Have questions GZ250 or Rebel 250?

[dhgeyer]

I just watched the YouTube video of the Rebel on the highway, with the link posted above. It made me skeptical. For one thing, the rider/narrator was reading off speeds indicated by the speedometer. These are always suspect on any vehicle, and particularly on motorcycles in my experience. Also, that Rebel had a large windshield on it. Again, from my experience, a windshield, depending on its shape, size, and angle can either increase or decrease wind resistance.

I subscribe to a magazine called "Motorcycle Consumer News" (MCN). It is unique among such publications in that it accepts no advertising. All revenues come from subscriptions. They have an excellent technical staff, and do honest evaluations on any product they test. When something isn't worth the money, they say so. They also have a standard testing procedure for motorcycles. They treat them all the same, and do all of the same tests. They test the top speed by some means other than the speedometer. They do multiple runs on the same course, and take the highest speed they can get.

The last time they tested a Rebel was in 1996, and they got a top speed of 70 mph. That's about consistent with what I remember mine doing the one time I took it on a highway. I was unable to maintain 60 mph on a fairly significant incline on Route 89 here in NH. MCN got 62.2 ave. mpg fuel economy.

They tested a GZ250 in 1999, using the same procedures. They got a top speed of 78 mph, with combined fuel economy of 49.7 mpg. Not sure why the fuel economy was so low - everyone here gets much better than that. The top speed seems about right. More importantly, the GZ will maintain at least 60 in 4th gear, which will get you up virtually any hill you'd be likely to encounter, especially on the highway. That 60 mph figure may be low. I've never opened mine up fully in 4th.

The braking on the Rebel was much more impressive - 60mph to 0 in 115 feet as opposed to 123 for the GZ. The GZ had a little more HP and torque, measured at the rear wheel, and is a few pounds heavier.

They tested a Kawasaki Ninja 250R in 2008. To be fair, this is a newer model of Ninja 250, and used ones will probably be the older model. However, Kawasaki didn't change much that would affect performance. They got a measured top speed of 95.5 mph, with average fuel economy of 51.2 mpg. Again, this fuel economy is way below what we got with ours, but the top speed seems about right. 0 to 60 was 7.72 seconds, which is a little over half the time it took either the Rebel or GZ to do the same acceleration. The Ninja would be harder to maintain, since it would require removing body work, and the dual carbs would require synchronization. It also has twice as many valves.

Can't find any records of a test of the Vulcan 500. They tested a Ninja 500 in 2004, and got a top speed of 110 mph, with an average of 64 mpg. That's better fuel economy than what they got for the Ninja 250. That just doesn't sound right. Maybe a misprint somewhere. The Vulcan 500 has the same engine/transmission as the Ninja 500, with minor modifications to the cams and timing for better mid range torque at the expense of some raw horsepower at high RPM's. I don't think the Vulcan 500 would go quite as fast as the Ninja.

They tested a Honda Shadow VLX 600 in 1999, which presumably would be the newer model. Top speed of 90, average fuel economy of 40 mpg. We owned 2 VLX's at one point, one new model ('04) and one of the older models ('95). The top speeds seem about right to me, but we got a lot better fuel economy with both of them.

Points to ponder.