How does the Pulsar N160 2-Channel ABS fare, in terms of overall riding experience, when compared to its competitors?
The 160cc segment is a very competitive one and several popular models are competing for attention. The Pulsar N160 is also compared with bikes like the TVS Apache RTR 160 4V, Honda X-Blade and Yamaha FZ-S V3 by riders. There are strengths of each bike — power delivery, handling, comfort, features — and while that's the case, there's no clear winner. The Pulsar N160 also contributes its own unique characteristics to the table, including the dual channel ABS system. Enthusiasts discuss everything from engine refinement, vibration levels, long ride seat comfort, and build quality. The discussion then often includes brand loyalty, after sales service and how the bike can handle different riding conditions such as city traffic to highway cruising.
It feels more planted than the N160's competitors. It's a typical Pulsar torque which makes it fun in city traffic.
I have ridden the N160 as well as Apache RTR 160 4V. The Pulsar has better low end grunt, but it’s got an Apache like feel more.
There is no question that the N160 is one of the most comfortable on the market. I've never had back pain on a 300km ride. The FZ-S can't say the same.
While X-Blade may have better build quality, the N160 gets an edge with the dual channel ABS.
I went from a Yamaha to the N160 and I really miss the smoothness of the Yamaha engine. Overall, the Pulsar's got better features, though.
It's a mixed bag. The N160 has solid power delivery, with vibrations at high speed that can be quite annoying. Still better than most competitors though.
I would go with the N160 if it was pure riding pleasure. Which lacks some of the refinement present in a few of the other ones, but has a raw, sporty feel.
Comment
Discussions and Questions How Does The Pulsar N160 2 Channel Abs Fare In Terms Of Overall Riding Experience When Compared To Its Competitors
No answers found .