Go Back   Motorcycle Forum > Motorcycle.Com General Discussion > Motorcycle News > Old News > Honda News

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 12-22-2001, 01:11 PM   #31
starvingstudent
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 486
Default Why more displacement?

Though I agree that the VTEC doesn't seem to do enough to justify it's complexity, I'm curious why everyone wants more displacement. There _are_ bikes out there with more displacement--the XX, ZZR1200, K1200RS, etc. I for one think it's good that not all bikes are liter-class and above--and 800ccs is HARDLY a small bike. And remember, more displacement equals bigger engine equals MORE weight, when everyone already said the VFR was a bit porky...
starvingstudent is offline   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links Remove Advertisements
Motorcycle Forum
Advertisement
Old 12-22-2001, 01:46 PM   #32
rvfrules
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Tokyo
Posts: 135
Default Building a better VFR yourself

Check out Race Tech fork springs and gold valves (rebound, damping) for the front suspension, and an Ohlins shock for the rear (about $600 through Wim Kroon in Holland). For the brakes, get Galfer Wave Rotors and braided hoses. Your bike will be unbelievably transformed.
rvfrules is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2001, 01:49 PM   #33
VTR-Pilot
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 8
Default Re: Year 2002 VFR Interceptor Dyno Run

Good point, I wander too. It somehow does't make sense.
VTR-Pilot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2001, 01:51 PM   #34
rvfrules
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Tokyo
Posts: 135
Default Re: Why more displacement?

R-1s, CBR954s, etc., all were lighter than their predecessors even though their displacement increased. It can be done, but Honda wanted to wave its techno-wonder wand instead, I gather.

rvfrules is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2001, 02:01 PM   #35
VTR-Pilot
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 8
Default Re: Why more displacement?

Yeah, that's true, but look who is the competition. They are all litre size beefy things (Aprilia, Triumph). Actually I recall as one salesman I spoke with, having some time on Triumph ST, commented on comparison with 2000(?) VFR as "day and night". I figure some 900cc would be perfect.
VTR-Pilot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2001, 02:37 PM   #36
starvingstudent
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 486
Default Re: Why more displacement?

Fair enough, but despite the presence of the R1 and CBR954, they still sell an R6 and CBR600. In sport-touring, I see this "smaller-displacement" category as fading away altogether as companies push displacement higher and higher. It's a personal taste thing, as I'm partial to smaller bikes, but I think abandoning all bikes under 1000ccs would be a real shame.



Of course, I'm not a sport-touring guy to begin with, so I guess I'm not really the target audience who the manufacturers should be listening to.
starvingstudent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2001, 03:19 PM   #37
The_Aerodynamic_Head
Founding Member
 
The_Aerodynamic_Head's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Nash Vegas, Tennessee
Posts: 446
Default Re: Why more displacement?

See here's the thing.

If the inline fours can be lighter than their predecesors, and in the engine itself, nevermond the overall piece, I wonder why the Viffer if heavier. Heck, man, even the 1832cc beast on the new Wing is like 2.8lbs.-ish lighter than the old 1500 motor. So?

And I hear some talking about the power "hit" when teh Vtec kicks in. That makes me wonder if it's more power added after 7k, or if it's unnaturally underpowered below 7k? And by the way, I thought big power "hits' were a negative thing on a bike designed for "smooth."

And as fr the SuperChicken, I love the ride of the one I test rode last year, but the range! Oy!

The Buell (don't get started) displaces 200 more than the VTR, and still gets 45-ish MPG on the highway. Heck , the Big Mexican Woman R1150R makes mid-40s, too. They just can't call VFR a SPORT-tourer if it loses smothness and power and is too much too heavy. The SuperHawk can't be used for weekly commuting (at which I thnk it should excel) if you have to fil it up every other night on the way home.

And why, oh, why, is teh Magna stil using the OLD version of the motor? Would a new Magna not be killer with the new ST13 engine? and say, a belt or shaft? Oh, wait, they made that bike 15 years ago.

What's really killin' be watching Honda these past two or three years is that "Like a bad marksman, they keep missing the target." So close, yet so far away.
__________________
Headlight Fluid?! How dumb does he think I am? When I get back to base with that Elbow Grease, I'm gonna have a talk with the Sarge.
The_Aerodynamic_Head is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2001, 03:49 PM   #38
baked
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 2
Default Re: Year 2002 VFR Interceptor Dyno Run

I really hate that Honda even put the VTEC label on this bike... the system really has nothing in common with the automobile engines sharing the badge.



It should be considered a marketing play and not a feature. Then again, I guess the dyno plots proved that for me.
baked is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2001, 03:56 PM   #39
slowburner_1
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 9
Default Re: Year 2002 VFR Interceptor Dyno Run

Lots of negative feedback based on this single initial dyno test. Something was obviously not dialed in right, guys. The first ride impressions given by MCN were that this bike is significantly more powerful than it's predecessors. Let's not write it off yet.
slowburner_1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2001, 04:14 PM   #40
Lincoln
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 203
Default Re: Unrelated, but funny

in a few years no self respecting cruiser guy will be caught dead wearing skinny 240's in the rear. Monster Truck-spec rear wheels will be the order of the day, while engines with cans the size of oil drums will pound out ground thumping torque.

VTX1800? small potato's...
Lincoln is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off