Scooter 16 incher test – 2

The second and final (and slightly late) installment of the 16-incher scooter test; how do the three scoots compare against each other?

What separates scooters from motorcycles? They both have engines and two wheels. Well, two main features usually define scooters visually: a step-through chassis (so you don’t have to swing your leg over the machine to straddle it – very unladylike), and small-diameter wheels (though we’re not really sure why this should be a defining feature).

16 inch wheels improve handling and suspension.

The scooters in our comparo all feature the classic step-through design, but in place of 10- or 12-inch doughnuts are true, almost-motorcycle-like, 16-inch wheels.

In part one of this test we gave you a ride report of each machine based on a single-day 600 km loop, which included everything from smooth highways to dirt roads, and single-digit temperatures in rain to balmy afternoon sunshine (I think I missed that last bit – ‘Arris).

As expected in a comparison test, we’ll provide a ranking of these machines, but what surprised us was just how close these scooters were in overall performance.

But enough of the intro babble, on we go with the nitty gritty …

Engines

SYM HD 200 has most power but only marginal speed edge over the Honda.

Three scooters, three different engine displacements. The largest capacity scooter in this group, the Sym HD200 at 171 cc, uses a liquid-cooled four-valve single, and subsequently produced the most power, with a claimed output of 20 horsepower.

It held a slight top-speed advantage over the Honda SH150’s 153 cc liquid-cooled and fuel-injected two-valve single (the Honda’s the only machine in this test with digitized fuelling), which claims a more modest 15.5 hp. Both of these machines can maintain about 90 km/h easily with a modest power reserve for hills, though passing has to be planned carefully.

The Sym’s additional power wasn’t enough to overcome a larger load, however, like when portly Rob was riding it and I, with my slimmer, trimmer frame, sailed past on the Honda (I would add “shorter” too … and don’t make me get into shoe sizes while we’re at it  – ‘Arris).

KYMCO People S comes with kickstarter as well as electric.

On either machine, svelte Samantha would have kicked both our asses. Also, the Honda, being tuned for a strong bottom end, felt the peppiest off the start, while producing the least amount of noise, exhaust or otherwise.

The KYMCO People S 125, at 125 cc, claims just 10.4 hp, but it wouldn’t be fair to call it underpowered in this test (it will easily outrun a Yamaha Vino 125, which I’ve ridden recently).

In fact, it did manage to mostly keep pace with the larger scooters, though it had no reserve power to catch up if it fell behind. It also displayed an occasional reluctance to start when cold, requiring several stabs at the starter button before firing (unlike the Honda and Sym which fired up immediately).

KYMCO’s small engine size combined with wide open throttle = thirsty motor.

Photo: jp schroder

All three scooters sipped fuel, with the Honda taking the honours by sipping the least at a measly 3.1L/100 km. Second came the Sym at 3.6L/100 km, and close behind was the KYMCO at 3.7L/100 km.

Now, you might rightly wonder why the KYMCO – with the smallest displacement – ended up using the most fuel. Well, a 600 km ride on relatively small displacement scoots means that they’re held wide open a lot of the time.

The KYMCO (with the smallest motor) was held open pretty much all the time, so the engine worked harder than the other two. A test in the urban world would have likely garnered very different consumption figures.

Handling

Honda was smoothest and plushest of the bunch.

One thing is to be said of all these scooters: they handle better and have better suspension compliance than the majority of scooters on the market.

The biggest factor contributing to this is their 16-inch wheels, which not only cope with bumpy roads better, but also add stability.

The plushest of this bunch was the Honda, whose electric-smooth engine contributed to a dream-like ride – really. Then came the KYMCO, then the Sym, the latter being a tad harsh in suspension compliance, but only when compared directly with the other two; otherwise, it, too, worked quite well.

Braking

All three scooters have more than adequate brakes with single disc fronts and drum rears, the differences coming down mostly to feel.

Front wheels are almost identical. Disc brakes all worked okay, some more okay than others.

The Honda’s rear brake lever links to the front, though there was no clear advantage to this system unless you have an arthritic right hand (I personally find you can grab a handful without easily locking either wheel – a kind of cheap ABS, but that’s just me – ‘Arris). It did, however, provide the most accurate and linear feel.

The only other notable thing about the brakes was the Sym’s use of a stainless steel front brake line, though even with that, its spongy feel wasn’t entirely eliminated.

Comfort

Derrieres: (left to right) Sym, Honda, KYMCO.

Photo: manufacturers

The actual seating position varied little from bike to bike, but some differences are worth noting. The KYMCO offered the best wind protection, the Sym the worst. The KYMCO also had the most floorboard room. The Sym had an agreeable drop in the handlebar ends that felt a little odd initially but also gave it a somewhat sporty feel.

The Honda was the smoothest – uncannily so, as the engine felt as if it weren’t running. The KYMCO was the buzziest, though only when compared to the others, as it was still smoother than most motorcycles.

The Honda’s seat was the firmest, the Sym’s the squishiest (Rob’s notes read: “at the end of the day it felt like someone had slipped in a large haddock under the vinyl, thanks to the foam’s unanchored feel”), though all of these machines fared very well considering the long day in the saddle.

The Honda had the best fit and finish as well as styling.

A welcome feature on the liquid-cooled models (that’ll be the Honda and the Sym) would have been the inclusion of heat vents in the forward panel (which covers the radiator) to provide at least some warmth on those chilly mornings.

Fit and finish

No surprise here that the Honda excelled in fit and finish. It had the most sophisticated feel of this trio, and all who rode it felt this instantly. Even the speedometer accuracy was almost prefect when compared to GPS readings.

The KYMCO trailed the Honda in this respect, with nicely finished panels, though its styling was somewhat bland. It was the only bike in this test that had an accessory outlet, mounted inside the under-seat compartment.

KYMCO clocks – a tad optimistic.

Photo: jp schroder

Perhaps to make up for its speed deficit due to its reduced engine displacement, KYMCO included a very optimistic speedometer, which read 80 km/h at an actual 71 km/h.

The Sym had better than expected quality, though it had what seemed to be a stress crack in one front panel upon delivery, and its gauges looked contemporarily stylish – for the 1980s …

Also, the temperature gauge was either not working, or the engine just never reached a high enough temperature to make the needle budge.

The Sym was the only scooter to have a side-mounted lock to gain access to the under-seat storage (using the ignition key), and an external lockable fuel filler (the others were under their lockable seats).

Sym fuel cap was a bit fiddly.

The Honda and KYMCO used the ignition switch for under-seat access.

What it all adds up to

The unanimous winner in this comparo was the Honda SH150. Everyone agreed it felt more refined than its competitors: it has power comparable to the larger Sym, and it has the cleanest-burning engine, with an HECS3 oxygen-sensing catalytic converter. Its fuel injection worked flawlessly and it consumed the least fuel to boot.

Also, to compensate for the reduced under-seat storage capacity (an unfortunate drawback of the space required for the 16-inch wheels to swing freely on all of these scooters), Honda has fitted a nicely finished, colour-matched top box at no extra cost.

Honda top-box gave much needed storage capacity – enough for a pair of ‘Arris’ size 14 shoes (or two of Costa’s size 7s …).

That cost, however, is the highest at $4,999, though with that comes Honda’s reliability and renown.

The KYMCO, despite its displacement disadvantage, finished second. Had this been an urban-only test, it might have even taken the top spot due to its low $3,600 price tag, as well as the added capacity of a forward storage compartment (Honda top box notwithstanding).

Ridden around town at around-town speeds, the KYMCO probably would have consumed the least fuel, too. It left a good enough impression on us that we’ve requested to hang onto it as a long-term tester and are awaiting approval.

The Sym takes third spot, but by no means finishes last. It proved its worth handily, and at $3,995 makes a strong case with great value. It has lots of power, is comfy enough for the long haul, and heck, it even looks good. Just remove the suicidal flip-up sidestand if you want to keep it looking that way.

The Sym comes with suicidal sidestand that flips up at the slightest touch.

If you’re looking for a scooter to shoot about town, any of these will do it competently. For longer commutes, the larger displacement Honda and Sym would be better choices.

You can add the convenience of a top box onto the Sym and the KYMCO for about $100, and aftermarket windshields are available for all of these machines if you’d like better weather protection.

Taking into account the benefits of 16-inch wheels versus the increased storage capability of small-wheeled scooters, we’d opt for the comfort and superior handling and suspension of the larger hoops, and leave the doughnuts for the rest stops.

SPECIFICATIONS & SPECULATIONS