– Motorcycle News, Editorials, Product Reviews and Bike Reviews

Motorcycle News, Editorials, Product Reviews and Bike Reviews

Yamaha Introduces MT-07: Lightweight, Affordable 689cc Twin


More news from Milan includes the Yamaha MT-07, a 689cc parallel twin that weighs only 394 pounds (wet, with a full tank of gas). At this point it appears to be a European model, not coming to the US.

Following the FZ-09 that we enjoyed so much, the MT-07 (will there eventually be a U.S. model FZ-07?) offers the same sort of uncluttered, basic riding goodness. By comparison, it makes more power and torque (on paper, at least) than the healthy Kawasaki Ninja 650, but it has a curb weight 66 pounds lighter.

Here are all the details from Yamaha:

Exciting, accessible and affordable

The affordable new MT-07 is going to introduce newly qualified riders to everything that is best about real motorcycling – and it’s also ready to remind those more experienced riders what they’ve been missing for all these years.

Our designers have focused on the things that really matter to riders. So they developed an economical 689cc inline 2-cylinder engine that produces more riding excitement per cc thanks to its deep and linear torque at low to mid speeds.

And for instant controllability and easy handling we’ve equipped this accessible new naked bike with one of the lightest, slimmest and most agile chassis designs in the class.


All-new 689cc inline 2-cylinder engine

What gives the new MT-07 such a special character is its all-new 689cc inline 2-cylinder engine which has been developed using Yamaha’s ‘crossplane philosophy’. With an uneven firing interval, the 270-degree crank gives a strong feeling of acceleration and great traction, and the deep linear torque ensures outstanding performance.


Light and slim tubular backbone frame

For easy manoeuvrability and remarkable agility, the new MT-07 runs with a light and slim steel backbone-type frame that utilizes the new engine as a stressed member. Combined with its compact wheelbase and plush suspension systems, this strong and light chassis gives a responsive and engaging ride.


Engineered for optimum riding enjoyment

This exciting new addition to the MT range has been designed to deliver high levels of riding enjoyment together with a feeling of instant controllability. Chassis dimensions and weight distribution have been carefully set to maximize the enjoyment felt during acceleration and give the rider a connected feel with the motorcycle.


Responsive performance with affordability and economy

With its all-new liquid-cooled engine, lightweight backbone frame and cutting edge style, the MT-07 is a remarkably versatile naked bike that succeeds in combining responsive performance with an affordable price and outstanding fuel economy – making it an ideal motorcycle for both newer and returning riders.


Mass-forward design and sculpted body

The new MT-07 is characterized by its mass-forward design that emphasizes its athletic build and creates an immediate feeling of power. The slim fuel tank accentuates the bike’s compact looks and offers excellent knee grip – while the lightweight air scoops and aluminium side covers give the MT a sporty and purposeful image.

Characteristic MT-styling features

With its angular mirrors, LED tail light and mass-forward body design, there’s no mistaking the MT-07’s resemblance to the bigger 850cc 3-cylinder MT-09. Other family features include the lightweight cast aluminium 10-spoke wheels as well as the Z-shape formed by the air intake-style scoops and the exhaust down pipes.



Engine type liquid-cooled
Displacement 689 cm³
Bore x stroke 80.0 mm x 68.6 mm
Compression ratio 11.5 : 1
Maximum power 55.0 kW (74.8PS) @ 9,000 rpm
Maximum Torque 68.0 Nm (6.9 kg-m) @ 6,500 rpm
Lubrication system Wet sump
Carburettor Fuel Injection
Clutch Type Wet
Ignition system TCI
Starter system Electric
Transmission system Constant Mesh
Final transmission Chain


Frame Diamond
Front suspension system Telescopic forks
Front travel 130 mm
Caster Angle 24º
Trail 90 mm
Rear suspension system Swingarm
Rear Travel 130 mm
Front brake Hydraulic dual disc, Ø 282 mm
Rear brake Hydraulic single disc, Ø 245 mm
Front tyre 120/70 ZR 17M/C(58W) (Tubeless)
Rear tyre 180/55 ZR 17M/C(73W) (Tubeless)


Overall length 2,085 mm
Overall width 745 mm
Overall height 1,090 mm
Seat height 805 mm
Wheel base 1,400 mm
Minimum ground clearance 140 mm
Wet weight (including full oil  and fuel tank) 179 kg / ABS 182 kg
Fuel tank capacity 14 L
Oil tank capacity 3.0 L



  1. Tom says:

    It occThe MT-07 looks to be an excellent offering from Yamaha. It is comparable to Honda’s NC700X, Kawasaki’s Versys, and Suzuki’s SFV650. The Suzuki is a V-twin, whereas the others are parallel twins, but when you compare the MT-07 to the Honda NC700X, the similarities are so strong as to make you wonder if they are really the same bike. The engines are remarkably similar. They both use a 270-degree crank, and they both use the same approach to engine balancing. If the specs that are available are correct, the cylinders in the Yamaha are a bit oversquare, whereas in the Honda they are a bit undersquare. This means that the torque peak likely occurs at higher rpm for the Yamaha as compared to the Honda, and that, consequently, peak power will be stronger in the Yamaha, whereas low-rpm, off-the-line performance will likely be noticeably stronger in the Honda. Honda’s global web site has some good information about this engine, much of which applies equally to the Yamaha. (

    The MT-07 fits squarely into the “standard” category, whereas the NC700X has dual-sport aspirations. Honda also makes the NC700 in a standard configuration, the NC700S, which you can buy in Canada and elsewhere, but not in the USA. The only significant difference is likely the slighter shorter handlebar reach you get with the NC700X, as compared to either the NC700S or the Yamaha MT-07. The MT-07 is also about 50 lbs lighter than the NC700X, and while that isn’t a huge difference, it is enough of a difference to matter.

    For me, however, the bike I like better is the recently-introduced Yamaha FZ-09, which was announced earlier this year, and ridden by Motorcycle Daily a couple of months ago ( The FZ-09 weighs only about 25 lbs more than the MT-07, but there is an enormous difference in engine performance. The FZ-09 uses an in-line triple, which means that it is comparable to a boxer twin in terms of engine vibration, but it also uses a balance shaft. Come next spring, I think that I’ll be taking a test ride on the FZ-09.urs to me that the MT-07 is an excellent offering from Yamaha.

    • Dave says:

      Re: “but when you compare the MT-07 to the Honda NC700X, the similarities are so strong as to make you wonder if they are really the same bike.”

      They may have traveled similar paths but the Honda’s engine could not be more different in character if it were electric- it is basically 1/2 of a Honda Fit’s engine. It’s redline is ~6,500rpm, peak power is in the order of 30hp less. Very different.

      I agree that this compares very favorably with the Suzuki but in Kawasaki’s case, I’d pair it with the ER-6n naked bike. What I find so appealing in the Yamaha is that it’s engine was configured to behave like a V-twin but with a parallel’s simplicity. I on;y wish they’d bring it to the US.

      • Tom says:

        Yes, the Yamaha and Honda parallel twin engines are distinct in character. I pointed that out very plainly, and even explained the reason why: the bore/stroke ratio is dissimilar.

        As for your claim that the engine that Honda uses in the NT700 is just one-half of the engine in the Honda Fit, I am curious as to why you think that. It is obvious to me that this not true. For starters, the displacement is not one-half of the displacement of the Fit engine, and the bore/stroke is not the same for the two engines. I would have been surprised to learn that the Fit engine uses a crossplane crankshaft, and after searching the web for any mention of that, I found none. Assuming that the Fit uses the conventional sort of flat, 180-degree crankshaft whereby pistons 2 and 3 move in unison and in opposition to pistons 1 and 4 (which move in unison), it is manifest that the type of engine balancing used in the NT700 would not make any sense at all in the Fit. Additionally, the engine in the Fit has other technology that the NT700 does not have, which is with two spark plugs per cylinder and independent firing of those two plugs. All in all, it mystifies me that anyone would conclude that the NT700 engine is one-half of the FIT engine. I just don’t see how anyone who had taken just a few minutes to research that hypothesis would have failed to reject almost immediately.

        And, with regards to this statement: “What I find so appealing in the Yamaha is that it’s engine was configured to behave like a V-twin but with a parallel’s simplicity.”, it seems curious to me that you find this appealing in the Yamaha but not in the Honda, since they both use the same 270-degree crank, and the exact same approach to balancing. Moreover, the similarities with the 90-degree V-twin are essentially limited to having similar firing intervals. They have the same firing intervals because the two pistons are offset in phase by 90 degrees, the same as with the 90-degree V-twin. The firing intervals are 270-450 for the 90-degree V-twin, and likewise for the Honda NT700 and the Yamaha MT-07. The firing intervals are similar, which lends a similar character, but the similarity in character is limited by the fact that engine balance is not at all the same, i.e., not the same for the 90-degree V-twin as it is for the two parallel-twins that use the 90-degree crank.

        I find myself compelled to suggest that you go back and actually read what I wrote, and then follow the link that I provided to the Honda World site and study the first two pages that deal with timing intervals and engine balance, and then re-evaluate the question of whether the Yamaha MT-07 engine is similar to a 90-degree V-twin in any way that does not apply just the same to the Honda engine, and then go read something about the Fit, and reconsider whether it is appropriate to characterize the engine in the NT700 as just one-half of the Fit engine. Your purpose seems to have been to refute any strong similarity between the Yamaha MT-07 engine and the Honda NT700 engine, and to replace that with a similarity between the NT700 engine and the Honda Fit engine. This just does not jive with reality. The similarities between the NT700 engine and the engine that Honda uses in the Fit are superficial, whereas the engine that MT-07 engine and the NT700 engine show very obvious, very meaningful similarity, in the sense that they share a 90-degree crank and along with that the same timing intervals, and share also the exact same approach to engine balancing.

        • Jeremy in TX says:

          The engine in the Honda NC700 is based on the Japanese market Fit.

        • Dave says:

          Re: “whereas the engine that MT-07 engine and the NT700 engine show very obvious, very meaningful similarity, in the sense that they share a 90-degree crank and along with that the same timing intervals, and share also the exact same approach to engine balancing”

          Wow, you really didn’t need to type all of that because in the end I am still right. Maybe you should read my comment again. It is much simpler and to the point.The two engine’s output and characters are still completely different, regardless of any mechanical similarities they share, as is just about everything else about them. A motorcycle is far more than just its engine.

        • Randy says:

          “Compelled to suggest”? “Meaningful similarity”????? “The firing intervals are similar, which lends a similar character, but the similarity in character is limited by the fact that engine balance is not at all the same, i.e., not the same for the 90-degree V-twin as it is for the two parallel-twins that use the 90-degree crank” !!!!!

          Ding! Ding! Ding! You win!

    • Jay says:

      The MT-07 is a whopping 75lbs lighter than the NC700X. It’s 35lbs lighter than the CB500x. I don’t know how Honda manages to make their Thai-made machines so heavy.

      • Tom says:

        You made me have to go again and check whether the difference in weight, between the MT-07 and the NC700X, is about 50 lbs as I thought, or more like 75 lbs as you suggest. You are correct. Any when you consider that these are not really big motorcycles, 75 lbs is a significant difference. I also noticed, though, that Honda only quotes one weight in the specs, even though there are two versions of the NC700X, one with a DCT setup and also ABS, the other sans both. I doubt if the 472 lbs that they quote in their specs is for the heavier bike, but it is possible. If it is for the lighter of the two versions, the heavier version probably weighs over 500 lbs. For me, the extra weight alone is reason enough to not want that type of clutch and shift control in a motorcycle. I would however consider the lighter version with a conventional transmission, but not if it weighs 75 lbs more, and it would be nice to have the option of ABS without the DCT.

  2. Bob says:

    Yamaha, please. Take my money!


  3. Tom says:

    A parallel twin with 270-degree crank is a lot like a 90-degree V-twin with single crank throw. The firing intervals are 270-450, which is less uniform than the so-called 360-degree crank, where there is a single crank throw and where the firing intervals are 360-360. It is more uniform than the more common 180-degree crank, which uses a flat crank with throws separated by 180 degrees, where the firing intervals are 180-540. The balance characteristics are similarly a compromise between the 180-degree and 360-degree parallel twins. As with the 90-degree V-twin using a single crank throw, the ongoing exchange of kinetic energy between the pistons and the crankshaft is reduced as compared to either of the two other parallel twins, where both pistons come to a full stop simultaneously. The same occurs with the 90-degree V-twin, and this is sometimes claimed to offer specific advantages, but it likely has no benefit the possiblity of allowing the engine to idle more smoothly, at slightly lower RPM. Crankshaft torque exhibits positive and negative peaks through every 720 degrees of rotation. The particular way in which crankshat torque fluctuates is different for each different engine architecture. The three different crankshaft types used in parallel twins each come with a unique character characteristic in the fluctuation of crankshaft torque over the 720 degree rotation interval. I looked into this with some care a couple of years ago, I do not recall with certainty, but I think that whith the 270-degree crank, there is a pronounced peak in torque once every 720 degrees, that does not occur with either of the other parallel twins, even though the firing intervals are actually more uniform as compared to the 180-degree twin.

    • Randy says:

      I guess as long as the crank doesn’t break in two somewhere down the road we’re OK.

      0044 in the morning? Reminds me of a cartoon in the original VW Repair for Dummies manual where the author is laying startled in bed having just woken up from a dream in which the entire exploded engine diagram was visualized…

    • Dave says:

      The biggest difference in shaft output is that without the “all stop” of a 180 or 360 crank, there is no back torque, which is very significant. It is the reason that all Moto GP engines are either V or cross-plane architecture.

  4. Randy says:

    Wondering why Yamaha isn’t bringing this to the states I went back and looked at all the FZ-09 reviews to see just how close the bikes are to each other. Of course, there are no MT-07 rides reviews yet but I would think it will seem like a lighter slimmer less touchy MT-09 without the big power hit.

    The bikes are pretty far apart powerwise, the FZ09 is powerful and touchy enough to benefit from changeable engine maps. And why would Yamaha limit the top speed to 132MPH? I would assume there is no limit on the MT-07,and because the specific engine output is much lower – 107 HP/L vs 135 HP/L I also assume the engine will be much easier going. I still don’t see why Yamaha wouldn’t try to take some of the CBR500 and Kawasaki 650 business with this bike. The FZ-09 is definitely punching into liter bike performance territory.

    My vague feelings that I’d rather have the MT-07 have hardened into a conviction – I want this over the FZ09 and I’m willing to wait for it a little longer.

  5. SergioP says:

    I owned MT-03 for five years in Europe. Fun, fun, fun. I rode it on a daily basis. I sold my car and used it for commuting. I moved to the States and I see they added a new member to the family targeting power demanding users. Definitely I’d buy it, though MT-03 looks better to me.

  6. Hevace says:

    I predict it will have boingy suspension. Every Yamaha I’ve ridden has had boingy suspension. (To be fair, I have not ridden an R1,)

  7. Harry says:

    Compared to FZ-09, looks cheaper, but much better finish than CB500’s.
    Hopefully they bring this stuff to stateside with good price!

    Yammy will change the game?

  8. John says:

    New Tenere 700, please.

  9. BOSCOE says:

    Another two-wheeled insect inspired by the fugly Triumph.
    Like light weight though.
    Good on Yamaha!

  10. GoBig says:

    I wish Yamaha would quit ignoring the North American market. This bike would be so much cheaper to insure than the FZ-09 since it has the smaller displacement.

    74hp is plenty for me. I still can’t exactly figure why “09” owner are complaining about the speed limiter? No Autobahn in the U.S.

    • Dave says:

      I don’t think they’re ignoring the US, there just isn’t enough business happening here to warrant flooding the market with too many models. If they over extend then the profit goes away in other costs.

      I do wish we could get this one though. I’d prefer it to the FZ-09 for our market.

  11. Norm G. says:

    FYI gents, a lil’ factoid you’re prolly not aware of. you won’t be readily swapping out the canisters for more style and sound on these bikes. both this and the FZ9 exhausts are a 1 piece affair header to outlet. you’re either modding…? or coming off the dime for a full system. which considering it’s looks, you might already be inclined to do anyway. but see, the reoccurring theme of “no free lunch” reveals itself yet again.

    (thank you Norm G.)

    (you’re welcome budget Yam buyers)

  12. ADVCOW says:

    Here are my thoughts:

    Dear Yamaha,
    Please use this engine package in a new Tenere 700 Adventure model.
    Thank you.
    Dave Brown

  13. Dennis says:

    Nice looking bike, someone actually put some thought into this bike, affordable, fun and light wait. what else can you ask for , specially as a commuter bike, how many gallons of gas does the tank hold?

  14. VLJ says:

    I just noticed something promising in the listed specs: no mention of those ridiculous Drive modes that plague the FZ-09 with unnecessarily crappy throttle response. This one looks to be simpler, and therefore likely less annoying.

    Wonder why they went to the trouble of adding style-enhancing shrouds to the radiator on this one, while leaving the FZ-09’s ugly radiator just sitting out there in the open? Pick one way or the other, but they should do it the same on both bikes.

    • Lenz says:

      Never been a fan of electronic rider aids / drive modes – learn some throttle control ie when road conditions are less than ideal, ease up on the item controlled by the right hand. I’d rather see the production cost of electronic drive mode equipment directed to suspension and braking componentry.

  15. Austin ZZR 1200 says:

    probably half the price of the new HD 750 and 4x more fun to ride

  16. RD350 says:

    Why do all Japanese middleweight twins have to have budget suspension and brakes? How much more could it cost to have 2 year old R6 forks and a decent shock?

    I love middle weight twins .. had 2 Hawks, an SV and would likely buy this Yamaha. But I am tired of fixing the suspension and brakes on bikes. I want to buy it and be done with it.

    As is, I would pay a bit more and go for a KTM Duke 690.

    • george says:

      1) most buyers of this bike will never adjust their suspension. They have no idea what to do with the suspension and they will just ride it. That saves them the $ of more expensive suspension components.

      Those that want better suspension would not be satisfied with the upgrades you mention and would upgrade further to better valving in the forks and a good aftermarket shock as well thus those folks also save $ on not paying for the mild upgrades you refer to and then upgrading the components to what they really want.

      Very few buyers would be satisfied with 2 year old R6 components and leave it alone.

      2) KTM690 suspension has been dumbed down as well so you will have to upgrade it’s suspension as well now.

      • RD350 says:

        George, while I agree that many buyers of this bike won’t know the difference, I believe that many will. This bike is going after SV650 buyers (and Ninja 650 twin buyers I suppose). While many SV riders were newbies and budget minded folks, a great many of them were experienced enthusiasts who didn’t want or need 4 cylinder super-sports but still wanted good suspension and brakes. Many an SV were converted with GSXR front ends and rear shocks from SuperSports. Many SVs were (and are still) used for racing and track days.

        Many in the SV community asked for (and never received) an upgraded “R’ version of the SV .. ie one with better suspension and brakes straight from Suzuki. Of those who upgraded to GSXR take offs (myself included), I never once heard one say that the excellent GSRX suspension was not good enough .. or that they needed Ohlins etc. The readily available parts totally transformed the budget SV into a capable sports bike.

        Its just that the transplant is time consuming and not something a novice mechanic should be doing.

        I think many riders would pay an extra thousand bucks to have an adjustable cartridge fork, a better quality rear shock and stronger, more precise brakes on this type of bike. On a light weight twin, handling is everything imho.

        As for the KTM 690, your right. I would buy the last series Duke which was better looking and with better spec. The new one looks awful!

        • DCE says:

          Why not have the same high-quality/capability components across the board for similar-sized bikes? Seems like it would actually be less expensive to manufacture and support as you would be buying fewer items in greater quantity and have the same parts/service across multiple models. But if you did that, how could you justify the higher price of the “racy” bikes? Could it be (like in the auto world where the cost of manufacturing ANY car is about the same and the cost of manufacturing trucks is far less, but compare the purchase prices…) that the components selected has more to do with MSRP justification than anything else?

        • george says:

          All in the numbers and their market research. Apparently their research says the market price at this price point this is the level of sophistication needed by that budget minded buyer.

          I absolutely agree with you, they COULD easily upgrade the bike with better components. And yes I am very familiar with the SV650 as I own one myself.

          A middle ground I would like to see the MFRs do is to settle on a standard dimension of the steering head so that any front end would bolt right on. Similarly they could settle on a standard shock size and attachment point types so the shocks would be easier to swap as well.

          An upgrade kit from the factory would be $2500 and very few are going to spend that on a bike that is probably only $6500 or so MSRP.

          What is more likely is to install parts off an R6 and it would be nice for Yamaha to think that upgrade through by having the steering head the same dimensions so the R6 forks and triples would bolt right up.

      • sl says:

        If I was a manufacturer I would have an upgrade kit available at the time of purchase, or down the road. Simlar to Ducati’s “s” version.

    • John A. Kuzmenko says:

      The front calipers with the silver star-shaped plugs look like those familiar mono-block ones as used on the top Yamaha sport bikes for years, now.

  17. MadMax3 says:

    Wait, there’s more. I predict there will be one with a beak.

  18. vitesse says:

    Compare to the ultimate lightweight, the KTM Duke 690 (less the more sophisticated electronics and suspension).

    MT-07 wet weight 394 lbs, Duke 352 lbs.

    MT-07 horsepower 73, Duke 67.

    MT-07 fuel tank capacity 3.7 gal, Duke 3.7 gal.

  19. Norm G. says:

    re: “succeeds in combining responsive performance with an affordable price”

    which is…?

  20. Jay says:

    Triumph’s classics have had a 865cc twin for some time. Why is this better than those? Maybe it will have more output? I don’t know, but I think the Bonneville or one of the others is probably more enjoyable over the long haul.

    It’s new, but does it make any real difference to riding.

    • Randy says:

      Well, If you are asking why that means you have not owned a Bonnie. I did – heavy, drone engine, and the suspension is truly dismal until you racetech the forks and fork over for some good shocks.

      The Bonnie pushes 500 pounds curb weight, has maybe 15 less horses and costs ??? more. Since we don’t have a price for the MT-07 who knows, but if the FZ09 is a guide the MT will be thousands less than the Bonnie.

  21. red says:

    Wow, another cool bike from Yamaha. They’re killing it with their new mt lineup.

    Personally the mt07 interests me more than the 09. 60-ish hp in a sub 400# package is more than enough for me. Like to see a KLR type bike come out of this.

    • Blackcayman says:

      The 09 only adds about 15 pounds… and gives a big bump in Torque and HP.

      I had thought that a lower price would be the main reason for a rider chosing this over the 09.

      Is 15 pounds that big of a game changer?

      For me I couldn’t be happy knowing there was so much more punch for so little a bump in price and weight. Just MHO of course.

      • red says:

        Yep, personal call. In vstrom/weestrom world the same thinking holds true. for just a few (20?) pounds more you get 50% more power.. but for some reason I preferred the 650 > 1k.

        Also – long time parallel twin fan and the 270° crank flips my switch!

      • Randy says:

        If both were available I would be hard press to choose. I do enjoy getting everything from an engine. With the FZ09 you will be exercising caution with the throttle all the time.

        15 pounds would mean nothing to me if I wanted the big power. The FZ09 is way light enough. But 70+ HP is enough for me, so I would probably take the even lighter narrower (cheaper?) bike. I would hope the throttle is smoother as I would certainly ride this on dirt roads.

  22. Doug Miller says:

    I think I recall seeing a picture of some future Yamaha engines.(might have been on this site). I remember this engine along with the triple. Seems like there was a third engine…maybe a single?

  23. todder says:

    Nice job Yamaha. I wonder what other great bikes will be coming out of the EIMCA.

  24. starmag says:

    I really love the 270 degree engine,riding position and running gear and dream of this engine in my KLR. It’s a real shame about the double dose of preying mantis ugly served up by the FZ09 and 07 though. Fake scoops for your inner 5 YR old and passenger accommodations dictated by “style” that only a 5FT tall 18YR old woman can tolerate. Yamaha should consider widening their marketing base to include people who want/need to ride two up and like less polarizing styling.

  25. Lenz says:

    Wow – Yamaha’s latest offerings with this bike and the MT09 are just such a breath of fresh air from comparable over weight and over optioned models produced by their competition.

    The bore / stroke ratio of this twin at 1.17 suggests good torque at relatively low revs and useful power into the upper rev range. Light, lively and uncluttered – this bike should be immensely versatile, fuel efficient and straight out fun.

  26. BATMAN says:

    Another beautiful bike, another hit. What really gets me excited is the possibility on using one of these motors (my guess is the triple) in a adventure bike!

  27. Spider says:

    Way to go Yamaha! Thanks for adding so many new bikes and updates to your motorcycles. I cannot wait to see them in person. IMC show in Dallas , TX this weekend!!

  28. halfbaked says:

    Did Oberdan Bezzi design this bike.

  29. kawatwo says:

    Put a full fairing on it, don’t change anything else and bring it over to Amurica please.

  30. Don Fraser says:

    Thinking of the success that was had by some clever tuners using the 650 Kaw motor on dirt tracks this year. Now a Yamaha twin with a 270 degree crank that should work even better, somebody call King Kenny, he could get that thing in this country.

  31. Randy says:

    I would be happy with this, but I guess I have to settle for a FZ-09.

    Kind of strange, the bikes are so similar. I wonder it we will ever see this in the US? If it does eventually come in a “adventure” I hope it’s kept simple and light – typical 17″/19″ wheel format, small windscreen (no fairing please!) another inch of travel, another gallon of gas. AND DON’T “DETUNE” THE ENGINE!

  32. Provologna says:

    WOWWWWWWWWWWWW! Meee likey!!!!!!!!!!

    Tell me again exactly how and why you need more street performance than this? Imagine the money saved, not only on the purchase price, but every single day thereafter: service, tires, chain, brakes, insurance, yearly registration, fuel…………..

  33. Bud says:

    “Chassis dimensions and weight distribution have been carefully set to maximize the enjoyment felt during acceleration”

    Translation: it’s wheelie machine

  34. Sam says:

    Don’t let the sound of silence from Yamaha about the FZ-07 coming to the United States dishearten you. It is coming it has “MPH” on the full display read out. Picture at

    They just want you to beg!

  35. Bud says:

    I’m so impressed by the new direction at Yamaha! Affordable, practical fun.

  36. Anti-NormG says:

    Well, I’m NOT interested in this bike. For all of you who have repeatedly saturated these posts with demands for triple engine configurations and light weight, here you damn well go. Yamaha addressed your griping and served you up a heaping helping to boot just to satiate your hue and cries. But you know what, I bet most of you don’t even want such a motorcycle. Instead, I think you just want to feel like your voice is heard by the companies who build these things. Me, I’ll take my 800 lb solid steel cruiser and ride into the sunset with a gleam on my fender and a twinkle in my eye.

    • Hot Dog says:

      And hope the trailer you’ve loaded it on doesn’t get a flat. Opps, that’s only if the next bar is more than 20 miles away.

    • VLJ says:

      “Anti-NormG” as a nic…


    • ApriliaRST says:

      Nice diatribe. Now go take your meds.

      What, exactly, is “Anti-NormG” supposed to connote? Please answer soon before your user name is (properly) deleted.

      • Norm G. says:

        re: “What, exactly, is “Anti-NormG” supposed to connote?”

        it’s what we call an “inscrutable mystery”. 🙂 LOL

    • Tim says:

      Anti NormG, you should try new things, you might be shocked at what you’re missing (just as Japanese sport aficionados should be open minded to trying cruising.) There is a lot of fun to be had on light, nimble bikes that wheelie and corner, especially nakeds that have decent ergonomics. If you tried one you would probably be shocked what you’re missing. Plus, you don’t feel obligated to wear black when it’s 105 outside.

      Cruisers are nice and relaxing, but lacking much of the fun quotient, though there is something to be said for slowing down, relaxing and enjoying a beautiful day going relatively slow on a cruiser. To me, it just depends on my mood as to which kind of bike I pull out of the garage. However, having both a cruiser and a high HP bike, if forced to live with only one, I’d take the lighter, more powerful bike every time. You can go slow on either kind of bike if you’re disciplined enough (admittedly I’m not) but a cruiser can only go so fast and cornering is always going to be limited. But it is nice to have the option.

    • george says:

      Well, compared to you 800 lb slug, you have no idea what riding capabilities and enjoyment you are missing.

      No 800lb slug handles, accelerates, turns or stops as fun as a 400 lb bike.

      One you try a real capable motorcycle and you will wonder why you have been riding such a slug.

  37. 70's Kid says:

    Another seemingly impressive high bang for the buck offering from Yamaha. But like the FZ-09, the styling is yet again a love it or leave it proposition. This one looks like it includes two portable hand vacuum cleaners, each attached on either side of the gas tank (itself shaped somewhat like a beluga whale).

    As they started from scratch, I’m guessing that the styling of this bike is intentional. Alas, bad design costs just as much as good design. The good thing is that you can’t watch yourself ride by as you’re out riding around. And I’m guessing that would be a hoot on this bike.

    • Norm G. says:

      re: “But like the FZ-09, the styling is yet again a love it or leave it proposition.”

      love it.

      re: “like a beluga”

      great caviar. if you can get it.

      • kjackson says:

        He said beluga whale, not beluga sturgeon. Can’t get caviar from a whale. BTW, if you think MotoGP is rigged, I would love to hear your conspiracy theories on Moto3 after the Motegi race.

        • Norm G. says:

          re: “Can’t get caviar from a whale.”

          ya think…?

          re: “if you think MotoGP is rigged”

          not rigged, a business. all for-profit entities (bar none) apply controls to manage outcomes and maximize returns. “chance” is never part of the vocabulary. hell, it’s not even part of the vocabulary of 501c’s.

          • Dave says:

            re: “a business. all for-profit entities (bar none) apply controls to manage outcomes and maximize returns. “chance” is never part of the vocabulary. hell, it’s not even part of the vocabulary of 501c’s.”

            That’s long for “rigged”.

      • 70's Kid says:

        From a styling standpoint, I’m definitely in the ‘leave it” camp. But that’s okay. A polarizing design is much more of an attention getter (for better or worse) than a design that simply makes people go “meh”.

        So, for every person like me who’s thinking “man is that thing ugly”, there is bound to be someone like you thinking “what a beauty”. That is bound to drive more sales than if we were both to think “whatever”.

  38. allworld says:

    It in my opinion it’s a good looking bike and there is potentially a lot to like about it, we will have to wait for the reviews. What I don’t like right off the bat; it’s not destined for the USA. With the right accessories, it could be a commuters dream and a great all purpose daily rider.

  39. Tom R says:

    “Crossplane philosophy”.

    Yamaha’s new religion?

  40. VLJ says:

    Regardless of how negatively the execution of this thing is affected by the various budget-cutting measures, you have to hand it to Yamaha for the effort. Instead of simply plodding along with more of the same ol’, same ol’, they’re trying something different, and it’s a move in the right direction: simple, fun, affordable…and unique.

    Honda’s also trying to cover the simple and affordable thing with their entry-level offerings, though they seem to be skimping on the ‘fun’ and ‘unique’ aspects there. Then again, no one can accuse their latest run of plastic-enshrouded luxo-barges of not being…ahem…unique.

    Man, where is Suzuki in all this? Do they ever plan on introducing an exciting new product again? I mean, one that wasn’t styled by Shrek’s cataracts-addled grandmother?

    • Blackcayman says:

      Evidently the 403 Lb GW250 featured here didn’t move you

      • Jeremy in TX says:

        Yeah, they had better hope that turbo engine is ready to spool up and apply itself to several different platforms. Yamaha beat them to the new SV650.

      • GearDrivenCam says:

        And I can’t believe that this bike is actually almost 10 lbs LIGHTER than the new Suzuki GW250. I agree with VLJ. I think Yamaha is on the right track here. I could actually see myself buying this bike. Where Honda seems to be banking on “cheap, fat, and boring”, Yamaha seems to be going with “cheap, lithe, and exciting”. It’s definitely a more exciting direction.

  41. denny says:

    Bingo! Perfect second bike. It even looks that the headlight cowl is prepped for small fairing. There are thinking folks at Yamaha.

  42. mickey says:

    Nice looking bike. Either the guy pulling the wheelie is a big fellow or the bike is tiny. Looks like he’s on a 250.

  43. Jeremy in TX says:

    So, I wonder if a 344.5cc single is next on the list for Yamaha?

  44. xlayn says:

    Nice, seems like the mt09 it’s going to define the line or aesthetics of the line for Yamaha… I wonder how much extra percentage would add to the price make it triple instead of twin at that displacement?

    On the good side”
    Look better than a lot of competition, rising the bar even a bit it’s better for the consumer, like the details of the exhaust under the engine, details on the swingarm and even the shared looks with the triple, aluminum details for the sides and double front disc.

    Let’s wait for the price and performance figures.

    On the “yeah, ahum, I believe you tell me more”
    “light and slim steel backbone-type frame” = cheap and heavy
    “and plush suspension systems” = cheap and easy bottomed
    “responsive performance with an affordable price and outstanding fuel economy” three things that never come together if you are an engineer
    Wheelie photo have the front wheel static therefore were done playing with the clutch not a power wheelie

  45. jake says:

    Wow, what a great time to be a motorcycle enthusiast. There is like a Renaissance going on here, and the bikes are still so cheap, cheap, cheap. The Big 4 seem to believe that the Great Recession is over in the U.S. and it’s not coming back for a while.

    It has an extra cylinder and water cooling, but the bike reminds me alot of the old SRX600.

  46. Lloyd says:

    Yamaha can you say adventure bike with the same engine?

  47. Don Fraser says:

    might just have to get one

  48. Jeremy in TX says:

    Surprised we didn’t get an adventure platform or sport tourer based on the triple (or even this engine), but this is still a nice addition to the Yamaha lineup.

    • Dave says:

      This is a very cool bike but I am surprised that is so similar in form to the FZ09. I would’ve thought it smarter to make this a different flavor initially to avoid cannibalizing the FZ09 sales. We shouldn’t get our hopes yet. No word on whether this will come stateside.

      I also wonder how soon we’ll see other variants of both.

  49. DCE says:

    Bravo Yamaha! A direct competitor to the CB500 and EX650 lines! If they come out with a decent windshield to fit those 4 bolts above the headlight, it might even compete with the DL650!

  50. Dave says:

    LESS than 3 gallons of gas… ridiculous.

  51. Andrew says:

    I am very interested in bikes like this: moderate yet accessible power combined with lightweight body and good fuel economy. I just wish their marketing department would stop these references to ‘crossplane philosophy’ – crossplane is not a magic word and it is not a philosophy, it’s just a shape of a crankshaft! And it is complete nonsense in the context of a twin engine so just drop it, would you?

    • EZ Mark says:

      Crossplane means one or more pistons is always in motion.
      A 360 or 180 degree twin would not qualify since their pistons reach TDC and BDC at the same times and both come to a complete stop.
      The 270 degree crank means when one piston is a TDC, the other is halfway through it’s stroke. It seems like that IS Yamaha’s philosophy since the creation of the YZR-M1.

      • xlayn says:

        Does that also means not even sound for the exhaust right?

      • Andrew says:

        As far as I’m concerned ‘crossplane’ refers simply and exclusively to the shape of the crankshaft, namely it forms the figure of the cross: ‘+’ when looked at from the end. Twin cylinder cannot be crossplane, and neither can a triple strictly speaking, since its crankshaft can form a ‘T’, or a ‘Y’ shape, but not a ‘+’.

        • Jeremy in TX says:

          Crossplane means exactly that: the planes created by the crank offsets intersect at 90° (and would form a cross if you drew the planes out. A 270° twin is indeed a crossplane configuration. Now if Yamaha had called it a crosscrank, then I would agree with you.

          • Andrew says:

            Werll we are in agreement then, except that I insist that in order to form a cross one needs 4 points, not just two 🙂

          • johnny ro says:

            there are infinite points on each of the two planes which are crossed in this design.

  52. George says:

    Looks to be a great entry level/intermediate bike.

    I was hoping for a 675cc triple R6 replacement. Maybe 2015.

wordscape cheatgun mayhem 2 unblocked games