mscuddy

Matt's Exploding Motor Log:

'68 Go Devil-1

'67 Honda CB450-2

'69 ATIMX-1

'73 Jawa Trail 90-1

'71 Honda CB100-1

'39 HD 61 cu.in. Knuckle-1,2,3,4 times!

'70 Triumph C-20 250-2

__________________
A gun is a tool, Marian; no better or no worse than any other tool: an axe, a shovel or anything. A gun is as good or as bad as the man using it. Remember that.

Kevin_Duke

Great quote, Matt! Honda is a different company since Soichiro died...

Dr_Sprocket

If I were going to throw down coin for a cruiser, it would have to be the new Triumph Thunderbird or one from the Victory lineup (maybe a Wide Glide at a stretch). This Honda's not bad looking, but the tank seam really throws me off. Blech!

__________________
"Aid to the helpless indigent is civilized. Aid to the irresponsible is socially corrosive." ----- Schizuki (c. 2011)

Schwack

The Thunderbird looks nice but too much cc for me. That's why I was looking forward to the Sabre review. Looking for an entry bike, max of 1300cc and the $10k range.

I want the Fury but it's not one of the models that is available for the 1.99% finance rate.....so I'll look at the Stateline.

Kevin_Duke

Lots of good bikes in your range including the Vulcan 900 and V-Star 950. Another step up is the nice V-Star 1300.

seruzawa

Another option in a cruiser, and one that is less ubiquitous, would be one of the Triumph 900s. The Bonneville America or the Speedmaster have the advantages of a lot of upgrades and support that few Japanese cruisers can provide. Triumph's have proven workable performance improvements and even boxstock will out-handle any metric cruiser because of the lower weight, better brakes & shorter wheelbase. At a 550 wet weight they are lighter than the Japanese 750/800s. Even though they are 900cc-class the parallel twin engines give the power of much larger V-twins in a smaller package. Certainly they are worth a look. The Speedmaster especially looks pretty sharp in person.

__________________
"Make no mistake, Communism lost a big argument - one we know today as the 20th century."

trenttheuncatchable

And the new ones are fuel-injected.

silentgrayfellow

I found the plastic vs. metal discussion in the article quite interesting. I hate plastic chrome...it will eventually end up becoming brittle and cracking, or it will wrinkle up and look like crap. Sure it may be cheaper to replace (if you can get the parts), but metal can be repaired.

I'm a Harley owner now, but always liked my Suzuki Intruder ('94) and my GS750 ('79) becuase they didn't have much plastic. On the Intruder even the side covers were metal!


I think Yamaha is right that using metal parts vs. plastic adds value. Plastic fenders and plastic "chrome" sucks. Those are cost cutting measures that one expects to find on budget cruisers. If Honda wants to charge full price for this bike they shouldn't be cutting corners on the materials.

Larry

Agreed. A motorcycle needs some sort of 'character' and those metal-lyke parts are cheesy.

__________________

Kevin_Duke

Larry: With 120 hp to the wheel of your Kingpin, it seems like your bike has a bit of character!