The Pulsar's 200cc liquid cooled engine is according to Bajaj all-new, but we know that this is the same unit as the KTM Duke 200, at least the block and the transmission. On being questioned Rajiv Bajaj insisted that there has been no technology and component sharing between the two but we beg to differ. Apart from the engine head everything below is the same as the KTM, including the block, bottom end and transmission. Even the oversquare bore stroke ratio is the same as that on the KTM.
What's different is that the Pulsar NS power output at 23.5PS is slightly lower than what the Duke 200 makes. The max power also comes in at 9500rpm, whereas the Duke does it at 10000rpm. Torque too is slightly lower in the Pulsar 200NS, 18.3Nm at 8000rpm compared to the KTM's 19Nm at the same 8000rpm.The hole appears when you realise that the Pulsar makes these power and torque ratings with a three spark plug configuration when the KTM
uses just one.
The Pulsar NS engine has a 4-valve valvetrain, the KTM uses the same, but it's a DOHC unlike the Pulsars SOHC. Why? The Duke is fuel injected the Pulsar is not. Now we know the reason behind that is purely dominated by pricing, the fuel injection system is a much more expensive addition.
Where the transmission is concerned, the covers look different but peel it aside and the innards should be the same. Except for the ratios, but that can also be achieved by fiddling around with the final or primary drive ratio.
What I do expect is that the Pulsar will be on par if not very very close to the Duke in terms of outright performance. Because of the power and torque ratings I also expect it will have sharper and stronger drivability and in gear acceleration than the Duke. Bajaj claims that the Pulsar will do a 100kmph in 9.8 seconds which is pretty damn quick.
Yet the big story is the fuel efficiency which Bajaj claims will be around 58kmpl overall when the bike is ridden at speeds under 60kmph. Raise the speeds by a significant bit and you will still get figures above 50kmpl though anything above a 100kmph drops it to under 30kmpl. Yet that's good efficiency.
The most significant change is the chassis, a perimeter frame made of pressed steel along with a gas charged monoshock at the rear and a box section swingarm, a wheelbase that is now longer than that on the P220 and petal disc brakes at both ends. The handlebar rake and trail also looks like it has increased. All in all I do expect this bike to be an absolute revelation at the racetrack or on the roads. It may not be very flickable but the new chassis will definitely give it a new
character. How good or bad compared to before will depend on when we get to ride the bike, which is soon, very soon.
The Pulsar is exciting on paper that much I will give it. In the real world what will that translate to is still a mystery because and this is a big one, the Pulsar is roughly 20kilos heavier than the Duke. So in outright power to weight the Duke should leave the Pulsar wheezing in its dust. At a 145 kilos kerb, the Pulsar is a big and heavy motorcycle compared to its intended competition (R15, CBR 250R and even the Duke200). The fat it carries could be the one weak card in an otherwise strong suit.
On every other front despite Bajaj not being forthright about sharing the engine and transmission ( we honestly don't think it's a bad thing) the Pulsar 200NS is going to be a scorcher at the box office. Especially given that Rajiv Bajaj did mention that it would be priced under a lakh of rupees when it hits the market early April 2012. I'd like to read that as a on-road price not ex-showroom.
Turn to the next page for a detailed table comparing the 200 Duke and Pulsar 200NS.
KTM 200 Duke versus Bajaj Pulsar 200NS
| Specifications | KTM 200 Duke | Bajaj Pulsar 200NS |
| Displacement (cc) | 199.5 | 199.5 |
| Type | DOHC 4-valve liquid cooled | SOHC 4-valve liquid cooled |
| Power (PS) | 25@10,000rpm | 23.5@9500rpm |
| Torque (NM) | 19@8000rpm | 18.3NM@8000rpm |
| Fuelling | Fuel injected | Carburettor |
| Bore (mm) | 72 | 72 |
| Stroke (mm) | 49 | 49 |
| Transmission | 6-speed | 6-speed |
| Number of spark plugs | 1 | 3 |
| Kerb weight (kg) | 136 | 145 |
| Front Tyres | 110/70-R17, tubeless | 100/80-17, tubeless |
| Rear Tyres | 150/60-R17, tubeless | 130/80-17, tubeless |
| Fuel tank capacity (litres) | 10.5 | 12 |
| Fuel efficiency (kmpl) | NA | 58 |
| Brakes (front) | 300mm disc with two pot caliper | 280mm petal disc with floating caliper |
| Brakes (rear) | 230mm disc with one pot floating caliper | 230mm petal disc with floating caliper |
| 0-60kmph | 3.2 (estimated) | 3.61 (claimed) |
| 0-100kmph | 9.2 (estimated) | 9.83 (claimed) |
| Frame | Steel trellis | Perimeter |
| Top Speed (kmph) | 140 (estimated) | 136 (claimed) |
| Front Suspension | Upside down fork with radially mounted callipers from WP | Telescopic front fork with antifriction bush diameter 37 |
| Rear Suspension | Monoshock from WP | Nitrox monoshock with piggy back canister |
| Length x Width x Height | NA | 2017 x 1195 x 804mm |
| Price (ex-showroom, Delhi) | Rs 1.17lakh | Under Rs 1lakh |
By Bertrand D'souza
Discover the latest Business News, Sensex, and Nifty updates. Obtain Personal Finance insights, tax queries, and expert opinions on Moneycontrol or download the Moneycontrol App to stay updated!
