Thanks! Check it out if you're interested, or maybe you're looking for an electric urban commuter bike or motorcycle!

1/4 mile time ?

@@InegoMinblan I'm not certain. The 650 Ninja can hit 100 mph/160 kph in maybe 8 to 9 seconds, but I need to time it better next time.

@@BlackArroToons we will wait the results 1/4 :)

how in hell you managed to take it all the way to 350km? mine runs out of gas after 230km tops.

​@@no_name4080 Not really. Unfortunately a Ninja 400 because of it's torque advantage actually can beat a ZX-4RR on track. Good rider on track prepped but still cheaper overall Ninja 400 can beat a good rider on a ZX-4RR with a exhaust. The ZX-4RR is a very good bike, I'm glad Kawasaki made it but compared to the ZX-6RR chassis and suspension it's lacking in quality. Which would be fine if it was lighter, it's a bit too heavy. Reduce it's weight but still being able to ride it on the street and have fully adjustable suspension in the front then it'll probably smoke the Ninja 400. However as it sits right not we can't ignore the torque advantage a P-twin like the Ninja 400 has, and we also need to remember that the Ninja 400 is also quite peaky, unlike the bigger Ninja 650 which is way more torquey. However the Ninja 650 is a bad bike, or at least a absolutely horrible Kawasaki Ninja bike. Shouldn't be compared, it should be out of production instead. Good torque is good, but it has no peaky power which is what a Ninja should have. It has the worst power and worst torque numbers, and is commonly compared to the way better, but of course less powerful Ninja 400, and not it's competitors. Kawasaki is such a cool manufacturer right now, the best currently, except for their middleweight 650cc bikes which suck compared to even the old and aging parts bin bike MT-07, and especially the new and great GSX-8S and Hornet 750, and if you got the money a Tuono660/RS660 or a Duke 890. I wouldn't say the Ninja 400 is obsolete as it's a very good bike for beginners, and unless you have money and you really want to rev the shit out of your bike with a cool sound then you should get the Ninja 400 and not the ZX-4RR as your beginner motorcycle. The Ninja 650 however has been obsolete from the start, garbage bike.

@@eirikaustad7580 you sound like you want a ninja 650 flashed to enjoy its power and confort but can NOT afford it! Because is 3 grand more for the extra cc’s you sound very hurt!

@@EdDesan77 You seem to have very basic understanding of motorcycles only thinking of extra displacement. You know nothing about my financial situation or the pricing for bikes in my country and continue to comment. I can afford it but it ain't worth 13k $ quickly converted over to dollars.

@@no_name4080 Z650 is naked bike with same engine, red line and torque. Its not the case. But that gloriuous 4 cylinders sound is just amazing, you should go for 4RR only of this )

@@no_name4080 I currently own a 2009 ER6n .. yeah, it's awesome .. great torque , very easy to handle .. great all rounder bike . I plan to buy the MT 07 someday when I have the money .. even more torque + 270° crank parallel twin..

@@InegoMinblan not everyone likes flatplane inline 4 sound. I'm one of the very few people that like the exhaust note of 270° parallel twin/Crossplane 2 , Vtwin more than flatplane inline 4.. But my most favorite is the Crossplane 4 .

@@pdrider7918 we comparing Ninja 650 sound and ZX4RR. 400 has solid, adult, gorgeous sound, 650 has sound of grass-cutter or 50cc scooter )

@@InegoMinblan not a fan of flatplane inline 4 sound. So I would choose torque. Also the 180°crank parallel twin sounds boring on low RPM , but mid to high RPM sounds great .

650 minimum 4.3l/100km in not fast ECO ride 80-100km/h. But we need to compare both on real time consumption on 130kmph, would be great

Nah metric is objectively better i mean no one wants to convert feet to inches or pounds to ounces