KTM RC 200 vs TVS Apache RR 310 Comparison
-
RC 200
Rs. 1.97 lakhEMI - Rs. 5,669Get Loan starting @9.7%
Apache RR 310
KTM RC 200 vs TVS Apache RR 310
TVS Apache RR 310 Price starts at Rs. 2.40 lakh which is Rs. 43,232 costlier than KTM RC 200 priced at Rs. 1.97 lakh. The claimed mileage for the KTM RC 200 is NA where as the claimed mileage for TVS Apache RR 310 is 31 kmpl. In technical specifications, KTM RC 200 is powered by 199.5 cc engine where as TVS Apache RR 310 is powered by 312.2 cc engine. KTM RC 200 is available in 2 different colours while TVS Apache RR 310 comes with 1 colours. 62% users have chosen TVS Apache RR 310 over KTM RC 200 in a survey being conducted on zigwheels.com. Compare KTM RC 200 vs TVS Apache RR 310 on the basis of price, specifications & other features....read more
RC 200 vs Apache RR 310 vs 390 Duke Specs Overview
| Specs/Features | RC 200 BS6 | Apache RR 310 ABS | 390 Duke BS6 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ex-Showroom Price | Rs. 1.97 lakhView On Road Price | Rs. 2.40 lakhView On Road Price | Rs. 2.53 lakhView On Road Price |
| Rating | 4.2 (506 Ratings) |
4.2 (295 Ratings) |
4.2 (444 Ratings) |
| Engine Type | Single Cylinder, 4 Valve, Liquid Cooled, FI, DOHC | Single Cylinder, 4-Stroke, 4-Valve, Reverse Inclined DOHC, SI Engine | Single Cylinder, 4 Valve, Liquid Cooled, FI, DOHC |
| Engine Displacement (CC) | 199.5 cc | 312.2 cc | 373.2 cc |
| Power (PS@rpm) | 25 PS @ 10000 rpm | 34 PS @ 9700 rpm | 43.5 PS @ 9000 rpm |
| Fuel Type | Petrol | Petrol | Petrol |
| Transmission Type | Manual | Manual | Manual |
| Colors | |||
| Brakes Front | Disc | Disc | Disc |
| Brakes Rear | Disc | Disc | Disc |
| 0-60 kmph (sec) | ... | 2.93s | ... |
| Wheel Size | Front :-431.8 mm,Rear :-431.8 mm | Front :-431.8 mm,Rear :-431.8 mm | Front :-431.8 mm,Rear :-431.8 mm |
| Wheels Type (Pressed Steel/ Alloy) | Alloy | Alloy | Alloy |
| ABS | Dual Channel | Dual Channel | Dual Channel |
| Starting | Self Start Only | Self Start Only | Self Start Only |
| Speedometer | Digital | Digital | Digital |
Engine
| Engine Type | Single Cylinder, 4 Valve, Liquid Cooled, FI, DOHC | Single Cylinder, 4-Stroke, 4-Valve, Reverse Inclined DOHC, SI Engine | Single Cylinder, 4 Valve, Liquid Cooled, FI, DOHC |
| Engine Displacement (CC) | 199.5 cc | 312.2 cc | 373.2 cc |
| Power (PS@rpm) | 25 PS @ 10000 rpm | 34 PS @ 9700 rpm | 43.5 PS @ 9000 rpm |
| Torque (Nm@rpm) | 19.2 Nm @ 8000 rpm | 27.3 Nm @ 7700 rpm | 37 Nm @ 7000 rpm |
| Emission Type | bs6 | bs4 | bs6 |
| Bore | 72 mm | 80 mm | 89 mm |
| Stroke | 49 mm | 62.1 mm | 60 mm |
| No Of Cylinders | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Drive Type | Chain Drive | Chain Drive | Chain Drive |
| Valve Per Cylinder | 4 | 4 | 4 |
| Fuel Type | Petrol | Petrol | Petrol |
| Ignition | Contactless, Controlled, Fully Electronic Ignition System With Digital Ignition Timing Adjustment | Dynamically controlled integrated high energy ignition system | Contactless, Controlled, Fully Electronic Ignition System With Digital Ignition Timing Adjustment |
| Compression Ratio | 14.5:1 | 10.9:1 | ... |
| Transmission Type | Manual | Manual | Manual |
| No Of Gears | 6 Speed | 6 Speed | 6 Speed |
Brakes
| Brakes Front | Disc | Disc | Disc |
| Brakes Rear | Disc | Disc | Disc |
Performance
| 0-60 kmph (sec) | ... | 2.93s | ... |
| Quarter Mile | ... | 15.20 s @ 137.33 kmph | ... |
| Braking (60-0 kmph) | ... | 20.69m | ... |
| Braking (80-0 kmph) | ... | 37.49m | ... |
| Mileage (City) | ... | 31 kmpl | ... |
| Mileage (Highway) | ... | 35.9 kmpl | ... |
| Mileage (Overall) | ... | 35 kmpl | ... |
| 0-100 kmph (sec) | ... | 7.17s | ... |
| Braking 60-0 km/h | ... | 20.69m | ... |
Suspension
| Suspension-Front | WP-USD Ø 43 mm | Inverted Cartridge Telescopic Fork | WP-Open Cartridge USD Ø 43 mm |
| Chassis | Steel Trellis Frame | Trellis frame, split chassis | Split Steel Trellis Frame |
| Suspension-Rear | WP Monoshock | Two Arm Aluminium Die-Cast Swingarm, Mono Tube, Floating Piston Gas Assisted Shock Absorber | WP-Monoshock |
Tyres
| Tyre Size | Front :-110/70 - 17, Rear :-150/60 - 17 | Front :-110/70-R17 Rear :-150/60-R17 | Front :-110/70-17, Rear :-150/60-17 |
| Wheel Size | Front :-431.8 mm,Rear :-431.8 mm | Front :-431.8 mm,Rear :-431.8 mm | Front :-431.8 mm,Rear :-431.8 mm |
| Tyre Type | Tubeless | Tubeless | Tubeless |
| Radial Tyre | ... | ||
| Wheels Type (Pressed Steel/ Alloy) | Alloy | Alloy | Alloy |
| Optimum Tyre pressure (Rider) | ... | 32 psi | ... |
Dimensions
| Dry Weight | 154.3 kg | ... | 163 kg |
| Length*Width*Height | 1978*688*1098 | 2001*786*1135 | ... |
| Wheelbase(mm) | 1340 mm | 1365 mm | 1357 |
| Length | 1978 mm | 2001 mm | ... |
| Ground Clearance (mm) | 178.5 mm | 180 mm | 185 mm |
| Height | 1098 mm | 1135 mm | ... |
| Seat Height | 835 mm | 810 mm | 830 mm |
| Width | 688 mm | 786 mm | ... |
| Fuel Capacity (Litres) | 9.5 L | 11 L | 13.5 L |
| Tail Light | LED | LED | LED |
| Front Brake Diameter | 300 mm | 300 mm | 320 mm |
| Rear Brake Diameter | 230 mm | 240 mm | 230 mm |
Electricals
| Battery Type | ... | Maintenance Free | ... |
| Pilot Lamps | ... | ... | |
| LED tail lights | |||
| Turn Signal Lamp | LED | LED | LED |
Features
| ABS | Dual Channel | Dual Channel | Dual Channel |
| Body Type | Sports Bikes | Sports Bikes | Sports Naked Bikes |
| Body Graphics | ... | ||
| Starting | Self Start Only | Self Start Only | Self Start Only |
| Seat Type | Split | Split | Split |
| Pass Switch | |||
| Speedometer | Digital | Digital | Digital |
| Handle Type | ... | Two Piece Forged Handle Bar | ... |
| Trip Meter | Digital | Digital | Digital |
| Average Fuel economy | ... | ... | |
| Distance to Empty | ... | ... | |
| Low Fuel Warning Lamp | |||
| Clock | Digital | Digital | |
| Low Battery Indicator | |||
| Stepup Seat | ... | ||
| Low Oil Indicator | ... | ... | |
| Passenger Footrest | |||
| Projector Headlights | LED Projector | ... | |
| Underseat storage | ... | ... | |
| Cooling System | Liquid Cooled | Liquid Cooled | Liquid Cooled |
| Console | Digital | Digital | Digital |
| Odometer | Digital | Digital | Digital |
Watch Videos of RC 200 and Apache RR 310
News Updates on RC 200 and Apache RR 310
-
KTM RC 200: Same Price, Other Options
We list other two-wheelers you can buy for the price of a KTM RC 200
Jul 31, 2019 | By Team ZigWheels -
BS6-compliant TVS Apache RR 310 To Get A New Instrument Cluster!
It is likely to be a TFT console and could get smartphone connectivity too
Dec 16, 2019 | By Team ZigWheels -
Finally! KTM RC200 Gets Single-channel ABS
Apart from the 250 Duke, KTM’s entire range of motorcycles is now equipped with ABS
Jan 22, 2019 | By Team ZigWheels -
2019 TVS Apache RR310 Track Review: Image Gallery
A quick review of the updated-for-2019 Apache RR 310 in images
May 29, 2019 | By Team ZigWheels
Recently Asked User Questions
Q. Which one is better R15 v3 or KTM RC 200?
- We rode the new R15 v3.0 on both the racetrack and in the real world. While the R15 has grown larger and more powerful, it needs a certain level of expertise to tame. The more committed ergonomics make for an uncomfortable ride in the city. If you are looking for a dynamically competent bike that you’d like to hone your riding skills on and don't mind the committed riding position, the Yamaha R15 v 3.0 is the one to go for. It's a bike we'd love to have in our garage but its ergonomics limit its practicality. That's the reason it can not be our primary everyday bike. On the other hand, the RC 200 has set the bar quite high for the entry-level sports bike segment. The committed ergonomics might not be everyone’s cup of tea but if you are looking for cornering dynamics with an added dose of power but are on a budget, your search ends here.Read More: - 2017 KTM RC 200: First Ride Review In Images: https://www.zigwheels.com/gallery/bikesslideshow/2017-ktm-rc-200-first-ride-review-in-images/27324/1/1 - Yamaha R15 v3.0 Road Test Review: https://www.zigwheels.com/reviews-advice/reviews/yamaha-r15-v30-road-test-review/30566/
- Both are best in there own ways.For RC 200:1)Engine is much better than R15 V3 2) Initial power is more3)Fuel Efficiency:35-45 km/L4) Maintenance cost is more comparing to V35)Top speed:138Km/H6)No vibration at all7) Excellent brightness for the both Dim & Highbeam For R15 V3:1) Fuel Efficiency:45-502) Maintenance cost is less3) Initial power is less comparing to Rc2004)Top speed: 160Km/H 5)Low brightness for the headlights
- RC 200 much better option than R15 V3 but only if you budget permits it provides an adjustable suspension with the very other body that can do well on track as well as on normal roads but if you are running short on budget then go for an 583 has optimum performance with in its budget.
Q. Between KTM RC 125 and KTM RC 200, which one is good and affordable for a middle class family?
- The KTM RC 125 is priced at Rs. 1.47 lakh (ex-showroom, Delhi) whereas, KTM RC 200 is priced at Rs. 1.91 lakh (ex-showroom, Delhi). At this price point, KTM RC 125 seems a tad expensive and does not justify the pricing, on the other hand, RC 200 offers a good list of features & cycle parts and best performance in the segment and the asking price is also justifiable. Thus, going with the RC 200 would be a better option if you are looking for a value-for-money offering. In order to know which bike would be a more suitable companion, we'd recommend taking a test ride. Please click on the following link and select your city accordingly for the dealership details - KTM Bike Showrooms Read more: - KTM RC 125 vs KTM RC 200 Comparison
- Hi I wanted to know if I buy from you to bring to Bangladesh what should I do if possible
- KTM RC 125
Q. Which is best bike KTM RC 200 or KTM RC 390?
View More Questions
- It's totally upto your decision. If you are someone who travels a lot then rc would be a very bad decision. Trust me you will surely feel riding a cycle to be less stressful. The power is insane and scary and looks awesome. But don't get deceived by its looks alone. The bike stands out in the crowd but you surely will lose the interest in riding that bike for more than 3-4months. Dukes are the best choice. Wait for the next duke to release. Tons of improvement. Duke 390 has the best console which the rc does not have. So it's any a better choice
- Depends whether you want more power or bit pocket friendly bike....390 will initially cost you 70k approx more than RC 200. But you will get insane power, which if you are able to handle. For features RC 200 is also going to get abs sooner so that won't be an advantage with RC 390. Coming to more looked factor the mileage...for 390 you will achieve an average of 20-23 kmpl while for RC 200 you can get 32-35 kmpl. Keeping these factors you can decide yourself. Ride safe
- Ktm 390 is best because it's has more features compare to 200 but 390 is good in highway not in economy mode..its will suffer...ktm 200rc will manage economic mode and beast mode..its suitable for both
Top Commuters Comparisons
Top Cruisers Comparisons
Top Sports Comparisons
