Skip to content

Discuss This Is the new Honda CBR250R better than a 1982 Super Dream? First rides & tests

You are in... Forums > Discuss This > First rides & tests > Is the new Honda CBR250R better than a 1982 Super Dream?

This is a discussion topic

This discussion topic is linked to an article on this site. You can navigate to the article by clicking on the article name in the first post.

Go to most recent reply




Steve Farrell  says:

Is the new Honda CBR250R better than a 1982 Super Dream?

A glance at the specs of Honda’s new CBR250R and the Kawasaki Ninja 250R could leave you wondering exactly what manufacturers have been doing for the last 30 years. Like the Ninja 250R, Kawasaki’s 1988 GPX250R was a steel framed four-stroke eight-valve parallel twin. It was even referred to on MCN’s front page as the 250 Ninja, after its bigger brothers...

Reply to this Topic  
  • Posted 4 years ago (21 April 2011 17:02)

Post a message in First rides & tests

Fields marked with an asterisk * are required


Please note. You cannot submit more than 4000 characters as a message.

Upload image(s) from your computer (up to 3 images)


Terms of use

Use of our community areas and forums is subject to important terms of use. By joining our community and using the features you agree to be bound by these terms. See terms of use below. 



Aug 10

Posts: 1

These bikes are made for people who are on a 33bhp license, sure kawasaki and honda could go crazy and build 250's like in the 80's but who would buy them? people with a few years riding experience under their belt aren't likely to want a bike with 40 or 50bhp and commuters simply want a bike which will take them from A to B, not a screaming inline 4 which needs to be revved to get its full potential. Think about it logically..

Reply to this Topic


Aug 02

Posts: 440

snave says:


I do think about it logically. The 33bhp limit is about to be superceded by 47hp. If you're spending money the bike you buy shouldn't be shit. The `wet Dream` told us that. Your comments are therefore illogical.

Reply to this Topic


Dec 10

Posts: 88

mogulthrash says:

pointless bike

With manufacturers pretty much not making new bikes any more, just recycling old bits, when we get a new one its this 250: too slow, underpowered, no better than a wet-dream. Honda gets it wrong. Screaming in-line 4? Great - my Bandit is plenty quick enough without revving it and if I do rev it it takes off like a scalded cat hence I can overtake safely. I'm with Snave - this is a wasted opportunity.  Better to re-invent something like the Yamaha SR500 with 47 bhp and make it tuneable and make sure it is easy to start - that would be cool and worth having. The CB 250 is pointless.

Reply to this Topic


Mar 11

Posts: 26


You say "about to be superceded" like it's about to happen very soon. We've still got another 2 years to wait, so if someone who's just passed their test wants to buy a new bike that doesn't have to be restricted, it would make sense to buy one of these. By the time their two years restriction is up, the limit will have been raised to 47bhp, but they don't have to worry about it, because they've already spent their two years at 33bhp and can ride anything.

These bikes make sense now, and if they weigh 165kg fully oiled and fuelled, then it's not too heavy. Sure, they're quite weighty, but if you jump, say, from a 120kg 125 to a 190kg restricted 500 or 650, then it's going to be a bit of a shock at slow speeds to new riders.

They might be redundant in a year or two, but maybe kawasaki and honda will up the performance to match the restriction. Or maybe they won't, maybe people are happy with these specs as a commuter, especially with honda's quoted fuel efficiency, and the user friendly riding that they provide. It's not all about horsepower you know?

Reply to this Topic


Apr 11

Posts: 1

ClassicRider says:

CBR250R is a pretender

It's a pretend sport machine.  Honda won all five of the 1966 World Grand Prix titles with multi-cylinder high revving motorcycles.  Their 125 cc had five cylinders and could easily blow away the Norton 750cc commando that year.  Now Honda introduces a weak single cylinder 250cc with specs that make me think that the old  CB200 would be a match for it.

Couple that with the idiotic high rear pillion seat and the high footpegs and you have a machine that looks like a sport machine, but cannot even carry a passenger who isn't as small child.  I can't say this is surprising.  Honda doesn't even publish horsepower figures any longer.  They have gone over to the dark side and market solely on image, not value or function.

They do occasionally come out with some brilliant development, such as the VFR1300F.  But trying to get people used to shifting a motorcycle with the left hand using a button is a bit much.  Their "styling" has also gone from rational to bizarre. 

There has been some acknowledgement by Honda of all the lost sales from those of us who prefer the artistically relevant typical Japanese styling, such as that of the 1969 CB750 (which sold over 10 Million units).  Even the Super Cub  with it's 60 million in sales is esthetically pleasing.

Honda is firing blanks now and have been for a long time.  The Gold Wing and all of their over 1 liter machines are laughable in their excessive size, but posses modest if not substandard performance compared to machines from their own past.

While they do well with their all out sport machines, those are for children, not the adult rider.  If Honda has sold the 2007 CB750 in this country (USA) I imagine if would have brought back some of the market from the people who actually have the money to spend.  It was certainly a beautiful machine.

As it is though, those of us who prefered the clean artistic Japanese machines of the 60s and 70s now have mostly turned to BMW, which gives us high tech and treats us like thinking adults.

Not long ago I was riding a borrowed Honda Shadow Aero 750cc.  It skittered on the small ripples on our country roads, an experience I expected only from things like Harley-Davidsons which are notorious for poor handling.  While the Aero had four valves per cylinder, liquid cooling, two cylinders and shaft drive, it felt like it couldn't get out of it's own way.

My first 750 was a CB750 with 68 hp.  The 2006 Aero has only 42, even though it theoretically has a superior head design.  Honda just doesn't seem to keep up technically with most of the machines I would buy. 

My next machine is likely to be a BMW K machine, although I haven't decided which.  They keep the faith in giving the buyer the higest available technology, instead of building a machine for the highest possible profits.



Reply to this Topic


Jul 10

Posts: 183

BBQdog says:


Just had a testdrive on this CBR 250 R. Althought the tank was totally filled it was fun on the back roads.

More fun then the Ninja 250 (model 2011) I owned for about 2 months. The Ninja has more top speed

but is very clumpsy. The CBR 250 R is much nimbler, seems more effortless in acceleration. If Honda would take off 20kg, add 8 bhp and did a more sportive (agressive) restyle they would have a winner.

But this little bike suprised me in its current state. Having owned a Ninja and tested the CBR I prefer

the CBR over the Ninja. But as for daily transportation the Ninja would be a bit better, less vibration and

more suteable for the highway.

Reply to this Topic


Nov 05

Posts: 41

cascadeair says:

crap ads

Could we please get MCN editors to delete the crap ads for nike or whatever?

Reply to this Topic


Mar 04

Posts: 1

jasona says:

The fact remains that late 80s/early 90s 250 two-strokes will pee all over these crappy gutless four-strokes from a very great height. It's SO refreshing, for a change, to see an allusion to that fact in the article text above! It's depressing seeing all these pretty-looking, totally underpowered four-stroke sports bikes emerging frequently these days. I finished rebuilding my Aprilia RS250 at the weekend. CBR250R and ye like? Be afraid, be very afraid... As for all the 125 four strokes coming out now? Oh my God! Don't make me go and get a 1988 TZR125 for next to nothing with double the BHP!

Reply to this Topic


Sep 10

Posts: 831

CBR11X says:

2 strokes are dead

I grew up riding RD250's and 350's and then TZR250's. The fact is that even though they had great poke and a surging top end rush, these machines are filthy polluting pieces of shite. I encourage young riders to get a decent yet boring first bike, live long enough to build up your skills and once you get your full licence, get on a nice supersport or the likes. A 600 supersport pollutes less than a 2 stroke, doesn't need the oil tank topped up every refuelling or  need re-ringing every 6000 miles and they makes crap-loads more power than  two-strokes.

Two strokes belong in our memories only.

Reply to this Topic


Nov 10

Posts: 66

Gstan says:

2 strokes

are not dead! well they shouldnt be, they are the best bikes to learn how to ride on, they teach you what a power band is and how to change gear, and if it goes wrong you can fix them very easily, the fact that an aprilia rs125 will go faster and out accelerate the new cbr250 just goes to show how good they are, and an rs250 will make double the power of the cbr. And changing the rings on a 2 stroke every 6000 miles is not a problem, i have to change the engine oil every 3000 miles on my 4 stroke ktm duke... long live 2 strokes!

Reply to this Topic

Compare Insurance

Save money by comparing quotes. It's quick and easy

Motorcycles for sale


It's only £13.99 to advertise your motorcycle on MCN

Sell your Motorcycle

Motorcycle pricing tool

New! Find used bike prices