It's no GSX-R1000, but Suzuki's new Inazuma 250 will almost certainly outsell its flagship sportsbike.
Unveiled at the NEC show last year, the Inazuma is a 2013 model that will be on sale in September. Confused? Well, basically demand was so high Suzuki pulled out all the stops to get it in the UK asap. And good on them for that.
Costing a bargain £3,499, the 250cc bike is aimed at commuters and with Suzuki claiming 85mpg it is more than frugal when it comes to running costs. Although there are no specs as yet, the liquid-cooled parallel-twin motor should be good for 70mph while still delivering decent fuel economy.
I really like the look of this! Had to sell my Speed Triple as I just wasn't using it properly - no time to ride other than my short commute to work meant it was slowly decaying - but something like this is actually perfect for my needs.
Slower in raw figures, maybe - if you're a big lad like me, the extra shove of a 250 is pretty essential Should be a bit bigger physically too, I look utterly daft on a 125.
With a rider must weigh 4 or 5 times less than a small diesel car yet only claims 1/3 better fuel consumption. Or are bikes' claimed fuel consumption much nearer the truth than those for cars?
I thought that the parallel twin would be fun too. However not in that silhouette FFS. I think it shows it's obvious roots as a Japanese "home market" job. Front end looks ugly & the front mudguard looks like something off a 1950's Eastern Bloc bike. Not to mention the usual oil drum silencer.
Still..cheap -ish & intended for commuters/early learners.
With a rider must weigh 4 or 5 times less than a small diesel car yet only claims 1/3 better fuel consumption. Or are bikes' claimed fuel consumption much nearer the truth than those for cars?
Bikes have rubbish air resistance, and yes, claimed fuel consumption is actually achieveable.
The fact is, if you ride a ZX10R right, they do 60 mpg. Just...
'the liquid-cooled parallel-twin motor should be good for 70mph'
I should hope so. 4 stroke 250 parallel twins of the late 70's (Honda Superdream, Yamaha XS250, etc) were good for 90mph+, and 250 strokers like the Suzuki X7 & Yamaha RD250LC (both of which I owned at the time) could top the ton. Ah, those were the days ..., the smell of 2-stroke oil, blue haze.. (meanders off into own private geriatric world)
Fuel efficient cars have huge heavy flywheels which store the energy effectively. You can't do this on a bike as it would become unrideable, so bikes will never have as good fuel economy as small Diesel snotboxes.
I would guess you should get 90 rather than 70, but it will be a propper 70 with a 90 "down hill, wind behind you" job. Personaly I am very interested, or will be in 5 years when I can get one cheap thats been banged and dented by a new rider. Enough shove for me to build the cafe racer i have been planing, instead of using a CG125, for riding round town and on my 7 mile ride to work I should have soon and keeping a big bike for fun.
The other factor to consider is that by having a small bike and filtering through traffic, thus commuting quicker you are going to be running an engine for less time than you would sitting in traffic in a car.
A better comparison would be more fuel "usage" rather than MPG.
I thought that the parallel twin would be fun too. However not in that silhouette FFS. I think it shows it's obvious roots as a Japanese "home market" job. Front end looks ugly & the front mudguard looks like something off a 1950's Eastern Bloc bike. Not to mention the usual oil drum silencer.
Still..cheap -ish & intended for commuters/early learners.
Looks like it's styled on the stunningly ugly B-King to me.
With a rider must weigh 4 or 5 times less than a small diesel car yet only claims 1/3 better fuel consumption. Or are bikes' claimed fuel consumption much nearer the truth than those for cars?
Bikes have rubbish air resistance, and yes, claimed fuel consumption is actually achieveable.
The fact is, if you ride a ZX10R right, they do 60 mpg. Just...
Well, my (limited) experience is indeed that they are actually real-world achievable. Better still, in my cars I get the feeling I'm "punished" more re fuel consumption by spirited driving than on the bike.
Don't forget that bikes still get a very low fuel consumption in stop-start, because they only weigh a 4th of a car. Weight is not really an issue if you look at motorway speeds.
Fuel efficient cars have huge heavy flywheels which store the energy effectively. You can't do this on a bike as it would become unrideable, so bikes will never have as good fuel economy as small Diesel snotboxes.
So you missed the bit in the article about projected fuel consumption of 85 mpg then ?.......
...or various contributors on here who can testify to getting over 100 mpg out of such as CBR125s then ? Take your blinkers off.
I have to say I quite like the look of this. And as regards fuel economy I have a Honda CBF125 right now and regularly get 110-120mpg on my daily commute. I'm a big bloke so cruising speed is around 60mph (75mph max wind assisted).
I assume the Inazuma is going to be around 33hp (either that or they've missed a trick) so that's 3 times the power of my 125 at a similar weight. I'd be happy with that for a commute...
I have to say I quite like the look of this. And as regards fuel economy I have a Honda CBF125 right now and regularly get 110-120mpg on my daily commute. I'm a big bloke so cruising speed is around 60mph (75mph max wind assisted).
I assume the Inazuma is going to be around 33hp (either that or they've missed a trick) so that's 3 times the power of my 125 at a similar weight. I'd be happy with that for a commute...
Should be a bit bigger physically too, I look utterly daft on a 125.
Boooo...