Alright, so someone asked me the other day about the Triumph Daytona 675, specifically its specs. And it got me thinking, yeah, I should probably jot down what I remember and what I had to look up again. It’s one of those bikes, you know? A real gem from its time. So, I basically went through my old mental notes and did a bit of digging to refresh the details. Here’s what I pieced together, my process, if you will.
That Engine – The Main Attraction
First thing that always pops into my head with the 675 is that triple engine. It’s the heart of it, really. I started by just trying to recall the basics. It’s a 675cc, right? Inline-three cylinder, liquid-cooled, DOHC. Standard stuff for a sporty bike, but that triple layout gives it a unique feel. I had to go back and check the exact bore and stroke figures because they did change a bit over the years. For the early models, I’m pretty sure it was something like 74.0 mm bore and 52.3 mm stroke. Then, for the later ones, especially the ‘R’ versions from around 2013 onwards, they went with a slightly wider bore, more like 76.0 mm by 49.6 mm. That’s what gives it that character – not quite a twin’s grunt, not quite an inline-four’s top-end scream, but a really nice mix.
Then I looked into the power figures. I always felt it punched above its cc class. The numbers I dug up again confirmed this. You’re looking at around 120-ish horsepower for the earlier bikes. The later ones, especially with the updated engine, pushed out a bit more, maybe closer to 126, even 128 PS. And the torque, man, that was always the sweet spot. Somewhere around 72 to 74 Newton-meters. It just pulls so well from the midrange, which is what you actually use most of the time, isn’t it?
Chassis and How It Sticks to the Road
Next up, I tried to remember what made it handle so darn well. I had a chance to ride one ages ago, and it just felt so planted yet flickable. So, I started looking into the frame. It’s got that twin-spar aluminum frame, pretty much the go-to for sportsbikes. Triumph really got the geometry right on this one. I jotted down some numbers for wheelbase, rake, and trail – pretty aggressive figures, which makes sense for its sporty nature. The wheelbase, I think, was around 1375mm for the later models. Nice and compact.
Suspension – this is where it gets good, especially if you’re talking about the ‘R’ model. The standard Daytona 675 came with pretty decent Kayaba stuff, fully adjustable front and rear. But if you managed to get your hands on an ‘R’, then you got the proper Öhlins gear. NIX30 forks at the front and a TTX36 shock at the back. That’s top-drawer kit, that is. You see those gold forks, you know it means business.
Brakes are important too, obviously. The standard models usually had Nissin calipers. Good stuff. But the ‘R’ often got upgraded to Brembo monoblocs. Serious stopping power there. I made a note of the disc sizes as well: dual discs up front, usually around 308mm or 310mm, and a single 220mm disc at the rear. Good to have that info handy.
The Little Details – Dimensions and Weight
Then I looked up the other bits that matter. Seat height, always a big one for folks. It was hovering around 825mm to 830mm, give or take, depending on the specific year and whether it was the standard or ‘R’. Not super low, but manageable for a sportsbike.
And weight! I remembered it being pretty light. The figures I found confirmed a wet weight – so, with all fluids and a full tank – of around 184 to 185 kilograms. That’s pretty good, helps with the quick changes in direction. Fuel tank capacity, I scribbled down 17.4 liters. Decent enough for a good blast, though you wouldn’t pick it for cross-country touring, let’s be honest.
Bringing It All Together
So, after running through all these specs again, it just reinforced why the Daytona 675 was, and still is, such a highly regarded machine. It wasn’t just about one single impressive number. It was how all those bits – the punchy engine, the well-sorted chassis, the quality suspension (especially on the R), and the light weight – all worked together. It just made for a really engaging, proper rider’s bike. It was a good exercise, actually, to go back and pull all this information together. Always interesting to see the raw numbers behind a bike you admire.
