TVS Apache RTR 180

Compare Specifications of Apache RTR 180. Complete selection by adding one more.

Selected Bikes

TVS Apache RTR 180
TVS Apache RTR 180

Brand:

Model:

Brand:

Model:

Brand:

Model:

Brand:

Model:

Technical Specifications
Fuel Petrol
Engine Displacement 177.40 cc
Engine 4 Stroke
Engine Starting Electric & Kick Start
Maximum Power 12.52 kW (17.03 bhp) @8500 rpm
Maximum Torque 15.5 Nm @ 6500 rpm
Transmission 5 Speed
Top Speed 124 kmph
Mileage
Overall Mileage 45 kmpl
Tyres
Front 90/90 x 17
Rear 110/80 x 17
Brakes
Front 270mm Petal Disc
Rear 200mm Petal Disc.
Suspension
Front Telescopic Forks, 105 mm Stroke
Rear Monotube Inverted Gas-filled shox (MIG) with spring aid
Colors Available
Colors White, Black, Grey


Physical Specs
Length 2085 mm
Width 730 mm
Height 1105 mm
Weight 139 kg
Wheelbase 1300 mm
Ground Clearance 165 mm
Fuel Tank Capacity 16 litres
Overview
About A motorcycle looks nothing special. Built to appear smaller in size. None may see anything spec Read More
Features Sculpted Digital Display, have nocturnal blue black lit display & race inspired carbon fibre cues
Beast inspired headlamps, a pair of intense animalistic eyes
Muscled tank, combat wind resistance & aggressively angled tank
RTR engine with 17.03bhp of raw power
Muscled engine cowl having aerodynamic razored design & perpetual motion styling
Roto petal disc brakes with 270mm of brute force brake power &enhanced heat dissipation
Muscled tail cowl of radial race design, lighter-chiselled tail & tricoloured race insignia
Pros and Cons
Pros - Powerful 177.4cc engine with 17.03bhp.
- Robust braking system with petal disc brakes.
- Unique design with muscled tank and cowl.
- Impressive features like sculpted digital display.
- Decent mileage of 45 km per litre.
Cons - May not be the best choice for those seeking a purely city commute bike.
- Some riders may find the aggressive design a bit too sporty for their taste.
- Despite being fuel-efficient for its segment, there are more fuel-efficient bikes in the market.

Which one do you think is better? And why?
Name :

Comment :

7102