I went from a 600rr to a VFR, both '03.
The VFR is less cramped. Your legs aren't crumpled up as much. The bike is noticeably wider as well. You sit more upright. Less wind hits you. The seat is much better than the brick on the 600rr. A corbin on the RR helps a lot though. It has more low end, much better for riding around town. It is a LOT quieter. Although the 600rr is no doubt much faster/powerful, stoplight to stoplight I bet they're close because of the fatter powerband of the VFR.
On the downside it is not a race type bike. The 600rr handled *MUCH* better in the twisties. I'll describe it like this: The VFR feels like you lean it and it flows smoothly through corners. The RR feels like it falls into the turn and then shoots out of it. Much more nimble, but still smooth. On the RR I was doing high 90's sometimes low 100's on sweepers on my favorite mountain pass and feeling comfortable. The VFR is more like 85-95 in the comfort zone.
Also, at least for me statefarm charges *MORE* for the VFR because of increased displacement. I pay 89 for the VFR I think $10 or so more than for the rr. That is for a 30 year old, clean record, multi vehicle discount in a small mountain town. I don't know if you consider that a big insurance payment.
With your size I think the VFR is a much better bet. I'm 5'11", 165 with a 33" inseam and I was cramped on the 600rr. I rode 240 miles to san jose on the VFR with one break for gas and I was just fine. However I've had many 100-150 mile rides on the 600rr where I had a headache and stiff low back, ass cheeks falling asleep, etc...
Go to a honda dealership and sit on them both, I'm betting you like the VFR more.
*EDIT* One more thing, and I just cracked myself up thinking of it! My GF and I together weigh as much as you alone. The 600rr was weak in the low end with her on back. Much better on the VFR.
