I agree, ridingswitch, but lets be fair - they're slip ons. They don't make a whopping performance difference. While they may account for the difference in peak HP (2.3 in favor of Triumph), there's no discounting the torque difference. As much as 10 lb ft down low and always above. That's a big advantage.
What I'm a bit more curious about is the weight savings brought by the slipons and how that factors in. Many slipons for the Z drop the weight by ~10+ pounds, which would largely negate the cited weight advantage and impact handling. It's particularly noteworthy because, on the Triple, the weight reduction comes from so high up, thus lowering the center of gravity.
I think it's a pretty fair evaluation, all things considered. The advantages of a slipon won't account for all of the differences presented and the Triumph has marginally better equipment. Better stock tires, better brake lines, and also a significantly higher price tag. On a pure stock performance front, I don't think it's easy to argue in favor of the Z. However, spend the price difference in upgrading the Z - like stainless brake lines, new tires, and good slipons - and you make up a good amount of ground. That said, even with a full Akrapovic system and tuning, the Triumph in stock form will still likely put out equal, if not higher torque figures in the low to mid range.
Again, that's still talking pure performance. Some are more comfortable with the quality and reliability of Japanese bikes. Others focus on the value and the fact that it's easy to get a big discount on a Z that frequently more than doubles the MSRP price difference between the two bikes. I'm happy with the review. They're great bikes and I'm happy to have such awesome options.
Also glad to see it plainly laid out how lacking the CB1000R is.
ccasion:. i am a old fan of suzuki but i would not even consider a demo rind on the under powered over weight pig.
