Are those "newer 600's" really that quick?

The original question was 600s, not 1000s.

 

No shit? That was what i was talking about, 600's. Anybody that says any modern litre bike is slow and needs to be regeared is a tool...or has a sub 100 national number from a respected race series.

 

So... yes. Modern 600's are that quick. Mid-tens in the 1/4, top speed above 150 (corrected).

Keep in mind though, back in the day the '86 VFR750 ran 10.94 in the 1/4, and topped out at 148, so....

 

I haven't looked up the numbers, so correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that the modern day 600s have more HP and quicker acceleration than the VFR800 ....

 

So a modern 600 is as quick, or quicker, in the quarter mile, makes more horsepower and has higher top speed than a cutting edge mid to late 80's 750 with a 20% larger displacement engine......that wouldn't be cause for smiling in a comparison like this......




.

 

These performance numbers are from Motorcyclist magazine's original test of a 2002 VFR800 Stewart.




Now compare those numbers above to these from last years 2011 MotorcycleUSA.com 600 Supersport shootout.

They included a Ducati 848 EVO and a Triumph Daytona 675R in the shootout as well,and while they were at it they also threw in a Suzuki GSX-R750 for shits and giggles.

Modern day 600 class machines are absolutely remarkable little powerhouses. In nearly every category of performance every single one of them would put a VFR800 to shame.

(Sidenote - Check out the impressive torque figure on the Ducati 848 EVO Stewart. :rockon

 

Thanks for doing the research on this stosh. I guess that confirms what I've always thought. I still love my VFR though. Quite honestly, I don't think I could handle more than the 99 HP that it puts out. I know my limits!

 

^+1 to that. I'm reasonably sure the 'Gen 2' ('86) is as quick (or quicker) than any of the subsequent VFR750/800 models, and even the Gen 2 loses to a modern 600. The numbers comparing a 'GT' bike with a 600 Supersport are meaningless. The VFR is not a competitor for those tiny, folded up supersport things. If I wanted that kind of machine I'd buy one - then sell it a month later to pay the Chiropractor bills after riding it.

 

Still call them a dog. If beat hard enough they will go but a dog. My two pennies.

 

I wouldn't exactly call those numbers "shame" by any stretch of the word. You're comparing a TEN YEAR old sport-TOURING design against the latest and greatest in light-class RACE bikes, yet the VFR beats every last six in peak torque, and equals the 750. Obviously doesn't hold a candle to the LARGER displacement RACING v-twin, but why would it? The 1/4 times are at best .5 to .75 seconds faster for ANY of the bikes on the list and the large majority of them lead the VFR by less than a tenth of a second on the 0-60. Most of those deficiencies can be attributed to VFR's extra heft on the curb.

For a heavier bike that's a comparative dream for rider comfort, the VFR comes DAMN close in sheer numbers, and the extra available torque puts it ahead of the large majority of those bikes in the hands of a rider of moderate skill level. The VFR 800 is still the ultimate STREET bike for the average schmo like us, despite what your squid neighbor with his gixxer 1000 will try to convince you.

This decade old bike has nothing to be ashamed of as far as I'm concerned.

 

This brand new Honda 600 is NOT faster than my VFR...
http://atvgalaxy.com/images/XR600.jpg


...still a bad ass single track/hill climber though.

 

Fer da cripes sakers don't shoot the messenger!

Um.........well yeah. :doh:

It was understood going in that the comparison was to be between a VFR800 and a modern day 600 sportbike.

That's basically the question that Stewart was alluding to in his post. How do the VFR800's performance numbers stack up against a modern day 600 sportbike?
I used his quote in my post so that hopefully there would be no misunderstandings about my reply. Apparently that didn't seem to work.

The man asked a question,I provided him with some info and gave him an honest reply,and he thanked me for it. Simple as that no VFR800 bashing intended.

I've got an '03 myself and I happen to like it a lot.

 

my friend and i went to the track yesterday. me on my 07 and him on his 2011 zx6r.
i ran an 11.4 at 120 (launching at 2-3 thousand rpms). then i went a again on his bike.
as per instructions of the fellow ninja riders i brought it up to 10,000 and feathered it out.
the bike fell on its face and i ran an 11.7 at 124.
its definitely a fast bike, but fuck id have to launch over 12,000 to get out of the hole without bogging.
i will say, it had an excellent clutch. great feel and very easy to modulate even at 10 grand.
wish i could do that on my veefer.

 

Yes, it was. Your post was well written, useful and informative. I wasn't disputing that.

The CONCLUSION that you were drawing was what I didn't agree with. Like it says in the first sentence of my post there, I don't think the difference in those numbers is shameful by any stretch of the imagination, rather it's damn impressive that the 6th gen comes so close to bikes that are being produced with pure performance in mind.

 

Stosh - no mention of the BMW 100 RR - ungodly for a 1000 - Hyabusa type of HP.

For the most part, 600's are about most of the bike anyone would really need. You cannot unleash a 1000 in town, or on the interstate, mostly for track. IMO, they are making these bikes more and more uncomfortable, and impractical. The 99/200 RC51 would do 99 in 1st - unmodified. I had a few gadgets on the '95 900RR that I had and it would do about 120 in 2nd, 1st about 85. After third, the gearing took all the torque out so there wasn't much left, but there was still a lot to go. My 600 would give the 900 a good run, but then the '95 F3 was THE bike to have back then. Before I got my VFR, I would go out to play with the kids, and I'd have to push it pretty hard just to keep up with the newer FI 600's. It was fun, but there was a lot of gear changes, clutch playing, and general high revving just to keep up. Then I decided to let the youngins go play, and I went on home. Both the F3 & RR I had were 95's, and I knew that bike from new. It ran hard, but was nothing compared to the 600's. Im sure 6 years later they are even crazier.

 

I can hit 70 or so in 1st on my 2012 ZX6R. I can def ride on the freeway using just one gear technically lol. Redline cut is about 16.7k on mine and i can already be busted for triple digits by the time i am in top of 2nd. Modern 600s are a engineering marvel, i love my ZX6, wet weight is 421lbs which was the dry weight of yester-years 600s.

 

And Cain rose up.....

You have completely missed the point here Crescentius. :doh:

Stewart was simply asking for confirmation that the modern day 600 class sport bikes have more HP and quicker acceleration than the VFR800. And the answer is yes they do,I showed that with the info that I provided.

Hang on let me double check his post again. ^^^^^
Yep as far as I can tell that's all he was asking because I don't see it written down anywhere in his post "And oh by the way Crescentius do you think based on the info that Stosh is about to provide that the VFR800 is a better all-around street bike compared to the modern 600 class sport bikes?"

I answered the man's question and gave him a simple honest summary of the info. That's all he was asking for.

It seems that you on the other hand saw my post,took the info completely out of context,put words in my mouth,jumped up on your soapbox,and started wagging the finger at me and went off on some strange tangent ranting and raving about things that had absolutely NOTHING at all to do with the question that Stewart asked. :soapbox:
WTF was that all about? He wasn't asking for any of that and neither was I.

If anyone is making conclusions here it's you my friend. I never stated or implied in any way that the VFR800's numbers were shameful or that the bike had anything at all to be ashamed of,you did.

What I said was "Modern day 600 class machines are absolutely remarkable little powerhouses."
And they are. They give away 182 cubic centimeters of engine displacement to the VFR800 (the Triumph gives away 106) and yet they all post better performance numbers.
And that's exactly what you'd expect when comparing them to a ten year old sport-touring machine.

I also said "In nearly every category of performance (I worded it this way because the VFR800 trumps all of the 600's with it's torque output and it manages to best the Yamaha YZF-R6 with it's 0 to 60 acceleration time) every single one of them would put a VFR800 to shame."
And they would too. The VFR800's 99.1 HP ranks it dead last when compared to the modern 600's,it's 54.2 ft/lbs of torque ranks it first when compared to the modern 600's,it's 11.26 quarter mile elapsed time ranks it dead last when compared to the modern 600's,it's 119.50 mph quarter mile trap speed ranks it dead last when compared to the modern 600's,it's 3.37 second 0 to 60 acceleration time ranks it second to last when compared to the modern 600's.
The old VFR800 gets it's ass handed to it. And again that's pretty much exactly what you'd expect when comparing a ten year old sport-touring machine to a modern day 600 class sport bike.
When comparing the performance numbers at the end of the day it really doesn't matter at all how far behind the VFR800 finished,all that matters is that it finished last.

What I don't understand here is how the hell you were able to read those numbers,and focus ONLY on the numbers as Stewart asked,and NOT walk away with the same conclusion that I did?
Only thing I can think of is that you prolly weren't paying attention to Stewart's original question in the first place.

I'll say it again Crescentius,the man asked a question,I provided him with some info and gave him an honest reply,and he thanked me for it. Simple as that no VFR800 bashing intended.

No offense but I spoke the truth as I saw it and if you can't handle that then go suck eggs because I don't need you climbing all over my shit because I chose to speak it.

(Sidenote to Stewart) Remind me never to give you an honest answer to any of your questions again my friend,gets me in too much trouble. From now on I'll just make up things and lie. :lol:

Nah,the topic of discussion here was the 600's. The modern 1000's are in a whole other zip code. :shocked:

Yeah I gotta agree with you there Keager. Was down at the local speed shop yesterday and they've got a KTM RC8 with Red Bull bodywork sitting in the showroom. Seat looks like a vinyl covered brick,looks uncomfortable as hell.
Wouldn't mind tossing the thing around in the twisty's for an afternoon or two though. Looks like it would be Big Fun. :whoo:

 

I didn't miss the point, I simply stated an off-topic opinion. Apparently this was personally offensive to you in some way and for that I apologize.

It has become abundantly clear that this has progressed beyond the point of simple discussion into argument, therefore this will be the last post I make in this thread. Good day.