Honda Hornet 2.0

It might bear a larger engine than its predecessor but the Hornet 2.0 is definitely a more compact motorcycle than the Hornet 160R. It seems that in the lockdown period, the Hornet couldn’t go to the gym and had to work out only in the confines of its house. Hence, it is leaner and not as flared up as the 160R. 

The 12-litre tank, for instance, isn’t too tall, rather quite flat at the top and tapering towards the rider. Those sharp tank extensions are separate entities from the tank panels, unlike earlier when they were a single panel. The central tank panel continues to have the faux carbon-fibre texture, which looks kind of tacky.

The tail section of the Hornet 2.0 also has a lot of additional panels, not getting that seamless look of the older 160R. The air ducts under the pillion seat are purely aesthetic and aren’t even hollow, to begin with.

Honda is the only bikemaker in the 200cc naked segment to offer all-LED lighting, TVS, Bajaj and even KTM failing to do so. The LED face looks a bit Transformer-esque, with sleek LED turn indicators at both ends. No tweaks to the signature X-shaped LED tail light though. 

The short stubby end can and the body-coloured belly panel are nice touches. But the standout design feature remains the gold USD fork, which makes it look like a mini Suzuki GSX-S750/GSX-S1000F.

Build quality is par for the course, nothing too exceptional to report here. The handlebar comes with a nice powder-coated finish, and even the seat texture has a nice feel to it. Switchgear is decent but lacks the quality of the Apache 200 and even the fanciness of the backlit switches found on the Pulsar NS200.

No, this new Hornet doesn’t sport a bored-out or a longer-stroke version of the old 160R’s engine. It is a brand new engine that traces its roots back to the China-spec Honda CBF190R. On paper, this new engine sits bang in the middle of a sporty 160cc and a 200cc motorcycle. Mind you, the above figures are of the pre-2020 updated version of the Apache RTR 200 4V. The output figures of the new RTR 200 have gone up, slightly closer to what they were in the BS4 times.

The Hornet 2.0 feels lively for the most part, with a strong surge of torque in the low- to mid-range. It is fractionally off the Apache 200’s pace to 60kmph and only once you start pushing it beyond 90kmph does the Hornet start to lose ground. The top-end performance isn’t all too thrilling, with the engine gathering pace quite slowly beyond 105-110kmph. 

If you are skinny enough like our hot shot test rider, you could even manage to hit the rev limiter in the fifth cog at 130kmph, which is pretty fast. But then, the engine is desperately crying for some restraint from your end. There’s a lot of unwanted drama at pretty speeds above 85kmph, as the engine gets shouty and quite vibey then.

So, it isn’t a great highway motor but it does perform commuting duties rather well. You can run the bike in higher gears in the city effortlessly. Even zipping past traffic doesn’t require much effort although you might have to downshift sometimes to get the move done. 

The lightness of the Hornet 2.0 works brilliantly in its favour as you are hunting down apexes. The front-end requires minimal effort in tipping the bike into corners. The wide-section rubber aids in cornering stability as the Hornet remains fairly composed throughout the corner. Even flicking the bike from one side to the other is an easy affair, and there’s no nerviness from the front-end here like there is on the Apache RTR 200 4V. The TVS, on occasion, can be a bit too sharp and intimidating for newer riders. The Hornet, on the other hand, is far more welcoming and understanding. Shame then that the motor isn’t able to match up to the good handling setup.

This light and swift yet friendly handling makes for a great bike to zip through the tightest of spots. Last minute directional changes to avoid a pothole or any other road hazard are quite easy to do. On top of that, most road imperfections are dealt with easily. However, the tune of the monoshock could have been slightly improved. At the moment, for a heavier rider, the suspension is a bit too softly sprung. Couple that with a quick rebound and you could be tossed up on sharper bumps or large undulations if you’re carrying some decent speed. Adding a bit of extra preload on the rear shock will iron out these issues to an extent. No complaints as such from the front USD fork, which while also being softly sprung, doesn’t kick back harshly. It is fairly neutral with good progression.