YAMAHA MT 07 vs KAWASAKI ER6N
- Thread starter Koray
- Start date
jeppebm
Moderator
A little comment would be nice 
even though the video properly speaks for it self. What is it you want us to focus on ?
even though the video properly speaks for it self. What is it you want us to focus on ?I have owned both. An ER6N that I raced and my new MT07.
The ER6N is a real sleeper. Supposedly built as a commuter ( possibly by CFmoto ). For a commuter it has some very racey stuff. Fully triangulated swingarm? On a commuter? Narrow motor. Cassette gearbox ( like full race bikes). Very well designed airbox and air rams. seat and tail shape. For conventional forks very laterally and torsionally rigid. VERY light tank , even though it's steel. Wavey discs ( although the aftermarket ones I put on were lighter still). Real weight centralized ( the mt07 isn't, it is rear biased). Alloy brake and gear levers. Slipper clutchs are available for it and make it amazing in the wet. VERY light wheels and the rims are the right size for the power and weight ( unlike the MT). Handles well stock and with decent shock and fork springs and gold valves it handles brilliantly......FOR THE WEIGHT. It is heavy. Fully stripped down and parts replaced for lighter ones it weighed 170kg. That's the MT stock.
I loved racing it ( I am a middle of the pack racer nowdays. Too old and not enough testosterone I guess).
The Aussie capacity MT07 would be eligible for the same ( Formula 3 class here). It is much lighter than the ER6. Can be made even lighter. Dumped nearly 4kg changing to the snail pipe Akro carbon exhaust alone. Torque is better even with the choked Aussie throttle. Top end not able to compare until I get the ecu reflashed but the ER6 was definitely cammed for torque. On a really big circuit I fear they would both be eaten by the Daytona nd the SV in a class where the cams can't be swapped. Still on the road I think the mt feels much lighter and more nimble. Std suspension on the ER6 was much better than the MT but I await Ohlins shock ( ER had a Yacugar shock fitted) and springs and gold valves for the front ( same as the ER) so I will get a proper comparison. The bike minus on the Yammy is the really stupid rear wheel. The rim and tyre std are WAYYYY to big and heavy. A bike this light, with the relatively low power possible and the lean angles possible make the choice of a 5.5inch rim and the ever stupid 180/55 tyre a complete joke. A 170/60 will go on and will be a huge improvement in handling but this bike ,I feel would handle better with a 160/60 or if available a 65 or 70 profile. BUT the stupid 5.5 rim is too big for that. Means carrying around way more rotating weight than necessary and a childish ( OK adolescent) styling exercise. Had the same problem on my BMW F800R. Changed from the 180/55 to a 170/60 and handling markedly improved matching at lean of the front and rear. And it weighs 200kg and has 92HP. The Aussie one has only 50HP so needs this stupid rim/tyre combination even less. A 160/60 would be much cheaper to replace and a better profile. I raced the er6 with a 160 and it had a dynoed 69HP.
Still the rims on the MT appear to be light. When I change the tyres I will check it out. If there is a 4.5 or 5 inch rim I can get to fit it will go on. Should help the weight bias a bit.
On the weight note. When I rode the MT the first time I noticed the bike needs you to move up forward, almost motard style, to get the weight on the front to corner. Otherwise too vague. It feels like you could back it into a corner quite well, but the Aussie model gutlessness wont let you light the rear tyre. Still handles pretty well if you do that though. You certainly can't just climb off the side as the front is too vague. European model would prob allow a bit more agressive motard style especially if you slimmed down the rear tyre to get more progressive traction release. This is one area I will have to work on. Getting the weight bias more even as I prefer climbing off the side to climbing forward. Now I understand why all the youtube videos have everybody wheelstanding. Not massive power ( torque) but rear weight bias.
All that said I think I like the MT better. Way more potential and very easy to ride in comparison.
The ER6N is a real sleeper. Supposedly built as a commuter ( possibly by CFmoto ). For a commuter it has some very racey stuff. Fully triangulated swingarm? On a commuter? Narrow motor. Cassette gearbox ( like full race bikes). Very well designed airbox and air rams. seat and tail shape. For conventional forks very laterally and torsionally rigid. VERY light tank , even though it's steel. Wavey discs ( although the aftermarket ones I put on were lighter still). Real weight centralized ( the mt07 isn't, it is rear biased). Alloy brake and gear levers. Slipper clutchs are available for it and make it amazing in the wet. VERY light wheels and the rims are the right size for the power and weight ( unlike the MT). Handles well stock and with decent shock and fork springs and gold valves it handles brilliantly......FOR THE WEIGHT. It is heavy. Fully stripped down and parts replaced for lighter ones it weighed 170kg. That's the MT stock.
I loved racing it ( I am a middle of the pack racer nowdays. Too old and not enough testosterone I guess).
The Aussie capacity MT07 would be eligible for the same ( Formula 3 class here). It is much lighter than the ER6. Can be made even lighter. Dumped nearly 4kg changing to the snail pipe Akro carbon exhaust alone. Torque is better even with the choked Aussie throttle. Top end not able to compare until I get the ecu reflashed but the ER6 was definitely cammed for torque. On a really big circuit I fear they would both be eaten by the Daytona nd the SV in a class where the cams can't be swapped. Still on the road I think the mt feels much lighter and more nimble. Std suspension on the ER6 was much better than the MT but I await Ohlins shock ( ER had a Yacugar shock fitted) and springs and gold valves for the front ( same as the ER) so I will get a proper comparison. The bike minus on the Yammy is the really stupid rear wheel. The rim and tyre std are WAYYYY to big and heavy. A bike this light, with the relatively low power possible and the lean angles possible make the choice of a 5.5inch rim and the ever stupid 180/55 tyre a complete joke. A 170/60 will go on and will be a huge improvement in handling but this bike ,I feel would handle better with a 160/60 or if available a 65 or 70 profile. BUT the stupid 5.5 rim is too big for that. Means carrying around way more rotating weight than necessary and a childish ( OK adolescent) styling exercise. Had the same problem on my BMW F800R. Changed from the 180/55 to a 170/60 and handling markedly improved matching at lean of the front and rear. And it weighs 200kg and has 92HP. The Aussie one has only 50HP so needs this stupid rim/tyre combination even less. A 160/60 would be much cheaper to replace and a better profile. I raced the er6 with a 160 and it had a dynoed 69HP.
Still the rims on the MT appear to be light. When I change the tyres I will check it out. If there is a 4.5 or 5 inch rim I can get to fit it will go on. Should help the weight bias a bit.
On the weight note. When I rode the MT the first time I noticed the bike needs you to move up forward, almost motard style, to get the weight on the front to corner. Otherwise too vague. It feels like you could back it into a corner quite well, but the Aussie model gutlessness wont let you light the rear tyre. Still handles pretty well if you do that though. You certainly can't just climb off the side as the front is too vague. European model would prob allow a bit more agressive motard style especially if you slimmed down the rear tyre to get more progressive traction release. This is one area I will have to work on. Getting the weight bias more even as I prefer climbing off the side to climbing forward. Now I understand why all the youtube videos have everybody wheelstanding. Not massive power ( torque) but rear weight bias.
All that said I think I like the MT better. Way more potential and very easy to ride in comparison.
DeadHead
Member
I went from 2 1/2 years commuting on a 2012 er6n to the MT-07....the MT wins hands down in every department including lower weight, more power, more torque, better fuel economy,
vastly improved brakes, more informative dash including gear indicator, even the stock tyres are better. Yamaha have also done wonders with a huge accessory line-up.
The seat isn't as good as the ER and I am finding some corrosion on bolts which is disappointing after just 5 months other than that is a bloody fantastic bike.
vastly improved brakes, more informative dash including gear indicator, even the stock tyres are better. Yamaha have also done wonders with a huge accessory line-up.
The seat isn't as good as the ER and I am finding some corrosion on bolts which is disappointing after just 5 months other than that is a bloody fantastic bike.
D
Deleted member 20
Guest
gregjet, how much improvement on front/rear weight distribution do you think you will get by just replacing the handlebars? The stock bars are bent giving massive rearwards sweep. I replaced with Renthal Ultra Low, moved my hands 5 cm forward, riding position improved.
Renthal 7/8" Ultra Low Road Bars (Unbraced)
Or even the new braced Streetfighter, even wider and with even less sweep will get you more over the front.
Renthal 7/8" Streetfighter Bars (Braced)
Renthal 7/8" Ultra Low Road Bars (Unbraced)
Or even the new braced Streetfighter, even wider and with even less sweep will get you more over the front.
Renthal 7/8" Streetfighter Bars (Braced)
I have done exactly the same change to Renthal ultra lows. Can't ride it at the moment as the ECU is out HOPEFULLY getting reflashed. ECU west said they couldn't talk to it and it's gone overseas , so I have a truly global bike at the moment. most in Aus and the ecu in Italy. Don't think it will be enough by itself to get the weight forward but until I can ride it I won't know how much more to do. There is nowhere where I now live to properly test it so I have to go a couple of places to sort of half test it. Also have a lower/raiser link to go on and Gold valves/spring and rear ohlins coming. Ohlins and raising link will help move the weight centre forward but I don't want to over do it.
My bars have been cut down so they are narrower. I don't consider my ride style to be street fighter, back into corner, style as a preferred mode. Prefer the hang off and knee scrape, so like my bars narrow enough to let me move sideways properly. Tried wide bars racing and went back to narrower ones as the upper bar end gets too far away for balance. Also don't like being a parachute on long rides. I don't want to be more over the front . I want to be in a position where small moves forward and rearwards from the normal position can help balance the bike.
Interesting how people like different things Deadhead. I agree with most of what you said but totally disagree about the brakes and seat. I find the seat way better on the MT ( I do ride a bicycle a lot though) and the brakes on my MT are bloody aweful and mushy. Not a patch on the ER6 even before I made they raceworthy, The ER6 also used the same pads as an SV650 so ultra high quality pads were really easy to get. The MT needs some less squishy brake lines probably HEL's. May be a function of the use of the same Master cycls. as the ABS bikes on a non ABS bike. No ABS in Aus on the MT as the bike is supposed to be a learner bike. Not sure why Yamaha thinks Australian learners need to die but I guess they have their reasons. DO NOT consider this bike to be a learner bike in any way. A bike that wheelstands unless you control it, has squishy brakes and no ABS and has a vague front end under cornering and aweful suspension doesn't seem like a beginners bike to me.
My bars have been cut down so they are narrower. I don't consider my ride style to be street fighter, back into corner, style as a preferred mode. Prefer the hang off and knee scrape, so like my bars narrow enough to let me move sideways properly. Tried wide bars racing and went back to narrower ones as the upper bar end gets too far away for balance. Also don't like being a parachute on long rides. I don't want to be more over the front . I want to be in a position where small moves forward and rearwards from the normal position can help balance the bike.
Interesting how people like different things Deadhead. I agree with most of what you said but totally disagree about the brakes and seat. I find the seat way better on the MT ( I do ride a bicycle a lot though) and the brakes on my MT are bloody aweful and mushy. Not a patch on the ER6 even before I made they raceworthy, The ER6 also used the same pads as an SV650 so ultra high quality pads were really easy to get. The MT needs some less squishy brake lines probably HEL's. May be a function of the use of the same Master cycls. as the ABS bikes on a non ABS bike. No ABS in Aus on the MT as the bike is supposed to be a learner bike. Not sure why Yamaha thinks Australian learners need to die but I guess they have their reasons. DO NOT consider this bike to be a learner bike in any way. A bike that wheelstands unless you control it, has squishy brakes and no ABS and has a vague front end under cornering and aweful suspension doesn't seem like a beginners bike to me.
DeadHead
Member
Hmm could that be the difference I wonder as my bike has the ABS? On the ER6 I had HEL's brake lines fitted to try and improve them, yet the standard MT brake are still better in my opinion.
I should have explained myself better concerning the seat, it's not the comfort so much, I find both seats similar in that respect, it's the material I find on the MT quite slippery when I'm wearing my Furygan textile pants/trousers. I just except now under harder braking my balls are going to be crushed against the tank.
I should have explained myself better concerning the seat, it's not the comfort so much, I find both seats similar in that respect, it's the material I find on the MT quite slippery when I'm wearing my Furygan textile pants/trousers. I just except now under harder braking my balls are going to be crushed against the tank.
I see you point about the seat cover. At the moment with the std suspension I find it actually an advantage as I slide forward when cornering to try and get some front feel. But you are right that it could be a drawback once the bike is better balanced. I mainly wear nylon textile pants as well so I will keep your point in mind.
I suspect the ABS pump firms up the lever. They have used the same master cyls on the non ABS ( that's all we get). I would suspect which is why the brakes feel mushy without the abs. Just a theory.
I suspect the ABS pump firms up the lever. They have used the same master cyls on the non ABS ( that's all we get). I would suspect which is why the brakes feel mushy without the abs. Just a theory.
Ralph
New member
I have had a Versys and it had better suspension than the MT/FZ nothing much in the brakes but
it was quite a bit heaver, MT is smoother and a lot faster up to 7000 rpm were the Versys gets
into it's stride but not enough to beat the MT, The MT is about 10 mpg better did about 20,000
on my Versys with no problems at all but wouldn't want to swap back.
it was quite a bit heaver, MT is smoother and a lot faster up to 7000 rpm were the Versys gets
into it's stride but not enough to beat the MT, The MT is about 10 mpg better did about 20,000
on my Versys with no problems at all but wouldn't want to swap back.
Last edited:
Ralph
New member
There were quite a few cracked frames on the early ER's , and the exhaust used to crack just before the box probably fixed by now.
The frame problem was because the space between the front top mounts was too wide and put too much tension on the frame when they were done up. Was fixed early. Don't think there were many that even made Australia.. You could fix it yourself by undoing the bolts enough to allow the frame to relax and but the right width washers between the engine and frame. A bit fiddley but a cheap and complete fix.
Hi DeadHead,
I appreciated your assessment of the FZ-07. I have a 2007 Kawasaki 650R with 15,000 miles and am considering trading it for the FZ-07, but it's going to cost me about $4,600 Canadian dollars. Another thing that is holding me back is the fact that my 650R has a fairing which, of course, makes it great on the highway. Another thing holding me back is that my bike only weighs 385 pounds dry. (I have a 1st generation 650R.) It's about 45-50 pounds lighter than the latest generation Kawasaki Ninja 650. Do you think it would be worth trading? Thank you.
William
p.s. I was also sorta considering a 2014 SV650S. Is the FZ-07 better than that?
CVSensei
New member
Can't comment on your first point, but regarding the SV, I only ever found one guy who preferred it to the MT and he had just bought an SV before the MT came out which kinda says it all.
If you're deciding between them it's a clear choice The MT wins nearly every time and ties in what it doesn't.
If you're deciding between them it's a clear choice
The MT wins nearly every time and ties in what it doesn't.
DeadHead
Member
This is a new review only recently posted matching up the twin in competition..you might find it interesting.
Read about the shootout here
2015 Middleweight Sport Twins Shootout - Motorcycle USA
Watch the shootout here..part 1...SV650
https://youtu.be/GAaWockRLD0
Part 3 FZ/MT-07
https://youtu.be/PISFJXK1K3I
Part 2 is missing because well it's a monster 821 and that for sSunday riders who like Coffee.
The MT-07 / FZ-07 is a huge winner and hands down the choice to go for for most of us. If you need a fairing then no probably not,mind you I rode the Tracer recently and the naked MT-09 was way better with much less wind noise?!WTF?!
Last edited:
Blackwater
New member
I know to far forward but I could pass in corners and often would pass most bike 750 600 even R1 but I think I pushed it more than most, to make up for the class of my bike. No pop ups in 2nt gear, feels like a new bike, almost all of your weight from the waist up is a key in making it into a cornering beast you feel one with the bike now the bad it is no fun to ride and your back hurts I got mine 9/15/2014 I have 17596 mile or 28318 Km on it for 3 months it had those bars. I had changed it back about a month ago so I can go on a long trip back feels better but I cant hit the corners as hard.
Last edited:
A serious problem with the sv650 is rear wheel hop on deceleration. The MT /FZ has got around it with some sort of ECU throttle control. I have seen a host of chuck-aways of vtwins by even one gear over downshift. Usually a slipper clutch is a must on a 90/270deg crank twin. Maybe if I was racing the MT I would consider finding one.