Keeway Sixties 300i vs Yamaha Tricity 300

Compare Specifications of Keeway Sixties 300i and Yamaha Tricity 300

Selected Bikes

Keeway Sixties 300i
Keeway Sixties 300i

Brand:

Model:

Yamaha Tricity 300
Yamaha Tricity 300

Brand:

Model:

Brand:

Model:

Brand:

Model:

Technical Specifications
Fuel Petrol Petrol
Engine Displacement 278.20 cc 292.00 cc
Engine 1-cylinder/4-stroke/4-valve Single cylinder, liquid-cooled, 4-stroke, SOHC, 4-valves
Engine Starting Electric Electric
Engine Lubrication Pressure splash lubrication Wet sump
Clutch Automatic --
Fuel System EFI Fuel Injection
Ignition TCI TCI
Cooling System Liquid-cooled liquid-cooled
Maximum Power 19 Ps @ 6500 r/min 27.6 PS @ 7250 RPM
Maximum Torque 22.0 Nm @ 6000 r/min 29.0 NM @ 5750 RPM
Load Carrying Capacity 150 Kg --
Transmission -- V-Belt Automatic
Top Speed 120 kmph --
Battery 12V10Ah --
Display Digital Display --
Tyres
Front Timsun 120/70-12 120/70-14M/C 55P Tubeless
Rear Timsun 120/70-12 140/70-14M/C 62P Tubeless
Wheel / RIM Alloy Alloy
Brakes
Front 230 mm Disc, caliper Nissin with Bosch ABS Hydraulic disc brake, Ø267 mm
Rear 220 mm Disc, caliper Nissin with Bosch ABS Hydraulic single disc brake, Ø267 mm
Suspension
Front KYB telescopic forks Double telescopic fork
Rear Dual shock-absorber KYB, 5-stage adjustable preload Unit Swing
Colors Available
Colors -- Nimbus Grey
Tech Kamo
Gunmetal Grey


Physical Specs
Length 1985 mm 2250 mm
Width 720 mm 815 mm
Height 1170 mm 1470 mm
Weight 146 kg 239 kg
Seat Height 780 795
Wheelbase 1390 mm 1595 mm
Ground Clearance 140 mm 130 mm
Fuel Tank Capacity 10 litres 13 litres
Overview
About The Keeway Sixties 300i combines modern engineering with a nostalgic design. With a 278.20 cc e Read More --
Features -- - 3-wheel Urban Mobility with Tricity DNA
- Economical and powerful 300cc BLUE CORE engine
- Standing Assist System
- Lightest in class / Autonomy
- Large storage space
- LCD instruments and high-quality finish
- Large diameter disc brakes
Additional Details -- Fuel consumption : 3.3 l / 100 km
CO2 emission : 77g / km
Front travel : 100 mm
Rear travel : 84 mm

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

Comment :

8660