Topic: Kwacker Z1 v. CB750. Come on, BRING IT!!!!

[GroovieGhoulie]

WHY did everyone jump on the Z1 bandwagon when it came out?  Why was it so much "better" than the ORIGINAL SUPERBIKE (F*** YOU Kawasaki!)?

Faster?  Maybe, but it had more CCs, so of COURSE it's faster in a straight line.

Handling?  Lots of folks consider the Z1's handling to be just this side of atrocious.  It'll kill you at triple-digits.  The Honda handled better.  Prove me wrong.

Cost?  The Honda was cheaper.  $1600 or so compared to $1800+ for the Kwacker.

Build quality?  Lots of people say tha Honda had it over the other makes back the as far as quality goes.  That even continues to this day.  Put a ZX (GOD I hate that machine), next to a CBRxxxRR and the CBR is more well assembled.

WHY was the Z1 so REVERED as awesome?  ANSWER ME!!!!!  The Z1 just followed in Honda's footsteps and did nothing original.

HONDA set the pace and set records.  Kawasaki deserves to DIE for trying to oust Honda as the baddest bike maker.  HONDA FOR EVER, #$%* EVERY OTHER BIKE EVER MADE!!!!!!!

[Raul CB750K1]

Talk about sour grapes... 


To each his own. I always wanted to have a Z1 for the looks, came into a CB750 and now I wouldn't trade it for anything. Had it been a Z1 instead and probably I would have never trade it either.


Raul

[GroovieGhoulie]

Raul, you misunderstand perhaps.

I HATE HATE HATE Kawasaki.

How DARE they think they can release a bike that can challenge the mighty CB for the Throne of the BEST bike EVER?!?!?!?

NO and I mean NO bike is better than the SOHC 750, except the SOHC 400F.

Kawasaki and ESPECIALLY SUZUKI, (for making th e GSXR), can die in hell, being sodomized by Satan himself.  How DARE the motorcycle press even HINT that the GSXR is better than the CBR.  NO suzuki is better than a Honda.

Yes, I have a GIGANTIC chip on my shoulder against any machine that is not Honda.  Honda is PERFECTION.  They have never been wrong since the beginning.

[scunny]

each to their own, sorry to steal your thread but heres some together.
the 750 in front is a turbo. shame about my lousy photo editing

[Terry in Australia]

If you have to ask Ghoulie, then I take it you weren't there? I love my CB750's, but having owned a Z1 I can tell you that any record that a CB750 made was destroyed by the Z1. Both their handling traits in standard form were bad, but both could be made better with good shocks, fork spings and tires.

I think it is unfair to compare one to the other, they were (are) both great bikes and while the CB750 deserves the title of the first real superbike, equally, the Z1 was the first real musclebike!

The 400F was indeed popular in some parts of the world, but doesn't rate in popularity or sales figures when compared to the CB750 or Z1. Sorry, but like I said, if you didn't know that, then you weren't there. Cheers, Terry.

[Raul CB750K1]

I admit that I have become brand loyal after seeing how Honda keeps spares for these old bikes, and how reliable and well designed the majority of their bikes are. Being said that, I also like Kawasakis for their "take it or leave it" stance. Being reliable -couldn't be otherwise being japanese-, spares are scarce, but in performance terms Kawasakis have a reputation of "bad boys bikes" that are appealing to my eye. Just have a look at the new 1.000 cc ninja. Compared to the competitors, is the most radical and less "user-friendly", but, what a blast should be to ride one of them in a track!!! Green meanies at its best.

Suzuki and Yamaha comes somewhere in between, both of them being always one or two steps behind. As I don't have any special memory of my youth related to those brands, I feel nothing about them. Some of their old bikes are cool and probably a blast to ride, but they don't thrill me.

[Jonesy]

I think this quote from Roland Brown in "Superbikes of the 70's" might sum things up:

"At an indicated 100MPH, it's a hell of a thrill. You're crouched down in a vain attempt to escape from the wind, peering over the clocks and with arms raised to high, wide handlebars. The big engine is sucking audibly through its open-top airbox beneath the seat, and howling louder through four chrome silencers as the mighty Z1 speeds along with the force and style that once made it the undisputed King.

Then you glance down at the steering head and realize that the handlebars don't just feel light, but that they are moving slightly yet visibly from side to side under the strain being fed to the chassis. It's not a weave, but it's not far from becoming one- and it shows the other side of the Kawasaki's personality. The motor's smoothness and easy speed could almost deceive you into thinking that this is a modern multi. But superbikes were very different when the Z1 ruled the roads..."

Personally, I think Honda could have kept up with the Kawi in terms of design, but they chose a different path with the 750, going more for refinement rather than pure muscle. According to a retired Honda engineer, the 750 was supposed to get DOHC back in 1973- why did it take so long to achieve this? Plus if you look at race results, the guys that won were on Z1's- when all the rest of the field were on 750's.

[BobbyR]

The Kawasaki design style was to cram a powerful motor into a small frame. I have a KZ440 and it is scary how similar the frame is to their muscle bikes when you place them side to side, which I do on occasion. My CB750 is far more refined looking and stronger. My 100MPH days are behind me. In fact, at my age I have more days behind me than in front. So I will enjoy those days at a nice smooth 70 MPH.

[dusterdude]

yea,its a damn shame kawasucki is selling more zx`s than honda is selling cbr`s.then of course,there is no factory support for the cbr as far as racing goes too.

[ofreen]

I have to admire a lot of Kawasaki's engineering.  They have had some great bikes.  Sometimes their fit and finish has been second (or third) rate, but they have come up with some good solutions, later emulated by the others, including Honda.  Seems a shame to diminish their considerable contributions, as well as those by Suzuki and Yamaha.

[el kabong]

i think the early-mid 1970 hondas are the best foundation for building a traditional brit-bike cafe racer, and the big 1970s KZs are the best foundation for buidling a muscle bike.

i'm old enough to remember the big KZ LTDs the first time around in the 1970s, and remember thinking the stepped seats looked real dorky.

so last year i bought a 1979 KZ1000 LTD.   never say never     but i've changed the seat 

[GroovieGhoulie]

I can say I don't remember tyhis post.  I was RIPPED last night with some friends for the 4th and I guess I got carried away.

I just HATE that Honda doesn't (even today) rise to the challenge and put out a bike that is #1 is performance.  I mean the best people can say is that Hondas are smoother, or easier to ride, or that they handle better. It's never that Hondas stomp the living CRAP out of everything else on the road in every category like the Z1, ZX or GSXR.

[dpen]

Hey Ghoulie, that must have been some party.

[GroovieGhoulie]

Hey Ghoulie, that must have been some party.

Tell me about it.  Got some broken furniture, burns in the parking lot, the house stinks like gasoline and I have a headache. 

[6pkrunner]

While the release of the Cb in '69 set the world on its ear and caused everyone to want more more more, the release of the Z1 was the answer to more more more. I had a used K1 in 1973 and almost traded it in for a Z1 when I took one for a test drive. The big thrill of the CB was the twist of the throttle and the Z1 gave much more smile factor when twisted. The sole reason why I didn't wa that I preferred the Honda styling over the Z1's. But the 6 or so Z1 owners I knew in 1973 all got them because of the more grunt than the CB. Handling and braking took secondary consideration.

[dusterdude]

ghoulie,i think the reason honda doesnt build anything larger than the cbr1000 is,they arent interested in drag racing like kawasucki and suzuki are.

[Ted Nomura]

I have both bikes (my Z1 is actually a 1976 KZ900 frame with a spare 1974 ZIA engine with 28mm carbs)and love them but I never really liked the original copper brown-orange Z1 color. I prefer the more rare green-yellow combo but I would've preferred even more if it had the better looking 1972 graphics. So I bought a spare tank and painted as such. It was originally in black with 1972 graphics but recently changed to copper-brown with the same 1972 graphics.It makes the bike look like a 1972 prototype but I still have the 1973 type Z1 tank colors to bring it back looking stock.

[Terry in Australia]

Well I'm selling off most of my bikes to make room in my garage for the BMW, and I was gonna sell my Suzuki GS1000S "Wes Cooley Replica" too, but after this discussion I think I'll keep it, it was everything that a Z1 was (pretty much because Suzuki copied the Kawa engine) but handled and braked superbly compared to any jap bike of the era. Hell, I don't need to sell ALL of them, ha ha! Cheers, Terry.  

[ElCheapo]

I HATE HATE HATE Kawasaki.

Kawasaki and ESPECIALLY SUZUKI, (for making th e GSXR), can die in hell, being sodomized by Satan himself.  How DARE the motorcycle press even HINT that the GSXR is better than the CBR.  NO suzuki is better than a Honda.

You should hang out with Yamaha owners. It will teach you a love for the other bikes, an a new appreciation for the Barrett 50 Cal 

[jsaab2748]

My dad had a green and yellow 900 in early 74, and I had a k4 at the same time. The 900 had an
engine that was noisier mechanically, from the extensive use of roller bearings througout(?) and not as smooth as the Honda. The black plastic mirrors blurred at highway speeds from vibration. Stopping effort was about the same between the two. The Kaw was faster than the Honda, but you had to really rev it to
feel the big difference. Seemed like you sat "in" the Kaw, whereas you sat "on top" of the Honda.
 I didn't much care for the fast idle/choke set up on the Kaw either, as the bike ran like #$%* when the engine was cold.  For some reason though, just like now, the Honda somehow became "inferior" when the Kawasaki came out. I like the Kaw to this day, but would choose the 750 again if given the option. For me, the 750 just had more charm. mho from what I saw.

[scunny]

don't sell the GS1000 Terry, I had an EC and those Suzies can fly, I loved the way my ball sack tightened when I kicked it down a gear doing the ton and gave the throttle a handful 

[Terry in Australia]

don't sell the GS1000 Terry, I had an EC and those Suzies can fly, I loved the way my ball sack tightened when I kicked it down a gear doing the ton and gave the throttle a handful 

Thassit mate, I got it up to 145 Mph (230 Kph) a few weeks ago and I still can't decide whether I was screaming from fear, or just from pure joy. I've go another engine to install with an 1100 kit, big cams and a set of flat slide carbs, but there's no rush, it's fast enough now for me to go to jail forever, ha ha!

[scunny]

I ran mine thru an official speed trial flying 1/4 and the average of both ways was 235 k's, that was on a mildly drizzly day so that helped the bikes operation but not the fear factor

[toycollector10]

You have to remember that an in-line 4 was revolutionary back then. If you didn't live through the time it is hard to explain.

Honda kicked it off in '69. But from memory, the biggest capacity machine then (apart from Harley Davidson cruisers) was the Norton 850. I'm sure someone will correct me on this.

So when Kawasaki produced an in-line four with 900 cc, that took everything a step further. And on it goes, year after year,  new models comming out.

BUT, IMO there has yet to be a bike built that rivals the '750's impact on motorcycling around the world.

Remember that this bike was voted "Motorcycle of the Millennium" (or some such thing)  in 1999 by the editors of 20 of the worlds leading motorcycle magazines. There wasn't even a clearly accepted second place. Honda number one, the rest, oh well...!!

Just a pity Honda can't regain dominance and do something, anything, like they did back in '69

[Jeff.Saunders]

Both bikes are massive steps forward in the evolution of the motorcycle.  The Honda four was the first reliable 4-cylinder machine available at a price the masses could afford.  Very reliable for sure.

The Z1 was a big step forward in performance.  An incredibly robust engine - over-engineered to a massive degree.  When you consider how many you still see at the Saturday night drag races, it's hard to believe the engines are 30+ years old.  Kawasaki milked the design for years and years.  The police bikes used the 'J' motor KZ1000 engine for years - all the way to 2005.

Z1 frames can have handling problems - however, much of the problem is related to poor maintenance and mismatched tires.  I've owned over 20 Z1's and the majority are stable up through 120 mph - over 120mph is where they can get a little squirly.  The Z1 is very dependant on a good matched set of tires - most handling issues can be traced to the tires.

If you've never worked on a Z1 engine, you'd be surprised by the simplicity of the engine, and the size of the parts - very well put together - some simple features like 3 bolt holes in the engne cases allow you to jack the two halves of the cases apart.  You can take the cylinder head and cylinder block off in the frame.  There's no primary chain - just straight cut gears - and very hefty gears at that.  The engines run on VERY low oil pressure - just 2-3 lbs pressure when the engine is hot - this is a big reason why you can keep these engines oil tight - even when punching them out to some ridiculous sizes (like 1500cc).