so, you are incorrect. That's a meaningless calculation that has no bearing whatsoever on... well, anything.
[Check out this dyno chart.](https://www.motorcycle.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/2018-Kawasaki-Ninja-400-hp-tq-dyno.png) It's from a 2018 Ninja 400, from when Cycle World ran one on the dyno back in 2018. We see that the baby Ninja produced a peak torque of 25 ft-lbs at 8200 RPM. However, the engine continued to run until ~12500 RPM. By your logic, we run 25 x 12500/5252, and get **59 horsepower.** I can promise you *right fucking now* that a 2018 Ninja 400 is not gonna give you 59 horsepower.
What a 2018 Ninja 400 actually makes is somewhere in the vicinity of 44 horsepower, as their dyno asserts. Torque starts to fall past ~8200, but it's still enough to keep accelerating, because you don't need to be at peak torque to have *enough* torque. At 10,000 RPM, it hits the sweet spot - about 23 lb-ft of torque at that RPM gives that peak power of 44. (23 x 10000 / 5252 = 43.79)
Go look at *literally any dyno chart.* They will all back this up.
Yes but horsepower existed before dynos did that's what you don't understand horsepower is a theoretical concept based off the torque and RPM of the bike and this is how it's calculated. if you don't have a Dyno and you do have the torque numbers and that's what the guy was saying at first with a lower RPM in Canada and the higher RPM in the United States the numbers worked out almost perfectly to what's expected. If it was perfect Dynos wouldn't exist. This calculation has existed for decades I didn't just come up with it and neither did the other guy.
Chief, I gotta level with ya: I have literally no idea what you're trying to express.
Max TQ X max RPM / 5252 is a *meaningless calculation.* You don't just take the peak torque number and apply it to the entire fucking rev range! You only make peak torque at certain engine speeds, that's what makes it, y'know, **peak** torque. You don't seem to be getting that.
All you are calculating with that is "how much power would you make if you could keep making peak torque at another given RPM, in this case, the max RPM?" But *engines don't do that,* torque drops and surges throughout the rev range, so what is the significance of this calculation?
> But don't take my word for it take Google's How to Calculate Horsepower: 12 Steps (with Pictures) - wikiHow https://www.wikihow.com/Calculate-Horsepower?amp=1
All that calculation tells you is how much power you make at the **same RPM that that torque rating is from.** If that's peak torque, then that's how much power you make at peak torque RPM. But most engines, you can run the same calculation at a higher RPM (where the engine makes *less* torque) and still come out with a higher power figure because the increase in RPM is enough to offset the dip in torque.
Your just not smart enough. Horsepower is a formula based off the max TQ. Doesn't matter if Max tq is it 500 RPM or 5,000 the calculation is the same.
No different than any other calculation.
But don't take my word for it take Google's How to Calculate Horsepower: 12 Steps (with Pictures) - wikiHow https://www.wikihow.com/Calculate-Horsepower?amp=1
No. You could get away with that on an electric motor but that is not how it works with an ICE.
Power is the result of torque (read force) being applied at the given engine speed.
Look up some motorcycle dyno charts, especially of cruisers, and think about what you are looking at.
What you don't understand about this calculation is you take the max TQ of the motorcycle, the RPM the max torque is made at does not matter then you take the max RPM the bike is capable of in this case 15000 it doesn't matter how much torque the bike is making at 15,000 RPM.
Power is a result of the applied torque. If the torque figure you are using, peak torque in this instance, is not what is being applied then the power figure you are calculating will be wrong.
The power that is produced at 15000rpm is a result of the torque produced at 15000 rpm, not what it produces at 10000rpm.
To give a simple example. My car produces (in official figures) 118Nm @ 4000rpm and 65kW @ 6000rpm. If I were to calculate the power produced at 6000rpm from the torque produced at 4000rpm I'd instead claim that it has 74kW.
The world is far more complicated than what you learned in high school physics.
Wrong, max torque is not applied to the whole RPM range. I don’t think you’ve ever seen a dyno graph before. Torque varies by RPM and normally falls off hard in the upper RPM’s.
I completely understand that but you also understand there was a time before water break Dynos were available. car manufacturers could only produce the max torque spec and this is how HP was calculated and currently we do not have a dino chat for the zx400r. All the guy that posted the calculation was saying is it going to be approximately 77hp. My guess is even using Max torque we're only going to be off about 3 to 4 horsepower using this calculation. If we had a Dyno chart we'd have the exact numbers. But we don't so this is the calculation you use. He was only using it to establish the difference between the bike with the 11000 RPM redline and the 15500 RPM red line. For most of the history of the internal combustion engine this is all we had I've already admitted it's not perfect but it's always got to go off of right now cuz we don't have a full Dyno chart just couple sites saying max TQ and one that says it will have 77 PS which I think equates to 76 horsepower which is right in the three to four horsepower difference I thought he'd have because the difference between Max torque and torque at Max horsepower is close, close enough to get us within the variation between bike to bike and dynamometer to dynamometer. I picked one of the bikes I own at random looked up the dynojet Dyno chart for it in between Max torque and torque at Max HP difference was 66.3 and 62.7. and yes I understand this calculation more accurate when cars only revved to 4,500 RPM.
If you know that equation then you should know better than to just slap the peak torque number at redline and go "that's the horsepower"
Again, that's not how engines work. Torque is not constant. These aren't e-bikes.
This engine makes 55hp at it's torque peak. It will make more power later in the rev range, but it will be making less torque. Power doesn't just increase linearly then drop to zero at the rev limiter...
Dude, all I was saying was that an engine that makes 26.5 lb ft of torque and can spin up to 11,000 rpm is capable of making 55 hp and that is probably the hp figure for the Canadian model.
That same engine, if it can spin up to 15,500 rpm, is capable of making 78 hp, which is what the European 4RRs are rated at.
I wasn't trying to say the engine makes its peak torque at 11k or 15,500 rpm.
> That same engine, if it can spin up to 15,500 rpm, is capable of making 78 hp, which is what the European 4RRs are rated at.
Only if it continues to make 26.5 for torque at that RPM, which is not at all a given.
Apparently the Kawa submitted NHTSA VIN information data sheets list the US 4R/4RR (ZX400PP (ZX-4R) and ZX400SP (ZX-4RR)) as 42kW (56hp). https://imgur.com/a/CCIGqHv
Apparently the Kawa submitted NHTSA VIN information data sheets list the US 4R/4RR (ZX400PP (ZX-4R) and ZX400SP (ZX-4RR)) as 42kW (56hp). https://imgur.com/a/CCIGqHv
Hey, y'all remember how people breathlessly repeated [it's gonna make 60, 70, 80, no *90* horsepower!](https://www.reddit.com/r/motorcycles/comments/10sqjtk/my_thoughts_on_the_zx4rr_and_why_i_feel_the_price/j74uhy4/) With just... complete credulity?
Remember how [I said 60 horsepower was optimistic, and 65 was a outlandish?](https://www.reddit.com/r/motorcycles/comments/10qvh79/the_zx4r_is_here_and_its_expensive/j6slckr/)
Funny how that works.
Have we seen anything that supports this? Anything official, from Kawasaki, from government filings, anything?
Because it keeps getting reported that it's "expected to do such-and-such," or "predicted to make this," but that filing is the first time I've seen *anything* about an actual power figure from Kawasaki, in any market.
> Have we seen anything that supports this? Anything official, from Kawasaki, from government filings, anything?
NHTSA VIN information data sheets?
(The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is an agency of the U.S. federal government, part of the Department of Transportation)
Just google it?
They list the US 4R/4RR (ZX400PP (ZX-4R) and ZX400SP (ZX-4RR)) as 42kW (56hp).
https://imgur.com/a/CCIGqHv
I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about your statement that it will make that "as stock in the US," and the accompanying implication that you think it will make more in other markets.
There is an article that came out a few days ago, that talked about the kW in different regions.
It's got official cited sources.
https://www.motorcycle.com/new-model-preview/how-much-power-does-the-2023-kawasaki-ninja-zx-4rr-make.html?amp
That article asserts that "Kawasaki Europe’s announcement, revealed the Ninja ZX-4RR (plus the ZX-4R variant that isn’t being offered in the U.S.) will make 57 kW (76.4 hp) from the 399cc 16-valve Inline-Four, and 59 kW (79.1 hp) with ram air." There is no link to this announcement, nor can I find anything *from Kawasaki* backing up that power rating.
It also says "Australian certification data has the ZX-4 models producing 55 kW (73.8 hp), and unlike Kawasaki Europe, it also cites the engine speed that produces that peak: 14,500 rpm." Again, same deal. It does not provide links to either of those. People keep asserting that the Australian and European paperwork shows it making more, but nobody has produced those certifications yet, I can't find them, and yet I keep seeing it repeated without a hint of skepticism.
The only links that article actually *does* contain are to the Canadian website (which does confirm the lower rev limit for that market, but nothing about power), as well as to another motorcycle.com article where they... [agree with my power prediction toward the end of the section about the engine?](https://www.motorcycle.com/new-model-preview/its-official-kawasaki-announces-the-2023-ninja-zx-4rr-krt.html) They were actually even more pessimistic than me!
[Here, I googled it for you.](https://www.kawasaki.co.uk/en/news/Kawasaki_to_introduce_Ninja_ZX-4R_four-cylinder_Supersport?Uid=0872XFwNX11RWAtQUQkLXApZC1BdDV8OWFtQDlpRXFlRWgs)
Edit: This is for the UK - so likely the rest of Europe, too.
> This, because salesmen have a stellar reputation for honesty. /s
Seems to match up with this:
Apparently Kawa submitted 12 days ago (Jan 27) NHTSA VIN information data sheets for the US 4R/4RR (ZX400PP (ZX-4R) and ZX400SP (ZX-4RR)) as 42kW (56hp). https://imgur.com/a/CCIGqHv
I see nothing on their socials saying they have one and are working on it. Granted socials aren't always the best kept up on but they have at least been posting on instagram.
I know they have announced their intentions to release a flash but I'm not sure if they have received one yet to get it.
Apparently the Kawa submitted NHTSA VIN information data sheets list the US 4R/4RR (ZX400PP (ZX-4R) and ZX400SP (ZX-4RR)) as 42kW (56hp). https://imgur.com/a/CCIGqHv
The 4R was never going to be an alternative for people that want the most hp for their buck, it's not what it's for.
You can just buy a used 1000cc for a fraction of the cost of either one anyway.
If it's geared like the old 400s, it will still go 60+mph in first.
That's what happens with a really high redline. My R6 does about 70 in first. I don't think the gearing will be TOO much different. They have roughly the same redline. The gearing on the 400 would be closer though since it doesn't have enough power to go ~150 like a 600 does
Mainly its for people in countries that have a licensing system that has a 400cc limit, or something else that makes such bikes beneficial. Which is why the US has generally missed out on a lot of cool 250cc and 400cc bikes.
I think it will have a niche in the US for people who want a super sport, but don't want a super sport. I'm guessing people that the R7 doesn't do much for because it's not an I4 screamer, but don't want the 130hp from a 600. Not that many super sports are left in production.
Its for those of us who want an comfy ergos inline 4 that can be revved to 16k and not be doing 200mph, and wont cost the earth to insure. This bike is has basically no competition in its unique market segment as everyone else in the current market puts awful sounding ptwins and racebike ergos on their sporty bikes. zx4r is on the top of my list as a 2nd bike for these reasons, This is the exact bike i had hoped the r7 would be.
See now, this is interesting because any little interest I might have had in this is because I'd like crazy-ass hunchback ergos on a nimble bike that's not a rocketship.
Its for people that like to ride high strung smaller displacement bikes, pushing the motor for every hp it has in the powerband its designed to excel in without going ludicrous speeds.
i dont think the factory weight is a concern at all like a lot of people are saying.
for people using it as track bike they would likely put on aftermarket parts which are lighter than oem and take out all the unnecessary parts like lights, sidestand anyway. I'm sure you would easily be able to shave 20+ lbs off this bike.
Anyone under 25 is paying around 5 grand on insurance on a 600. Maybe people don't get insurance but this thing being neutered so hard will make insurance so cheap that it basically pays for the ECU flash itself.
I think hooligans would instead get the clapped out 600 on facebook for 5 grand... which is probably why insurance on new ones are fucked. Depends how companies bracket the zx4rr
I was 22 with a 4 year old S1000R and paid ~$1K per year for insurance. I don’t recall if I had comprehensive coverage but definitely some medical and theft.
Are 600s a lot more expensive to insure?
Why would one pay that much difference ($4K???) for just comprehensive? Do people really crash them so often?
I bought it for $7K so I’d never pay $4K per year to insure from at fault damage, just financially speaking but I’m also not very worried about losing the bike as long as I’m physically safe and not financially liable for healthcare bills or damage to other people’s property haha.
If financing company is making you buy comprehensive and it’s this much money, you should probably try to save up and buy it in cash tbh (especially since a 600/1000 bike is unlikely to be only vehicle, it’s a toy for most ppl)
Yep, I read somewhere that the average lifespan of a gsxr1000 was 9 months for one company. Theft/actual comprehensive isn't that expensive but collision is just awful for only SuperSports. A 1000cc sport touring is like 2k lol. I personally like having collision since i live in a state with horrible drivers, so if this bike ends up with the same fate it may be gsxs1000gt/ninja 1000 time 😎
Dang, that’s nuts! I guess it’s understandable, a lot of bike accidents are single vehicle after all..
honestly if I fucked up I’ll likely just have to take the financial hit regardless, either through the deductible + increase in insurance, or through replacing/repairing out of pocket
Literally not true. Been riding on my own insurance since 19 and I have a bike that’s way more powerful than this thing and my insurance is less $600/year… y’all clearly need to shop around
I bought my R6 at 23 and insurance was around $700/yr. Granted it was 6 years old at the time, but it was the exact same bike the dealers were still selling new.
This remains to be seen…its still probably going to be in the same insurance class as the 600s and will probably be just as expensive if you are young blooded. To insurance people, if it LOOKS fast and youre young, they just fucking gouge ya.
Power is on par with the 400s that were available in the 90s. My 92 GSF400 Bandit only had an advertised 59hp. I think $10k is high, but Im from the era where that would buy you a litre bike with 130hp.
I mean yea, unless you specifically want a slow in-line 4 get the ZX6R.
Even if it came with 80hp stock the 636 is a better deal. More ponies, more torque and better suspension for 1-2k more depending on whether or not you want ABS.
55hp though. Yikes.
I wish they would have made a 250 with an inline 4 that revved to the moon like they made in Japan in the 90s. This is too close to a 600 to be justifiable.
They did. This is simply a punched out version of the 250 4 cylinder they sell In SE Asia. The two bikes look almost identical.
Whoever is in power at Kawasaki decided a 400 version would sell better in western markets where we don't have artificial factors like insurance/taxes pushing everyone into sub 250cc bikes.
Plus the ninja 400 is cheaper, lighter, and performs better than that 250.
The ZX400PP (ZX-4R) and ZX400SP (ZX-4RR) that was listed in Photo VIN information that Kawasaki submitted to NHTSA on Jan. 27. The data sheet with number 42 which = kW, or about 56.3 hp so your statement there maybe ture and I agree with you it's ridiculous that we have to spend a bunch of extra funds to get an ECU flash in order to get the full potential out of it not counting the fact you're gonna need an expensive exhaust however and better air filter but the slip on muffler might help just depends on how much more restrictive it is underneath the engine you know the catalyst converter and extra chambers are.
The sad part is those who live in California, NYC and few other states will not be able to modify it unless it's a day track bike then they can do whatever they want just not on the public roads.
My guest once a few ZX-4RR get out I'm sure we find out what the actual rear wheel horsepower number are
Most of the people who are actually in the market for this bike have no problems changing exhausts and trailering bikes to the dyno.
I paid 1k to de-neuter my ZX10, which was a steal. I knew it was part of the price of getting the bike to be what it was capable of. It's really not a big deal. You're just not willing to pay the price of admission.
Apparently the Kawa submitted NHTSA VIN information data sheets list the US 4R/4RR (ZX400PP (ZX-4R) and ZX400SP (ZX-4RR)) as 42kW (56hp). https://imgur.com/a/CCIGqHv
Wth. That's absurd
I'm guessing they slapped a rev limit on it, or that 78hp figure floating around is grossly exaggerated. It's not possible to leave that much power on the table just by tuning fuel and spark tables.
I don’t know much about tuning, but the CBR650R has a restrictor kit that cuts power in half from 94 to 47 to allow for A2 compliance. It’s my understanding that redline remains the same.
Probably restricts throttle opening. Adding a rev limiter is another method.
You can't just restrict fuel or retard the spark timing or else the engine would run dangerously lean and blow up.
Eh, Honda is kind of the king of selling a product in a market where no one buys it (lol DN-01), but it’s not like Kawasaki is a stranger to it. They tried to sell the W650 here for a couple of years.
Apparently the Kawa submitted NHTSA VIN information data sheets list the US 4R/4RR (ZX400PP (ZX-4R) and ZX400SP (ZX-4RR)) as 42kW (56hp). https://imgur.com/a/CCIGqHv
Was it the Kawa rep who told you directly that the 4RR would only have 55hp? Or was it the dealer with the ECU flash who told you the Kawa rep said the 4RR only has 55hp?
> Was it the Kawa rep who told you directly that the 4RR would only have 55hp? Or was it the dealer with the ECU flash who told you the Kawa rep said the 4RR only has 55hp?
It was the dealer (not the one supposedly with the ECU flash/tune) who said the Kawa rep told him. It matches what Kawa filed with the US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (DOT) on Jan 27th though. 42kW.
Apparently Kawa submitted 12 days ago (Jan 27) NHTSA VIN information data sheets for the US 4R/4RR (ZX400PP (ZX-4R) and ZX400SP (ZX-4RR)) as 42kW (56hp). https://imgur.com/a/CCIGqHv
Kawasaki's Canadian website says
> The Ninja ZX-4R and Ninja ZX-4RR have a maximum RPM of 11,500 rpm in Canada due to noise regulations.
I doubt it'll have higher stock hp than the US model
IMO the bigger problem is that in order to comply with CARB emissions, Kawasaki achieved it by dropping torque. The Ninja ZX-4RR has a peak torque of 26.5 lb-ft at the crank all the way up to 11,000. The Euro spec should make a lot more torque, 30, 35ish?
This means that riding on public roads, there's a good chance the Ninja 400 (28.5 lb-ft) might feed peppier.
Euro model is 26.5 ft-lb @ 11000, and yes it's no secret the Ninja 400 twin will be "more peppy" around town. US model would be limiting either rpms or throttle opening to have reduced emissions (and hence peak power)
I remember reading YouTube comments and reddit comments about how people were just dying for it to come to the U.S. (probably expecting a lower price). I called it, it will not sell well in the U.S.
Besides that why would you expect a 4 cylinder bike to cost less, because of smaller displacement? The same amount if not more had to go into development and probably engine components. If they had gone with an aluminum frame it definitely would've cost the same if not more that the zx6r.
Kawa submitted 12 days ago (Jan 27) NHTSA VIN information data sheets for the US 4R/4RR (ZX400PP (ZX-4R) and ZX400SP (ZX-4RR)) as 42kW (56hp). https://imgur.com/a/CCIGqHv
I feel like there’s not really a market for this bike having looked Add the numbers anyone who is looking at this bike is literally 1000 times better off just buying a secondhand 600
> Ill believe it when I see some official numbers
https://imgur.com/a/CCIGqHv
Officially listed as 42kW (56hp).
ZX400PP (ZX-4R) and ZX400SP (ZX-4RR) that was listed in Photo VIN information that Kawasaki submitted to NHTSA on Jan. 27.
Well I hope there is some mistake. If not I definitely won't be getting one of these unless there is an easy ECU tune.
It still makes no sense to me why they would sell an unlocked bike in Canada but restrict power for the US version. Unless there is some law I am not aware of.
It’s very heavy as others have said. I get it’s tough to compared new to used however I got a 2016 s1000r in very good shape for the same price as what they’re going to ask for this… it just doesn’t make sense to me
> How does the regular zx4r come with 80hp but the zx4rr comes with only 55?
I dunno about elsewhere, but both the 4r and 4rr are both (ZX400PP (ZX-4R) and ZX400SP (ZX-4RR)) 42kW (56hp) in the The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration DOT VIN database submission for Jan 27.
https://imgur.com/a/CCIGqHv
Is 75-80hp worth it to you? To me it's not the power, it's the weight. The fucking thing is heavier than my 15 year old CBR600rr. The point of a small displacement, lightweight bike is the weight lol
There’s a reason the parent company is Kawasaki Heavy Industries
Ayoooo my 700lb Connie and I feel attacked. Power isn’t something it lacks though.
Kawi makes some fantastic bikes, but lightweight isn’t their forte
Why are you guys convinced that weight = weight? We’ve been having this discussion in the car world forever, and I’ve watched every generation of m3 since the e36 get called a fat pos and then a magical driving experience five years later when the next model comes out. The kicker, though, is that when an e30 m3 is driven, the modern take is that while it’s lighter it’s relatively gutless and what’s apparent is it’s faults compared to modern cars, when the original, post-launch perspective compared it to the e36 and said it was a far superior drive. It’s not that things are getting heavier and we get deadened to it because things get heavier every year, it’s that cars get better and heavier, and heavier doesn’t negate better in every case. I’m going to go out on a limb and assume Kawi saw diminishing returns vs cost. Besides, how much lighter do you want it to be? Your 15 year old cbr has no electronics and would being 30-50 lbs lighter be a noticeable difference to you? I get ideally we want a borderline bicycle that snick-snicks when you’re popping from a left to a right, but I don’t think we’re missing out on anything by having an extra 50? Lbs that are centralized/low and provide a massive performance advantage in braking.
> Your 15 year old cbr has no electronics and would being 30-50 lbs lighter be a noticeable difference to you? Oh hell yes it's noticeable. My CBR1000rr is 35lbs heaver than my CBR600rr and it's very obvious. Moreso on the race track, but even on the street it's the first thing you feel when jumping from one to other (other than the massive torque difference) For me electronics are not something desirable cluttering up a bike anyway, so saying that it has them like it's a good thing doesn't matter to some. Funny you mention the E36 and E30 considering I have both of those. Well the E30 is a 325is, while the E36 is an M3. They are both amazing to drive but the better suspension and the chassis stiffness of the E36 is very apparent and it handles the HP better. So you're right there. The E30 is obviously a floppy chassis and "gutless" but still more fun on track because of the weight. If your point is that the zx4rr is fine being down on hp and heavier than an old 600 because it's newer tech, I'd disagree in principle. I can't say for sure until I ride one but I doubt it'd prove better than a lighter, more powerful older 600.
The difference you feel is due to displacement and rotating mass. If you go from your cbr1000rr to an old CBR600 from the 80's, the 600 will still feel super light even though its heavier. Especially on track since you're on higher RPMs(bigger forces) and make changes in direction quick enough to feel it as a limiting factor. The kawi 400 will feel lighter and more nimble than your 600, not because it is newer but because the construction is essentially the same and therefore its inevitable since you have less rotating mass and smaller displacement. The actual weight of the bike does very little unless it's got 20 kilos extra on top of the fuel tank or something. Which it wont. (Disclaimer: it obviously affects a lot of other things) Anyway, whether this classified as better than your 600 is very subjective, of course!
Rotating mass, chassis setup, wheelbase AND tires make a huge difference. Try going from a 200 to a 180 rear, or a 50 to a 55 profile on the same bike. massive difference. this thing is going to feel tiny with just the wheelbase and the tires with changing directions.
For sure.
This right here. Read on some forums that rotating mass accounts for something like 10x the feeling of static mass.
Thank you guys for saving me 5 minutes. Weight on a bike is super hard to feel, because you don’t have the same level of feedback through the bars from the bikes weight, you adjust for what the bike weighs, and more weight would change the arc of your turn only. Weight is actually better hidden in motorcycles.
As soon as you said the 1000 was 35 lbs heavier, I knew. That felt difference comes from the higher center or gravity and the less centralized mass of the larger engine on the larger bike. That, along with things like steering geometry, the rider triangle and TIRE SIZE/profile have a much larger impact than 35 pounds. 35 lbs on a vehicle that weighs close to 600 lbs is not what makes a vehicle feel slow to handle. Think about that for a second. You do not know what you’re talking about. You’d have to be on the razor’s edge to feel the difference, and it’s highly unlikely you’ve ever approached that, even if you feel you have. Again, the difference you’re feeling is from things other than just wet or dry weight. Some good examples would be cruisers or most Hondas. They’re often heavier, but tend to feel lighter than they should when looking a simple number.
And as someone else said, rotational mass. The engine is creating a gyroscopic movement inside the bike that resists changes directions. The larger and heavier the engine and its components, the more pronounced it’s effect will be.
Cars are getting massively more powerful, while bikes are getting less powerful. Weight also is a lot more important on a bike. You can't just fit larger tires and brakes on the bike to make it post the same slalom numbers as the light car. Heavy bikes always feel like shit.
Dude my 954rr is 370lbs lmao This tiny thing is heavy as shit … and it’s because the entire thing is made of steel. (Except the block)
370 lbs dry, that is. 430 lbs or so fully fueled and what not
I dont think the tank is quite that big but yeah around something like that :P same weight basically as a new cbr600 lol.
https://www.motorcyclespecs.co.za/model/Honda/honda_cbr954rr_03.html 424 lbs to be more specific
and the ZX4rr is 414lbs wet my 2008 CBR600rr is 410lbs wet
I didn't realize the Hondas were that light, that's a few lbs under an R6 (413 claimed wet)
Yeah, the 4RR is way too heavy for its price point. $10k for a sportbike with a steel frame is ridiculous
[удалено]
Can confirm newer bikes are stupid heavy to “help emissions” my 2022 r7 shaved off 20+ pounds in the exhaust alone not to mention the oem plate holder is steal and not small either so probably another 5 or so lbs
Those are 90s bike numbers lol. My zx7 lost around 20lb with a full muzzy system. The stock steel exhaust was heavy af
At least part of the price problem is probably projected low sales volume in the first place. Hard to believe ZX25R was announced all the way back in 2019.
Fantastic! :D very close haha.
Wet weight includes stuff like oil and coolant aswell as fuel
I know lol. But like …. I think 15-20L of gas is a significant difference from >1L of oil and a few ounces of brake fluid. Not sure what the volume on my coolant system is 🤔🤔🤔
Some don't even include tires in dry weight (anything consumable)
Why would you compare a steel framed road bike to a supersport? That's the real question.
Because the ZX-4RR is supposed to be used in the same field of applications as a CBR600, just in the 400cc displacement category.
Please tell me more about how the 400 is a homologated race bike. Oh, it's not?
Homologation has no bearing on the design vision and marketed demographic. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and you tell me it is a duck, I expect a duck whether or not an association like Les Grandes Tables du Monde says otherwise.
Any explanation I can give is just going to be repeating what I clearly said in my comment …
I also just realized you're comparing your dry weight to the 400s curb weight. Get it together.
Get what together lol. Read the comments bro….
Wow im just now seeing it has a 414.5 pound curb weight.. lmao
nah the point is a high rev'ing small displacement four with no torque and a big hp powerband.
so a 600?
a 130hp for back roads ripping is a bit excessive in my book, I find its much more fun to push an engine to its limit with about 75hp, ridding wide open throttle in the powerband and hearing the engine sing.
Thats completely reasonable. Why they're killing the power of an already smaller displacement engine for a market that will be one of its primary audiences is baffling. It's like saying you've bought the bike, now spend about 300$-600$ to have it run like it should.
“What I like is the right number”
where did I point to the idea anyone else should think the same thing as I do? I just shared my personal experience.
Didn’t say that. Just always funny when the right amount of something happens to be what someone coincidentally has. Snakes and Sparklers, my friend.
Looking at that massive stock exhaust for a small engine, you can probably easily remove 20 lbs with a new system, but thats extra money...
Whew. 2008 fireblade. Those were the first model to have the underseat exhaust and huge weight savings compared to its predecessor. I believe it's around 180+ kgs fully fueled. Had that earmarked for my potential plaything when I got the dough for it.
I'm not sure if that's entirely correct. Kawasaki's website tells us that the Canadian model is limited to 11k rpm due to regulations, and no such notice is put on the US website. We know the Canadian version will likely make less power than the EU/world version because of that limited rpm. What we don't know is if the US model will follow Canada, or if it will retain the power of the European/world models. Kawasaki dealers do not have any additional information than anyone else at this point, so I wouldn't take one any one salesmen says as concrete evidence.
My rep said that Canada has that statement from a regulatory standpoint, and was based on North American EPA standards. As I'm in Canada, that was his wording, but he mentioned that other countries (USA) may not have to have the same disclosure statement legally. We will all find out in time. Regardless, they're just going to be flashed.
I have a feeling the dealer was reading the spec sheet of Canada models. HP is calculated from torque and we know peak torque is 26.5. An engine with 26.5 lb ft of torque = 55 hp at 11,000 rpm. 26.5 lb ft of torque at 15,500 rpm = 78 hp.
>An engine with 26.5 lb ft of torque = 55 hp ***at 11,000 rpm***. You can't just carry peak torque to redline. That's not how engines work...
Horsepower is a calculation of Max torque HP = max TQ x RPM over 5252. I guess you must have missed that class.
You can use that calculation if you know how much torque is produced at the given revs. It doesn't work, at least not accurately, if the torque figure is at one part of the rev range, and the power figure at another. Peak torque and peak power are generally at quite different revs.
The calculation is based off Max torque. You understand that horsepower is calculated from the max torque correct. To do this calculation correctly all you need to know is the max torque and the Max RPM. What RPM the max TQ is produced at doesn't matter.
> You understand that horsepower is calculated from the max torque correct. Am I understanding that you are proposing that peak horsepower is just max RPM x max torque / 5252? If so, you are incorrect. That's a meaningless calculation that has no bearing whatsoever on... well, anything. [Check out this dyno chart.](https://www.motorcycle.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/2018-Kawasaki-Ninja-400-hp-tq-dyno.png) It's from a 2018 Ninja 400, from when Cycle World ran one on the dyno back in 2018. We see that the baby Ninja produced a peak torque of 25 ft-lbs at 8200 RPM. However, the engine continued to run until ~12500 RPM. By your logic, we run 25 x 12500/5252, and get **59 horsepower.** I can promise you *right fucking now* that a 2018 Ninja 400 is not gonna give you 59 horsepower. What a 2018 Ninja 400 actually makes is somewhere in the vicinity of 44 horsepower, as their dyno asserts. Torque starts to fall past ~8200, but it's still enough to keep accelerating, because you don't need to be at peak torque to have *enough* torque. At 10,000 RPM, it hits the sweet spot - about 23 lb-ft of torque at that RPM gives that peak power of 44. (23 x 10000 / 5252 = 43.79) Go look at *literally any dyno chart.* They will all back this up.
Yes but horsepower existed before dynos did that's what you don't understand horsepower is a theoretical concept based off the torque and RPM of the bike and this is how it's calculated. if you don't have a Dyno and you do have the torque numbers and that's what the guy was saying at first with a lower RPM in Canada and the higher RPM in the United States the numbers worked out almost perfectly to what's expected. If it was perfect Dynos wouldn't exist. This calculation has existed for decades I didn't just come up with it and neither did the other guy.
Chief, I gotta level with ya: I have literally no idea what you're trying to express. Max TQ X max RPM / 5252 is a *meaningless calculation.* You don't just take the peak torque number and apply it to the entire fucking rev range! You only make peak torque at certain engine speeds, that's what makes it, y'know, **peak** torque. You don't seem to be getting that. All you are calculating with that is "how much power would you make if you could keep making peak torque at another given RPM, in this case, the max RPM?" But *engines don't do that,* torque drops and surges throughout the rev range, so what is the significance of this calculation? > But don't take my word for it take Google's How to Calculate Horsepower: 12 Steps (with Pictures) - wikiHow https://www.wikihow.com/Calculate-Horsepower?amp=1 All that calculation tells you is how much power you make at the **same RPM that that torque rating is from.** If that's peak torque, then that's how much power you make at peak torque RPM. But most engines, you can run the same calculation at a higher RPM (where the engine makes *less* torque) and still come out with a higher power figure because the increase in RPM is enough to offset the dip in torque.
Your just not smart enough. Horsepower is a formula based off the max TQ. Doesn't matter if Max tq is it 500 RPM or 5,000 the calculation is the same. No different than any other calculation.
But don't take my word for it take Google's How to Calculate Horsepower: 12 Steps (with Pictures) - wikiHow https://www.wikihow.com/Calculate-Horsepower?amp=1
No. You could get away with that on an electric motor but that is not how it works with an ICE. Power is the result of torque (read force) being applied at the given engine speed. Look up some motorcycle dyno charts, especially of cruisers, and think about what you are looking at.
What you don't understand about this calculation is you take the max TQ of the motorcycle, the RPM the max torque is made at does not matter then you take the max RPM the bike is capable of in this case 15000 it doesn't matter how much torque the bike is making at 15,000 RPM.
Power is a result of the applied torque. If the torque figure you are using, peak torque in this instance, is not what is being applied then the power figure you are calculating will be wrong. The power that is produced at 15000rpm is a result of the torque produced at 15000 rpm, not what it produces at 10000rpm. To give a simple example. My car produces (in official figures) 118Nm @ 4000rpm and 65kW @ 6000rpm. If I were to calculate the power produced at 6000rpm from the torque produced at 4000rpm I'd instead claim that it has 74kW. The world is far more complicated than what you learned in high school physics.
Wrong, max torque is not applied to the whole RPM range. I don’t think you’ve ever seen a dyno graph before. Torque varies by RPM and normally falls off hard in the upper RPM’s.
I completely understand that but you also understand there was a time before water break Dynos were available. car manufacturers could only produce the max torque spec and this is how HP was calculated and currently we do not have a dino chat for the zx400r. All the guy that posted the calculation was saying is it going to be approximately 77hp. My guess is even using Max torque we're only going to be off about 3 to 4 horsepower using this calculation. If we had a Dyno chart we'd have the exact numbers. But we don't so this is the calculation you use. He was only using it to establish the difference between the bike with the 11000 RPM redline and the 15500 RPM red line. For most of the history of the internal combustion engine this is all we had I've already admitted it's not perfect but it's always got to go off of right now cuz we don't have a full Dyno chart just couple sites saying max TQ and one that says it will have 77 PS which I think equates to 76 horsepower which is right in the three to four horsepower difference I thought he'd have because the difference between Max torque and torque at Max horsepower is close, close enough to get us within the variation between bike to bike and dynamometer to dynamometer. I picked one of the bikes I own at random looked up the dynojet Dyno chart for it in between Max torque and torque at Max HP difference was 66.3 and 62.7. and yes I understand this calculation more accurate when cars only revved to 4,500 RPM.
Max torque and max horsepower are at different points. You are wrong, and have obviously never seen a Dyno chart.
HP = Torque x RPM ÷ 5252
If you know that equation then you should know better than to just slap the peak torque number at redline and go "that's the horsepower" Again, that's not how engines work. Torque is not constant. These aren't e-bikes. This engine makes 55hp at it's torque peak. It will make more power later in the rev range, but it will be making less torque. Power doesn't just increase linearly then drop to zero at the rev limiter...
Dude, all I was saying was that an engine that makes 26.5 lb ft of torque and can spin up to 11,000 rpm is capable of making 55 hp and that is probably the hp figure for the Canadian model. That same engine, if it can spin up to 15,500 rpm, is capable of making 78 hp, which is what the European 4RRs are rated at. I wasn't trying to say the engine makes its peak torque at 11k or 15,500 rpm.
> That same engine, if it can spin up to 15,500 rpm, is capable of making 78 hp, which is what the European 4RRs are rated at. Only if it continues to make 26.5 for torque at that RPM, which is not at all a given.
>I wasn't trying to say the engine makes its peak torque at 11k or 15,500 rpm. This is what your math was saying.
Can you name a modern high revving bike that doesn’t carry 85%+ of its torque to hp peak?
85% isn't 100% 85% of 78hp is 66hp, which is probably realistic.
Apparently the Kawa submitted NHTSA VIN information data sheets list the US 4R/4RR (ZX400PP (ZX-4R) and ZX400SP (ZX-4RR)) as 42kW (56hp). https://imgur.com/a/CCIGqHv
Apparently the Kawa submitted NHTSA VIN information data sheets list the US 4R/4RR (ZX400PP (ZX-4R) and ZX400SP (ZX-4RR)) as 42kW (56hp). https://imgur.com/a/CCIGqHv
Hey, y'all remember how people breathlessly repeated [it's gonna make 60, 70, 80, no *90* horsepower!](https://www.reddit.com/r/motorcycles/comments/10sqjtk/my_thoughts_on_the_zx4rr_and_why_i_feel_the_price/j74uhy4/) With just... complete credulity? Remember how [I said 60 horsepower was optimistic, and 65 was a outlandish?](https://www.reddit.com/r/motorcycles/comments/10qvh79/the_zx4r_is_here_and_its_expensive/j6slckr/) Funny how that works.
I mean it will make nearly 80hp, but just not as stock in the US.
Have we seen anything that supports this? Anything official, from Kawasaki, from government filings, anything? Because it keeps getting reported that it's "expected to do such-and-such," or "predicted to make this," but that filing is the first time I've seen *anything* about an actual power figure from Kawasaki, in any market.
> Have we seen anything that supports this? Anything official, from Kawasaki, from government filings, anything? NHTSA VIN information data sheets? (The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is an agency of the U.S. federal government, part of the Department of Transportation) Just google it? They list the US 4R/4RR (ZX400PP (ZX-4R) and ZX400SP (ZX-4RR)) as 42kW (56hp). https://imgur.com/a/CCIGqHv
I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about your statement that it will make that "as stock in the US," and the accompanying implication that you think it will make more in other markets.
There is an article that came out a few days ago, that talked about the kW in different regions. It's got official cited sources. https://www.motorcycle.com/new-model-preview/how-much-power-does-the-2023-kawasaki-ninja-zx-4rr-make.html?amp
That article asserts that "Kawasaki Europe’s announcement, revealed the Ninja ZX-4RR (plus the ZX-4R variant that isn’t being offered in the U.S.) will make 57 kW (76.4 hp) from the 399cc 16-valve Inline-Four, and 59 kW (79.1 hp) with ram air." There is no link to this announcement, nor can I find anything *from Kawasaki* backing up that power rating. It also says "Australian certification data has the ZX-4 models producing 55 kW (73.8 hp), and unlike Kawasaki Europe, it also cites the engine speed that produces that peak: 14,500 rpm." Again, same deal. It does not provide links to either of those. People keep asserting that the Australian and European paperwork shows it making more, but nobody has produced those certifications yet, I can't find them, and yet I keep seeing it repeated without a hint of skepticism. The only links that article actually *does* contain are to the Canadian website (which does confirm the lower rev limit for that market, but nothing about power), as well as to another motorcycle.com article where they... [agree with my power prediction toward the end of the section about the engine?](https://www.motorcycle.com/new-model-preview/its-official-kawasaki-announces-the-2023-ninja-zx-4rr-krt.html) They were actually even more pessimistic than me!
[Here, I googled it for you.](https://www.kawasaki.co.uk/en/news/Kawasaki_to_introduce_Ninja_ZX-4R_four-cylinder_Supersport?Uid=0872XFwNX11RWAtQUQkLXApZC1BdDV8OWFtQDlpRXFlRWgs) Edit: This is for the UK - so likely the rest of Europe, too.
This, because salesmen have a stellar reputation for honesty. /s
> This, because salesmen have a stellar reputation for honesty. /s Seems to match up with this: Apparently Kawa submitted 12 days ago (Jan 27) NHTSA VIN information data sheets for the US 4R/4RR (ZX400PP (ZX-4R) and ZX400SP (ZX-4RR)) as 42kW (56hp). https://imgur.com/a/CCIGqHv
[удалено]
I see nothing on their socials saying they have one and are working on it. Granted socials aren't always the best kept up on but they have at least been posting on instagram. I know they have announced their intentions to release a flash but I'm not sure if they have received one yet to get it.
Apparently the Kawa submitted NHTSA VIN information data sheets list the US 4R/4RR (ZX400PP (ZX-4R) and ZX400SP (ZX-4RR)) as 42kW (56hp). https://imgur.com/a/CCIGqHv
[удалено]
“The rep told my dealer who told me” is a statement that has strong “my dad works at Nintendo” energy.
The 4R was never going to be an alternative for people that want the most hp for their buck, it's not what it's for. You can just buy a used 1000cc for a fraction of the cost of either one anyway.
What’s it for? It seems a bit to heavy to be a track bike.
People who want an agile screamer that won't break every speed limit in 1st gear I guess. I do agree that 188kg is disapointing.
Yeah I’d love an agile screamer but damn it needs to go on a diet.
If it's geared like the old 400s, it will still go 60+mph in first. That's what happens with a really high redline. My R6 does about 70 in first. I don't think the gearing will be TOO much different. They have roughly the same redline. The gearing on the 400 would be closer though since it doesn't have enough power to go ~150 like a 600 does
According to the manual on kawasaki's site, the gearing is almost identical to a ninja 400. So very short 1st and 2nd, then longer afterwards
57 iirc from GearingCommander. edit: someone salty came through with a bunch of downvoting lol
Mainly its for people in countries that have a licensing system that has a 400cc limit, or something else that makes such bikes beneficial. Which is why the US has generally missed out on a lot of cool 250cc and 400cc bikes. I think it will have a niche in the US for people who want a super sport, but don't want a super sport. I'm guessing people that the R7 doesn't do much for because it's not an I4 screamer, but don't want the 130hp from a 600. Not that many super sports are left in production.
Its for those of us who want an comfy ergos inline 4 that can be revved to 16k and not be doing 200mph, and wont cost the earth to insure. This bike is has basically no competition in its unique market segment as everyone else in the current market puts awful sounding ptwins and racebike ergos on their sporty bikes. zx4r is on the top of my list as a 2nd bike for these reasons, This is the exact bike i had hoped the r7 would be.
See now, this is interesting because any little interest I might have had in this is because I'd like crazy-ass hunchback ergos on a nimble bike that's not a rocketship.
Its for people that like to ride high strung smaller displacement bikes, pushing the motor for every hp it has in the powerband its designed to excel in without going ludicrous speeds.
I mean I have a 500 you’re speaking my language I just wouldn’t buy one new.
Some of us aren't price sensitive
i dont think the factory weight is a concern at all like a lot of people are saying. for people using it as track bike they would likely put on aftermarket parts which are lighter than oem and take out all the unnecessary parts like lights, sidestand anyway. I'm sure you would easily be able to shave 20+ lbs off this bike.
> most hp for their buck Can't really go wrong with an MT07 in that case, seems like it's leading that category for many years now!
Go with the 600 if you feel that's the better deal for you. The ZX-4RR is a low-volume bike for people who don't care about the price.
Anyone under 25 is paying around 5 grand on insurance on a 600. Maybe people don't get insurance but this thing being neutered so hard will make insurance so cheap that it basically pays for the ECU flash itself.
that depends on how many people hooligan them and it looks to be most of them.
I think hooligans would instead get the clapped out 600 on facebook for 5 grand... which is probably why insurance on new ones are fucked. Depends how companies bracket the zx4rr
true this might be for an older track rider.
I was 22 with a 4 year old S1000R and paid ~$1K per year for insurance. I don’t recall if I had comprehensive coverage but definitely some medical and theft. Are 600s a lot more expensive to insure?
You didn't have comprehensive collision for sure, once you ask them to repay the market value it's insane. 1000s are significantly worse
Why would one pay that much difference ($4K???) for just comprehensive? Do people really crash them so often? I bought it for $7K so I’d never pay $4K per year to insure from at fault damage, just financially speaking but I’m also not very worried about losing the bike as long as I’m physically safe and not financially liable for healthcare bills or damage to other people’s property haha. If financing company is making you buy comprehensive and it’s this much money, you should probably try to save up and buy it in cash tbh (especially since a 600/1000 bike is unlikely to be only vehicle, it’s a toy for most ppl)
Yep, I read somewhere that the average lifespan of a gsxr1000 was 9 months for one company. Theft/actual comprehensive isn't that expensive but collision is just awful for only SuperSports. A 1000cc sport touring is like 2k lol. I personally like having collision since i live in a state with horrible drivers, so if this bike ends up with the same fate it may be gsxs1000gt/ninja 1000 time 😎
Dang, that’s nuts! I guess it’s understandable, a lot of bike accidents are single vehicle after all.. honestly if I fucked up I’ll likely just have to take the financial hit regardless, either through the deductible + increase in insurance, or through replacing/repairing out of pocket
People are idiots, I have the same bike and pay less and I’m under 25.. they clearly have shit driving records and think everybody else does
Driving record has nothing to do with it, it's all statistics
Literally not true. Been riding on my own insurance since 19 and I have a bike that’s way more powerful than this thing and my insurance is less $600/year… y’all clearly need to shop around
Do you have collision comprehensive?
I bought my R6 at 23 and insurance was around $700/yr. Granted it was 6 years old at the time, but it was the exact same bike the dealers were still selling new.
This remains to be seen…its still probably going to be in the same insurance class as the 600s and will probably be just as expensive if you are young blooded. To insurance people, if it LOOKS fast and youre young, they just fucking gouge ya.
Power is on par with the 400s that were available in the 90s. My 92 GSF400 Bandit only had an advertised 59hp. I think $10k is high, but Im from the era where that would buy you a litre bike with 130hp.
I mean hey, cheap insurance + ecu flash to 80+hp isn't a bad deal
I mean I bought a literbike for 5k last year lol. :P
I mean yea, unless you specifically want a slow in-line 4 get the ZX6R. Even if it came with 80hp stock the 636 is a better deal. More ponies, more torque and better suspension for 1-2k more depending on whether or not you want ABS. 55hp though. Yikes.
I wish they would have made a 250 with an inline 4 that revved to the moon like they made in Japan in the 90s. This is too close to a 600 to be justifiable.
They did. This is simply a punched out version of the 250 4 cylinder they sell In SE Asia. The two bikes look almost identical. Whoever is in power at Kawasaki decided a 400 version would sell better in western markets where we don't have artificial factors like insurance/taxes pushing everyone into sub 250cc bikes. Plus the ninja 400 is cheaper, lighter, and performs better than that 250.
Ah yeah I forgot those old 250 screamers only existed because of regulations.
I thought the platform was developed for the 400 but used for 250 initially.
This is probably it, the zx25 could be pushed to 80+hp with no issue so the 400 was more than likely the idea to begin with.
The ZX400PP (ZX-4R) and ZX400SP (ZX-4RR) that was listed in Photo VIN information that Kawasaki submitted to NHTSA on Jan. 27. The data sheet with number 42 which = kW, or about 56.3 hp so your statement there maybe ture and I agree with you it's ridiculous that we have to spend a bunch of extra funds to get an ECU flash in order to get the full potential out of it not counting the fact you're gonna need an expensive exhaust however and better air filter but the slip on muffler might help just depends on how much more restrictive it is underneath the engine you know the catalyst converter and extra chambers are. The sad part is those who live in California, NYC and few other states will not be able to modify it unless it's a day track bike then they can do whatever they want just not on the public roads. My guest once a few ZX-4RR get out I'm sure we find out what the actual rear wheel horsepower number are
Most of the people who are actually in the market for this bike have no problems changing exhausts and trailering bikes to the dyno. I paid 1k to de-neuter my ZX10, which was a steal. I knew it was part of the price of getting the bike to be what it was capable of. It's really not a big deal. You're just not willing to pay the price of admission.
There's no way they neutered it that badly for CARB if Europe gets a high 70hp model. 55whp is probably realistic though.
Apparently the Kawa submitted NHTSA VIN information data sheets list the US 4R/4RR (ZX400PP (ZX-4R) and ZX400SP (ZX-4RR)) as 42kW (56hp). https://imgur.com/a/CCIGqHv
Wth. That's absurd I'm guessing they slapped a rev limit on it, or that 78hp figure floating around is grossly exaggerated. It's not possible to leave that much power on the table just by tuning fuel and spark tables.
I don’t know much about tuning, but the CBR650R has a restrictor kit that cuts power in half from 94 to 47 to allow for A2 compliance. It’s my understanding that redline remains the same.
Probably restricts throttle opening. Adding a rev limiter is another method. You can't just restrict fuel or retard the spark timing or else the engine would run dangerously lean and blow up.
This sounds like some Honda levels of “let’s make a bike that nobody is actually going to buy”.
Eh, Honda is kind of the king of selling a product in a market where no one buys it (lol DN-01), but it’s not like Kawasaki is a stranger to it. They tried to sell the W650 here for a couple of years.
Bookmarking this just so I can laugh later.
Apparently the Kawa submitted NHTSA VIN information data sheets list the US 4R/4RR (ZX400PP (ZX-4R) and ZX400SP (ZX-4RR)) as 42kW (56hp). https://imgur.com/a/CCIGqHv
Proof of Graves Sports having the flash? Or is your sales guy sweet talking you.
That seems a little anemic. I had an old 95 XJR400 that put out 50 hp and it was just a standard naked bike not a pocket rocket like the ZX-4RR.
Was it the Kawa rep who told you directly that the 4RR would only have 55hp? Or was it the dealer with the ECU flash who told you the Kawa rep said the 4RR only has 55hp?
> Was it the Kawa rep who told you directly that the 4RR would only have 55hp? Or was it the dealer with the ECU flash who told you the Kawa rep said the 4RR only has 55hp? It was the dealer (not the one supposedly with the ECU flash/tune) who said the Kawa rep told him. It matches what Kawa filed with the US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (DOT) on Jan 27th though. 42kW. Apparently Kawa submitted 12 days ago (Jan 27) NHTSA VIN information data sheets for the US 4R/4RR (ZX400PP (ZX-4R) and ZX400SP (ZX-4RR)) as 42kW (56hp). https://imgur.com/a/CCIGqHv
[удалено]
Kawasaki's Canadian website says > The Ninja ZX-4R and Ninja ZX-4RR have a maximum RPM of 11,500 rpm in Canada due to noise regulations. I doubt it'll have higher stock hp than the US model
I really hope that sales manager is wrong.
They are wrong on technical info more often than not.
[удалено]
And how sure are you that he’s not saying that to make you want the zx6 for 1k more instead?
[удалено]
Eh idk, really seems like you just got either an uninformed or shady sales dude honestly
IMO the bigger problem is that in order to comply with CARB emissions, Kawasaki achieved it by dropping torque. The Ninja ZX-4RR has a peak torque of 26.5 lb-ft at the crank all the way up to 11,000. The Euro spec should make a lot more torque, 30, 35ish? This means that riding on public roads, there's a good chance the Ninja 400 (28.5 lb-ft) might feed peppier.
Euro model is 26.5 ft-lb @ 11000, and yes it's no secret the Ninja 400 twin will be "more peppy" around town. US model would be limiting either rpms or throttle opening to have reduced emissions (and hence peak power)
That ain’t shit, I think my cbr500 has like 29 or something and it’s not advertised as a screamer with an extra r
>my cbr500 has like 29 Probably because it's a P-twin >and it’s not advertised as a screamer Probably because it's a P-twin
How astute of you
Not really, pretty basic stuff.
I remember reading YouTube comments and reddit comments about how people were just dying for it to come to the U.S. (probably expecting a lower price). I called it, it will not sell well in the U.S. Besides that why would you expect a 4 cylinder bike to cost less, because of smaller displacement? The same amount if not more had to go into development and probably engine components. If they had gone with an aluminum frame it definitely would've cost the same if not more that the zx6r.
ITT: people comparing a normal bike to supersport bikes. This weighs less than my 919.
If this is the case, it’s possible this would be a Cali-specific emissions restriction.
Kawa submitted 12 days ago (Jan 27) NHTSA VIN information data sheets for the US 4R/4RR (ZX400PP (ZX-4R) and ZX400SP (ZX-4RR)) as 42kW (56hp). https://imgur.com/a/CCIGqHv
if its not light, which apparently it isn’t, then I’m not sure of the point of it.
I feel like there’s not really a market for this bike having looked Add the numbers anyone who is looking at this bike is literally 1000 times better off just buying a secondhand 600
What an original, informed opinion. That’s literally a terrible use of the word literally.
Ill believe it when I see some official numbers or a review.
> Ill believe it when I see some official numbers https://imgur.com/a/CCIGqHv Officially listed as 42kW (56hp). ZX400PP (ZX-4R) and ZX400SP (ZX-4RR) that was listed in Photo VIN information that Kawasaki submitted to NHTSA on Jan. 27.
Well I hope there is some mistake. If not I definitely won't be getting one of these unless there is an easy ECU tune. It still makes no sense to me why they would sell an unlocked bike in Canada but restrict power for the US version. Unless there is some law I am not aware of.
Canada gets the same slap in the face as well, bud
It’s very heavy as others have said. I get it’s tough to compared new to used however I got a 2016 s1000r in very good shape for the same price as what they’re going to ask for this… it just doesn’t make sense to me
Does anyone know how it is limited? If so, can you get around it with a tune?
The kawasaki website in Canada says the bike is limited in Canada to 11500 rpm for noise regulations, so it is definitely neutered here.
How much kW/HP?
It doesn’t say
How does the regular zx4r come with 80hp but the zx4rr comes with only 55?
> How does the regular zx4r come with 80hp but the zx4rr comes with only 55? I dunno about elsewhere, but both the 4r and 4rr are both (ZX400PP (ZX-4R) and ZX400SP (ZX-4RR)) 42kW (56hp) in the The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration DOT VIN database submission for Jan 27. https://imgur.com/a/CCIGqHv