CSC TT250 Dual Sport vs Lifan KP200 (LF200-10B(II))

Compare Specifications of CSC TT250 Dual Sport and Lifan KP200 (LF200-10B(II))

Selected Bikes

CSC TT250 Dual Sport
CSC TT250 Dual Sport

Brand:

Model:

Lifan KP200 (LF200-10B(II))
Lifan KP200 (LF200-10B(II))

Brand:

Model:

Brand:

Model:

Brand:

Model:

Technical Specifications
Fuel Petrol Petrol
Engine Displacement 229.50 cc 198.00 cc
Engine Single cylinder, 4 stroke Vertical single-cylinder, water-cooled, four-stroke
Engine Starting Electric & Kick Electric start
Clutch -- Hand-clutched
Fuel System Carbureted --
Cooling System Air Cooled --
Maximum Power 16.1 Ps @ 7000 Rpm 17 Ps @ 8000 Rpm
Maximum Torque 18 Nm @ 5500 Rpm 17 Nm @ 6500 Rpm
Load Carrying Capacity Maximum Load : 330 lbs --
Transmission 5 Speed 6 Gears
Top Speed -- 110 kmph
Headlamp 3D anti-fog headlight --
Fuel Economy
Overall Mileage 27.6 kmpl --
Tyres
Front 3.00 x 21 Knobby DOT Approved 80/100-17
Rear 4.60 x 18 DOT Approved 130/70-17
Wheel / RIM -- Al-alloy
Brakes
Front 265 mm Single Disc Disc
Rear 220 mm Single Disc Disc
Suspension
Front Inverted Telescopic --
Rear Monoshock with preload adjustment Suspension --
Colors Available
Colors Gray
White
--


Physical Specs
Length 2108 mm 2060 mm
Width 813 mm 745 mm
Height 1117 mm 1080 mm
Weight 140 kg 138 kg
Seat Height 864 775
Wheelbase 1397 mm 1330 mm
Ground Clearance 292 mm --
Fuel Tank Capacity 11 litres 15 litres
Overview
Features - High-mounted enduro steel exhaust
- Dash with digital speedometer, tachometer, odometer, fuel gauge, gear indicator, neutral light, turn signal and high beam indicators
- LED turn signals, dual-flash hazard lights
- 300-Watt alternator
- Handlebar mounted accessory switches
- Automotive-type waterproof connectors under the seat
- Adjustable rear shock absorber
- Folding rider and passenger foot pegs with rubber inserts
- Dual rear-view mirrors
- Comfort saddle for driver and passenger
- Frame-mounted helmet lock, lower steel bash plate
--
Additional Details -- Motorcycle Model : LF200-10B(II)
Economical Fuel Consumption (L/100km) ≤ 2.3

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

Comment :

657