98 zx9r vs 03 cbr954r

hammer · Post by **hammer** » Sat Aug 19, 2006 6:42 pm

frogzx12r wrote:Very sorry you feel that way Phil

Shit he must have taken you seriously, I really didn`t think anyone would do that!

Kishy · Post by **Kishy** » Sat Aug 19, 2006 7:48 pm

frogzx12r wrote: Dont think I am the best either, my stacks prove that

Well ya still right up there

Stacks prove jackshit.. best riders in the world stack all the
time..

Post by **MadKaw** » Sat Aug 19, 2006 8:06 pm

Kishy wrote:
frogzx12r wrote: Dont think I am the best either, my stacks prove that
Well ya still right up there

Stacks prove jackshit.. best riders in the world stack all the
time..

Yes I do......

hammer · Post by **hammer** » Sat Aug 19, 2006 8:44 pm

Ok back to the topic.
I have owned 98 and 03 zx9 and a 954. There all good just would depend on what you intend to use them for which is better.
If you do alot of track days and weekend smooth road rides( not to long tho as comfort isnt great) the 954 would be the pick but being light with a steep rake and short wheelbase it is flighty on average run of the mil roads. Which does make it harder to get the best out of it.
The 9`s are more stable ( 98 more so than 03, maybe steeper rake not sure) being abit lazyer in steering and longer in wheelbase. Which on normal roads can be a good thing being abit more confidence inspiring allowing you to push a bit harder.
Powerwize its the same sort of thing with the blade having the most power but worst spread of power. The 98 9 having the best with the 03 maybe having slighty more but higher up in the revs(maybe kawa trying to claim a power gain for a new model)

Really depends on use which is better

I-K · Post by **I-K** » Sat Aug 19, 2006 9:25 pm

hammer wrote:Really depends on use which is better

Bottom line, though, one is five years newer than the other. If they're both going for the same money, it's a no-brainer which to go for.

hammer · Post by **hammer** » Sat Aug 19, 2006 9:40 pm

I-K wrote:
hammer wrote:Really depends on use which is better
Bottom line, though, one is five years newer than the other. If they're both going for the same money, it's a no-brainer which to go for.

Maybe for you but if I rode 100ks or so to work every day over rough roads and bad weather with a gearsack or the like it wouldn`t be on a 954 but you just sit back on ya arse and talk your usual fuckin crap I don`t mind.

I-K · Post by **I-K** » Sat Aug 19, 2006 9:46 pm

hammer wrote:
I-K wrote:
hammer wrote:Really depends on use which is better
Bottom line, though, one is five years newer than the other. If they're both going for the same money, it's a no-brainer which to go for.
Maybe for you but if I rode 100ks or so to work every day over rough roads and bad weather with a gearsack or the like it wouldn`t be on a 954 but you just sit back on ya arse and talk your usual fuckin crap I don`t mind.

You're absolutely right, of course. After all, I've only done 12,000km on my '98-model ZX9 in the last year, including two 2500-plus km round trips to PI, two-up.

And I'd only racked up 25,000km on my R1 before it was squashed from under me a few years back.

What would I know?

hammer · Post by **hammer** » Sat Aug 19, 2006 9:51 pm

I-K wrote:
hammer wrote:
I-K wrote: Bottom line, though, one is five years newer than the other. If they're both going for the same money, it's a no-brainer which to go for.
Maybe for you but if I rode 100ks or so to work every day over rough roads and bad weather with a gearsack or the like it wouldn`t be on a 954 but you just sit back on ya arse and talk your usual fuckin crap I don`t mind.
You're absolutely right, of course. After all, I've only done 10,000km on my '98-model ZX9, including two 2500-plus km round trips to PI, two-up.

What would I know?

Your right bugger all.
You ridden a 954? and your comment about 98 and 03 being the same to sit on, go and ride them they are very different.

I-K · Post by **I-K** » Sat Aug 19, 2006 10:21 pm

hammer wrote:You ridden a 954?

Yup. On a couple of occasions. Rougher seat than the ZX9, but less of a reach to the bars, much less reach around the tank, and the whole thing feels about an order of magnitude sportier than the ZX9, which is like a fat VFR800 with some proper power and decent suspension.

Ultimately, if you have two bikes of similar spec, and if one is five years newer than the other and they're both going for the same money, how can the older bike be considered the better buy?

and your comment about 98 and 03 being the same to sit on,

The frame layout is the same, the tanks are the same (externally), the seats are the same, the footpegs and footpeg brackets are the same, the bars are at the same height and 5mm closer because of the reduced offset on the E- and F-models compared to the C.

Given that the seat-pegs-bars distances, the back of the tank and the frame beams are the same between the two, how are they supposed to be different to sit on?

go and ride them they are very different.

How they ride is a completely different proposition to what they're like to sit on.

Wadda · Post by **Wadda** » Sun Aug 20, 2006 7:52 am

frogzx12r wrote:Very sorry you feel that way Phil (seriously)

Dont worry frog. Phils probably still pissed about the last honda he road/dropped. Check out the picks in the last AMCN supersport test. I think the last thing Mick Matheson said before they swapt bikes was "this CBR600 feels better than a 98 ZX9".

hammer · Post by **hammer** » Sun Aug 20, 2006 10:01 am

I-K wrote:
hammer wrote:You ridden a 954?
Yup. On a couple of occasions. Rougher seat than the ZX9, but less of a reach to the bars, much less reach around the tank, and the whole thing feels about an order of magnitude sportier than the ZX9, which is like a fat VFR800 with some proper power and decent suspension.

Ultimately, if you have two bikes of similar spec, and if one is five years newer than the other and they're both going for the same money, how can the older bike be considered the better buy?

and your comment about 98 and 03 being the same to sit on,
The frame layout is the same, the tanks are the same (externally), the seats are the same, the footpegs and footpeg brackets are the same, the bars are at the same height and 5mm closer because of the reduced offset on the E- and F-models compared to the C.

Given that the seat-pegs-bars distances, the back of the tank and the frame beams are the same between the two, how are they supposed to be different to sit on?

go and ride them they are very different.
How they ride is a completely different proposition to what they're like to sit on.

If the 954 was in as good as condition as the zx9 and it was suited for your intended use then sure and I wasn`t looking at the money side of things as it doesnt effect me a few thousand here or there doesn`t matter(Tis why i ride a new bike) If your that broke you could probably resell it and make a few bucks.

Good to see you were up on the text books all night to

I didn`t mean that there was alot of differance in sitting on them I meant it`s no way to judge if there is any changes.

Kishy · Post by **Kishy** » Sun Aug 20, 2006 11:35 am

Hammer.

I-K · Post by **I-K** » Sun Aug 20, 2006 12:00 pm

hammer wrote:
I-K wrote:Ultimately, if you have two bikes of similar spec, and if one is five years newer than the other and they're both going for the same money, how can the older bike be considered the better buy?
If the 954 was in as good as condition as the zx9 and it was suited for your intended use then sure

So, what can the ZX9 do so much better than the 954 that a bargain-of-the-year 954 wouldn't get a look in?

I wasn`t looking at the money side of things as it doesnt effect me a few thousand here or there doesn`t matter(Tis why i ride a new bike)

If that's true, what are you doing lowering yourself to commenting on used bikes?

Good to see you were up on the text books all night to

All night? My last response came at 11:21pm. Your post to which I was responding came at 10:51pm.

That's half an hour.

I didn`t mean that there was alot of differance in sitting on them I meant it`s no way to judge if there is any changes.

Heavier crank inside unchanged cases, additional engine mounts on unchanged frame beams, different brake calipers on unchanged forks... nibbling around the edges which did nothing to address the ZX9's actual deficiencies; its bulk and capacity deficit.

With the F-model ZX9, Kawasaki should've redesigned the tank and the frame endplates so the bike doesn't feel quite so big between the rider's knees and elbows, and they should've bored it out to 970cc.

That would've felt like a different bike, because that would've been a different, better bike. Had they whacked efi on it, too, it could still be in production, snatching sales from the VFR.

I-K · Post by **I-K** » Sun Aug 20, 2006 12:03 pm

Kishy wrote: Hammer.

I like how you let others fight your battles for you.

It really shows you to be a man of integrity and conviction.

Chickenshit.

hammer · Post by **hammer** » Sun Aug 20, 2006 4:45 pm

So, what can the ZX9 do so much better than the 954 that a bargain-of-the-year 954 wouldn't get a look in?

Make you friends on a kawa forum

If that's true, what are you doing lowering yourself to commenting on used bikes?

Someone other than your mother has to keep you company

That's half an hour.

Very good

Heavier crank inside unchanged cases, additional engine mounts on unchanged frame beams, different brake calipers on unchanged forks... nibbling around the edges which did nothing to address the ZX9's actual deficiencies; its bulk and capacity deficit.

With the F-model ZX9, Kawasaki should've redesigned the tank and the frame endplates so the bike doesn't feel quite so big between the rider's knees and elbows, and they should've bored it out to 970cc.

That would've felt like a different bike, because that would've been a different, better bike. Had they whacked efi on it, too, it could still be in production, snatching sales from the VFR

No wonder kawa have such problems, you dont work there!