Kawasaki Ninja 300, non ABS

I have been wanting a fuel efficient bike for commuting for quite some time now and I finally got one.
Still kind of breaking it in with 554 miles on the odometer.

It has an open loop fuel injection system (no O2 sensor in the exhaust), I guess that's one less thing to go wrong. The carburation is practically perfect. No choke or fast idle lever to mess with, you just punch the starter and it runs, the only thing that betrays a cold engine is a fast idle which goes away after less than a mile of riding.

The only miss, in my opinion, is that Kawasaki geared this thing like a dirt bike, the engine racing at an indicated 6800 rpm at 60 mph in sixth. I think the tach is a little optimistic because mathematically the engine should be turning about 6500 rpm at a true 60, not an indicated sixty which is really about 58.5 mph. Oh well, I guess as long as the kiddies THINK their bike goes 110 mph and revs 13K, they are happy.
This is needlessly low gearing for a 300. The CBR250R is actually geared taller in spite of having a smaller engine with less torque.
A 15 tooth countershaft sprocket is on order to replace the stock 14 tooth sprocket.
This bike has a very wide ratio gearbox with a 2.714:1 first and a 0.857:1 sixth giving it a depth of gearing of 3.17. Depth of gearing is the first gear compared to the high gear. A bike with a narrow depth of gearing will have a clutch burner of a first gear while having a high gear that has you hunting for another gear on the highway. A bike with a wide depth of gearing will have a stump puller first gear while still having an overdrive sixth for the highway. With this transmission, it is likely that Kawasaki has a mini-Versys in mind for the future.

Gas mileage.
My first top off, after riding about 60 miles revealed 52 mpg. I'm not sure if the dealer had the tank completely full.
The second top off was after only riding 69 miles, I couldn't wait to see what it would do. This came out to about 65 mpg.
Then I decided to wait till the tank actually needed a fill up for more accurate results.
Fill up number three, 191.5 miles/2.708 gallons = 70.7 mpg
Fill up number four, 221.5 miles/3.116 gallons = 71.1 mpg

I don't understand people that don't want to rev the bike over 7k on the freeway. Why do you care what rpm the bike is at on the highway? It's designed to be like that because that's how the engine in it functions correctly... IMO regearing it taller does not fix any problem, it creates one. Giving a bike that cannot achieve gear limited top speed even more geared top end creates a slower moving bike that is likely operated outside its peak/average power curve.

Is it a fear of hurting the bike or a dislike for revving the bike high based on noise, vibration, or some other personal issue with it? I hear issues all the time form other 250 riders, and never understand it, but I am a motorsport enthusiast and love track days and kart racing so moving to a bike that needs to be rung out 10/10ths in the wrist to move well and even maintain higher speeds suited me just fine, but I am always curious to get more details what the issue is from owners who dislike this aspect of the bikes.

The stock gearing is probably perfect if the mission of the bike is to win drag races or is used as a track day toy.
But for commuting on roads that have 55 mph speed limits, the engine cries out for longer legs. It's a feel thing, I ignore the tach for shift points.

When you look at an engine's torque and horsepower curves on a dyno chart, remember that this was measured AT FULL THROTTLE!
The shift point's etc are only relevant for FULL THROTTLE operation.

When riding to work and back, I'm often just barely opening the throttle, you know, 45 mph speed limits and such. Put a bike on the dyno and only open the throttle 1/4 open and you get totally different torque and horsepower peak points.

Here's a dyno chart from some unknown engine that illustrates the point. Notice that the horsepower peaks at lower and lower rpms as the throttle is closed. Also look at how the specific fuel consumption goes to the moon at 1/4 throttle at higher rpms.

At that point it isn't reflective horsepower output, it is reflecting horsepower being USED I believe, therefor making those graphs largely irrelevant I would imagine. Each throttle position approaches its terminal BSFC as it reaches the maximum sustainable RPM given the amount of throttle input rofl... that's a given operation of the engine conditions. I don't need a graph to see or understand that.

Also depending on the dyno that likely doesn't reflect load at all, but that is a complete unknown based on the super generic graphs shown.

I ignore shift points as well, but I drive for maximum smiles per gallon. The fun of a small displacement bike, much as is a Miata or other fun slow car, lies in being able to ring it out to redline through a few gears without being instantly in the triple digits begging for Johnny Law to track you down.

So if you ignore the tach and it's just by feel, you feel when at highway speeds the bike is too ready to go at the flinch of your wrist and should be more bogged down basically? The engine doesn't suddenly transform because you're part throttle, it still functions the exact same. I don't really concur with the data you provided backing that reasoning... it still just sounds like you don't like the high revs and just want low revs lol... always confuses me though. They make these things called cruisers...

...at least you seem to have some more sound minded thought put into it than people who can't get their bikes to do freeway speeds and think it's all the bikes fault, when really they are scared to wrap it out to redline at 14k+ lol. To each their own of course, but like I said, for me, I want gear limited top speed to be as close to matching terminal velocity as possible.


A little more technical read on the subject matter:
http://www.optimumg.com/technical/it-is-all-about-horsepower-or-is-it/

I understand at less input you're using less of the engines potential but as shown, less throttle is less power at any given throttle position (obviously?) and the is no magic point where you are making more power down low with less throttle than with more? That's what I don't understand from your reasoning. Thanks for some insightful discussion though! I love good in depth discussions with people who get that there is more to an engine than peak numbers (it's all about the curve, and more so the area under it!

Update.

Tank #5, this time I waited until the last bar on the fuel gauge before filling to get a sense of the bike's range. It was down to the last bar at 240 miles. The only other bike I had that could match that kind of fuel range was a BMW R-90/6 with the big gas tank.
I filled at 241.9 miles/3.405 gallons needed to top off meaning I still had over a gallon left in the 4.5 gallon tank. Gas mileage = 71.04 mpg.

I did the 600 mile oil change. The filter is easily accessible without unbolting any plastic and it looks suspiciously like the Purolator PL14610 that my ZRX uses with its spin on oil filter conversion kit. A bunch of parts numbers checking reveals that this bike indeed does use the same oil filter that a lot of other Kawasaki models use that many people used the Purolator filter on instead of the overpriced OEM filter.
You will be making contact with the header pipes while changing the filter so you have to wait till they are cold if you don't want to burn yourself.

Mulholland. The stock gearing on this bike has the engine running 11500 at its reported 106 mph top speed. Cycle World's dyno test on this bike indicates maximum horsepower occurs at 10860 rpm, not 11500, so this bike is operating on the back side of the horsepower curve at top speed. Gearing it 15/42 instead of 14/42 would have the engine turning 10733 rpm at 106 mph, much closer to its peak horsepower rpm, possibly giving it an even higher top speed.
But maximum top speed is not the mission of my bike, I can always ride the ZRX if I suddenly have some need to go triple digit speeds.
What telegraphs the engine being geared too low to be efficient is when just closing the throttle a little bit results in engine braking. That means that most of the throttle opening exists just to make the engine rev to match the road speed and the power consumed by sucking air past the nearly closed throttle is actually higher than the power delivered to the rear wheel at lower cruising speeds.
Besides, why can't sixth gear be optimized for maximum cruising speed fuel efficiency and fifth gear be your maximum top speed ratio?

Ben Eberle said:

Update.

Tank #5, this time I waited until the last bar on the fuel gauge before filling to get a sense of the bike's range. It was down to the last bar at 240 miles. The only other bike I had that could match that kind of fuel range was a BMW R-90/6 with the big gas tank.
I filled at 241.9 miles/3.405 gallons needed to top off meaning I still had over a gallon left in the 4.5 gallon tank. Gas mileage = 71.04 mpg.

I did the 600 mile oil change. The filter is easily accessible without unbolting any plastic and it looks suspiciously like the Purolator PL14610 that my ZRX uses with its spin on oil filter conversion kit. A bunch of parts numbers checking reveals that this bike indeed does use the same oil filter that a lot of other Kawasaki models use that many people used the Purolator filter on instead of the overpriced OEM filter.
You will be making contact with the header pipes while changing the filter so you have to wait till they are cold if you don't want to burn yourself.

Mulholland. The stock gearing on this bike has the engine running 11500 at its reported 106 mph top speed. Cycle World's dyno test on this bike indicates maximum horsepower occurs at 10860 rpm, not 11500, so this bike is operating on the back side of the horsepower curve at top speed. Gearing it 15/42 instead of 14/42 would have the engine turning 10733 rpm at 106 mph, much closer to its peak horsepower rpm, possibly giving it an even higher top speed.
But maximum top speed is not the mission of my bike, I can always ride the ZRX if I suddenly have some need to go triple digit speeds.
What telegraphs the engine being geared too low to be efficient is when just closing the throttle a little bit results in engine braking. That means that most of the throttle opening exists just to make the engine rev to match the road speed and the power consumed by sucking air past the nearly closed throttle is actually higher than the power delivered to the rear wheel at lower cruising speeds.
Besides, why can't sixth gear be optimized for maximum cruising speed fuel efficiency and fifth gear be your maximum top speed ratio?

Click to expand...

The bike doesn't have to be at peak horsepower to hit peak rpm. As long as it isn't gear limited by the new sprockets, yeah anything shorter will get it there better and could indeed net it a few more ounces of terminal velocity. Sounds like you've got the right idea with it either way, and good to know it sips gas as well as its heritage should lend it to.

Going up one sprocket in front and going up one tire size in back on my TU250 really helped. Didn't seem geared right at ALL from the factory.

I really want a Ninja 300 (in addition to my TU)!

shipman said:

Going up one sprocket in front and going up one tire size in back on my TU250 really helped. Didn't seem geared right at ALL from the factory.

I really want a Ninja 300 (in addition to my TU)!

Click to expand...

The TU250X was on my short list. I didn't really want to return to tube tires though. I love the way you can plug a tubeless tire and be on your way, and usually, a tubeless that picks up a nail will still hold air long enough for you to get home, you often don't even know you have a nail in the tire until the next day.
I have upgeard many bikes. Most notably, a Yamaha SR500, going one up on the front sprocket totally transformed the bike, actually making it a reasonable highway bike and making it get 65 mpg on my daily commute to work. Also, chains last longer on larger countershaft sprockets.
I hear that the Honda Rebel 250 is another bike that screams for taller gearing, the stock gearing limiting it to a little over 70 mph top speed even though it has the horsepower to go faster.

Gas mileage update. Today, I did a long distance ride going from Lake Travis to Llano and back. Took the Hamilton Pool road until it hit a T, I went left on a country road that ends up near Johnson City, took the Sandy road to Willow City and toured the Willow City Loop and then Highway 16 to Llano where I stopped for some BBQ at Coopers. Returned mostly on Highway 29. Lots of highway cruising going 60-65 took its toll on the gas mileage and I only managed 68.7 mpg, the last bar on the fuel gauge at 235 miles.

The seat is going to need some help to make this a reasonable long distance tourer. I found myself going into a road racing tuck just to put the seat pressure points in a different place on my butt, but, I didn't really buy this bike for long distance touring. To be fair, the stock seat on my ZRX was also not really comfortable for long rides and I have ridden on much more uncomfortable seats, the worst being a 1983 Moto Guzzi V-50 III. A ride from Austin to Lake Travis had me stopping to get the circulation back in my butt before proceeding back into town.

So where did you find this green machine? I am all about fuel economy, I commute and ever once in a while I get a day of random direction in.

DaveC said:

So where did you find this green machine? I am all about fuel economy, I commute and ever once in a while I get a day of random direction in.

Click to expand...

TX Powersports on Highway 290 near Dripping Springs. On reason I went for the Ninja was I like that dealer and the owner gave me a special deal because the bike had some cosmetic damage due to a shipping crate tip over. A little ding in the fuel tank and decal damage on the fairing, you have to know where it is to notice it.

Forget everything you heard about the Ninja 250, this motor pulls strong at all rpms. I think it would make a good mini-Versys with its broad power band and wide ratio gearing.
2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th transmission ratios are identical to the old 250's ratios, but first is lower and sixth is higher than the ones in the 250.

Update.

To date, I have logged 1488.7 miles burning 20.946 gallons of gas for an average of 71.07 mpg on the stock gearing.

I got the 15 tooth sprocket in yesterday and installed it today. I like it, the engine feels much less buzzy on the highway. First gear, if anything, seems more powerful than before. I know that sounds contradictory but first gear on this bike is so low that acceleration seems limited by the engine's ability to spin up. Like a truck with a granny first gear, spinning up the engine's flywheel consumes as much of the engine's power as turning the load does. I use fifth gear a lot more now too. Sixth feels more like an overdrive now.

So far, no issues, the bike just works. I'm anxious to see what kind of mpg it'll get with the new gearing.

My first tank with 15/42 gearing.

211.1 miles/2.892 gallons 73 mpg
That's better than my overall average for the stock gearing but not better than the high tank of 104.7 miles/1.416 gallons 73.94 mpg, but that was a short trip top off so the probability of error is high.

I was thinking of getting a speedo-healer to compensate for the gearing change, however, it seems like the speedo is more accurate now than before. Now, when it indicates 60 mph, I'm really going 60 mph or slightly faster instead of only 56 or 57. Most of the neighborhood radar signs flash a speed that agrees with my speedo now.
I can heal the odometer with my calculator by multiplying the reading by 15/14 when I calculate the gas mileage.
Even if I had a speedo healer, I would have to choose whether to heal the speedometer or the odometer. The odometer was actually pretty accurate according to my GPS, reading right on or slightly under the true miles.

I had a discussion with another TWT guy today about gearing and the speedo. It is the tire rotations on my bikes that calculate speed and distance and the sprocket gearing has nothing to do with it. Tire diameter does and that would be the only time to recalc other than the normal factory over estimate of speed that all bikes seem to have.

SL350 said:

I had a discussion with another TWT guy today about gearing and the speedo. It is the tire rotations on my bikes that calculate speed and distance and the sprocket gearing has nothing to do with it. Tire diameter does and that would be the only time to recalc other than the normal factory over estimate of speed that all bikes seem to have.

Click to expand...

This is my first bike that didn't have a mechanical speedo driven off the front wheel, except for the BMW R90/6 which had a transmission output driven mechanical speedo. On all those bikes, changing gearing did not change the speedometer/odometer accuracy, except the BMW of course.

I healed the BMW's ridiculously optimistic speedo by taking the speedo apart and shifting the position of the needle on the shaft. Trial and error until it read accurately at 60 mph. The problem with that is that it was only on at 60, at 30 it read too low.

It's not just speedometers that exaggerate your speed, the tachometer also seems to exaggerate the rpm. I think my tach reads 6800 when the engine is actually turning 6080 according to tire diameter and gear ratios.
My guess is that as long as the kiddies THINK their bikes can go 110 mph and rev 13K, they are happy.

Another tank with the 15 tooth sprocket.

247.17 miles/3.475 gallons 71.13 mpg

On this tank, I took a different route to work and back, putting me on farm to market roads that allowed me to cruise at 55-60 mph most of the way, similar to that Llano ride I did with the stock gearing that netted 68.71 mpg.

I did my first really long distance ride Saturday going from Lake Travis to Sealy for the July pie run. Even though I really wanted to take FM roads all the way there, I ended up using 71 and I-10 from La Grange to Sealy because I was tired of getting lost and was running out of time. Coming back, I took a FM to New Ulm and then took 159 to La Grange where I filled up.
211.9 miles/3.353 gallons = 63.2 mpg

Ouch! Seems that interstate cruising speeds are toxic to small bike gas mileage.

From there on, I took 71 back to Bastrop keeping the cruising speed down somewhat and taking the Weberville road back to Austin from there. My butt was thoroughly sore by then, though it would likely have been just as sore on the ZRX.

On Sunday, I rode out to Spicewood and back and then topped off the tank to reset it for checking out the gas mileage of my work commute.
142.6 miles/1.962 gallons = 72.7 mpg.

Four days of commuting from Lake Travis to Buda not using the freeways.
271.6 miles/ 3.567 gallons = 76.14mpg A new high mark.
I was beginning to worry that the 15 tooth sprocket was counterproductive.

8-6-13
265.2 miles/ 3.356 gallons =79.02 mpg. More commuting plus a trip up 2222 on the weekend.

3400 miles on the bike now.

I got a recall notice from Kawasaki, it seems this model has engine stalling issues. A lot of people on the Ninja 300 forum have been complaining about the issue of the engine flaming out during downshifting while engine braking. It's a nuisance mostly, the engines always restart with the punch of the starter or even just letting out the clutch.
I haven't personally experienced the problem, maybe my riding style doesn't bring out the problem or maybe I got one of the good ones.
So, I guess I'll head off to the dealer and have him get me a new ECU to put in the bike, I heard it's like a 4 week wait for the part.

Two tanks since my last gas mileage report, both around 75 mpg commuting to work staying off the freeway.

Ben Eberle said:

3400 miles on the bike now.

I got a recall notice from Kawasaki, it seems this model has engine stalling issues. A lot of people on the Ninja 300 forum have been complaining about the issue of the engine flaming out during downshifting while engine braking. It's a nuisance mostly, the engines always restart with the punch of the starter or even just letting out the clutch.
I haven't personally experienced the problem, maybe my riding style doesn't bring out the problem or maybe I got one of the good ones.

Click to expand...

I read several reports of this same thing on the CBR250 forum before I bought my bike. I have not had a single instance of the bike stalling while breaking or downshifting. I am not the typical purchaser of the bike either though. It does suffer from flame outs at start up until the second or third attempt.
I have considered trading in for the 300 but the performance difference doesn't seem worth the cost difference. Also, intrigued about the upcoming KTM RC390.
It's been a while since you posted up, how is the bike treating you?

I have a little over 5000 miles on the bike now and there's really been little to report about. The new ECU hasn't come in yet but I haven't had a single flameout with the old one.
I'm still getting around 75 give or take a couple mpg except on a trip from Austin to Inks Lake using FM1431 where I only got 68 mpg. Go over 55 and the mpg drops fast on this bike.
I still have the 15 tooth CS sprocket replacing the stock 14 tooth sprocket and there's no way I'm going back. By the way, this is a very popular modification for this bike. I haven't found a need for a speedometer healer because this gearing actually makes my speedo more accurate. I just have to remember to multiply my odometer trip reading by 15 and then divide the answer by 14 to get my true miles for mpg calculations.
I'm now running Shell Rotella T6 synthetic oil and using a Purolator PL14612 oil filter instead of the factory oil filter.

In a couple thousand more miles, it will be time to do a valve clearance check and or adjustment. I'll report on how easy or hard it is to do.

Great report saw one the other day with yellow paint and flames. Makes me think I need one.

Guess what I found on motorcycle daily? Yep you can't have it, Asia only but why not tease those naked riders?

Boasting a look borrowed from the Z800, this Asian roadster inherits the framework of the Ninja 250. As for engine, the small Z250 is powered by a 249 cc parallel twin developing a power of 32 hp and 15 ft-lb of torque, all for a weight of 168 kg.

Click to expand...

If the naked version comes here, it will probably be a 300, all those exotic Asian market only 250's you see exist because of Asian tiered licensing laws.

I hear Honda is going to make the CBR250R a 300 for 2014. Same 76 mm bore but an increase in piston stroke from 55 to 63 mm for a displacement of 286cc.

DaveC said:

Guess what I found on motorcycle daily? Yep you can't have it, Asia only but why not tease those naked riders?

Click to expand...

Looks good. I was trying to decide to take my 919 or the scooter today. You helped make my choice.