Honda CB650F 2014 vs. Kawasaki Z650 2017

Honda CB650F 2014

Kawasaki Z650 2017
Overview - Honda CB650F 2014 vs Kawasaki Z650 2017
When comparing the Honda CB650F 2014 and the Kawasaki Z650 2017, there are several factors to consider.
In terms of engine specifications, both bikes have an inline engine type with a displacement of 649cc. However, the Honda CB650F has a higher engine power of 87 HP compared to the Kawasaki Z650's 68.2 HP. The torque of the Honda CB650F is 63 Nm, slightly lower than the Kawasaki Z650's 65.7 Nm. The Honda CB650F has four cylinders, while the Kawasaki Z650 has two cylinders. Both bikes have liquid cooling systems.

Honda CB650F 2014
In terms of chassis, both bikes have a steel frame. They also have double disk brakes with double piston calipers at the front. Both bikes are equipped with ABS as an advanced rider assistance system.
In terms of dimensions and weights, there are some differences between the two bikes. The front tire width is the same at 120 mm, and both have a 17-inch front tire diameter. However, the Honda CB650F has a wider rear tire at 180 mm compared to the Kawasaki Z650's 160 mm. Both bikes have a 17-inch rear tire diameter. The wheelbase of the Honda CB650F is slightly longer at 1450 mm compared to the Kawasaki Z650's 1410 mm. The seat height of the Honda CB650F is also higher at 810 mm compared to the Kawasaki Z650's 790 mm. The kerb weight of the Honda CB650F is 200 kg, slightly heavier than the Kawasaki Z650's 185 kg. With ABS, the Honda CB650F's kerb weight increases to 208 kg, while the Kawasaki Z650's increases to 187.1 kg. The fuel tank capacity of the Honda CB650F is 17.3 liters, larger than the Kawasaki Z650's 15 liters.

Kawasaki Z650 2017
Now let's discuss the strengths and weaknesses of each bike. The Honda CB650F has excellent braking capabilities, allowing for precise and controlled stops. It also has a sporty appearance and a comfortable upright seating position. On the other hand, the Kawasaki Z650 offers a smooth and even power delivery, making it easier to handle. It also has a sporty chassis and compact dimensions, making it agile and maneuverable. However, some riders may find the Kawasaki Z650 a little too small, especially for taller individuals.
In conclusion, both the Honda CB650F 2014 and the Kawasaki Z650 2017 have their own strengths and weaknesses. The Honda CB650F offers excellent braking and a sporty appearance, while the Kawasaki Z650 provides a smooth power delivery and compact dimensions. Ultimately, the choice between the two will depend on the rider's preferences and priorities.
Technical Specifications Honda CB650F 2014 compared to Kawasaki Z650 2017
Pros and Cons in comparison
Pros and Cons in comparison
Honda CB650F 2014

The look is successful, the brakes surprisingly powerful, the chassis an impeccable compromise and the engine a smooth and confident comrade. For this coherent and high-quality combination, the introductory price of just under 8,000 euros is acceptable.
Kawasaki Z650 2017

The Kawasaki Z 650 is the tip of the middle class for small male and female riders. On its compact dimensions, you probably won't feel comfortable as a giant. Heart-warming feelings, however, come from the engine, which delights with a very smooth pull. On the chassis side, a Kawasaki-typical tight set-up was chosen, which finds a great compromise in everyday use. The negative display is very easy to read and is reminiscent of its predecessor, the ER-6n - very nice!
Price Comparison Avarage Market Price Honda CB650F vs Kawasaki Z650
There are a few key differences between a Honda CB650F 2014 and a Kawasaki Z650 2017. It takes less time to sell a Honda CB650F with 45 days compared to 76 days for a Kawasaki Z650. Since model year 2014 1000PS.de editors have written 14 reviews for the Honda CB650F and 31 reviews for the Kawasaki Z650 since model year 2017. The first review for the Honda CB650F was published on 04/11/2013 and now has more than 14,100 views. This compares to more than 25,000 views for the first review on Kawasaki Z650 published on 08/11/2016.