Triumph Thunderbird 2011 vs. Kawasaki VN 1700 Classic Tourer 2009

Triumph Thunderbird 2011

Triumph Thunderbird 2011

Kawasaki VN 1700 Classic Tourer 2009

Kawasaki VN 1700 Classic Tourer 2009

Loading...

Technical Specifications Triumph Thunderbird 2011 compared to Kawasaki VN 1700 Classic Tourer 2009

Triumph Thunderbird 2011
Kawasaki VN 1700 Classic Tourer 2009

Engine and Drive Train

BoreBore103.8 mmBore102 mm
StrokeStroke94.3 mmStroke104 mm
Engine powerEngine power85 HPEngine power73 HP
Rpm at Max. PowerRpm at Max. Power4,850 rpmRpm at Max. Power5,000 rpm
TorqueTorque146 NmTorque136 Nm
Rpm at TorqueRpm at Torque2,750 rpmRpm at Torque2,750 rpm
Compression RatioCompression Ratio9.7 Compression Ratio9.5
Number of gearsNumber of gears6Number of gears6
CoolingCoolingliquidCoolingliquid
DisplacementDisplacement1,597 ccmDisplacement1.7 ccm

Chassis

FrameFrameSteelFrameSteel
Frame typeFrame typeTwin TubeFrame typeDouble cradle

Brakes Rear

TypeTypeDiscTypeDisc

Dimensions and Weights

Seat HeightSeat Height700 mmSeat Height720 mm
Fuel Tank CapacityFuel Tank Capacity22 lFuel Tank Capacity20 l
License compliancyLicense compliancyALicense compliancyA

Pros and Cons in comparison

Pros and Cons in comparison

Triumph Thunderbird 2011

Triumph Thunderbird 2011

A Thunderbird is just as unique and independent on the motorbike market as a Speed Triple, a Rocket III or a Scrambler. And you can feel it. Through the cultivated rumble of the two parallel pistons, the powerful bite of the Nissin four-piston fixed calipers on 310 mm discs and the friendly glances of passers-by.

Optimal fit

classic look

pleasant ride

light chassis

agile.

Very high weight.

Kawasaki VN 1700 Classic Tourer 2009

Kawasaki VN 1700 Classic Tourer 2009

Unfortunately, our editors did not test this model.

Price Comparison Avarage Market Price Triumph Thunderbird vs Kawasaki VN 1700 Classic Tourer

Price Triumph Thunderbird

Model year
Current average market prices

Price Kawasaki VN 1700 Classic Tourer

Unfortunately, the data available to us is not sufficient to provide meaningful price information for this model.

Alternative Comparisons