Talk:Kawasaki Ninja 250R

message: Update: I've downloaded a shop manual which states the oil capacity is 1.9 L. Having recently changed the oil on my 250 and using only 2qts - I decided to update the table.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjbiren (talk • contribs) 12:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oil capacity 

message: I had a 2009 ninja 250 I clearly hit 114mph plenty of times, I kept up with a 650cc bike on highway everyday. After I flipped my bike I topped out at 96mph.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.64.173.74 (talk) 04:56, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Top Speed's claim that the 2010 Ninja 250 can go 115 mph is absurd. There are three quality sources that agree it is 95 mph. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:25, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Top Speed 

message: You mention several competitors, but is there a reason the Aprilia RS125 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aprilia_RS125) was not mentioned in the beginner bike range?  Or were you just going for the 250cc range?
:There isn't any point in seeking total agreement on what exactly qualifies as a "competitor" for the Ninja 250, but basic common sense is a reasonable guide.  The EX250 costs $3500 vs $5499 for the Aprilia RS125.  This puts the Aprilia in a whole different category.  People buying two-stroke race-replicas have little in common with buyers of EX250s, Honda Nighthawk 250s, or Hyosongs.  Aprilia really needs to worry about how well their bike stacks up in the $5000 to $6000 category, not the $3000 to $4000 range.   The burst of power at high RPM from a two-stroke in a high state of tune is enough to disqualify it as a beginner bike, and it hardly stands much of a chance as an economical, low-maintenance commuter. The bike is a a beast of a whole other species because buyers choose the Aprila for a difference set of reasons than the Ninja 250.  A potential Ninja 250 buyer is going to look hard at the Hyosong GT250R or the Rebel and so on, but they will quickly realize the RS125 isn't meant for them.
:But if you think the article would be better if it compared the RS125 to the EX250, by all means, add something to that effect.  The central point was only to illustrate that to get a bike with the same set of features as the Ninja 250 costs significantly more money, and that for more than 10 years nobody has tried very hard to match the Ninja 250 in the US market.--Dbratland (talk) 00:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be taken into consideration, that the Ninja 250 is sold as an entry-level, reliable, commuter-oriented sportbike, while the RS125 is a two-stroke, race-replica, non-street legal, track bike. I don't think there's any comparison here. The Ninja 250 faces more competition from 250cc scooters than it does the Aprilia. AniRaptor2001 01:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Description and Features 

message: Would be nice if the picture was a profile shot instead of the racing picture up there now.  The current picture doesn't really show the bike. --Stephane Charette 07:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That image is not appropriate for use in Wikipedia, since an equivalent image with an unrestrictive licence could be produced without much effort. Mindmatrix 19:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe something more like (http://abughrai.be/pics/geoff's%20bike.jpg)? I haven't seen any 2008 models in the wild yet. Ggreer (talk) 08:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Too bad you Ninja isn't green ;-) Netrat (talk) 12:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

text: I think the picture issue is resolved, at least until the next model is released.  I just uploaded 5 pictures of 2009 EX250's taken at the dealer, found at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Kawasaki_EX250 .  I've already used one of them in the current article.  Dbratland (talk) 05:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: Just to add to this info, as a rider i believe the performance stats further below may not be entirely correct as my bike (standard) has exceeded the top speed listed by at least 20km/hr—Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.20.36.80 (talk • contribs) 
:It's well known that the 250's top speed is at least 100, and possibly 110, miles per hour. Looks like the official stats for the EX-250J have the bike as being slower then the F-model (odd since it's. But they're official stats, and that's why they're there, no reason to change them. AniRaptor2001 15:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that the EX250J has less power than the previous model.  It ought to be slower.  Your speedometer is not giving you an accurate reading of your speed.  Virtually all cars and bikes have speedometer error and read only within about 10%, or even worse.  The EX250 is well known to give speed readings 10% higher than actual speed.  Reliable sources like Motorcycle Consumer News test speed with external instruments like speed traps and radar guns.  Your own observation when riding your bike, while quite valid and truthful, is original research.  If you can cite a reliable source to support different stats, then by all means, they can be included in an article.  Note that this issue has already been discussed above, and it constantly is discussed at Ninja250.org and elsewhere.  If anyone was actually able to prove that their Ninja 250 were going as fast as the speedometer said it was going, it would be big news.  There would be no trouble finding a published source to back it up if it ever happened.  If it is any consolation, remember bikes that cost $30,000 have the same problem.--Dbratland (talk) 16:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect stats?

message: I don't know if this is too trivial to include, but I think it's interesting that the price has generally decreased in real dollars over the years.  Even the after $500 price bump in 2008, it was cheaper in inflated dollars than ten and twenty years earlier.  I have no idea why Kawasaki kept bouncing the MSRP up and down over the years, but they did.
 EX250 prices US$
Year	Model    	Original MSRP	Inflated to 2008 dollars
1987	EX250-F1 	2449         	
1988	EX250-F2 	2599         	
1990	EX250-F4 	3399         	
1992	EX250-F6 	2999         	
1995	EX250-F9 	3499         	
1999	EX250-F13	2999         	
2006	EX250-F6F	2999         	
2008	EX250-J  	3499         	
You can just leave the 2008 out of Template:Inflation, and it will inflate the price to whatever the most recent date is, depending on how often the Wiki gods update the database. The problem I have with that is that the reader can't really see what the most recent date is they are using. By experimenting, I discovered that at the moment, it is current only up to 2008 (fair enough) so I explicitly put that date in there.  If someone wants to update it next year, they can do so, but either way the reader knows what they are looking it.
--Dbratland (talk) 21:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Very interesting stuff you have here!!! AniRaptor2001 23:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Model Year Price vs Inflation, or I ♥ Template:Inflation

message: ::Very interesting stuff you have here!!! AniRaptor2001 23:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Notes

message: The existing motorsports section which was removed by both  and me was badly written and mostly dealt with minor non-notable racing events. I can't see any reason to keep it but would be interested in the opinions of others - especially if there are ways the section could be rescued. --Biker Biker (talk) 01:16, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with deleting the unsourced paragraph -- it's waited long enough for sources. Citing the Central Motorcycle Roadracing Association website is probably acceptable (which were my edits, by the way) as far as establishing the facts in question. As far as notability,  Central Motorcycle Roadracing Association is itself in danger of deletion. But RoadRacing World  magazine and web site does do significant coverage of the CMRA, so Central Motorcycle Roadracing Association could probably survive a deletion attempt if the many articles  there were incorporated in the page. By the same token, there are lots of articles at RoadRacing World  that mention, and sometimes feature, the Ninja 250. If one were to dig, other sources besides RoadRacing World could be found, I'd wager.<P>I don't support bringing this back as it was, but with some effort it could definitely be brought up to snuff, with regard to both notability and verifiability. --Dbratland (talk) 02:28, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Keeping the concept of "the Ninjette is used for racing" seems fine, but "Bob won the mid-valley raceway series in 2007" is not. tedder (talk) 02:56, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Motorsports 

message: This is mostly a note to self, but here goes this. --uKER (talk) 06:10, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: With the latest news that the Ninja 300 is replacing the 250 in the European, Canadian and Australian markets (and probably US Market as well), would information on that bike belong here or on a new page? Ice Wolf Loki (talk) 05:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I've created a new page for the Ninja 300. Ice Wolf Loki (talk) 01:52, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further info on 2013 model 

message: Re: Kawasaki Ninja 300. This happens every year: for months there is confusion about which bikes will be imported to which markets around the globe. Every time a model leaves a market, car and bike articles get changed to say the model has been "discontinued". Often the only source cited is a local market website that fails to list a model for the coming year. Half the time the model turns up after a while. Most of the time, the manufacturer hasn't made up their mind yet.<P>Changes in global distribution need to be stated more explicitly: cite a source which actually says the model is leaving X market and is staying in Y market. If your source doesn't spell that out, then you're only guessing and so leave it alone until you know. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:49, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: USA market and Ninja 300

message: Please add and cite quote from Cycle World "Prior to the debut of the 2011 Honda CBR250R, Kawasaki enjoyed uncontested ownership of the lightweight sportbike category in the US." This has been asserted before but we have lacked good attribution to a reliable source. It's still an opinion but that's OK as long as we cite.  --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:35, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plz add quote 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Kawasaki Ninja 250R. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091004183006/http://www.kawasaki.com.au/kawpublic_docs/spec_sheets/ex250j9f.pdf to http://kawasaki.com.au/kawpublic_docs/spec_sheets/ex250j9f.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071011001442/http://www.kawasaki.com/Products/Detail.aspx?id=263 to http://www.kawasaki.com/Products/detail.aspx?id=263
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:29, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified