Loading BreadCrumbs...
Compare Yamaha FZ S V3.0 FI vs TVS Apache RTR 180 to know which is better. Detailed bikes comparison on Yamaha FZ S V3.0 FI vs TVS Apache RTR 180; compare on-road price, performance and other features on bike comparison site.
| Key Highlights | FZ S V3.0 FI | Apache RTR 180 |
|---|---|---|
| Price | 1.13 L | 1.25 L |
| Power | 149.0 CC | 177.4 CC |
| Class | Sports | Commuter |
| Mileage | 49 KM/L | 47.00 KM/L |
| EMI Starting From | ₹3,364/month | ₹3,693/month |
| User Rating | 8.1 | 7.9 |
| Design | 8.00 | 8.00 |
| Performance | 8.00 | 8.00 |
| Fuel Consumption | 8.00 | 7.75 |
| Significance | 9.00 | 8.00 |
| Safety | 7.75 | 7.00 |
| Comfort | 8.00 | 8.00 |
| Value For Money | 8.00 | 8.00 |
| Engine CC | 149.0 CC | 177.4 CC |
| Max Torque | 13.30 | 15.50 |
| Top Speed | 103,115 kmph | 113 kmph |
| No. of Gears | 5 Gears | 5 Gears |
| Bluetooth | Yes | - |
| LCD Instrument Cluster | Yes | - |
| ABS | Yes | - |
| Anti-lock braking system (ABS) | - | Yes |
| Roto Petal Disc Brakes | - | Yes |
| Sculpted Digital Display | - | Yes |
| MUSCLED TANK | - | Yes |
| RTR ENGINE | - | Yes |
| Synchronized Stiff Chassis | - | Yes |
Pros
Cons
Verdict
The Yamaha FZ S V 3.0 is an excellent motorcycle for commuting within the city. It is ergonomically balanced and the engine has lots of zeal. Torque offered is ample and the refinement level is commendable with a decent mileage figire. To top it off, Yamaha's reliability is an added bonus. However, it misses out on basic features available with its rivals, and also lacks character in its design. Overall built quality could've been improved.
Pros
Cons
Verdict
The TVS Apache RTR 180 offers a comfortable riding position for daily commutes, and in terms of design, has a sporty appeal. However, it could do better with an updated instrument cluster and better brakes. As far as performance is concerned, the RTR 180 offers enjoyable performance for intra-city riding, handles well and has a comfortable ride too. Plus, it is easy to maintain, with economical running costs.
