dhairya

Hi folks,

I had been waiting for the 2009 P220 Launch. Thanks to a friend I met in Pune two months ago and I knew I should wait for this one!

So please vote and give your opinion why you voted for a particular bike.

My requirements:

- Touring
- Reliability
- Performance
- Handling
- Rear seat big enough for having ***... (Oh wait! thats for my car) - ignore this one!

Aryan

Topic Approved.

@Dhairya: Tough call, really. More so, as none of us have ridden the 09'P220 till now. But, according to me the 2009 Pulsar 220 DTS-i would be the bike to have.

__________________
...in search of that perfect world - My Travel Blog :)

MG

A poll in xBhp after so many days.Already cast my vote.

insanebiker

Touring - Both P220/Zma are good. 220 has tubeless tyres and projector lamps in addition. More torque too.

Relaibility - I guess 220 carb would be as reliable as a Zma.

Performance - 220 Carb hands down

Handling - The initial reviews suggests that the new 220 has awesome handling.Zma is nothing less nothing more.

To sum it up, if i were u, i would go for the new 220, no doubt!

__________________
When everything comes ur way, u r in the wrong way ;)

ravi@17bhp

I would suggest you the new 220, though with a reservation that it is not yet on roads, better wait for the reviews.

If you like Honda's refinement, there would be the option of Karizma, which is proven and established.

Praful

Touring eh? - Wider powerband, better roll on figures, crisper throttle response, more consistent fuel efficiency....Yeah its the FI then...

Reliability, the ZMA's engine is a Honda, but the Pulsar engine is not far behind.... Rest of the parts are more or less the same!

Performance: No doubt the Pulsar brothers are a shade better than the ZMA, but the ZMA is good enough to make them sweat. On paper the carb 220 seems to be more of all out aggressive ride, compared to the more city riding friendly FI 220.

Handling: The ZMA handles better than the 220 FI around corners whereas the 220 is much more solid and planted in a straightline. Don't go too much by what zigwheels says about the improvement in the handling of the carb 220, as long as that age old frame is there, the handling will more or less be around the same IMHO, again can't comment on this aspect without actually pushing the 220 carb to its handling limits!

Just added to your confusion din't I?

__________________

Ricci

The Pulsar220 is good tourer , if you're travelling solo. Great lights, though HID can remedy that on the Karizma . Range is about the same for both , fuel consumption-wise difference averages out to 1-2 favouring the P220 kmpl for commuting+moderate ripping+fast touring. Karizma fuel guage is more linear than the P220's .

I had a 2003 Karizma , for 5 years total and now a 2007 P220 .
I had suspicions over reliability, expected the P220 would throw major electrical problems but fortunately never had a single one in almost 2 years and 13800km that I've had the P220 , touchwood , and I hope it serves me well for next 3 years . Tubeless tyres are a boon , mirrors are a bane on the P220. Looks like I got a melon ( as opposed to lemon ) . And based on my short tours, the Karizma seat is harder on the backside than the P220's . I've done max of ~400km/day on the Karizma and ~550km/day on the P220 , the 220's seat treated by rear less harshly . Pillions will be happier on the Karizma though .

The P220 rear suspension is flawed . It results in a choppy ride , the bike bounces and with a pillion it seems more prominent . The Karizma's rear suspension is well-sorted , doesn't feel choppy/bouncy and is steady inspiring confidence in high speed turns . And it's the opposite for the front end , where the Karizma's front end feels light and sometimes unsteady, the P220's 37mm forks are steady and planted in turns leaned over . Overall suspension comfort and seating-handlebar-footpegs positions very similar on both , the P220 being a little taller.
Mainstand scraping tarmac in high lean turns is another P220 bother . Brakes, I find the Karizma better after I switched to a Dunlop front tyre ! The MRF always hid the braking limit, but with Dunlop I could brake much harder ,closer to grip limit . Now I find the P220's brake a little lacking , it requires more lever pressure for hard braking . Alloy wheels on the P220 seem as tough as the Karizma's , and they're priced similarly too .

I find no major "felt" vibration in the P220 , and not significantly so over the Karizma though it is clear the Karizma is more refined , less vibey and quieter, nevertheless very , very good effort by Bajaj at controlling vibration and harshness. But I do see and now of late hear some resonance in the front metal subframe holding the fairing .

Performance I differ vs the crowd - I find very meagre difference in Karizma and P220 performance , top speed difference just 2-3km/h and acceleration also roughly same . What major difference can one expect from similar displacment , similar torque-producing engines ? The 3bhp difference is illusory , the difference in performance between the RTR and Karizma where the power diff is 1.6bhp is bigger than the 3bhp one with P220 . By my calculations both are geared rather short , and taller gearing will help top speed by 2-4km/h. Both are basically mid-range focussed bikes with decent low end torque and just about ok top end , power bands start around 4000 and end around 7000-7500RPM on both , difference in claimed peak torque/power RPM notwithstanding , both feel weak after 7500-8000RPM . I've done 125km/h @ 8000RPM steady on the Karizma , 127km/h @ ~9200RPM steady on the P220 , sitting upright and on same roads for both bikes to have similar test conditions. For a good top end, there's the R15 .....but at a much higher cost .

I can't comment on new carburated P220 , but like before I can hardly expect major difference with just 1 bhp more and same torque , though now a little higher up the rev range , the taller gearing should help top speed increase by 3-4 km/h though at the cost of acceleration. I disbelieve the faster 0-60 and 0-100 times logged on Zigwheels , 1bhp alone cannot account for that much difference unless it was a "prepped" test bike . Besides, most of the time , new launches are hyped , later the figures add 0.5 sec to 0-60 timings !

Edit :
thanks , Ravi !

__________________
Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of the time he will pick himself up and continue on.

ravi@17bhp

Riccci, that is an unbiased well-put review.

santoosh

^ good one there ricci

I love the zma , but u need to move on with time,

I will prefer the 220 over the zma now.
when there is something better being offererd for a same price and has better needed gizmos like tubeless and projector.
I will go in for 220 be it comes with few issues.

Santa

__________________

04 Pulsar 180 V1
06 Comet GT 250
07 ZMA-R
08 YZF-R15
10 Access
11 ....?....--> GT-650

dhairya

Thanks a lot! But still it is so unbiased, I am still confused. Though with this comparison I prefer ZMA just 1% more than 220!

As for the rest, not helping guys!!!!!