General Specifications (Triumph Tiger 800 XCx motorcycle)
| Product Name | Triumph Tiger 800 XCx |
| Type | motorcycle |
| Brand | Triumph |
| Year Released | 2020 |
| Bore X Stroke | 74.5 mm x 61.9 mm |
| Compression Ratio | 11.3:1 |
| Dry Weight Kg | 199 KG |
| Engine Cc | 800 CC |
| Engine Type | 800 cc, Liquid-cooled, 12 valve, DOHC, in-line 3-cylinder |
| Fuel System | Multipoint sequential electronic fuel injection |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 5 US gal |
| Seat Height | 33 in |
| Tires Front | 100/90-19 |
| Tires Rear | 150/70 R17 |
| Transmission | 6 Speed |
Higher than average Triumph Tiger 800 XCx motorcycle Specs
Lower than average Triumph Tiger 800 XCx motorcycle Specs
Engine Cc
A motorcycle's engine CC refers to its engine displacement measured in cubic centimeters, determining the power and performance it delivers.
The Triumph Tiger 800 XCx motorcycle has groundbreaking Engine CC of 800 (CC), which is 58 (CC) more than the average Engine CC of 742 (CC). The Triumph Tiger 800 XCx motorcycle is ranked 375 out of 880 motorcycles for Engine CC and we have rated it 33% out of 100%, which we consider to be much poorer than the top performers.
Engine Cc:
Fuel Tank Capacity
Motorcycle fuel tank capacity refers to the amount of fuel, usually measured in liters or gallons, that a motorcycle's fuel tank can hold.
The Triumph Tiger 800 XCx motorcycle has a low Fuel Tank Capacity of 5 (US gal), which is 3 (US gal) less than the average Fuel Tank Capacity of 8 (US gal). The Triumph Tiger 800 XCx motorcycle is ranked 128 out of 880 motorcycles for Fuel Tank Capacity and we have rated it 1% out of 100%, which we consider to be much poorer than the top performers.
Fuel Tank Capacity:
Seat Height
Motorcycle seat height refers to the distance between the ground and the highest point of the seat.
The Triumph Tiger 800 XCx motorcycle has a good Seat Height of 33 (in), which is 1 (in) more than the average Seat Height of 32 (in). The Triumph Tiger 800 XCx motorcycle is ranked 124 out of 880 motorcycles for Seat Height and we have rated it 1% out of 100%, which we consider to be much poorer than the top performers.