Anyone own/familiar with the '03 - '04 ZX-6R?

[Admiral Thrawn]

At 161kg and with the same rated output as the last 636cc bike ('05 - '06), but 3kg lighter, the '03/'04 ZX-6R has on paper the best power-to-weight ratio of all of them. It also looks pretty sharp, and has depreciated nicely.

Anyone own or have experience riding one? I'm interested to know what it's like. Especially compared with the 600 Supersports from Suzuki, Honda and Yamaha of the same years.

In what ways is the '05/'06 ZX-6R bike better?

I'm 5'9, 69kg (152lbs).

[stefano]

Originally Posted by Admiral Thrawn

At 161kg and with the same rated output as the last 636cc bike ('05 - '06), but 3kg lighter, the '03/'04 ZX-6R has on paper the best power-to-weight ratio of all of them. It also looks pretty sharp, and has depreciated nicely.

Anyone own or have experience riding one? I'm interested to know what it's like. Especially compared with the 600 Supersports from Suzuki, Honda and Yamaha of the same years.

In what ways is the '05/'06 ZX-6R bike better?

I'm 5'9, 69kg (152lbs).

Get ervin started on this and you won't be able to shut him up LOL!

There's plenty guys here with those bikes, I'm sure you'll get tons of responses, and all of them positive.

I've only ridden the 06, but from what I've heard (people on this forum, reviews) the 05/06 will cut you faster lap times, but is not as raw as the 03/04 - it's easier to ride, more neutral handing, smoother power delivery (though if I'm not mistaken it has a few more ponies than the 03/04???).

In terms of rawness, compared to its competitors, the list went: 636, R6, Gixxer, CBR.

The truth of the matter is, if you're new to these bikes, you won't even notice the difference

[ervins]

Now you opened up a real topic...I have (decimated for now) a 2003 ZX-6R 636...It was decked out first of all and you can see in the link I have some of the upgrades. I also have a 2003 CBR 600rr so I can compare the bike that wonthe 2003 Comparisons to the bike that came in second which was the 636. I have also ridden a 2004 R6 and and a 2003 GSXR 600. So I can say from my experience that in that year the only two bikes that could compete were the 636 and 600rr...The other two were has beens by the time the comparisons were over so the gixxer and R6 are not even worth mentioning.

Hands down and I am not saying this because I am on a Kawi site but hands down the 636 was a wayyyyyyy better bike than the 600rr. The comparisons weighted street riding too much IMO compared to track performance and did not take into mind riders who love twisties. With that in mind, the 600rr won in most comparisons. As it was a better "all around" bike...LIES.

Handling
636 - Wild beast without damper. No lie this thing can get sketchy quick but when affixed with a damper it became a deadly carving weapon. It leans easily and turns quick. Sounds bad? No, it is actually an excellent ride if you get the bike controlled.
600rr - No damper needed. This thing is tame and requires you to really lean the bike to get it turning on twisties. Does not turn as quick and is almost unresponsive. Sorta like comparing manual steering and power steering.

Power
636 - This bike thought it was a 750. Excellent power through out. First thru fourth is very strong. I liked that for the riding I do which is twisties. No loss in power/ pull until you get into the high RPMs where it tapers. Excellent engine for all around riding. Very strong pull so easy on that throttle. I piulled down some 1000s on my track day...This bike is fast. 520 conversion is good to have.
600rr - Gutless pig from first through third.Nothing!On the 636 I can easily go 40mph and it would give a nice roar...The 600rr at that speed in first starts to sound taxed. That is why I had to go up +1 in the rear for quicker acceleration In the high RPMs the bike does pull...I will give it that. It feels like it can keep going. Though I would rather have the 6-8k pull than the 8-10k pull. That is me though. Definitely this bike likes higher RPMs. 520 conversion is a must +1 in rear as well.

Shifting and gears
636 - Excellent gear ratios as it was spot on in regards to riding. If you had to be in 2nd you were right. 4th you are right. Shifing was clunky and not as smooth as 600rr. Only drawback.
600rr - Too close from first and second. Almost useless to ever go in second as you need to go up to third. +1 in rear helped but whatever. Where the 600rr shines is in the gearbox...This thing is smooth. No skip whatsoever. The 636 would skip every so often but the 600rr nails down shifting very well. Only bad thing is it likes to go into neutral if not shifted deliberately.

Ergos
636 - I rode both bikes stock and they are both high. I got them lowered equally and the 636 was brutal on wrists compared to the 600rr which is brutal on the palms. After changes it was better but no miracle.. However if you get your knees up on the pegs and rest your arms on your knees it was a much more comfy ride than the 600rr. Pegs and shifter are well spaced.
600rr - High and brutal on the lower back for me since it keeps you over the engine/ gas tank and almost over the windshield. Makes for scary rides in the wind. Not as stable in winds as the 636 as I found out this past weekend. Shifter and peg are too close...As a result you can I downshift or even upshift by mistake.

Throttle response/ FI/ Gas
636 - Very smooth throttle response. Seems like the FI works smooth and seemless. Excellent in twisties. Gas mileage is ok at around 28-32mpg NO more. No lie. That is me though and the heavy throttling through traffic. I have a Micron highmount exhaust on the bike.
600rr - Not as smooth and if you do not get the hang of it feels like it will loose power and die out on you. This is not good when you are in a fast or tight turn. This was all agreed on in reviews. Gas is about the same as 636 if not less...All these specs for gas tank sizes are off for both 636 and 600rr. This bike has a Yoshimura RS-5 exhaust. Pretty loud compared to the Micron by a bit.


Looks and tweakability
636 - So easy to work on...Take of fairings and work. Lots of upgrades out there and sliders mount easily compared to 600rr which requires drilling. Lots of space. Looks like burly bike...Deceptively large and aggressive looking...However it rides like it is smaller.
600rr - Is like Rubics Cube to work with. Fairings are pain to take on and off. Very tight to work with as there is no room whatsoever. Lots of aftermarket part but putting it on is a biatch compared to 636. Looks small but feels large as it is 40lbs heavier.

So much more just ask me.

After riding both bikes through some of the twisties I go, riding both as I commuted to work, riding both through streets...Winner is...................

First
2003 Kawasaki ZX-6R
9/10

Second
2003Honda CBR 600rr
7.5/10

[ervins]

Oops.

Bike Magazine from England calls the 2003 a classic and I agree. Keep in mind it is the 13 according to them fastest stock bike ever made. Believe me the bike is "ALL THAT".

[Admiral Thrawn]

Thanks ervins for the excellent writeup! Exactly what I was looking for!

Sounds like the bike for me, although I don't know how commuting on one everyday would be.

When were slipper clutches introduced on the litre bikes and 600s? I assume the '03/'04 ZX-6R does not have one (or any other 600s from '03/'04)?

What do you think of the the new-for-2004 GSX-R600? It looks like a complete redesign (with the modern pointy, racebike look) compared with the 2003 and earlier gixxers.

[ervins]

Originally Posted by Admiral Thrawn

Thanks ervins for the excellent writeup! Exactly what I was looking for!

Sounds like the bike for me, although I don't know how commuting on one everyday would be.

When were slipper clutches introduced on the litre bikes and 600s? I assume the '03/'04 ZX-6R does not have one (or any other 600s from '03/'04)?

What do you think of the the new-for-2004 GSX-R600? It looks like a complete redesign (with the modern pointy, racebike look) compared with the 2003 and earlier gixxers.

No problem. Commuting with it was comfy. I am 5'7" and it was lowered 1.25 inch rear and 3/4 inch front but it was level not hoopty looking. It is comfier than 600rr and I have taken it 120 miles straight tank to fill up and was none the wear for less...Longer rides of 300 miles can be taxing but same as the 600rr which I think made me more tired. My commute is 20 miles one way with 21 miles of 20 mph twisites at lunch...Plus 20 miles home...I always feel happy after. The 600rr is almost brutal because you are over the tank and near the windshield that it kills commuting a bit.

I think the RR version of the ZX has a slipper clutch including of course smaller engine. Inverted forks were cool on the R and RR compared to other bikes that year. Gixxers are nice that is why there are so many of them. Well rounded bikes but it definitely could not compete with the 636 in comparisons articles. I liked it but am not fond of the looks. It was also very big...Really big when you sit on it. I can not stress that since it was a huge reason I did not get one. I had a chance to get a 2004 Alstare version but opted for the 636 instead since it had better technology incorporated into it.

Stock bike I would take the 636 hands down over a stock 600rr.

Funny I still look around for 636 from 2003...I can turn my Honda and make some cash as I have been offered over $5k for it ($4k is what I paid... I was lucky! But it helps that my shop and the people who go there are tight with each other). When I turn this bike at the end of the season to a friend my first desire is to look at at 636 only or just get a new 6R. We will see.

If you are looking at the 2003/2004 year, they are really all winners. I would go:

636
600rr
Gixxer 600
R6

[psycho_drama]

ervins summed her up well.

i own a 2003 zx-6rr and i can't be happier. i have ridden 04-07 hondas and kiwis and i just don't have any desire to sell mine and "upgrade".

[ervins]

Originally Posted by psycho_drama

ervins summed her up well.

i own a 2003 zx-6rr and i can't be happier. i have ridden 04-07 hondas and kiwis and i just don't have any desire to sell mine and "upgrade".

The thing about the 636 is you rarely see them...Quite a few are banged up because they are so raw...However, as I said...You tame that thing and it is sooooo sweet. I never see RRs for sale...That says a lot. Know they were limited helps.

[psycho_drama]

Originally Posted by ervins

The thing about the 636 is you rarely see them...Quite a few are banged up because they are so raw...However, as I said...You tame that thing and it is sooooo sweet. I never see RRs for sale...That says a lot. Know they were limited helps.

you should come up to the northwest or browse the seattle criagslist sometime this upcoming season, if you are interested in picking one up again.

last spring/summer i saw at least 3 2003-4 RRs with less than 5K for sale. a few mint 636s too.

here is one:

http://seattle.craigslist.org/sno/mcy/300987081.html

another:

http://seattle.craigslist.org/see/mcy/299762391.html

[Admiral Thrawn]

Originally Posted by psycho_drama

ervins summed her up well.

i own a 2003 zx-6rr and i can't be happier. i have ridden 04-07 hondas and kiwis and i just don't have any desire to sell mine and "upgrade".

So it is that close to the newer bikes?

In terms of power-to-weight, as I mentioned earlier, it is still tops.

What benefit do the inverted forks have on the RR?

[ervins]

Originally Posted by psycho_drama

you should come up to the northwest or browse the seattle criagslist sometime this upcoming season, if you are interested in picking one up again.

last spring/summer i saw at least 3 2003-4 RRs with less than 5K for sale. a few mint 636s too.

here is one:

http://seattle.craigslist.org/sno/mcy/300987081.html

another:

http://seattle.craigslist.org/see/mcy/299762391.html

For 2003/2004 down here most of them are thrashed or have been laid down. Less than 5k would get me looking. That is good to know though. Thanks!

[ervins]

Originally Posted by Admiral Thrawn

So it is that close to the newer bikes?

In terms of power-to-weight, as I mentioned earlier, it is still tops.

What benefit do the inverted forks have on the RR?

Allegedly they produce just as much power and torque...Closer in regards to power but not looks. As far as weight...I believe they were equal or the p2w was better on the 2003/ 2004. YOu can see on BIKE chart that the 2003 was faster in certain tests. But .03 seconds is nothing (just throwing a number out).
This bike is fast and has a great powerplant.

Here is some snipet regarding forks...


A telescopic fork uses fork tubes which contain the suspension components (coil springs and damper) internally. This is the most common form of fork commercially available.
The main advantage of the telescopic fork is that it is relatively simple in design and therefore relatively easy and inexpensive to manufacture and assemble. It is also relatively light compared to older designs based on external components and linkage systems.
Conventionally, the fork sliders are at the top of the fork assembly, clamped to a triple tree, also called a yoke, pivoting around the headstock, and sliding in and out of the spring/damper unit at the bottom of the assembly. On many sport bikes, this system is inverted, with the spring/damper unit clamped to the yoke while the sliders are at the bottom of the assembly. This is done for two reasons: to reduce unsprung weight by having the heavier components be suspended, and to improve the strength and rigidity of the assembly by having the bulkier and stronger component being directly supported by the pivot.[2]
The disadvantage of the inverted design is that the entire reservoir of damping oil is stored directly over the slider seal such that, if the slider seal were to leak, the oil would drain out, reducing the effectiveness of the fork.