Main menu

Pages

Bajaj Pulsar NS 160 vs Pulsar NS 200

The all-new Bajaj Pulsar NS 160 is close to its launch and from the looks of it, the NS 160 is all set to carry forward the legacy of the Pulsar moniker. The NS 160 shares in plenty with the NS 200, another modern Pulsar that is far more competent than the likes of Pulsar 220. So, basically, the new Pulsar NS 160 is nothing but a less powerful NS 200, or is it? Let’s find out about all that separates these two bikes in our Bajaj Pulsar NS 160 vs Pulsar NS 200 comparison here-

bajaj pulsar ns 160 vs pulsar ns 200Also SeeUpcoming Bajaj Pulsar bikes in India

Bajaj Pulsar NS 160 vs Pulsar NS 200 Price Comparison

Bajaj Pulsar NS 160 Bajaj Pulsar NS 200
₹ 80,000 ₹ 96,453

Quite obviously, the NS 160 will be cheaper than the NS 200. The 200cc Pulsar costs ₹ 96,453 (ex-showroom, New Delhi). In comparison, the NS 160 should have a sticker price of roughly ₹ 80,000. While this will make the NS 160 significantly cheaper, let’s not forget that the NS 200 has a bigger, more powerful heart and bits like a rear disc brake.

Also See – Pulsar NS 180 | Pulsar AS150

Bajaj Pulsar NS 160 vs Pulsar NS 200 Specifications Comparison

Bajaj Pulsar NS 160 Bajaj Pulsar NS 200
Engine 160.3 cc, 4-Valve, Oil-cooled 199.5 cc,  4-valve, Oil-cooled
Max. Power 15.5 PS 23.52 PS
Peak Torque 14.6 Nm 18.3 Nm
Transmission 5-Speed Manual 6-Speed Manual

Unsurprisingly, the NS 200 has an upper hand here. It comes with a bigger engine that outputs much higher power and torque. Also, compared to the NS 160’s 5-speed Manual transmission, the NS 200 gets a 6 cogger. The NS 200 also benefits in some other areas. For instance, the NS 160 gets a drum brake at the rear, but the NS 200 has a disc setup.

Bajaj Pulsar NS 160 Images Engine

Bajaj Pulsar NS 160 vs Pulsar NS 200 Mileage Comparison

Bajaj Pulsar NS 160 Bajaj Pulsar NS 200
Mileage 55 KMPL 50 KMPL

While the 200cc Pulsar here has an ARAI-claimed mileage of 50 KMPL, the 160cc sibling is expect to boast a mileage figure of roughly 55 KMPL. This means those looking for mileage over outright power can go for the NS 160 over the NS 200 as the former offers almost the same looks and features, but a higher economy.

Bajaj Pulsar NS 160 vs Pulsar NS 200 Top Speed Comparison

Bajaj Pulsar NS 160 Bajaj Pulsar NS 200
Top Speed 120 KMPH 135 KMPH

As the Pulsar NS 160 has less power, it will also have a lower top speed. In comparison to the NS 200’s top speed of 135 KMPH, the NS 160 will have a top speed of around 120 KMPH.

Bajaj Pulsar NS 160 vs Pulsar NS 200 0-100 KMPH Comparison

Bajaj Pulsar NS 160 Bajaj Pulsar NS 200
0-100 KMPH 12.5 seconds 9.65 seconds

A lower torque figure will also mean that the NS 160 will be slower to 100 KMPH from standstill.

Bajaj Pulsar NS 160 vs Pulsar NS 200 Dimensions Comparison

Pulsar NS 160 Pulsar NS 200
Overall Length 2012 mm 2017 mm
Overall Width 803.5 mm 804 mm
Overall Height 1060 mm 1075 mm
Wheelbase 1363 mm 1363 mm
Weight (Kerb) 142 KGs 152 KGs
Max. Fuel Tank Capacity 12-litres 12-litres
Tyre Size (Front) 80/100-17 100/80-17
Tyre Size (Rear) 100/90-17 100/90-17 130/70-17

Bajaj Pulsar NS 160 vs Pulsar NS 200 Design Comparison

The new Pulsar NS 160 is based on the NS 200, which means both the bikes share in plenty. The parts-sharing is to such an extent that both the bikes look almost the same. However, a closer look does reveal a few differences. Firstly, the NS 160 gets skinnier tires. Also, compared to the rear disc brake setup on the NS 200, it gets a rear drum setup. Also, the NS 160 gets slightly different graphics. Both the bikes boast naked streetfighter design and looks really modern and attractive. Both these models get a semi-digital speedo cluster that looks decidedly sporty.

bajaj-pulsar-ns-160-images-front-3 bajaj-pulsar-ns-160-images-side-3

Stay tuned to Car Blog India for more posts like the Bajaj Pulsar NS 160 vs Pulsar NS 200 comparison we have here.

The post Bajaj Pulsar NS 160 vs Pulsar NS 200 appeared first on CarBlogIndia.


from CarBlogIndia http://bit.ly/2sfHxGM
reactions
Cars, car, auto Car

Comments

table of contents title