What exactly is a middleweight sportbike these days? For decades there was basically one formula that was driven by racing rules for Supersport competition. Initially those bikes were almost all Japanese 599cc inline-fours. But then Ducati came along and crashed the party with its 748cc V-twin, and later Triumph jumped in with its 675cc triple. Over time these machines became ever more focused on track performance and street manners suffered. The very competition that made the bikes so competent on the racetrack drove the development cycle, component quality, performance, and prices skyward.Consumers retaliated by buying fewer and fewer of these machines with sales falling from 20,000-plus for a single Japanese brand annually in 2006 to a fraction of that currently. There are other factors that have contributed to the slow demise of traditional supersports, like emissions regulations, the 2008 financial crash, rising insurance rates, and changing tastes. It’s safe to say that the class as we knew it is fading into the past. But good news has arrived: manufacturers are reinventing the middleweight-sportbike class. And as this test shows, the recipes for the final dishes are refreshingly diverse and palatable for sportbike buyers.
Two of the bikes in this test are new for 2024: Suzuki’s $9,439 GSX-8R and Triumph’s $9,195 Daytona 660. Meanwhile Yamaha’s $9,199 YZF-R7 returns unchanged for another year following its 2022 introduction. Although there are other competitors in this class, we landed on this trio that align nicely in terms of price and power-to-weight ratio. What we ultimately discovered is that the machines we selected are really ideal for three different buyers. So our goal is to break down what bike is for which rider. And yes, in the end there is a clear winner.Joining me on this comparison test were Cycle World In-Market Editor Bradley Adams and Associate Editor Evan Allen. After dyno testing on our in-house dyno and performance testing at our closed-course track, we hit the road. Over three days on the road we covered more than 600 miles of riding, ranging from freeway to urban jungle, but most of our testing was done on the fabulous twisty roads around Julian, California.EnginesUnlike those traditional Supersport racing rules, there currently aren’t any set-in-stone boundaries for the manufacturers to adhere to with this new crop of middleweights, so the engine formulas are all over the map: parallel twins, triples, and even inline-fours. Two of our test machines use parallel twins, while the Triumph uses a triple. Interesting fact: All three of these motorcycles come from family platforms that utilize the same engines in a naked sportbike, adventure bike, and faired sportbike. This reduces costs for manufacturers which means less expensive motorcycles for you.
Suzuki’s new 776cc 270-degree crank parallel twin has double-overhead cams and four valves per cylinder. Bore and stroke measure 84.0 x 70.0mm with a 12.8:1 compression ratio. The engine has ride-by-wire throttle control, which allows the bike to utilize ride modes. And while the Suzuki’s engine has the most capacity of our trio, it fell right in the middle in terms of outright horsepower while producing the most torque. On the Cycle World dyno, the 8R produced 72.7 hp at 8,125 rpm with 51.7 lb.-ft. of peak torque at 6,650 rpm.
The other brand-new model here, the Triumph Daytona 660, is powered by a 660cc inline-triple with a 240-degree firing order. Bore and stroke measure 74.0 x 51.1mm with a 12.1:1 compression ratio. It has double-overhead cams, four valves per cylinder, and is fed by a trio of 44mm throttle bodies (which differs from the naked Trident that uses a single 38mm unit). On our dyno, the 660 generated 85 hp at 11,350 rpm and 44.7 lb.-ft. of peak torque at 8,350 rpm.
Yamaha’s YZF-R7 uses the same 689cc CP2 parallel twin that powers the Ténéré 700 and also utilizes a 270-degree firing order. It has double-overhead cams and four valves per cylinder and is fed by a pair of 38mm throttle bodies. Bore and stroke measure 80.0 x 68.6mm with a 11.5:1 compression ratio. On the dyno it made 64.8 hp at 8,500 rpm and 44.5 lb.-ft. of torque at 6,500 rpm. The R7 may make the least power, but equals the 660 in terms of torque.You can’t judge these bikes purely on their respective power output, as their weights tell much more of the story. The Suzuki carries 6.2 pounds per horsepower, the Daytona 5.2, and the Yamaha 6.4. It appears that the Triumph has a huge advantage, but things aren’t always as they seem. With many miles pounded out in just a few days we got a clear taste of what these engines are all about, what they excel at, and found a few deficiencies.
In urban settings the bikes are very evenly matched. Despite making the least amount of peak power, the Yamaha’s light overall weight, good bottom-end torque, and nice clutch engagement reduce the R7′s disadvantage. “The engine’s tractable low-end torque and playful spirit make it a very entertaining package,” Allen said.The Triumph is a bit more finicky. The Daytona’s clutch isn’t as user-friendly as the competitions’ and makes stoplight-to-stoplight riding more challenging. For a bike that was designed almost exclusively for street riding, you’d expect a more seamless engagement at the lever.If you want the ideal combination of power and torque for city riding, look no further than the Suzuki. “The parallel twin isn’t a high-horsepower weapon, but it’s exactly what you want and need from a street-first sportbike,” Adams added. “The abundance of torque right off idle makes this a great engine for around-town riding.”
Although city performance is what makes these bikes so versatile, they are sportbikes, and that is where the twists and turns of mountain roads answer some serious questions. Over our three days testing we tackled everything from first-gear hairpins to fourth- and fifth-gear sweepers, and that really helped distinguish their performance from each other.It is here that the Yamaha yo-yos back and forth the most. On tighter roads, the R7′s competitive torque output keeps it in the hunt—along with its light overall weight. As the road opens up and the speeds increase, “its big disadvantage is that it requires more frequent shifting, making this a busier bike,” Adams said. On the quickest of roads, the Yamaha gets gapped a bit as the two other bikes tap into their power advantages. But the R7′s sweet chassis keeps it in the game. More on that later…
The Triumph has a pretty big horsepower advantage, but that doesn’t tell the entire story. Despite the 660′s top-end superiority, it really doesn’t have a leg up on the others in terms of low-down torque. On tighter roads, the Suzuki and Yamaha are on equal footing and don’t really have to work hard to keep up. It’s not until the roads open up that the Triumph gets to play its ace card: “The engine is incredibly smooth, with a beautiful blend of midrange torque and top-end performance,” Adams said. “The billiard table-smooth torque curve and unique sound help the Daytona 660 stand out from the competition.”
That leaves the Suzuki, which makes the most torque and has the second highest peak power. It’s pretty clear that the 8R has the most versatile engine. It has excellent low-down torque, “and the hearty midrange gives it some flexibility when riding at a more spirited pace in the canyons,” Adams said. The 8R is also the only bike here with a standard quickshifter, which is funny because you don’t have to row the shift lever as much on this bike. It sounds like a cliché, but the Suzuki compared to the other two seems like it has power just about everywhere. No matter at what rpm you’re at, crack the throttle open and it pulls.
The acceleration data from our dragstrip testing reveals few surprises. The zero-to-60-mph times are all within 0.2 of a second with the Triumph just besting the Suzuki by a 10th, but the latter just nipping the 660 to 30 mph. It’s the all-important quarter-mile measurement where the Triumph’s engine stamps its authority to take a clear win over the Suzuki, recording an 11.81-second/118.00-mph pass compared to the 8R’s 12.20-second/111.22-mph pass. The Yamaha takes advantage of its best-in-test power-to-weight ratio to tail the Suzuki by just 0.2 to a 12.41-second/110.40-mph quarter-mile run.ElectronicsWith costs and price tags a big consideration in this class, there isn’t a long list of electronic rider aids. In fact, the only one the Yamaha has standard is ABS, while a $199 quickshifter is optional (not fitted to our unit). The 8R’s Intelligent Ride System includes the Suzuki Drive Mode Selector with three options, Suzuki Traction Control System, and a Bi-directional Quick Shift System. The Triumph offers three ride modes, switchable traction control, and two options for the throttle map.
Info screen design on these machines run the gamut. The Yamaha’s LCD screen is reminiscent of a first-gen Game Boy from the late 1990s: as simplistic as they come. It’s also the most difficult to read at times, especially if you are wearing a dark visor, or if the sun is glaring off its surface. Nicest of the three is the Suzuki’s beautiful, full-color 5-inch TFT display, which is bright and easy to read, well organized in terms of layout and navigation of screens, and can either manually or automatically switch between day and night modes. Right in between is the hybrid LCD/TFT display on the Triumph, which isn’t nearly as well laid out or thought out as the 8R’s but a lot easier to read than the R7′s.
In dry conditions, none of these bikes are begging for rider aids like traction control, but for damp conditions or simply for riders who want peace of mind, the Triumph and Suzuki have your back. Same goes for the ride modes that can tailor power and response to the conditions on those machines. But none of them have specific functions for wheelie control, engine-brake control, or lean-sensitive features. On the Yamaha there is nothing to adjust at all, which in a way is kind of nice and a flashback to simpler times. Gas it and go.
ChassisAll three of these bikes utilize steel frames and swingarms to help keep their prices in check, but the Yamaha also has a pair of aluminum braces around the swingarm pivot for added rigidity. In terms of suspension, both the Suzuki and Triumph use a Showa SFF-BP fork without any provisions for adjustability and use preload-adjustable shocks by the same company. The Yamaha has a KYB fork that is adjustable for preload, rebound, and compression, while the shock has preload and rebound damping adjustment.
Ride quality around town and on Southern California’s nasty grooved concrete freeways is quite nice on all of these bikes. Rough urban pavement with potholes and other obstacles are never an issue on any of them. You can really tell that the Triumph and Suzuki are clearly intended as everyday streetbikes as their first objective. The Yamaha, despite its more track-ready chassis, still offers a plush but controlled ride.
It was on the twists and turns of some of our favorite backroads that we started noticing bigger gaps in handling. The R7 offers a quick-handling chassis thanks to its short 54.9-inch wheelbase, aggressive front-end geometry, and light 418-pound ready-to-ride weight. “Of the three bikes, the Yamaha delivers the most proper Supersport-handling package,” Allen said. “It feels very much on its nose, and in the canyons generates a lot of confidence because the front end always feels planted.” And like the old R6, the R7′s light and agile steering snaps into the apex with little effort.“Adjustable suspension on the R7 is a nice touch over the competition,” Adams said. “The clicker adjustments allow you to find a nice operating window for your weight and riding style.”
“Talk about missed opportunities, and what could have been,” Adams said of the Triumph.The bike’s look communicates a sporty image, but the chassis performance can’t deliver on that promise. From a handling perspective the 444-pound 660′s 56.1-inch wheelbase and steep geometry give the bike reasonably quick agility on twisty roads, but the fork is totally incapable of providing the damping necessary to keep the front end under control during aggressive riding. Dial up even a moderately quick sporting pace and the fork blows through its travel instantly and then lacks the rebound damping to manage it when it’s extending again.“The constant pitching robs you of confidence when riding in the canyons and, quite frankly, sucks all the fun out of riding the Daytona in a spirited way,” Adams added.
The GSX-8R walks the middle ground. It has the longest wheelbase at 57.7 inches, the least aggressive geometry, and heaviest weight at 453 pounds, so it can’t match the agility of the R7. But it offers a level of midcorner stability that instills a ton of confidence. In short, it’s planted. “The 8R’s mostly nonadjustable suspension is well calibrated, especially when compared to the Daytona 660′s bits,” Adams said. “The front and rear are balanced, with enough damping to not have the bike wallowing through corners as the pace picks up.”And although we didn’t get the opportunity to take these three bikes to the racetrack for this comparison, we did get to ride the 8R at Chuckwalla Valley Raceway earlier this year and had a blast. This is a bike that can serve duty as an everyday commuter during the week, but one that is fully capable of lapping at the occasional trackday.Like the suspension, the braking packages use more budget-friendly components, forgoing fancy racing-oriented calipers. The Suzuki has a pair of radial-mount four-piston Nissin calipers up front with 310mm discs, while a single-piston caliper and 240mm disc are used at the back. The Daytona 660 comes equipped with radial-mount J.Juan four-piston calipers with 310mm discs in the front and a single-piston caliper and 220mm disc at the rear. The Yamaha uses a pair of four-piston radial-mount calipers and 298mm discs at the front and also adds a Brembo master cylinder, while the rear has a 245mm disc and single-piston caliper.
On the road, the Suzuki’s brakes offer the best combination of power and performance, never feeling numb and always proving predictable. The Yamaha has the least work to do as the lightest bike here, and offers predictable braking that is neither amazing nor lacking, with less overall performance than the 8R as seen in our back-to-back braking test data. The Triumph’s brakes are a bit harder to get a read on as they are more than powerful enough to overwhelm the bike’s fork. During performance testing on a dragstrip, the Suzuki and Triumph brakes are extremely close in terms of stopping distances; but in the real world, the 660′s diving fork robs the rider of the confidence to use them aggressively.ErgonomicsHere is another area where two of the three bikes have taken a different path from the Supersport formula, while the YZF-R7 is unashamed to embrace an aggressive sportbike stance.
Not only do the Yamaha’s clip-on handlebars mount below the top triple clamp, but the footpegs are the highest and most rearset of the group. The R7 looks ultra sporty, and the riding position is unapologetically so. For 5-foot-7-inch Allen, the Yamaha fits like a glove, but even then he said: “The R7′s tight, aggressive rider triangle is welcomed during spirited riding, but the high footpeg position and low reach to the bar become fatiguing and uncomfortable on long stretches of highway.”
Right in between the other two bikes is the Triumph. The handlebars rise above the top clamp a little bit to split the difference between the other two. The footpeg placement is on the high and rearset side (which doesn’t match the bike’s suspension tuning), and 6-foot-3-inch Adams in particular was uncomfortable. The 660′s seat is plush, well shaped, and supportive, and is really comfortable for a long day in the saddle.
At the relaxed end of the scale is the Suzuki. The handlebars are mounted on risers above the top clamp, which gives them more of a sport-touring or naked-bike posture. The 8R’s seat is comfortable and supportive, while the riding position is the most upright. The only complaint once again came from the tall guy, who wished there was a little bit more space between the tank and passenger seat to move around. The footpeg placement is the most neutral and relaxed, providing great all-day comfort.All three machines provide good protection from their windscreens, with decent coverage when sitting upright, and nice turbulence-free bubbles when tucked in tight at speed.ConclusionThe biggest appeal of these sportbikes is that they offer a lot of bang for the buck. If you’re pinching pennies and want a sportbike that won’t break the piggy bank—but one that you can enjoy and grow with regardless of your riding skills—any one of these would be a great choice. As a matter of fact, when we were filling up at a fuel station, a guy at the island was curious about the bikes and asked how much they cost. When we told him that all three were less than $10,000, he replied: “Well, anyone with a job can afford that!”
Our job here, however, is to determine which one of them we think is the best overall motorcycle considering the categories we covered above. So let’s break it down. Starting with the engines; While the dyno shows that the Triumph makes the most horsepower, this very satisfying engine still doesn’t have the versatility of the Suzuki, which is really good just about everywhere. We already know that the Yamaha is a little bit outclassed here in terms of top-end performance, yet its torquey nature keeps it in the hunt. But our collective nod goes to the 8R’s flexible 776cc twin. It has impressed us in every machine Suzuki has bolted it into.Handling characteristics of these three are all over the map. At the one end you have the ultra-committed YZF-R7; if that’s what you’re looking for and plan on doing more than the occasional trackday, that’s the clear choice. For those who don’t plan on sport riding in an aggressive manner and just want a competent and stylish streetbike for commuting and casual rides, the Daytona 660 has lots to offer. But if you really want the best of both worlds, “Suzuki has done an incredible job at finding that happy middleground between comfort and performance,” Adams said. That’s another win for the Suzuki.
As for the other categories, it’s hard for any of us to fault the Suzuki’s electronics package, while the Triumph is a close second and just lacks the bling of the 8R’s beautiful TFT display. As for the R7, the bike lacks rider aids and has a dated dash but costs about the same as the others. Most riders looking at these bikes are going to seriously consider what the ergonomics are like. Even Allen, who fits the Yamaha to perfection, has to admit that the Suzuki offers the most relaxed and comfortable seating position followed by the Triumph.After years and years of recycling older models and with virtually nothing new coming out of Hamamatsu, Suzuki’s new 776cc parallel-twin platform has reinvigorated the company. As Adams summed it up: “The GSX-8R has just enough of an edge and sharpness to it to keep you entertained, but isn’t as punishing as a traditional supersport. All that in a package with higher fit and finish and more features, for not that much more money, makes it the standout choice here.”
2024 Suzuki GSX-8R Specs
| MSRP: | $9,439 |
|---|---|
| Engine: | DOHC, liquid-cooled, four-stroke parallel twin; 4 valves/cyl. |
| Displacement: | 776cc |
| Bore x Stroke: | 84.0 x 70.0mm |
| Compression Ratio: | 12.8:1 |
| Transmission/Final Drive: | 6-speed constant mesh/chain |
| Cycle World Measured Horsepower: | 72.7 hp @ 8,125 rpm |
| Cycle World Measured Torque: | 51.7 lb.-ft. @ 6,650 rpm |
| Fuel System: | Electronic fuel injection w/ 42mm throttle bodies, ride-by-wire |
| Clutch: | Wet, multiplate; cable actuation |
| Engine Management/Ignition: | Electronic |
| Frame: | Steel tube w/ bolt-on trellis subframe |
| Front Suspension: | 41mm Showa SFF-BP inverted fork; 5.1 in. travel |
| Rear Suspension: | Showa monoshock, preload adjustable; 5.1 in. travel |
| Front Brake: | Nissin radial-mount 4-piston calipers, 310mm discs w/ ABS |
| Rear Brake: | Nissin 1-piston caliper, 240mm disc w/ ABS |
| Wheels, Front/Rear: | Cast aluminum alloy; 17 x 3.5 in./17 x5.5 in. |
| Tires, Front/Rear: | Dunlop Roadsport 2; 120/70-17 / 180/55-17 |
| Rake/Trail: | 25.0°/4.1in. |
| Wheelbase: | 57.7 in. |
| Ground Clearance: | 5.7 in. |
| Seat Height: | 31.9 in. |
| Fuel Capacity: | 3.7 gal. |
| Cycle World Measured Wet Weight: | 453 lb. |
| Contact: | suzukicycles.com |
| Quarter-Mile 1 ft. Rollout: | 11.90 sec. @ 111.36 mph |
| Quarter-Mile From 0 mph: | 12.20 sec. @ 111.22 mph |
| 0-60 mph: | 3.60 sec. |
| 0-30 mph: | 1.57 sec. |
| 0-100 mph: | 9.14 sec. |
| Braking | |
| 30-0: | 1.55 sec./33.78 ft. |
| 60-0: | 3.11 sec./133.89 ft. |
| MSRP: | $9,195 |
|---|---|
| Engine: | DOHC, liquid-cooled, four-stroke inline-three; 4 valves/cyl. |
| Displacement: | 660cc |
| Bore x Stroke: | 74.0 x 51.1mm |
| Compression Ratio: | 12.1:1 |
| Transmission/Final Drive: | 6-speed/chain |
| Cycle World Measured Horsepower: | 85.0 hp @ 11,350 rpm |
| Cycle World Measured Torque: | 44.7 lb.-ft. @ 8,350 rpm |
| Fuel System: | Multipoint sequential electronic fuel injection w/ 44mm throttle bodies, ride-by-wire electronic throttle control |
| Clutch: | Wet, multiplate slip/assist; cable actuation |
| Engine Management/Ignition: | Electronic |
| Frame: | Tubular steel perimeter |
| Front Suspension: | Showa 41mm inverted separate function big piston (SFF-BP) fork; 4.3 in. travel |
| Rear Suspension: | Showa monoshock, preload adjustable; 5.1 in. travel |
| Front Brake: | 4-piston radial-mount calipers, floating 310mm discs w/ ABS |
| Rear Brake: | 1-piston caliper, 220mm disc w/ ABS |
| Wheels, Front/Rear: | Cast aluminum; 17 x 3.5 in. / 17 x 5.5 in. |
| Tires, Front/Rear: | 120/70-17 / 180/55-17 |
| Rake/Trail: | 23.8°/3.2 in. |
| Wheelbase: | 56.1 in. |
| Ground Clearance: | N/A |
| Seat Height: | 31.9 in. |
| Fuel Capacity: | 3.7 gal. |
| Cycle World Measured Wet Weight: | 444 lb. |
| Contact: | triumphmotorcycles.com |
| Quarter-Mile 1 ft. Rollout: | 11.53 sec. @ 118.06 mph |
| Quarter-Mile From 0 mph: | 11.81 sec. @ 118.00 mph |
| 0-60 mph: | 3.50 sec. |
| 0-30 mph: | 1.68 sec. |
| 0-100 mph: | 7.88 sec. |
| Braking | |
| 30-0: | 1.50 sec./32.78 ft. |
| 60-0: | 3.00 sec./127.76 ft. |
| MSRP: | $9,199 |
|---|---|
| Engine: | DOHC, liquid-cooled four-stroke parallel twin; 4 valves/cyl. |
| Displacement: | 689cc |
| Bore x Stroke: | 80.0 x 68.6mm |
| Compression Ratio: | 11.5:1 |
| Transmission/Final Drive: | 6-speed/ chain |
| Cycle World Measured Horsepower: | 64.8 hp @ 8,500 rpm |
| Cycle World Measured Torque: | 44.5 lb.-ft. @ 6,500 rpm |
| Fuel System: | Fuel injection w/ 38mm throttle bodies |
| Clutch: | Wet, multiplate assist/slipper |
| Engine Management/Ignition: | Electronic |
| Frame: | Tubular-steel double backbone |
| Front Suspension: | 41mm KYB inverted fork, fully adjustable; 5.1 in. travel |
| Rear Suspension: | KYB shock, spring preload and rebound adjustable; 5.1 in. travel |
| Front Brake: | 4-piston radial-mount Advics calipers, dual 298mm discs w/ ABS |
| Rear Brake: | 1-piston Nissin caliper, 245mm disc w/ ABS |
| Tires, Front/Rear: | Bridgestone Battlax Hypersport S22; 120/70-17 / 180/55-17 |
| Rake/Trail: | 23.7°/3.5 in. |
| Wheelbase: | 54.9 in. |
| Ground Clearance: | 5.3 in. |
| Seat Height: | 32.9 in. |
| Fuel Capacity: | 3.4 gal. |
| Cycle World Measured Wet Weight: | 418 lb. |
| Contact: | yamahamotorsports.com |
| Quarter Mile 1 ft. Rollout: | 12.12 sec. @ 110.42 mph |
| Quarter Mile From 0 mph: | 12.41 sec. @ 110.40 mph |
| 0-60 mph: | 3.81 sec. |
| 0-30 mph: | 1.62 sec. |
| 0-100 mph: | 9.57 sec. |
| Braking | |
| 30-0: | 1.70 sec./36.30 ft. |
| 60-0: | 3.29 sec./139.11 ft. |
zpostcode
Recruit
weather
mreligion
Yellowpages
sport
constellation
shopping
name
game
directory
literature
Word
tour
furnish
Lottery
tftnews
lyrics
News
digital
car
dir
Edu
Finance
