quick zx6r/rr question

Message

bigbadbrad · Wed Aug 16, 2006 12:30 pm

I have a quick Kawasaki question. I was reading something about a zx-6r and was wondering what the difference is between the R and the RR. Is it just that the RR is more of a race/track setup or something? Or is it lighter, what?

VermilionX · Wed Aug 16, 2006 12:54 pm

yeah, the RR is setup more for the tracks.

also, the ZX-6R is 636cc and the ZX-6RR is 600cc. the RR model is still a little more expensive though.

bigbadbrad · Wed Aug 16, 2006 1:14 pm

Thanks, my cousin was thinking of buying one and I was not sure. I just took a guess. I think its a little weird that the ZX-6R is 636cc and the ZX-6RR is 600cc but I guess that is since it is setup more for track and the rule. I guess the zx-6r is a better street bike.

Sev · #4 Unread post by **Sev** » Wed Aug 16, 2006 3:50 pm

The 636 basically breaks the rules for max displacement in a race bike, so it cannot be called an RR.

jmillheiser · Wed Aug 16, 2006 4:14 pm

on the 06 model the only difference is price and the 36 ccs.

on the 05 and earlier models the RR had a different swingarm and slipper clutch where the R did not. The R picked up the RR swingarm and slipper clutch for 06.

the R is the ZX-6 designed for the street, the RR is the ZX-6 that is a homologation special for 600 super sport racing.

VermilionX · Wed Aug 16, 2006 4:24 pm

jmillheiser wrote:on the 06 model the only difference is price and the 36 ccs.

not really, if you check kawi's website...

- the compression on the RR model is higher than the 636.
- bore and stroke is higher on the 636
- the RR is carb'ed (WTF???) and the 636 is FI
- the suspension and shocks are better on the RR
- i heard that the gear ratios is also different

personally, i'd pick the RR, better overall specs plus i like its fairings better.

also, does anyone else thinks that the ninja look ugly as race bikes? the front just seem too bulky w/ race plastics on.

Sev · #7 Unread post by **Sev** » Wed Aug 16, 2006 6:59 pm

Uhhh... Verm.. all of those things are related to having a bigger engine. Like a larger bore and stroke... means there's more room (more cubic centimeters) in the engine. Which also allows for a great compression ratio.

I have to say that for street riding I'd go with the 636 as the gearing and extra torque are better suited to the street. However if I were to get a track bike out of the two I'd take the RR because you wouldn't be allowed to race the 636.

How do you know the suspension is better on the RR bike? For some reason I thought they were the same. I know I'm probably wrong.

VermilionX · Wed Aug 16, 2006 7:12 pm

Sevulturus wrote:Uhhh... Verm.. all of those things are related to having a bigger engine. Like a larger bore and stroke... means there's more room (more cubic centimeters) in the engine. Which also allows for a great compression ratio.

How do you know the suspension is better on the RR bike? For some reason I thought they were the same. I know I'm probably wrong.

a little more suspension features on the RR if you compare both bikes specs.

regarding greater compression ratio... the 636 actually has less(12.9:1) eventhough it's a bigger engine. the RR has 13.9:1

Sev · #9 Unread post by **Sev** » Wed Aug 16, 2006 7:15 pm

That's what I said about compression... to me better is a little lower because you can use a lower octane fuel.

As for suspension, more options does not necessarily make it better.