Kawasaki ZX-4R

[ZRX61]

Apparently the track day wallahs are lining up to buy them over here. I have trust issues with small Kaw twins ever since my '81 Z250 snapped the crank in half. I hated that fucking bike, even kicked if off the stand once, set it on fire & walked away in the middle of Cambridge. Some bloody hero with a fire extinguisher put it out within seconds & the cops asked me to take it away.

[Cousin Jack]

Realistically there's no major difference in the cost to make a 400 over the cost to make a 600 or even a litre bike, assuming they're all the same spec on things like brakes, suspension etc. There's a small material cost maybe, but that's a pretty minor chunk (especially when lots of 1000s have the smae block as a 600 just with bigger holes, so it should be cheaper ). The price structuring is mostly just artificially set to maintain a model hierarchy.

The high spec 400s from the 90s were mostly a result of Japanese licence law were they not? So the big four made loads of 400s 'cause that's what sold in the home market?

Long time ago now, and in cars rather than bikes. A friend of s friend was a cost accountant in Ford UK. The cost price difference between a bog standard basic Escort and a top of the range with all the bells and whistles was about £2. The retail price difference was about £300.

[Yorick]

Funnily enough, i popped on to post what peeps thought of the Ninja 400. I make no secret to my fondness of 400s (having an NC35). Might go and see this, this weekend or during the week....

https://www.kdykawasaki.com/inventory-d ... code=14280

It's not a 400/4 tho', the Ninja 400 is a budget twin, for popping out for some milk and lotto tickets

A commuter in wolf's clothing?

[MrLongbeard]

400?!?!?!?!
I'm sure it'll make a lovely starter motor

[Horse]

Realistically there's no major difference in the cost to make a 400 over the cost to make a 600 or even a litre bike, There's a small material cost maybe

Bigger holes in the engine = less metal, so should be cheaper

[Mr. Dazzle]

Realistically there's no major difference in the cost to make a 400 over the cost to make a 600 or even a litre bike, assuming they're all the same spec on things like brakes, suspension etc. There's a small material cost maybe, but that's a pretty minor chunk (especially when lots of 1000s have the smae block as a 600 just with bigger holes, so it should be cheaper ). The price structuring is mostly just artificially set to maintain a model hierarchy.

The high spec 400s from the 90s were mostly a result of Japanese licence law were they not? So the big four made loads of 400s 'cause that's what sold in the home market?

Long time ago now, and in cars rather than bikes. A friend of s friend was a cost accountant in Ford UK. The cost price difference between a bog standard basic Escort and a top of the range with all the bells and whistles was about £2. The retail price difference was about £300.

S'why OEMs love an SUV. They're generally made on the same line in the same factory as the saloon equivalent, using 90% the same parts, but you can sell 'em for more.

[Mr. Dazzle]

From my POV 400s were the big thing just because of cost, insurance and the fact they could readily be restricted to 33bhp (on paper at least ). Probably less relevant to the farts on here, but for anyone who learned to ride in the 90s/00s they were the thing. Learned to ride when under 21 when you couldn't do DAS at least.

[KungFooBob]

Maybe I was just a 400 Fanboi, between 17 and 21 (mid to late 90's) I had three CBR400s, a VFR400, a Bros and an FZR400.

[v8-powered]

My first 'proper' bike in the early 90s was a CBR400RR Triarm. I loved it at the time but soon made way for a 'blade.

Can't think of a reason now why I'd buy another 400 over similar priced bigger displacement bike?

[Mr. Dazzle]

400s to me are like 250 2Ts to others on here.

Both are actually inferior to other stuff you can buy

[The Spin Doctor]

Funnily enough, i popped on to post what peeps thought of the Ninja 400. I make no secret to my fondness of 400s (having an NC35). Might go and see this, this weekend or during the week....

https://www.kdykawasaki.com/inventory-d ... code=14280

That's the twin, though, isn't it??

[SSS]

So..... went to see it and sit on it (didnt test ride as i cycled there today)

Hmmmmm..... Nice little bike, but not nice enough for me to part with £6k.

Points i dont like. Its a twin (which we all knew anyway). Its 3kg heavier than my 25yr old NC35 as well!
Id expect something better and lighter like the frame (as already discussed on this forum). It is good for my shortness of stature and if a fine looking modern bike, but not fine enough for the Thundercat to be sold and for me part with the £6k.
In fact, the thing which really gets my OCD going is that there is only one front disc on the front wheel. Just doesnt look right not having dual discs up front. id be forever looking at it disapprovingly (no matter how good the single disc setup may be).

Thundercat stays.

Might have a look at a CBR500.....

[Supermofo]

From my POV 400s were the big thing just because of cost, insurance and the fact they could readily be restricted to 33bhp (on paper at least ). Probably less relevant to the farts on here, but for anyone who learned to ride in the 90s/00s they were the thing. Learned to ride when under 21 when you couldn't do DAS at least.

That must have been late 90s that came in, I passed in 1996 and could ride anything...in theory. In practice I was on a TZR 125 still for a good few months. Followed by a TZR250 as it was a lot cheaper than a 400. Then one of them Frazers cos it was a 600 init!

My mate passed in 2001 I think and had to do DAS

[KungFooBob]

I passed my test in 1996 @ 17. I could ride anything... but rode an NS125R for the best part of a year because I couldn't afford to insure anything else.

[MyLittleStudPony]

I always thought the JDM 400 4s and 250 two strokes of the late 80s and early - mid 90s were the Js pronking. An industry and a country so on top of their game they could do whatever they wanted. Which was why those bikes cost as much as a faasand.

Lovely things. I don't know if we'll see the likes of them again.

[mangocrazy]

They were absolutely 'of their era'. A bunch of us went on a biker's holiday to a Gite in the south of France, and one couple had his 'n hers 400cc bikes. 'Hers' was a CBR400RR Gullarm and the dear girl offered me the use of it one day when I went out for a hoon with a couple of mates on a ZXR750 and ZZR1100 respectively. What a stonking little bike it was; even with a dodgy set of Bridgestone Cyrox tyres and a shock that was past its best it was still enormous fun and untouchable on the twisty stuff. With a decent shock and proper rubber they wouldn't have seen which way I went. As it was for the most part they had trouble keeping up. One of the best biking days I've ever had.

[Mr. Dazzle]

I always thought the JDM 400 4s and 250 two strokes of the late 80s and early - mid 90s were the Js pronking.

In Japan any bike over 400cc is/was a different class of vehicle from a licence POV, that's why its 400cc exactly. AFAIK a similar quirk is why 750s are a thing too.

[cheb]

I always thought the JDM 400 4s and 250 two strokes of the late 80s and early - mid 90s were the Js pronking. An industry and a country so on top of their game they could do whatever they wanted. Which was why those bikes cost as much as a faasand.

Lovely things. I don't know if we'll see the likes of them again.

There can be no true beauty without decay.

[Bigjawa]

Realistically there's no major difference in the cost to make a 400 over the cost to make a 600 or even a litre bike, assuming they're all the same spec on things like brakes, suspension etc. There's a small material cost maybe, but that's a pretty minor chunk (especially when lots of 1000s have the smae block as a 600 just with bigger holes, so it should be cheaper ). The price structuring is mostly just artificially set to maintain a model hierarchy.

The high spec 400s from the 90s were mostly a result of Japanese licence law were they not? So the big four made loads of 400s 'cause that's what sold in the home market?

The JDM 400s were in another league in the early 90s, there's a reason the UK spec NC30 cost over 6k in 1992 and I think the FZR400 cost a lot more than the 600, the JDM stuff made things like Steelie CBR600s and FZR6s look like MZs. The grey importers made a killing by getting them very cheap and flogging them with 200% mark up. My NC30 stood me 1.5k IIRC (I got it at cost) and was still MOT'd last time I checked, it was a jewel.

[Le_Fromage_Grande]

Having owned an FZR400RR until about 18 months ago I can safely say they weren't that special, no better than a similar age YZF750R, the same goes for GSXR400s, they're miniature versions of the same age 750, but the 600s were always budget bikes compared with the 750s, so yes, the 400s are better than the 600s of the time.