Triumph Daytona 675 2008 vs. Yamaha YZF-R6 2007
Triumph Daytona 675 2008
Yamaha YZF-R6 2007
Genel bakış - Triumph Daytona 675 2008 vs Yamaha YZF-R6 2007
The Triumph Daytona 675 model year 2008 and the Yamaha YZF-R6 model year 2007 are both supersport motorcycles that offer impressive performance and features. While they have some similarities, there are also notable differences between the two.
In terms of engine power, the Triumph Daytona 675 takes the lead with 123 HP compared to the Yamaha YZF-R6's 120 HP. This extra power gives the Daytona an advantage in terms of acceleration and overall performance. Additionally, the Daytona has a unique three-cylinder engine configuration, while the YZF-R6 has a more traditional four-cylinder engine.
When it comes to displacement, the Daytona has a larger engine with a capacity of 675cc, while the YZF-R6 has a slightly smaller 600cc engine. This means that the Daytona may have a slight edge in terms of torque and overall power delivery.
Triumph Daytona 675 2008
In terms of dimensions and weights, the two bikes are relatively similar. The Daytona has a slightly longer wheelbase at 1392mm compared to the YZF-R6's 1385mm. However, the YZF-R6 has a slightly higher seat height at 830mm compared to the Daytona's 825mm. In terms of weight, the YZF-R6 is slightly lighter at 163kg dry weight compared to the Daytona's 165kg.
Both bikes have a similar fuel tank capacity, with the Daytona holding 17.4 liters and the YZF-R6 holding 17 liters. This means that both bikes offer decent range for longer rides without the need for frequent refueling.
Yamaha YZF-R6 2007
In terms of strengths, the Daytona 675 boasts an improved finish, more power, sophisticated looks, increased revs, and a tighter chassis. These features contribute to a more refined and exciting riding experience. On the other hand, the YZF-R6 has strengths such as a revised and improved engine, optimal braking system, very high top speed, easy handling, agility, stability, precise transmission, and an anti-hopping feature. These strengths make the YZF-R6 a formidable competitor in the supersport category.
However, both bikes also have their weaknesses. The Daytona's engine tuning could be improved, potentially limiting its full potential. On the other hand, the YZF-R6 has complicated handling, increased overall weight, no steering damper, and an attacking seating position, which may not be as comfortable for some riders.
In conclusion, both the Triumph Daytona 675 2008 and the Yamaha YZF-R6 2007 are impressive supersport motorcycles with their own unique strengths and weaknesses. The Daytona offers more power and a refined riding experience, while the YZF-R6 excels in terms of handling, stability, and top speed. Ultimately, the choice between the two will depend on the rider's preferences and priorities.
Teknik Özellikler Triumph Daytona 675 2008 ile karşılaştırıldığında Yamaha YZF-R6 2007
Karşılaştırıldığında Artıları ve eksileri
Karşılaştırıldığında Artıları ve eksileri
Triumph Daytona 675 2008
Daytona her zaman iyi bir motosiklet olmustur. Saside yapilan degisiklikler güzel ve yeni lastiklerle birlikte Daytona'nin kullanimini daha kolay ve daha hizli hale getiriyor. Ancak, asil arti noktasi üst devir araligindaki performans artisidir.
Yamaha YZF-R6 2007
Genel olarak, R6 bir önceki modele kiyasla muazzam bir gelisme göstermistir. Mükemmel yol tutusu, her turda tur zamanini iyilestirmeyi çok eglenceli hale getiriyor.
Fiyat Karşılaştırması Ortalama Piyasa Fiyatı Triumph Daytona 675 vs Yamaha YZF-R6
There are a few key differences between a Triumph Daytona 675 2008 and a Yamaha YZF-R6 2007. It takes less time to sell a Yamaha YZF-R6 with 43 days compared to 65 days for the Triumph Daytona 675. Since model year 2008 1000PS.de editors have written 14 reviews for the Triumph Daytona 675 and 33 reviews for the Yamaha YZF-R6 since model year 2005. The first review for the Triumph Daytona 675 was published on 8/9/2006 and now has more than 24,700 views. This compares to more than 3,600 views for the first review on Yamaha YZF-R6 published on 10/17/2002.