Fantic XEF 125 Performance vs Qianjiang QJ125-9H

Compare Specifications of Fantic XEF 125 Performance and Qianjiang QJ125-9H

Selected Bikes

Fantic XEF 125 Performance
Fantic XEF 125 Performance

Brand:

Model:

Qianjiang QJ125-9H
Qianjiang QJ125-9H

Brand:

Model:

Brand:

Model:

Brand:

Model:

Technical Specifications
Fuel Petrol Petrol
Engine Displacement 124.60 cc 124.00 cc
Engine Single cylinder 4 strokes Euro5, SOHC 4-valve, Variable camshaft timing 4-Stroke, Single Cylinder, OHV 2V
Engine Starting Electric Kick/Electric
Engine Lubrication -- Forced and Splash
Clutch Wet multidisc, back-torque limiter Manual, Multiplate Wet Clutch
Fuel System -- Carburetor
Ignition Electronic CDI
Cooling System Liquid cooled Air-cooled
Maximum Power 15 PS @ 9.750 RPM 10 HP @ 8500 RPM
Maximum Torque 11.8 NM @ 6750 RPM 8.5 NM @ 7500 RPM
Seating Capacity -- 2
Transmission -- Chain
Gear Shift Pattern 1-N-2-3-4-5-6 1-N-2-3-4-5
Frame Perimeter frame steel CrMo Cradle / Steel
Handle Bar 22 steel --
Headlamp -- LED
Tyres
Front 90/90x21 2.75-18
Rear 120/90x18 3.50-16
Wheel / RIM Aluminium, black anodized Alloy
Brakes
Front Disc “Wave” ø260mm - combined brake system Mechanical Drum
Rear Disc “Wave” ø220mm, combined brake system Mechanical Drum
Suspension
Front FANTIC ø41mm USD Telescopic
Rear FANTIC 125 – preload regulation Unit Swing
Colors Available
Colors -- Red
Black
Green
Blue


Physical Specs
Length 2110 mm 2000 mm
Width -- 820 mm
Height -- 1090 mm
Weight 112 kg --
Kerb Weight -- 120
Seat Height 915 --
Wheelbase 1420 mm 1320 mm
Ground Clearance -- 180 mm
Fuel Tank Capacity 7.5 litres 12 litres
Overview
Features -- - Classic Design with round meters and round headlight
- Single 2-step Seat provides a comfortable ride for the rider and passenger
- Tested and Improved Engine Components for tough using conditions
- Study frame design and low Fuel Consumption
Additional Details Fuel consumption: 1,8 l/100 km
Swingarm: Steel, progressive link
Triple clamps: Forged aluminum
Exhaust:Manifold and muffler Euro5 by ARROW
CO2 Emission: 43 g/km
--

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

Comment :

3502