Kawi bringing back the 636

tonedeaf

tonedeaf

have tires will ride
^that would make it interesting...but it'd be sad to see them pull out of doing so well in WSS!
 
Blankpage

Blankpage

alien
Make it a 750 and you something to talk about.
I find it hard to believe a 6% increase in displacement feels much more than a 6% increase in power.
My ass isn't sensitive enough to detect 6%.
 
Map8

Map8

I want nothing
Staff member
I rode two different 636-engined ZX-6s. I loved that engine. Like Feanor said, it doesn't seem like so little difference in displacement would change the character of the bike but it really felt much beefier than the GSXR600s of those years. A 750 would be cool, too.

Didn't Tommy Hayden win a few AMA 750cc Superstock races on a 636?
 
DaveT319

DaveT319

Marquez FTW
deanzaZZR said:
Which could mean no supersport racing. That would be ironic as it looks like Kawi could very well pick up it's first world ss championship since 2001.
Click to expand...

tonedeaf said:
...but it'd be sad to see them pull out of doing so well in WSS!
Click to expand...

I'm not real familiar with the rules on displacement, so why would they have to pull out of WSS? The Triumph is 675, but are they allowed that because it's a triple instead of an I4?
 
Zacc

Zacc

Philosopher
Who cares about the 636 when you can still buy one of these :teeth
 

Attachments

  • 146_0904_02_z%2B2009_triumph_daytona_675%2Bside_view.jpg
    146_0904_02_z%2B2009_triumph_daytona_675%2Bside_view.jpg
    83.7 KB · Views: 26
J

Junkie

gone for now
greener said:
Click the link, twatnozzle :laughing

Our 650R's rock about 66hp, so the 636 at 129hp is a LIL more punchy :p

:banana :banana :banana
Click to expand...
129hp has to be at the crank. Seeing as the previous gen puts down <110whp, I can't imagine they increased the power that much - unless they decided to give it a *completely* unstreetable powerband.
 
Feanor

Feanor

Unmasked
tonedeaf said:
^that would make it interesting...but it'd be sad to see them pull out of doing so well in WSS!
Click to expand...

They wouldn't pull out of WSS, they would just do what they did before... ZX-6RR (600cc) for racing in Supersport, and the 636, which would be illegal in supersport and intended only as a "cheater 600" for the masses riding on the street :)
 
weak_link

weak_link

Hugh Jasole
Brown81 said:
If you are going to ditch homologation, just go to a damn 750 for crying out loud.
Click to expand...

Can you punch out a 600 to a 750 without having to retool? Just a guess but it's probably way cheaper to reuse the 600 block. I really have no idea though. :p
 
Blankpage

Blankpage

alien
Brown81 said:
If you are going to ditch homologation, just go to a damn 750 for crying out loud.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Bring back the 750 class.

I wouldn't buy a 600 because everyone I've rode has been gutless down low and a liter bike is at times more than you need.
 
Feanor

Feanor

Unmasked
Blankpage said:
Exactly. Bring back the 750 class.

I wouldn't buy a 600 because everyone I've rode has been gutless down low and a liter bike is at times more than you need.
Click to expand...

That's the beauty of the 636, it's not gutless down low. In fact, I was stunned to find out that my old 05 636 had very comparable thrust off the line as my 08 ZX-10... Only because I was used to winding out the 636 a little off the line and the ZX-10 from the factory was geared obscenely tall in the low gears.

I'm convinced that the 636 existed only as an attempt to create a more streetable 600, because HP numbers were almost identical, and if it was merely to gain marketing total HP numbers for the magazines, they would have devoted the extra CCs to the top end where it would register more easily on the dynojet dynos and not devote it all to low end torque, where it does not show up on the dynos at all.
 
Ol' Gravy Leg

Ol' Gravy Leg

That's my Jam!
Feanor said:
That's the beauty of the 636, it's not gutless down low. In fact, I was stunned to find out that my old 05 636 had very comparable thrust off the line as my 08 ZX-10... Only because I was used to winding out the 636 a little off the line and the ZX-10 from the factory was geared obscenely tall in the low gears.

I'm convinced that the 636 existed only as an attempt to create a more streetable 600, because HP numbers were almost identical, and if it was merely to gain marketing total HP numbers for the magazines, they would have devoted the extra CCs to the top end where it would register more easily on the dynojet dynos and not devote it all to low end torque, where it does not show up on the dynos at all.
Click to expand...

This. :thumbup

I prolly can't feel 6% power difference, but I sure can feel 6% torque (akin to -1 front sprocket).

Look at some of the old torque curves in the 600 shootouts last decade. 636 torque dominates at low n' mid. Perhaps, it may still feel anemic to those used to liter bike. To me, it's just right.
 
SpeedyCorky

SpeedyCorky

rides minibikes;U should2
well i'm excited

i know my 2003 636 is WAAAY faster and more torque than any 600cc i've ever ridden. glad to see kawasaki bring back the 636! maybe i'll buy a used one in a few years...
 
Wheelgarage

Wheelgarage

Well-known member
The 636 is making me THINK of coming of out retirement.....:twofinger

Last night at my local Costco, damn bastids from Tracy Motorsports put this beast out on display. Normally, they prop up dual or a dirt bike...but seeing this next to the toy section made me look 3x!!!:wow

My old '03 636 was an awesome track tool...but made me feel like I was cheeting.:rofl This bike has all the goods of a superbike in a smaller displacement and frame. Damn, there goes the ideal of getting that RSV4 Factory...or should I still look at that direction...:ride
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top