Suzuki GSX-R750 2000

It was hard to tell, because Motorcycle Trader Ed Snag's teeth were chattering so loud that he wasn't making a lot of sense. (There's a line going begging there, but I ain't touching it ...) What I think he was saying was, "It's a good thing we're experienced motorcyclists, or we'd be in real trouble." Ho, bloody ho. I would have replied but I was concentrating on getting the coffee into my mouth rather than my jacket - though the end result would have been much the same - a task made tricky by my own shivering fit. Yeah, lucky we're experienced otherwise we'd be cold and wet...

This particular joyride was with three of the main players in the hard-edged sports bike arena: Suzuki GSX-R750, Kawasaki ZX-9R Ninja and Honda CBR900RR FireBlade. Okay, so spot the odd one out - yup, the 750. It runs near enough to 170cc (22 per cent) less engine capacity than the Honda (929cc) which, on the face of it, places the Suze at a huge disadvantage.

Until you look at the stats. For a start, a Pommy mag recently rated it ahead of the other two bikes in a track test. Secondly it's right up there in the weight/claimed horsepower ratio. The three machines come in as follows: Suzuki 166kg/144ps (1.15:1), Kawasaki 183/143 (1.28:1), Honda 170/152 (1.18:1). Where the Suzuki does lose out is torque - the factory is coy about this, but the dyno results we've seen suggest it's down about 15 percent on the other two.

And the obvious missing player? Yamaha's mighty R1, which wasn't available at the time, though we plan to put it up against the 'Blade in the near future. Just as a matter of interest, its stats come up as 175/150 (1.16:1).

Who's afraid?
Okay, I'll finally come out and say something that has to be put in print - though I'm afraid it will be extremely unpopular. That is, these machines and the rest of that class are not good road bikes. Particularly when home seems an eon away, the weather's turned to shite and the roads seems bent on either shattering your spine or boring you to tears.

They're okay, and they're fantastic sport machines. However, if long distances are part of your gig, a sports tourer (Honda Blackbird, Triumph Sprint ST and the like) is a much more comfortable proposition. And no slower in the 'real' world.

So what did we do? We took them on an overnight trip to beautiful downtown Tintaldra, which amounts to a very motorcycle friendly pub plus a general store on a remote part of the Murray River. Located east of Albury/Wodonga, the place sits in the middle of some sensational riding roads, aptly described by the publican as "the Great Ocean Road without the traffic".

For this sort of work - which was a mixed bag of riding on mostly interesting back-roads, with lots of breaks over the day - these things are ideal. Throw in the odd track day and you've basically got Christmas on a stick.

Our return run, however, was marked by running out of fuel (after we'd discussed filling up over breakfast, for gawd's sake), then hitting some absolutely vile weather that was far colder and wetter than anyone had prepared for. What was that about experienced motorcyclists? Haven't been that cold since I was 18 and hopelessly underdressed while travelling south on some worn-out Z400.

Nuts and bolts
All three machines run variations on your standard four-cylinder, four-valve, DOHC, six-speed engine/gearbox package. The Kawasaki is the only one that sticks with carburettors, and is overall the closest to what we'd regard as a conventional set-up. It runs a dizzy 12:1 compression ratio, along with the Suze, while the Honda gets by with 11.3:1. All of them should be fed high-octane fuel.

Honda uses a flapper valve in the airbox, plus an exhaust system valve to vary the behaviour of both systems electronically. Suzuki's trickery involves a double butterfly system in the intake manifold (upstream of the injector) and has dropped the airbox flapper valve from the previous model.

All three, in their latest incarnations, have undergone substantial chassis mods. The end result is stiffer and lighter packages, with the Suzuki and Honda running inverted forks. Kawasaki is the only one running six-piston front brakes (the others run four-spotters) on 310mm discs compared to 320mm for Suzuki and 330mm for Honda. Rear stoppers on all three are largely there for decoration.

Instrumentation is analogue tacho and digital everything else for the Honda and Suzuki, with analogue dials for the Kawasaki. Digital instruments have gained in popularity in recent times, mostly because they represent a weight saving. Whether or not you like the presentation comes down to personal choice.

I know it's subjective, but the Kawasaki wins the styling contest for me - having a nice aggressive snout and a far more integrated look than the firm's own ZX-12R. It also happens to offer the most fairing coverage for the rider.

On the road
Looking at the specs and the intended use, you wouldn't expect a big variation between the three bikes. There was, and it was interesting that all three riders seemed to walk away preferring a different machine.

Just sitting on them brings out major differences. The Suzuki is physically the smallest of the trio and shorter riders will love it. Anyone over the old six-foot mark will feel the opposite. The Honda is in the middle ground, sharing the Suzuki's relatively extreme riding position. Meanwhile the Kawasaki is the tall person's bike, and has a somewhat less head-down bum-up ride position.

In any case, all three are okay for a 400-500km day ride with a few stops - more than that becomes a painful chore.

The Honda is the thirstiest of the trio, running dry at 251.6km exactly with mixed riding (don't ask...). On average it managed about two km per litre less than the other two, which were near enough to dead even. The Kawasaki wins the fuel range prize on that basis, holding a litre more than the other two at 19.

Headlights on all three are excellent, though the FireBlade's triple lamp set-up is truly stunning and rates as the best I've used on any bike.

The Ninja has the most comfortable suspension, with a comparatively soft initial travel that firms rapidly as the stakes are raised. However it's the least sharp of the three in the steering department - a contest which the Suzuki wins fairly comfortably. In fact the Suze is a very impressive handler and a long way ahead of its own predecessor.

Not surprisingly, the Honda and Kawasaki easily win in the stomp department, with lots of power everywhere. Honda has the nicest fuel injection out there at the moment, and it helps to make the 'Blade an exceptionally flexible tool.

The Kawasaki is let down by a tendency for the engine to hunt at low throttle settings. It only bothered us when trying to cruise at steady freeway speeds, but we've seen it reported elsewhere and therefore suspect it's typical of the model.

Suzuki's GSX-R needs to be kept on the boil to keep up with the other two, and any petrol head worth their octane will love the unbelievable howling urge in those last 5000rpm.

When it comes to comes to brakes, the Honda wins by a nose with a really nice feel at the lever. The Kawasaki came last, which is completely at odds with what has been reported elsewhere, making us suspect that our example wasn't quite up to spec in that department.

Winners
At this point I'll admit a personal bias, by saying the Kawasaki is the bike I'd put money on simply because it best suits my size (XXL) and riding habits. This was far from being a universal opinion. Pete, the shortest of the three riders, seemed to enjoy the Suzuki most, while the Ed speaks for himself elsewhere on these pages.

Personal biases aside, the Honda wins as the most rounded package of the three - it did nothing to tick us off.

Okay, now here comes the clanger, which is price at $15,300 for Suzuki, $16,290 for Kawasaki and $17,125 for Honda - all plus on-road-costs. When you consider the gap between the Honda and Suzuki would go close to paying for a helmet and leathers, the decision becomes harder. With little apparent brand loyalty in this market sector, we suspect the dealers are in for an interesting time.