TW200 Forum banner

1 - 7 of 7 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,489 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
This bike is using the same 25 horsepower, parallel-twin motor as the GW250 and V-Strom 250. I have a sneaking suspicion that it might even be built on the same chassis as the GW250... I will give the Suzuki designers credit for making it look pretty darn good, though! Smart of them to call it a Katana (and the "Katana" badge looks nice on the side of the bike).

It might make a good little bike that goes and goes (and for that potenial, I like it), but it certainly can't compete with an R3 in performance terms. Down 15 horsepower and plus 25 pounds. The R3 is actually a legitimate entry level Supersport - not just any old budget bike. The Yamaha actually puts out some real power!


Much of the success-potential of this model depends on the price point.

http://www.suzukicycles.com/Product Lines/Cycles/Products/GSX250R/2018/~/media/2251016495BF479684472B38B3A5E4ED.ashx

http://www.suzukicycles.com/Product Lines/Cycles/Products/GSX250R/2018/GSX250R.aspx#Specs
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,440 Posts
This bike is using the same 25 horsepower, parallel-twin motor as the GW250 and V-Strom 250. I have a sneaking suspicion that it might even be built on the same chassis as the GW250... I will give the Suzuki designers credit for making it look pretty darn good, though! Smart of them to call it a Katana (and the "Katana" badge looks nice on the side of the bike).

It might make a good little bike that goes and goes (and for that potenial, I like it), but it certainly can't compete with an R3 in performance terms. Down 15 horsepower and plus 25 pounds. The R3 is actually a legitimate entry level Supersport - not just any old budget bike. The Yamaha actually puts out some real power!


Much of the success-potential of this model depends on the price point.

http://www.suzukicycles.com/Product Lines/Cycles/Products/GSX250R/2018/~/media/2251016495BF479684472B38B3A5E4ED.ashx

Suzuki Cycles - Product Lines - Cycles - Products - GSX250R - 2018 - GSX250R
Lipstick on a pig...........



Tom
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,495 Posts
I have ridden both the R3 and the GW250. I like the looks of the R3 but thats it. I don't know where they got that horsepower rating from but it sure felt gutless to me not to mention the vibes and no suspension. The GW250 on the other hand is one of the uglier bikes out there but its one of the most impressive bikes I have ever ridden. Smooth with a good top end pull, very comfortable with a nice ride. has anyone else ridden both?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,489 Posts
Discussion Starter #5 (Edited)
I have ridden both the R3 and the GW250. I like the looks of the R3 but thats it. I don't know where they got that horsepower rating from but it sure felt gutless to me not to mention the vibes and no suspension. The GW250 on the other hand is one of the uglier bikes out there but its one of the most impressive bikes I have ever ridden. Smooth with a good top end pull, very comfortable with a nice ride. has anyone else ridden both?
Hmm, I feel I must respectfully contend part of your comparison of those models. The R3 should absolutely destroy the performance of a GW250...absolutely no comparison. I'm not knocking the GW (I do like it), but performance-wise... Therefore, I would have to assume that either there was something seriously wrong with the R3 you rode (it's possible...), or somehow you misjudged the actual speeds the bikes were doing under given throttle inputs (perhaps because you enjoyed the character of the GW more, for example). There are dyno graphs of those motors that paint a pretty clear picture: the R3 engine produces a lot more power AND torque all the way through the entire rev range (and well beyond the redline of the GW motor). At 4,000 RPM, the GW produces about 8 horsepower and 11 foot pounds of torque; at the same RPM, the R3 produces 12 horsepower and 15 foot pounds. Similarly, at 8,000 RPM, the GW puts out 19 horsepower and 13 foot pounds, while the R3 puts out 28 horsepower and 18 foot pounds. Further increasing the RPM leads to a "staggering" peak of 37 rear wheel horsepower from the R3 - compared to only 19 rwhp from the GW250. I just can't see the GW competing at all, on purely performance terms.


Suzuki GW250:

2014 Lightweight Naked Shootout - Motorcycle.com




Yamaha R3:

2015 Yamaha R3 Dyno Run Video and Power Comparison | DYNO TEST
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dryden-Tdub

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,495 Posts
Hmm, I feel I must respectfully contend part of your comparison of those models. The R3 should absolutely destroy the performance of a GW250...absolutely no comparison. I'm not knocking the GW (I do like it), but performance-wise... Therefore, I would have to assume that either there was something seriously wrong with the R3 you rode (it's possible...), or somehow you misjudged the actual speeds the bikes were doing under given throttle inputs (perhaps because you enjoyed the character of the GW more, for example). There are dyno graphs of those motors that paint a pretty clear picture: the R3 engine produces a lot more power AND torque all the way through the entire rev range (and well beyond the redline of the GW motor). At 4,000 RPM, the GW produces about 8 horsepower and 11 foot pounds of torque; at the same RPM, the R3 produces 12 horsepower and 15 foot pounds. Similarly, at 8,000 RPM, the GW puts out 19 horsepower and 13 foot pounds, while the R3 puts out 28 horsepower and 18 foot pounds. Further increasing the RPM leads to a "staggering" peak of 37 rear wheel horsepower from the R3 - compared to only 19 rwhp from the GW250. I just can't see the GW competing at all, on purely performance terms.



Well I could be wrong but I would still like to hear from someone else that has ridden both bikes. I must admit I liked the GW way more due to the comfort, suspension and very smooth engine and I did not ride them back to back but the R3 to me felt almost identical to my daughters CBR250r which I also like the look of but don't find an impressive bike. Anybody else ridden an R3?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,489 Posts
Discussion Starter #7 (Edited)


Well I could be wrong but I would still like to hear from someone else that has ridden both bikes. I must admit I liked the GW way more due to the comfort, suspension and very smooth engine and I did not ride them back to back but the R3 to me felt almost identical to my daughters CBR250r which I also like the look of but don't find an impressive bike. Anybody else ridden an R3?
Admittedly I haven't ridden either, and I know real-world seat time can speak volumes. That said, I've generally found that my internet conclusions generally match my real-world impressions pretty well :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Peterb
1 - 7 of 7 Posts
Top