Talk:Kawasaki Ninja 250R

  This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Cbake96.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

Oil capacity listed here is 3.2 L, however many sites list 1.9L. Indeed ninja250.org oil change procedure page says:

"Fill w/ 1.5 qts of your favorite oil. Wait a minute, then add a very small amount of oil at a time until oil is halfway up the level-check window (aka "sight glass"). Replace the filler cap."

1.5 quarts is 1.41 Liters or so. This being my first writing of any kind on wikipedia, I figure I should ask first - should we change the capacity in the table?

Mjbiren (talk) 02:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

Top speed is higher than 100 mph... i had one... and could get to 110 easily... but not 120...

Comment: Sorry, but the little Ninja will not do 110 miles per hour stock. The speedometers on the 250s are wildly optimistic at high speed. The top speed with with an average weight rider is more like 95 to 100 MPH...just read any reviews with track speed testing. The stopwatch does not lie... LS650 (talk) 13:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm a beginner but have been riding dirt bike for 10 years I know totally different but i like the light weight of the 250r but am concerned of the top speed does a 2002 really do 80 mph cruising no bullcrap?

Yes, the ninja 250 will do 80 pretty much all day long at 9k rpms (redlines at 14k). Some folks swap out the front sprocket to 15 tooth to get the rpms down...which may be good if you're doing lots of highway miles.

- Redline on the '06 and later 250R is 13000. At an indicated 60 mph, I run 7500 RPM. At an indicated 82 mph, I run 10,000 RPM. Comparing my actual speed to the indicated speed, I'm showing around a 4% high reading on the speedometer. It'll run at these speeds all day with no problem, though the sound from the engine at highway speeds can be a bit irritating; invest in earplugs.

Just for comparison purposes, the Ninja 250R (pre-'08) has similar crankshaft and rear tire HP output to a Honda Shadow VLX (a different torque curve mind you), but with about 150 lbs less weight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.171.112.217 (talk) 18:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

"Capable of running the 1/4 mile in 14.6 seconds at 88mph," The reference to this, as well as the EX-250F 0-60 figures are referenced to a March 2007 online magazine article. However, the figures were first included on this page in a 2004 edit. Where is the original source for this data? It appears that the online magazine (BestBeginnerMotorcycles.com) quoted the figures from this Wikipedia entry, and was later added as a reference. 2008 figures as tested by both Motorcycle Consumer News and Motorcyclist Magazine are far removed from these supposed performance statistics.

Furthermore, these figures would put the Ninja EX250F in a similar performance bracket to the much more powerful Suzuki GS500F: 0-60: 6.05 sec 1/4 mile: 14.67@88.30 (Motorcycle Consumer News, July 2004, online version unavailable) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.171.112.217 (talk) 02:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speedometer_Error#Error

Based on the regulations the top speed should be closer to 100-105 mph.. 95.5 mph would put them quite far outside regulations surely. 86.43.170.48 (talk) 11:45, 11 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)

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)Reply

---

This bike is being updated and changed for the 2008 model. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.213.209.2 (talk) 00:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC) Updates for 2008 will be known after the Paris Motorcycle show over the next week. Right now there are way too many unknowns about the bike to just toss up something. Patience.... Caferace 02:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

I would say the picture of the 2008 Ninja at the Paris Show does a much better job of representing the motorcycle than does the picture of two racing bikes seen head-on; however, a picture of the 250 sans-showgirl might be better. Would it be possible to upload a Kawasaki promo image (http://www.motorcycle-usa.com/Photos/2008_Ninja250R_Right.jpg) or is there no way to justify its inclusion in Wikipedia? I believe this would be an ideal image for the article. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 17:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

Hi people, I own one of the 2008 models and have a bunch of pictures:

http://yeahnah.org/i/bike/2008-ninja-250r-niiice.jpg http://yeahnah.org/i/bike/2008-ninja-250r-front01.jpg http://yeahnah.org/i/bike/2008-ninja-250r-front02.jpg http://yeahnah.org/i/bike/2008-ninja-250r-side.jpg http://yeahnah.org/i/bike/2008-ninja-250r-dash-close.jpg http://yeahnah.org/i/bike/2008-ninja-250r-dash-far.jpg http://yeahnah.org/i/bike/2008-ninja-250r-rear-close.jpg http://yeahnah.org/i/bike/2008-ninja-250r-rear-far.jpg http://yeahnah.org/i/bike/2008-ninja-250r-seat.jpg http://yeahnah.org/i/bike/2008-ninja-250r-tank-far.jpg http://yeahnah.org/i/bike/2008-ninja-250r-exhaust-close.jpg

I own the copyright to all these images, and Wikipedia can use them on this page (I just don't know how to add them!). Anyway, if anyone needs any clarification please direct them to wikipedia[at]yeahnah.org (Ryan Allen) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.108.44.228 (talk) 22:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

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

This article has a picture of a Kawasaki ZXR-250 on the bottom. But that is a 4 cyl. 250cc bike. The Kawasaki_Ninja_ZX-2R already has its own page. So the image may not be appropriate for this article Bluesleeper (talk) 20:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Can we please somehow change the picture to just show what the bike looks like without the bimbo? I know if this were an advertisement you'd want to include female cleavage along with the bike you are selling. But this is an encyclopedia and the purpose is not to sell bikes for Kawasaki. I'm not going to change it myself because somebody will just change it back. A little help? Dbratland (talk) 07:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)

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)Reply

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.

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)Reply

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

The specifications claim the old GPX250R (EX-250F) had fuel injection on Euro/Thai models. I'm under the impression that it is only the new Ninja 250R/EX-250J has fuel injection on the Euro/Thai models. Anyone care to provide a citation?Booksacool1 (talk) 00:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

That edit is just confused. They say the Europe/Thai model has fuel injection, but the link they used goes to an article about the new EX250-J which isn't even relevant to that section on the F models. It's also a link to a site that is only a plagiarized copy of Kawasaki's own press releases. Oh, and it doesn't mention the fuel injection thing anyway.
I'd cite...

• "General Specifications", Ninja 250R GPZ250R Motorcycle Service Manual, Kawasaki Heavy Industries, 18 March 1997, p. 1-5, EX250-E1, E2 [...] Carburetion system: Carburetors, Keihin CVK32x2 [Footnotes A: Australian, Cal: California, C: Canadian not applied to fuel system] {{citation}}: Text "edition:1st" ignored (help)
• "General Specifications", Ninja 250R GPZ250R Motorcycle Service Manual Supplement, Kawasaki Heavy Industries, 1 April 2003, p. 1-4, EX250-F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11 [...] Carburetion system: Carburetors, Keihin CVK32x2 [Footnotes A: Australian, B: UK, Ca: California, E:European, U:US not applied to fuel system] {{citation}}: Text "edition:12th" ignored (help)

Your reference on the change in horsepower looks perfect, by the way.--Dbratland (talk) 01:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

There are several errors with the stats of the 250F. I have attempted to correct the fuel economy to include "reported" MPG which is 55-75 mpg according to several reliable secondary sources (some of which were already being used by the article). However, every time I do, the edit nazis vandalize the correction and change it back to only 48 MPG. How do I report these libelous vandals?

Here are my sources:

From http://www.bestbeginnermotorcycles.com/kawasaki-ninja-250-review (Note this source has already been accepted by editors as being credible for other parts of the article) quote: "Specs: ... Fuel Efficiency 55-75 MPG"

From http://www.totalmotorcycle.com/MotorcycleFuelEconomyGuide/Kawasaki.htm Quote: "2005 Kawasaki Ninja EX250R ... 65/75 [mpg]"

From http://faq.ninja250.org/wiki/What_kind_of_gas_mileage_can_I_expect%3F Quote: "Most riders report between 50 and 70 miles per gallon"

While the numbers do not match exactly, these numbers are presented and stated as "reported" values. Using reported values is not only correct, but using the 48 mpg value is blatantly false. The article is stating the ALL EX250F bikes will get 48 mpg regardless of driving conditions.

In addition to these online magazines and biker clubs, I also ride one and get about 65 mpg myself. I didn't use myself as a reference, but I seriously doubt that any of the people changing it to 48 mpg actually ride one or they would know that number is a lie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.12.192.254 (talk) 01:51, 5 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Your contributions to Wikipedia are most welcome, but sometimes other editors disagree and you have to work it out with them. Please stop calling other editors "Nazis" and using odd words like "libelous". That will get you nowhere except blocked form editing.

First, nobody really cares if it gets 100 mpg or 1000 mpg. Really -- nobody cares one way or the other. I used to have a Ninja 250 and I certainly managed 80+ mpg from time to time, but so what?

All that matters is citing sources. Please take a look at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. If it meets those criteria, it's good. If not, leave it out.

I just deleted the Best Beginner Motorcycles citation: it's anonymous, which makes it very difficult to know if the author is a recognized authority. The web site itself is not particularly professional, and the Ninja 250 review contradicts itself, saying "about 50 miles per gallon" in one place and then "55-75 MPG" right below that. Totalmotorcyle.com I do not trust. They don't even test motorcycles, they just re-publish info and they don't even say where the get that info. Faq.ninja250.org is just a forum: they publish anonymous original research and discussion from non-experts. It might as well be an open Wiki.

I added one citation from Motorcycle USA saying 55 mpg for the 2006 model. Motorcycle USA is a professional journalistic operation, and the name of the author, Bart Madson, is signed to the article.

Again, take a look at Wikipedia:Verifiability -- it is one of the 5 pillars of Wikipedia. It says right at the top "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." This is not about what the "true" mpg is. It is about what can be verified in published sources that are recognized authorities. --Dbratland (talk) 02:37, 5 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

The faq.ninja250.org is not a forum although there is a separate forum attached to the website. The faq portion is peer reviewed and subject to a board of editors on that site. This meets the wikipedia test for "reliable source". You or I cannot make direct changes there without going through those editors. Here is a link to their policy: http://faq.ninja250.org/wiki/How_can_I_log_into_the_FAQ%3F . In short, an article is first published in the forums, and after review for accuracy, it will eventually make it the FAQ. The FAQ on that site is a recognized authority when it comes to the Ninja 250.

In terms of gas mileage, no one can say that you will get EXACTLY a certain number as does the article. Even EPA estimates are always listed as "CITY/HWY". The only fair way to report this figure is in a range encompassing the standard deviation.

And yes, I stand by my claim that making false derogatory comments about the ninja 250 are libelous regardless of how well they are sourced. 65.12.192.254 (talk) 11:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I respectfully disagree. The FAQ is hosted on a fan site. A fan site is not a reliable source. Also, how can a derogatory claim about a bike be libellous? What specific claim are you referring to and how is it libellous? --Biker Biker (talk) 11:13, 5 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

It doesn't matter where the FAQ is hosted. It is peer reviewed and subject to an editorial board. To get an article in the FAQ, an author first posts his proposed article to the forum. There people comment about it and he makes changes according to the suggestions. After some time, if the FAQ editors agree that it is ready, then it will be sent to the FAQ and not before.

The MotorcycleUSA article uses the words "...55 mpg and above, depending on the kind of riding we were doing." This statement, although more ambiguous, does not disagree with the ninja250.org FAQ. Because of this, the MotorcyvcleUSA reference edit should be changed to "At least 55 mpg."65.12.192.254 (talk) 11:35, 5 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Peer reviewed by who? A bunch of self-appointed Ninja 250R fans, that's who. Not recognised journalists, not published authors, just a bunch of (well meaning) fans. If it were added to the article in the external links section it would by immediately removed under a number of criteria listed at WP:ELNO. Again I state it is not a reliable source. --Biker Biker (talk) 11:44, 5 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Regarding Libel - If you write that the bike significantly does not perform as well as it actually does, then that is libel. In this case, the bike gets far better than 48 mpg on average. Even Dbratland above claims 80+. I'm getting 65 mpg in the city. In today's "green" climate, a false claim of poor fuel economy is very derogatory and quite inflammatory. 65.12.192.254 (talk) 11:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I don't think "libel" means what you think it means, but that's neither here nor there. Wikipedia prohibits legal threats so please drop it, OK? We're discussing proper sources, that's all.

It might be good to review the article Fuel economy-maximizing behaviors. Any vehicle -- any vehicle -- can get extraordinary mileage if you drive it a certain way. This is why official testing prescribes specific maneuvers and speeds, and why reputable publications test vehicles in "real world" conditions: a mix of different speeds, stopping, normal acceleration, and so on. I do not claim that the EX250 mileage is 80+ mpg. I only mentioned that for brief periods, under special circumstances, I hit 80 or so mpg. If I'd really tried I could have done 100 mpg. Long term average, putting 26,000 miles on my Ninja 250? A solid 50 mpg.

When anonymous users report what they think their mileage was, they usually report the farthest they ever managed to go on one tank, rather than follow rigorous testing procedures that let you compare two vehicles fairly. There is really no way to be sure how they tested-- no verifiability.

This is all a roundabout way of coming back to the policies at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Open forums, sites that report user performance claims, opinions -- all of these things have their place. People are smart enough to find these sites for themselves, and Google leads you right there. Wikipedia does not block their web sites or delete content from there. Wikipedia just plays a different role than sites less strict polices. --Dbratland (talk) 15:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I am not making legal threats and I don't think I am in a position to do so even if I wanted to. But its still very poor form to write that a product has significantly worse performance than is readily observed whether you call it "libel" or not.

In my case, I am a real world rider. I don't ride on a controlled track at 5mph in order to get 100mpg. I ride on real streets and in real traffic. The last several fill ups have been 68, 62, 65, and this morning, 69 mpg. Because of varying conditions, there is no way to get exactly a certain number every time. My experiences are not outside the "reported" standard deviation for this bike.

Because the EX250F is not the current model, it is hard to find perfect sources. In fact, there is NO source on Wikipedia that doesn't have *something* wrong with it according to WP guidelines. For example, if Thomas Edison were around today and made a change to the Light Bulb article, he would immediately have his edits reverted because he would be a first source and unacceptable.

So basically, there must be some way around these sourcing rules to make the sources I specified acceptable. Such as wording the edit to say "50-70 mpg user reported" or something like that.

The ninja250.org faq should be allowed. I'm sure the editorial board there ARE fans, but its hard to find someone who has had any experience with the Ninja 250 who isn't a fan. While I admit that their low budget website doesn't look like much, that isn't justification to say that they aren't a reliable source.

I will continue to search for other sources, such as from articles in printed magazines, but such a search tends to be tedious at best. Even then, if you pick at it hard enough, no source is acceptable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.12.192.254 (talk) 20:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Please read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Wikipedia's Five pillars lay out the core principles that Wikipedia is built on. For instance, Wikipedia is neutral. That means it isn't written from the point of view of a booster or enthusiast. It's great that your average is around 66mpg, but that is original research. Period. In Wikipedia's terms, a good source would be an independent magazine. ninja250.org is simply not a reliable source. "Editorial oversight" may not mean what you think it means- effectively ninja250 is a fansite like any other forum, wiki, or mailing list.

It's getting meta, but your argument about light bulbs isn't very effective- there are plenty of reliable sources about the light bulb, including peer-reviewed journals, which are held in significantly higher regard than a magazine or book (see WP:SOURCES). tedder (talk) 21:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

The point being that Edison himself would not be allowed to use himself as a reference here.

Ok, I found another possible. Is this one acceptable?

"Petrol pinchers: Squeezing all you can from dead dinosaurs." Cycle World Vol 45 Issue 2 (Feb 2006): p44(10 pgs), Allan Girdler. 65.12.192.254 (talk) 21:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

You're right, Edison himself wouldn't be a reference. But he or someone else would publish in scholarly peer-reviewed journals, which would be a source. Yes, Cycle World is a decent source. Format the citation properly and use it in addition to what is already there. tedder (talk) 21:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

OK, I put it in. I have my stopwatch going to see how long it stays there. 65.12.192.254 (talk) 22:54, 5 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Please assume good faith. It'll stay because you followed the guidelines of Wikipedia. tedder (talk) 23:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

The existing motorsports section which was removed by both Tedder (talk · contribs) 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)Reply

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 [23] 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 [24] there were incorporated in the page. By the same token, there are lots of articles at RoadRacing World [25] that mention, and sometimes feature, the Ninja 250. If one were to dig, other sources besides RoadRacing World could be found, I'd wager.

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)Reply

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)Reply

This is mostly a note to self, but here goes this. --uKER (talk) 06:10, 3 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

There is photos on the 5th generation bike that Wikipedia can use here. I am sorry I am new so I dont know to edit Wikipedia properly. Firmanazis (talk) 15:15, 3 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

I've created a new page for the Ninja 300. Ice Wolf Loki (talk) 01:52, 7 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

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.

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)Reply

• Note that this press release has a footnote saying the 249cc model will continue in 2013 in some markets. Now we just need to nail down which. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:54, 14 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Please add and cite quote from Cycle World[26] "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)Reply

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:29, 7 December 2017 (UTC)Reply