Selling my FZ

[level41 68]

So,

I'm moving, and the new place has no space for motorcycles.
However somehow I've been able to secure 2 'spaces' for bikes there (one in the hallway).
So I'm going to have to sell one of them, which is going to be the FZ.

 

The reason is pretty simple.
The FZ gets about the same gas mileage as the CBR300R I have, but is heavier. About 50LBS heavier.

It also is too much power for what I need.
The FZ starts to shine at 80+MPH, where gas mileage starts suffering.
However, riding at 80+ MPH is less fun, and I don't often do it.

 

That, and, if I would ride on a big bike, I would do longer trips, which, I would mostly end up in a rain storm somewhere in the state.

So I decided to keep on riding smaller bikes for local rides only, and the longer rides use an Elio (a 3 wheeled car, that's covered, is great on gas, and low on insurance cost; if it ever comes out).

 

But for now, I will put up my FZ for sale.
It's been a pleasure, to have been part of the FZ community.

Cheerz!

[FZ07R WaNaB 262]

Smart idea - the FZ-07 was not a good fit for you as you never seemed happy with it as so many of us are.

[Beemer 4,060]

On 10/12/2017 at 12:08 AM, FZ07R WaNaB said:

Smart idea - the FZ-07 was not a good fit for you as you never seemed happy with it as so many of us are.

Agreed and this has been a long time coming....

 

 

 

 

 Farewell!

[r1limited 1,653]

On 10/11/2017 at 9:08 PM, FZ07R WaNaB said:

Smart idea - the FZ-07 was not a good fit for you as you never seemed happy with it as so many of us are.

Maybe the FZ sensed the hostility and decided it did not like the rider????

Ya never know....

[skyway6 8]

I am having the same "conversation" with myself. I have an opportunity to switch to a 2017 FZ09 (from FZ07)
I have been watching tons of you tube on both bikes. (I got my 2017 FZ07 in April 2017)

While the FZ09 would be nice, do i really need that kind of power? In a similar situation to you Levei41, But instead its
i should keep the '07 as it has plenty of power for the riding i do. I do not tour. I mostly keep rides to a few hours and at
most 400km round trip. Maybe once or twice i year i will do a long trip of ~800km but mostly weekend day trips.

From the vids i have been watching the '09 is on the verge of "stupid power" as in too much too fast. I rarely go more than
20-30kph over posted speed limit. The '07 just purrs along at those speeds.(130kph) Once out of town the speed limit goes to 110kph
and then farther out to 120kph. The '07 just flew up the "hill" there. By hill it is a mountain hwy with a average of 11degree slope
that goes on for 40ish km until you hit the top at 5000ft. The FZ07 flew up this hill at average 160kph with no sign of strain.
(this hwy is featured in the TV show "Highway Thru Hell")

So i an torn between wanting the fz09 and keeping the fz07 as the fz07 is fast enough for what and where i ride. Plus i save on insurance
as the fz09 is in next "tier" and would be about $300 more / year. (goes by tiers here. 0-110cc, 111-400, 401-750, 751-1150, 1150-?)

winter approaching here so i have a few months to decide. I may just keep the fz07 and do the ohlins suspension treatment on it.

[level41 68]

Seems like Kawasaki is trying to jump the gun with their Ninja 400.
A 399cc would be a nice fuel sipper, but I'm not too fond of the ergos of a sports bike.

It also doesn't make any sense at all, to get a 400cc sports bike.
For a sports bike, you get a 600cc minimum, 700 or 900cc preferred.

 

So I'm hoping once they see no one buys the 400cc sports bike, they will build the engine in a naked/touring bike.
It's also a hi-rev engine, which is excellent for better fuel mileage (at low revs) while still having the ability to have the top speed needed on most roads (110-120MPH).

 

I prefer hi-rev engines on wide spaced gears.

Edited October 25, 2017 by level41

[Grip it & Rip it 35]

400cc sport bikes are plenty of fun. I have one and it’s a blast. I don’t need to trot out that old addage about riding a fast bike slow and a slow bike fast yadda yadda etc. besides, I can actually use most of the power (mostly) legally with my 400cc sportbike, I can wring it the heck out without going triple digits. And what roads are you on where you need a top speed of 110-120mph??? not public roads, I hope. And lastly, my 400cc sportbike tops out around 120mph anyway...

[Beemer 4,060]

On 10/23/2017 at 2:32 PM, skyway6 said:

I am having the same "conversation" with myself. I have an opportunity to switch to a 2017 FZ09 (from FZ07)
I have been watching tons of you tube on both bikes. (I got my 2017 FZ07 in April 2017)

While the FZ09 would be nice, do i really need that kind of power? In a similar situation to you Levei41, But instead its
i should keep the '07 as it has plenty of power for the riding i do. I do not tour. I mostly keep rides to a few hours and at
most 400km round trip. Maybe once or twice i year i will do a long trip of ~800km but mostly weekend day trips.

From the vids i have been watching the '09 is on the verge of "stupid power" as in too much too fast. I rarely go more than
20-30kph over posted speed limit. The '07 just purrs along at those speeds.(130kph) Once out of town the speed limit goes to 110kph
and then farther out to 120kph. The '07 just flew up the "hill" there. By hill it is a mountain hwy with a average of 11degree slope
that goes on for 40ish km until you hit the top at 5000ft. The FZ07 flew up this hill at average 160kph with no sign of strain.
(this hwy is featured in the TV show "Highway Thru Hell")

So i an torn between wanting the fz09 and keeping the fz07 as the fz07 is fast enough for what and where i ride. Plus i save on insurance
as the fz09 is in next "tier" and would be about $300 more / year. (goes by tiers here. 0-110cc, 111-400, 401-750, 751-1150, 1150-?)

winter approaching here so i have a few months to decide. I may just keep the fz07 and do the ohlins suspension treatment on it.
 

The next time you ride and take off from a light with cars next to you just crack the throttle half way and look back after about 3 seconds to see if the bike gets away from traffic fast enough.

[afatrat 16]

14 hours ago, level41 said:

Seems like Kawasaki is trying to jump the gun with their Ninja 400.
A 399cc would be a nice fuel sipper, but I'm not too fond of the ergos of a sports bike.

It also doesn't make any sense at all, to get a 400cc sports bike.
For a sports bike, you get a 600cc minimum, 700 or 900cc preferred.

 

So I'm hoping once they see no one buys the 400cc sports bike, they will build the engine in a naked/touring bike.
It's also a hi-rev engine, which is excellent for better fuel mileage (at low revs) while still having the ability to have the top speed needed on most roads (110-120MPH).

 

I prefer hi-rev engines on wide spaced gears.

It's an EX, not a ZX. I would bet ergos are going to be marginally more forward than the FZ. It's just a slightly bigger ninja 250/300. Makes enough sense.

 

So no one will buy a 400cc "sports bike", but they will buy a 400cc touring bike? Not so sure of the sense that manufactures.

 

You prefer hi-rev engines so you can lowly rev them. What of the sense creation?

[level41 68]

On 10/25/2017 at 4:22 AM, Grip it & Rip it said:

400cc sport bikes are plenty of fun. I have one and it’s a blast. I don’t need to trot out that old addage about riding a fast bike slow and a slow bike fast yadda yadda etc. besides, I can actually use most of the power (mostly) legally with my 400cc sportbike, I can wring it the heck out without going triple digits. And what roads are you on where you need a top speed of 110-120mph??? not public roads, I hope. And lastly, my 400cc sportbike tops out around 120mph anyway...

Actually, 400cc is mine (and many other's) sweet spot; I actually prefer it!
And a high-rev engine too, which means sufficient hp for just about anyting.

 

@afatrat: A high-rev engine can be tuned much more efficiently than a low rev engine for MPG and HP.
1- Because high-rev engines can generally be smaller in size, and lighter in weight, for the same amount of power as low rev engines.
2- Because low rev, turbo powered engine is much more costly to maintain and manufacture, and turbos become very inefficient past their boost state (at the opening of the wategate)

3- Because you can almost get the same acceleration you get from a turbo powered engine, and the same MPG from a low-rev engine, at a price very similar to the low rev NA engine.

 

A high rev engine has a high compression ratio and PSI at low revs, but a lower one at high revs, which means it'll run most optimally at low revs; while at the same time, if you need the power, just shift down one or two gears, to get into the bike's powerband.

 

It's like an instrument that can be made to sound dull, and sharp at the same time, depending on how you handle or play it!

While a low-rev NA engine would be compared to a dull instrument (doesn't have the power, but has the MPG), and a larger CC engine with the same HP can be compared to a bright instrument (has the power, but lacks MPG).

 

Not even to mention, hi-rev engines last a lot longer when ran at RPM ranges of 3000-7000RPM, compared to 7-12k rpm; while still offering sufficient acceleration in that RPM range.
If someone rides his car, he knows it has more power at 4k RPM than at 2k RPM. Yet only drives it mostly at 2-4k.

 

Now, you'd say, most bikes out there have between 50-66MPG.
But I think it would surprise some, that most of my bikes have 80-120MPG US, all the while it's perfectly rideable on the streets.
 

[faffi 964]

Your logic contradicts common knowledge. 

 

The Honda NC750 managed 84 mpg / used 2.8 litre per 100 km and is definitely not high reving

https://www.motorradonline.de/test/vergleichstest-benzinverbrauch.482104.html

 

Other stuff to read.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engine_efficiency

 

https://www.wartsila.com/twentyfour7/energy/wartsila-31-the-most-efficient-engine-in-the-world

[r1limited 1,653]

31 minutes ago, faffi said:

Your logic contradicts common knowledge. 

 

The Honda NC750 managed 84 mpg / used 2.8 litre per 100 km and is definitely not high reving

https://www.motorradonline.de/test/vergleichstest-benzinverbrauch.482104.html

 

Other stuff to read.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engine_efficiency

 

https://www.wartsila.com/twentyfour7/energy/wartsila-31-the-most-efficient-engine-in-the-world

You do realize whom you are discussing this with right?  Just keeping perspective

[level41 68]

Lol!

 

I know full well what Honda does, and how engines work.

And I'm sure that you can get almost the same mpg out of a high rev engine. 

But can you imagine the difference, if that high rev engine was the same cc as the Honda?

 

To be fair, the Honda nc750 doesn't have all that much of HP. So if top speed is what you want, you'd have to compare it to a 550-600cc high rev engine.

 

The smaller size works in your benefit, yet on average they have the same HP.

If you want to compete against the NC700, you'd probably have to run the engine at 6-7k RPM, vs 3-4k on the NC.

 

Yet if you're cruising, there's no rule that you have to cruise at 6k RPM, for just traveling.

You can regear to 4k Rpm, and gain substantial MPG in the process.

 

If you think long enough, it all makes perfect sense...

Edited October 30, 2017 by level41

[duenan 282]

Haven't you moved yet?