|
Kawasaki ZX-9R
Ninja

|
Make Model |
Kawasaki ZX-9R-C Ninja |
|
Year |
1999 |
|
Engine |
Liquid cooled, four stroke, transverse four
cylinder, DOHC, 4 valves per cylinder. |
|
Capacity |
899 |
|
Bore x Stroke |
75 x 50.9 mm |
|
Compression Ratio |
11.5:1 |
|
Induction |
4X 40mm Keihin CV40 carbs |
|
Ignition /
Starting |
Digital / electric |
|
Max Power |
143 hp 104.2 kW @ 11000 rpm (rear tyre 129.4 hp @ 11000 rpm ) |
|
Max Torque |
101 Nm @ 9000 rpm |
|
Transmission /
Drive |
6 Speed / chain |
|
Front Suspension |
40mm Telescopic forks, preload, compression and rebound
damping adjustable. |
|
Rear Suspension |
Uni-Trak piggy-back monoshock, reload,
compression and rebound damping adjustable. |
|
Front Brakes |
2x 296mm discs 6 piston calipers |
|
Rear Brakes |
Single 220mm disc 1 piston caliper |
|
Front Tyre |
120/70 ZR17 |
|
Rear Tyre |
180/55 ZR17 |
|
Dry-Weight / Wet-Weight |
183 kg / 202 kg |
|
Fuel Capacity |
19 Litres |
|
Consumption average |
16.8 km/lit |
|
Braking 60 - 0 / 100 - 0 |
12.8 m / 37.5 m |
|
Standing
¼ Mile |
10.3 sec / 221.6 km/h |
|
Top Speed |
280.0 km/h |
|
Reviews |
Motorcycle.com
/
Mcnews.com |

For 1998, Kawasaki completely
redesigned the ZX-9R. The basic roadgoing bias of the bike, with
the relaxed riding position and generous chassis dimensions
remained, but the character of the bike was fundamentally
changed.Engine bore,
stroke and redline remained unchanged; everything else was
completely new. The clutch was changed from hydraulic to
cable-operated. The generator was moved from behind the cylinder
to the more conventional location at the left end of the crank.
There was now no balance shaft. The valvetrain switched to
direct valve actuation, and the cylinder head was plumbed for
then-new plug-top ignition coils, replacing more conventional
remote coils and high-tension leads. Notably, the new engine
also featured a Hall-type cam position sensor on the exhaust
camshaft. Cam position sensors are typically used in conjunction
with electronic fuel injection. As the ZX900C featured induction
by Keihin 40 mm CV carburettors, a cam position sensor wasn't
necessary. Its inclusion could indicate that Kawasaki had
designs to include fuel injection on the engine in the future,
but this did not happen until the 2003 introduction of the
Z1000, which uses a bored-out ex-ZX-9R engine with a
side-draught cylinder head.
The frame lost the steel engine
cradles, but also its bolt-on subframe and the rear ride height
adjuster. The swingarm was a new unbraced, rectangular-section
extruded design. The wheel sizes were the same, but the wheels
were a new, lighter design. The brake calipers carried over, but
the discs were smaller and lighter without stopping power being
affected. New 46 mm right-way-up KYB forks replaced the heavier,
though stiffer 43 mm USD's on the B model. The rear shock
changed from a remote-reservoir to a lighter, more compact
piggyback design. The wheelbase dropped 30 mm to 1410 mm.
Overall, with a factory-quoted
dry weight of 183 kg, the C-model weighed less fully fuelled
than the first B-model weighed dry.
Visually, the new bike retained
the rounded, voluptuous, organic look of its predecessor, but
became sleeker, with a slimmer tail unit and a smaller fairing.
As a consequence of the smaller engine and shorter wheelbase,
though, the fuel tank became wider and intruded more on the
riding position than before.
At launch in late 1997, the
ZX900C caused a sensation. The total redesign resulted in a bike
which thoroughly outclassed the modest update of the FireBlade
Honda introduced for that year. The two bikes were now evenly
matched on weight, but the ZX-9R retained its power advantage
and was universally acclaimed as the better sport bike; it was
faster, it handled better and possessed a raw, involving feel
for the rider. By contrast, the 1998 FireBlade was widely
criticised for its uncommunicative handling. In addition,
Kawasaki chose simple, single-colour paint schemes for the
ZX-9R, offering the bike in the house colour of lime green,
candy metallic blue and, in some markets, candy metallic black.
Unfortunately for Kawasaki, late
1997 also saw the introduction of the Yamaha R1. While flawed in
several respects, this completely new sport bike design offered
performance and styling which rightfully went on to capture the
imagination of the motorcycling public.

Road Test
LOS ANGELES, January, 1998 -- Screw the real
world. Forget about gas mileage, weather protection, operating expenses, "real
world power delivery," and comfortable ergonomics. Screw the bureaucratic
nannies who harp about public safety and demand horsepower limits, and cuff the
next twit who whines 'we don't get the really cool bikes in America' in the back
of the head. This is the US of A, and on our long, wide, civilized and
government-subsidized roads, brute power rules the day. So, we recently prompted
the major manufacturers of three- and four-cylinder motorcycles: "give us the
quickest, lightest asphalt-annihilator around." Give us Yamaha's YZF-R1, Honda's
CBR900RR, Kawasaki's ZX-9R, Suzuki's GSX-R750 and Triumph's T595.
Assembled before you are five of the gnarliest
multis ever made, each of them a marriage of horsepower, handling, and weight.
Our goal: To separate the men from the boys; to take the fastest and
best-handling bike from each of these manufacturers, regardless of displacement,
put them on the same track together and let them tear each other apart.
While it was really no big surprise that Yamaha's tour-de-force YZF-R1 was the
winner in all objective categories -- it was the fastest at the drag strip,
turned the quickest racetrack lap time, and kicked ass on the dyno -- and
gathered first-place votes from four of our five testers, there were some
surprises a little further down the food chain.
Honda's CBR900RR (Fireblade in some markets) returned for 1998 with what seemed
like redesigns too minor to hang with this buffed out crowd. Ah, but all is not
as it seems, and this year the 'RR matches up to the marketing hype that sold so
many of the (ex-) wobbly machines in years past. Notably, a stiffer chassis, 5mm
more trail (trail, not steering head angle, is what provides front-end
"stability"), 10mm more fork span to enhance handling and torsional rigidity,
improved suspension valving and selected weight savings added up to a quantum
leap forward from the previous model. In fact, it was argued that with more
power the RR might have won this test: That is, despite its 114 horsepower motor
being a little under par in this group, the RR proved to be a such a flickable,
stable mount with predictable power delivery, it afforded all riders instant
confidence to go fast in the twisties. Bottom line: the 'RR is the easiest bike
to jump on and go fast.
One of the surprises of this test is that most of these mongo dong-swingin'
hyper-bikes are also great street bikes with tractable power and livable
ergonomics. Not so with the GSX-R750. As resident Willow Springs Motorcycle Club
king-pin big-fish Chuck Graves -- who won seven out of seven classes this past
season at Willow -- pointed out, "the GSX-R750 sure likes to be ridden hard, but
it's a miserable street bike." Point the GSX-R750 at a track or a set of curves
that you've scouted for dirt and cop officers and hang on for one awesome ride:
The Gixxer captured the only other first place vote in the test, from AMA Dirt
Tracker Brett Landes: "The harder I rode, the better it handled. I was very
impressed with its racetrack prowess."
Source
Motorcycle.com

|