To set this comparison right, you should switch to a non-boring car, which provides lots of smiles-per gallon. I own such a vehicle (Dodge Challenger Hellcat) and of course it wins for hp and speed by a landslide, but I live in Switzerland, so I suffer from low speed limits, frequent traffic jams and ridiculous parking costs. My z900 consumes less than half the fuel compared to my car, taxes are much lower, insurance is much lower and parking costs are at an exact zero cost for the z900. Also, whenever I have to replace those Brembo brakes on my car, I could purchase half another z900. One comment regarding vehicle size and fuel consumption: Fuel consumption does depend on wind resistance a lot, which is optimized in relatively large cars only (Mercedes e-class or similar), while anything smaller tends to have inefficient or outright terrible wind resistance. It does not matter, if a car is shaped like an egg or something very low to the ground. Only actual wind resistance counts, not looks. Having a weak engine does not help, except at low speeds going nowhere. For any given speed you will find a combination of decent to good wind resistance with a powerful-enough engine to be most effective, because the engine needs to be able to deal with the wind resistance at the selected speed. Not using the German Autobahn pretty much eliminates high speed scenarios. Cars optimized for being fuel efficient at high autobahn speeds will not provide good results sitting in traffic jams. For any motorcycle no matter the manufacturer's effort in optimization there are always those annoying riders ruining wind resistance by their very existence. This puts a practical limit on reducing fuel consumption.
Great comments, thank you for some very interesting points about the fuel consumption. As for a comparison with a Hellcat (great car BTW) - I think a car like that needs comparison with a high end MV Augusta or Ducati Streetfighter and then it levels back out. Where I am, I personally don't find the bike any cheaper to run, but it does cut down a bit of time on the commute and it's definitely easier to park!
My car is a Focus ST. The mpg is mid 20s around town and only gets to mid 30s mpg on long journeys - So my Z900 50mpg is much better. The VED for my ST is £265 and my parking permit is £360 as opposed to the bike VED of £101 and free parking. I only picked up my Z900 last week, but some how seem to have already spent nearly £1k on bits. Whatever the cost, IMO the bike wins hands down
Some of the factors vary depending where you live, but typically, ignoring cost of vehicle purchase, I agree a motorcycle is going to have a higher cost of ownership. But I think in your comparison, the 30 grand difference between the two really makes that cost difference favor the bike in the 3-5 year range, not to mention repair costs if something goes catastrophically wrong will typically also favor the bike. And for a car, that's well above average mileage, in most cases motorcycles will win that fuel efficiency argument.
I do agree with all that but my point is really about the fact that pound for pound the car is better value. 4 times more money but 7 times more hardware and loads more tech.
Kawasakis Have an Eco Icon Someone Tell the DVLA.. Are you sure its Valve Check at 15,000 my Z650 is at 24,000 miles I think your Z 900 is too.. Have you Had to Change the Air Fiter & Spark plugs yet ? Thats probably Not Cheap at a Dealer. But the the purchase Price is The main Difference you Could have had an H2 Kawasaki And a Decent Used family car For less than 40 Grand ..🙂
Ah yes, gave some duff info. The valves are 24,000 miles. At 15,000 it's all the liquids and spark plugs getting changed - still not cheap! I get what you are saying about new prices but pound for pound you get alot more for your money with a car, which isn't fair. A Z900 should cost about 5K by rights LOL.
The Z 900 is a Bargain compared to Some Super Nakeds and I Really thought about one but wanted lower running Costs ..so went with the Z650 & they kind of look the Same..
We’ve got a Volvo XC40 which gets about 40mpg around town and about 50mpg on longer motorway journeys. The MT-09 is about 50mpg around town and on a long run on open roads (not motorway) I get 60 - 64mpg
Ah, you rumbled me. This was filmed in a diesel, but I also have a 2 Ltr BMW that I can use and it's the same story there. If anything the BMW does a few more MPG!
Drive the bike like you drive the car and watch the mpg increase dramatically. We don’t realise we drive bikes a lot harder than cars. The weather is also a huge factor. Cars are more aerodynamic whereas bikes driving against wind vs having a tail wind makes a huge difference. A real test would be to get the bike to follow the car on a route that includes city and motorway driving. Then you will see a realistic comparison. PS the big exhaust is not helping the MPG either.
Thanks for the comments. I guess my main issue is that a bike weighing a 7th of the car and half the engine size should be doing alot more MPG despite the aerodynamics, weather and riding style on the road. Good point about the exhaust and maybe an ECU remap to improve a number of things!
@@bikerevz weight can be your friend, especially going down hills! The opposite is obviously true going up hills, but the car has added aerodynamics plus overall a lot more space to allow the engine to be designed more efficiently including the exhaust system. What you also have to understand is that whilst smaller engines may burn less fuel, in the real world a smaller engine has to work harder than the bigger engine and this is even worse for bikes as they need to stay compact whilst moving a disproportionate weight to their size. The 2 litre car is tuned to be economical whilst the bike is tuned to produce more power in a lower rpm range, hence why nearly all (if not all) motorcycle engines will provide more HP per cc vs typical car engines. In saying that, I think you really must consider the weather and aerodynamics to be the biggest factor at play. A fully enclosed streamlined motorbike with an enclosed rider uses 1/2 the fuel of a similar engine sized car at the same speed. Realistically you are trying to compare apples and oranges despite both vehicles requiring the same fuel source.
I get around 17 km out of 1 litre of petrol (benzin) so that is about 290 km on a full tank on my z900, its not great but not bad either (my bike have been ecu flashed to optimize the engine) I have to point out that im riding in a "fun" way .. still legal though xD
Ah, that's interesting, I have been wondering about the ECU flash. Did you take it out and send it off or just take the whole bike in? Tell me more....
So there's just the £30k deficit at the start and it's all square? mate, if your z900 only does 140 mph then there's something seriously wrong with it. ... Perhaps you should sell it and buy yourself Forza 125?
To set this comparison right, you should switch to a non-boring car, which provides lots of smiles-per gallon. I own such a vehicle (Dodge Challenger Hellcat) and of course it wins for hp and speed by a landslide, but I live in Switzerland, so I suffer from low speed limits, frequent traffic jams and ridiculous parking costs. My z900 consumes less than half the fuel compared to my car, taxes are much lower, insurance is much lower and parking costs are at an exact zero cost for the z900. Also, whenever I have to replace those Brembo brakes on my car, I could purchase half another z900.
One comment regarding vehicle size and fuel consumption: Fuel consumption does depend on wind resistance a lot, which is optimized in relatively large cars only (Mercedes e-class or similar), while anything smaller tends to have inefficient or outright terrible wind resistance. It does not matter, if a car is shaped like an egg or something very low to the ground. Only actual wind resistance counts, not looks. Having a weak engine does not help, except at low speeds going nowhere. For any given speed you will find a combination of decent to good wind resistance with a powerful-enough engine to be most effective, because the engine needs to be able to deal with the wind resistance at the selected speed. Not using the German Autobahn pretty much eliminates high speed scenarios. Cars optimized for being fuel efficient at high autobahn speeds will not provide good results sitting in traffic jams.
For any motorcycle no matter the manufacturer's effort in optimization there are always those annoying riders ruining wind resistance by their very existence. This puts a practical limit on reducing fuel consumption.
Great comments, thank you for some very interesting points about the fuel consumption. As for a comparison with a Hellcat (great car BTW) - I think a car like that needs comparison with a high end MV Augusta or Ducati Streetfighter and then it levels back out. Where I am, I personally don't find the bike any cheaper to run, but it does cut down a bit of time on the commute and it's definitely easier to park!
My car is a Focus ST.
The mpg is mid 20s around town and only gets to mid 30s mpg on long journeys - So my Z900 50mpg is much better.
The VED for my ST is £265 and my parking permit is £360 as opposed to the bike VED of £101 and free parking.
I only picked up my Z900 last week, but some how seem to have already spent nearly £1k on bits.
Whatever the cost, IMO the bike wins hands down
Just remember it's not miles per gallon moreso smiles per gallon that matter Mark!
Now why didn't you give me that golden nugget before I did the film, I will definitely use it in future :-)
Some of the factors vary depending where you live, but typically, ignoring cost of vehicle purchase, I agree a motorcycle is going to have a higher cost of ownership. But I think in your comparison, the 30 grand difference between the two really makes that cost difference favor the bike in the 3-5 year range, not to mention repair costs if something goes catastrophically wrong will typically also favor the bike. And for a car, that's well above average mileage, in most cases motorcycles will win that fuel efficiency argument.
I do agree with all that but my point is really about the fact that pound for pound the car is better value. 4 times more money but 7 times more hardware and loads more tech.
Car is fine but I love my Z900, he is my pal.
Z900...small insurance, just 2 tires, no ULEZ, no congestion charge, most of the maintenance you can do urself. brakes pads, fluids change etc.
You make some very good points, although proportionately I still don't think a bike is cheap. I reckon the bike industry could do better for us.
Kawasakis Have an Eco Icon
Someone Tell the DVLA..
Are you sure its Valve Check at
15,000 my Z650 is at 24,000 miles
I think your Z 900 is too..
Have you Had to Change the Air Fiter
& Spark plugs yet ? Thats probably
Not Cheap at a Dealer.
But the the purchase Price is
The main Difference you
Could have had an H2 Kawasaki
And a Decent Used family car
For less than 40 Grand ..🙂
Ah yes, gave some duff info. The valves are 24,000 miles. At 15,000 it's all the liquids and spark plugs getting changed - still not cheap! I get what you are saying about new prices but pound for pound you get alot more for your money with a car, which isn't fair. A Z900 should cost about 5K by rights LOL.
The Z 900 is a Bargain compared to
Some Super Nakeds and I Really thought about one but wanted lower running
Costs ..so went with the Z650
& they kind of look the Same..
We’ve got a Volvo XC40 which gets about 40mpg around town and about 50mpg on longer motorway journeys. The MT-09 is about 50mpg around town and on a long run on open roads (not motorway) I get 60 - 64mpg
Did you say whether your car is deisel where there can be a 20-30p per litre difference or not?
Ah, you rumbled me. This was filmed in a diesel, but I also have a 2 Ltr BMW that I can use and it's the same story there. If anything the BMW does a few more MPG!
Super car £350000, superbike £4000. Bike also costs £300 insurance £30 tax and gets 60mpg. Car costs £7000 I surance £1000 tax and gets 12 mpg.
Drive the bike like you drive the car and watch the mpg increase dramatically. We don’t realise we drive bikes a lot harder than cars. The weather is also a huge factor. Cars are more aerodynamic whereas bikes driving against wind vs having a tail wind makes a huge difference. A real test would be to get the bike to follow the car on a route that includes city and motorway driving. Then you will see a realistic comparison. PS the big exhaust is not helping the MPG either.
Thanks for the comments. I guess my main issue is that a bike weighing a 7th of the car and half the engine size should be doing alot more MPG despite the aerodynamics, weather and riding style on the road. Good point about the exhaust and maybe an ECU remap to improve a number of things!
@@bikerevz weight can be your friend, especially going down hills! The opposite is obviously true going up hills, but the car has added aerodynamics plus overall a lot more space to allow the engine to be designed more efficiently including the exhaust system. What you also have to understand is that whilst smaller engines may burn less fuel, in the real world a smaller engine has to work harder than the bigger engine and this is even worse for bikes as they need to stay compact whilst moving a disproportionate weight to their size. The 2 litre car is tuned to be economical whilst the bike is tuned to produce more power in a lower rpm range, hence why nearly all (if not all) motorcycle engines will provide more HP per cc vs typical car engines. In saying that, I think you really must consider the weather and aerodynamics to be the biggest factor at play. A fully enclosed streamlined motorbike with an enclosed rider uses 1/2 the fuel of a similar engine sized car at the same speed. Realistically you are trying to compare apples and oranges despite both vehicles requiring the same fuel source.
You cannot put money on looking cool as
I get around 17 km out of 1 litre of petrol (benzin) so that is about 290 km on a full tank on my z900, its not great but not bad either (my bike have been ecu flashed to optimize the engine) I have to point out that im riding in a "fun" way .. still legal though xD
Ah, that's interesting, I have been wondering about the ECU flash. Did you take it out and send it off or just take the whole bike in? Tell me more....
So there's just the £30k deficit at the start and it's all square? mate, if your z900 only does 140 mph then there's something seriously wrong with it. ... Perhaps you should sell it and buy yourself Forza 125?
To make up for it, he over exaggerated the top speed of the car which does 127mph not 140+
burn the car get another bike 😅🤣😂🤣😅🤣😂
Ha Ha, love the way you think!