Brixton Crossfire 500XC vs SWM SM 500 R

Compare Specifications of Brixton Crossfire 500XC and SWM SM 500 R

Selected Bikes

Brixton Crossfire 500XC
Brixton Crossfire 500XC

Brand:

Model:

SWM SM 500 R
SWM SM 500 R

Brand:

Model:

Brand:

Model:

Brand:

Model:

Technical Specifications
Fuel Petrol Petrol
Engine Displacement 486.00 cc 501.00 cc
Engine in-line, 2 cylinder, 4-stroke, water cooled Single cylinder, 4 stroke; DOHC; 6 Speed gears; Euro 5
Engine Starting Electric Electric and Kick
Ignition ECU --
Cooling System Water cooled --
Maximum Power 46.9 PS @ 8500 RPM --
Maximum Torque 43 NM @ 6750 RPM --
Load Carrying Capacity 355 kg --
Seating Capacity 2 --
Transmission 6-speed manual 6 Speed gears
Gear Shift Pattern 1-N-2-3-4-5-6 1-N-2-3-4-5-6
Top Speed 160 kmph --
Display Digital Display --
Frame -- Single-beam double cradle frame in steel tubes
Headlamp LED --
Taillamp LED --
Tyres
Front 110/80-19 120/70 x 17” – Michelin Pilot Power 2CT
Rear 150/60-17 150/60 x 17” – Michelin Pilot Power 2CT
Wheel / RIM Front Rim: 2,50x19 (external spokes)
Rear Rim: 4,25x17 (external spokes)
Spoke
Brakes
Front Hydraulic disc brake with ABS, disc-320mm Floating disc 320 mm BREMBO, hydraulic control and radial caliper with ABS ;
Rear Hydraulic disc brake with ABS, disc-240mm Fixed disc 240mm BREMBO, hydraulic control and floating caliper with switchable ABS;
Suspension
Front Upside-down shock absorber adjustable preload, compression damping, rebound damping KAYABA, Upside down telescopic hydraulic fork with advanced axle, rebound dumping adjustment; Fork legs Ø 48mm
Rear Single shock absorber adjustable preload, rebound damping KAYABA, Progressive “soft damp” single hydraulic shock absorber, spring preload, compression and rebound adjustements
Colors Available
Colors Desert Gold matt White and Red


Physical Specs
Length 2164 mm --
Width 851 mm --
Height 1203 mm --
Weight 195 kg 120 kg
Seat Height 839 920
Fuel Tank Capacity 13.5 litres --
Overview
Features -- --
Additional Details Fuel Consumption : 4 l/100km
CO2 Emissions : 92 g/km
--

Which one do you think is better? And why?
Name :

Comment :

928