Zma vs. Thunderbird

After a 70 odd km biking on the Thunderbird(TB) (thanks Kesava!), I feel I am in a decent position to make a comparison with my Karizma (the last reading on the odometer : 11111 km). This being my first attempt at comparison/review I shall copy parameters listed at mouthshut.org.

Fuel consumption :
38kmpl (Zma) against 30kmpl for the TB. 30 is pretty low for the kind of power TB delivers. May be it is the dry weight (168kgs against zma's 150kgs) that results in such a low fuel consumption.

Comfort :
TB's rear seat is a real pain in the ass. Cant say much about zma though, for I havent sat on its pillion seat for such long a distance. But for the rider, TB ROCKS! Bangalore- Chennai distance can be covered with at the max 2 breaks on the way. Zma demands atleast one every 50-60 kms. There is nothing like a 'comfort zone' on the zma seat. You need to shift every 10-15 mins to relax a certain blood starved part of your bottom. But TB is comfort personified. You will need a break now and then only to beat the boredom that this comfort tends to create.

Handling and control :
Though a cruiser, TB seems to be better suited for city traffic conditions. I am not sure, but I guess it is for the same 'more torque at lower engine speeds' funda that applies to cars. Juat an observation, TB cruises at 80kmph@3000 rpm but zma needs 5000rpm for the same speed.

Looks:
People might contradict, but zma scores here. Agreed TB has this rugged,meant-for-business look, but in the age group where bikes matter, zma attracts more 'sights'.

Acceleration ( my original comparison point):
No comparison. zma will reach its destination by the time TB accelerates to top speed (exagerated, but close to truth). TB cries when open throttled. zma encourages.

For my physique, both are grossly ill suited bikes, but if I am still to make a choice, I will settle for ZMA. After all, not often do I get a chance to cruise to long distances. When I do, then what is a Wagon-R for eh?