Kawasaki W175 vs Royal Enfield Hunter 350: Performance, Mileage Comparison Review

A Japanese and an Indian retro roadster in the similar price range, which one should you bet on?

The entry-level retro-style roadster segment has been gaining popularity, with new players like the Honda CB350 twins and more recently, the TVS Ronin, arriving and expanding the buyer base. And now, we have a new competitor in the space – the Kawasaki W175. 

The Japanese roadster’s price tag of Rs 1.47 lakh for the Standard and Rs 1.49 lakh for the Ebony Red (both ex-showroom India)  puts its squarely against the Royal Enfield Hunter 350 priced at Rs 1.49 lakh (Retro) and Rs 1.65 lakh (Metro) (both ex-showroom Delhi). So, if you are on the lookout for a retro-style roadster, our performance test figures should help you take the right call.

Acceleration

With almost twice the displacement and 7.2PS more than the W 175, the Royal Enfield Hunter 350, unsurprisingly, wins most of our acceleration tests by a big margin. However, the Kawasaki’s engine takes the cake in the roll-on acceleration test of 40-80kmph.

That’s because of the tractable nature of the motor and taller gearing. Both bikes are tractable enough to crawl through traffic in fourth gear, while the W175 can do so even in fifth. However, the problem lies with the way it serves its humble 13PS and 13.2Nm. It is so slow to get back to decent, safe city speeds that you would rather shift down and get back to those speeds quicker.

However, what works in the Kawasaki’s favour is the light clutch, which is a boon in heavy traffic unlike the Hunter’s heavy clutch. Another issue with the Hunter’s clutch is its fat, retro levers, which could be difficult for people with small fingers to operate.

Braking

 Braking on both bikes isn’t as impressive. While the lack of braking force, and the spongy lever on the Kawasaki W175 gives it a very commuter-sih feel, the Royal Enfield Hunter’s lack of feedback because of the fat levers play spoilsport despite having a strong braking force.

Fuel Economy

With almost half the displacement as the Hunter 350, and being almost 50kg lighter, we had expected the Kawasaki W175 to be more fuel efficient, but that’s not the case. The engine is so commuter-ish on the W175, yet the Hunter’s ample low-end torque and displacement advantage makes it easier on the pockets. And yes, the Hunter is slightly less efficient on the highway, but that’s a small tradeoff for the better top-speed.

Verdict

The answer is pretty straightforward in this case. The Kawasaki W175’s dull engine, okay-ish build quality and the very-commuter character makes it nothing but an overpriced commuter. Of course, if you are a Kawasaki fan, and looking for a retro-style roadster for urban runs, the W175 will make sense for you. But for everyone else, the Royal Enfield Hunter 350 makes much more sense. 

Not only would you be getting more bang for your buck, but also considering the service network and prices of spare parts, the Royal Enfield roadster makes for a better deal.