Motorcycle Forum

Motorcycle Forum (
-   Honda News (
-   -   Year 2002 VFR Interceptor Dyno Run (

Joe_Momma 12-21-2001 11:03 AM

Re: Year 2002 VFR Interceptor Dyno Run
First Post. Man, I don't know if that thing is pretty or ugly.

El_Flaco 12-21-2001 11:03 AM

Re: Year 2002 VFR Interceptor Dyno Run
Maybe I'm not looking at the graph correctly, but I really don't see any improvement between the last model and this one. OK, 1/2 hp at the peak, but less at lower revs. And less torque- I thought the point of the Vtec was to increase torque, especially at lower rpms. Again, the dyno isn't everything, but I hope that the street ride is more hopeful than the dyno run.

Jeff_W 12-21-2001 11:06 AM

Re: Year 2002 VFR Interceptor Dyno Run
Why the hell would Honda want add the pseudo-VTEC complexity to the VFR if you can't show any measurable difference between the new and the old performance? Sure, it might be better in some vague way if you actually ride the two side by side and compare them. But most mc consumers only get to look at ads, reviews, and dyno runs....

I still say they should have increased displacement, improved the suspension, and added a hard bag option (the second two they did apparently but I bet the suspension could be even better if the VTEC wasn't a cost factor). Customers are gonna be paying extra for VTEC when it apparently doesn't actually do much of anything.



minime 12-21-2001 11:10 AM

Re: Year 2002 VFR Interceptor Dyno Run
FYI: The new Interceptor (non-ABS) is $9,999 US dollars which is $500 more than last year's machine. The '02 ABS version costs $10,999.

CBR1000F 12-21-2001 11:11 AM

Re: Year 2002 VFR Interceptor Dyno Run
Wait a minute... Let me see if I got this right. The new Viffer - complete with "VTEC" - actually makes LESS power than the old one? Added to the fact that the new one is heavier, and the looks are... Um... unique. Wait, they're not unique. They look suspiciously like the Aprilia Futura. I noticed that when I was at the MC show... The one at which the Honda rep asked me which I liked better.

Good one Honda, you bunted that one right to the shortstop.

VTR-Pilot 12-21-2001 11:26 AM

Re: Year 2002 VFR Interceptor Dyno Run
To sum it up, one might ask, why Honda bothered to do all those fancy changes to the engine. To show new and finicky variation to "old horse", to prove their technical supremacy? Why would not they instead increase it's capacity? One improvement for sure is the layout of bike and two under seat tucked exhaust canisters (but that is somebody elses idea, isn't it); it may be seen as a welcome change by touring (as well as esthetics loving) fans. Over and over I am still content I opted for VTR instead...

fwalters 12-21-2001 11:50 AM

Re: Year 2002 VFR Interceptor Dyno Run
IT IS UGLY. Sorry Honda, but that is one ugly baby!

My 2000 model makes 106 hp with a 2 Brothers pipe and a K&N air filter.

And it ain't near as ugly.

Guess I won't be trading this year..................

Jeff_W 12-21-2001 11:53 AM

Re: Year 2002 VFR Interceptor Dyno Run
The money for the new technology and manufacturing still has to come from somewhere. Let's just hope that VTEC was paid for with improved manufacturing efficiency instead of sacrificing something on the tried and true VFR platform. Well, they did get rid of the gear-driven cams...

With a timing chain and funky valve actuation, reliabilty might be an issue too.



BBD_Racing 12-21-2001 11:53 AM

Re: Year 2002 VFR Interceptor Dyno Run
I spent a good bit of time looking at the VFR and 919 at the moto show last weekend. I gotta say, both left me a bit cold. The 01 VFR was way better looking to my eyes. Bummer I was hoping to drool.

As for the dyno, I am hoping that this is either an anomoly or that the bike isn't broken in yet. 30 more lbs, questionable aesthetics and less torque everywhere spells doom.

BBD_Racing 12-21-2001 11:55 AM

Unrelated, but funny
At that same moto show, Yam had some Road Star customs. One looked like a refugee from Who Framed Roger Rabbit. It had the new obligatory 240 section rear tire and a 180 section FRONT. It looked like an eight foot long chrome Fat Cat.

A_Nominal_Squid 12-21-2001 12:06 PM

Re: Year 2002 VFR Interceptor Dyno Run
I'm not impressed. They should've put the extra engineering effort towards the suspension instead. I could get better-looking dyno charts than that out of my '96 VFR750, for less total cost than buying a new VFR. Not that I really need any more power...but better suspension and brakes would help immensely.

Oh well, I will continue on my search for parts to make my VFR better than Honda thought it needed to be. And no hard bags!!

stormcloud 12-21-2001 12:32 PM

Re: Year 2002 VFR Interceptor Dyno Run
Like everyone else, I cant see the advantage in VTEC by looking at these dyno graphs. Reading reports from journo's who have ridden it, they seem to find it has lots more grunt down low than the old model though.

I guess time will tell.

What is the point of extra complexity, cost, etc when the same benefits could be achieved cheaper by bumping up capacity??

I cant see extra reciprocating weight (of internals)being a problem on a sports tourer - usually they are heavier than they need to be to give better engine characteristics (low down smoothness, holding a given speed etc). Fuel economy isnt an issue - weigh any savings against the extra materials, development costs, purchase price etc.....

The cynic in me sees MARKETING and PARTS behind the "improvements".

If they didnt make it different and convince us that it is better somehow, they'd not sell so many bikes.

Knowing how automotive industry works, I know it costs a fortune to keep designing, testing etc new things, making and stocking parts for engines etc that are no longer in production - this cost MUST be paid for by the consumer.

Maybe this is why (in Australia at least) marques like BMW who have longer model runs for their bikes + engines etc are becoming much more price competitive with Japanese marques.

Are we really such suckers for the corporate line?? It seems so.

What do others think????

luvmyvfr 12-21-2001 12:59 PM

Re: Year 2002 VFR Interceptor Dyno Run
They look like a Ford Focus. Ugly. Too bad, I'm glad I got the viffer I did, more torque (so much for VTEC), and more hp (no catalytic converter on the 99 model, and aftermarket intake/exhaust components, PLUS it weighs less). I wonder if it's still considered a real VFR with out the gear driven cams. I was sad to see those go. Wierd exhaust too, better to get a wolf underseat if you want a nice underseat exhaust.

My verdict: A step backwards in VFR development, with the exception of the brakes (better LBS), the bags, and the front fork suspension. Everything else was a big disappointment for me.


luvmyvfr 12-21-2001 01:01 PM

Re: Year 2002 VFR Interceptor Dyno Run
Amen brother


poopypants 12-21-2001 01:24 PM

Re: Year 2002 VFR Interceptor Dyno Run
So, an overly complex valve system that really doesn't improve on existing engine technology in the form of horsepower OR torque?......sounds like Ducati's Desmo to me. Though I don't think Honda will be able to sucker in as many followers as Ducati did......

CBR1000F 12-21-2001 01:26 PM

Re: Year 2002 VFR Interceptor Dyno Run
Actually (as far as cars go) I like the Focus ZX-3 hatchback - I don't care for the rear end of the Focus sedan or station wagon, but the ZX-3 to me is a good looking little car. I was disappointed that Ford screwed up the Focus-R by putting it out with such a low-boost turbocharger... oh well, I'm sure somebody'll offer a 12 Lb. wastegate for it.

Guess that just goes to show that taste is subjective.

floundericiousFL 12-21-2001 02:01 PM

Re: Year 2002 VFR Interceptor Dyno Run
What gear did you run this test in? How does the total gearing ratio for this test compare to the total gearing ratio for your 2000 test run?

Also, the effect of VTEC (Good observation by a previous poster that this is NOT car-VTEC..this is a pseudo VTEC), in this case, could be to give an improvement in fuel efficiency....

Other than that, I'd say run it again another day if you get a chance...

MrDeadeye 12-21-2001 02:55 PM

Re: Year 2002 VFR Interceptor Dyno Run
I wonder if the VTEC will make more of a difference once the pipes are swapped out and the engine is given more breathing room? New models are more plugged up with environmental stuff every year, I wonder if that could be handicapping it.

leonardskinner 12-21-2001 04:32 PM

Re: Year 2002 VFR Interceptor Dyno Run
I for one think that it is a visual improvement on the the last generation VFR. There really hasn't been a good looking one since the 750. The VTEC promises to be an expensive joke down the road when it comes time to repair it. Definately not worth the complexity. If they ever get around to updating my VTR I certainly hope this is not the direction they are headed.

TatdNPrcd 12-21-2001 05:06 PM

I believe the 02 even has a catalytic converter...
doesn't it?

I would miss the music of the gear-driven cams too. Sweet!

I think it looks... umm... intersting. In the pictures anyway, I like it. I like the idea of optional hard bags too but I'm just not sure if it's all good enough.

Patrick-of-the-Hills 12-21-2001 06:57 PM

Re: Year 2002 VFR Interceptor Dyno Run
Honda bothered to do all these fancy changes because they're Honda, and complexity for complexity's sake has always been an official corporate undercurrent. A semi-effective (on paper) VTEC system is just another facet of the company that's bringing us linked brakes (giving Guzzi their due there, though), a V-5 race engine, and God knows how many other head-scratcher ideas.

DSSConsult 12-21-2001 08:42 PM

Re: Year 2002 VFR Interceptor Dyno Run
According to several other magazines, the new Interceptor actually improves significantly at under 7,000 rpm's torque measures (due to the restriction in the number of actuating valves as opposed to the older model which runs on all four throughout the entire range), while for some reason, they all agree the power snapping effect starting at precisely 7,000 rpm (V-TEC trigger point) is not noticeable in stationay testing (whether running it in neutral at over 7,000 rpms or at the dyno).

It could be that some ram air induction pressure is missing in measuring power distribution as compared to riding the bike on the road. I was sold on the bike once I saw the interesting video at MCN. The sound and power snapping become apparent and really exciting. I am definitely going for a test run on this one (shame it still does not come with a larger displacement engine!)

Sparky 12-22-2001 02:44 AM

Re: Year 2002 VFR Interceptor Dyno Run
Agreed. Gear driven cams were a definite plus in the VFR. They offer much more precise valve timing than a chain.

plastics 12-22-2001 03:44 AM

Re: Year 2002 VFR Interceptor Dyno Run
Earlier on, I scan some Dyna chart somewhere from the Honda factory which shows a huge area under the curve for the 02 VFR, which suggest that the VTEC technology really works. Shocking is my reaction from seeing Mimimi dyno's hardly any difference compare to the 01 VFR! I can't wait until a demo ride on the 02 VFR to see for myself whether this VTEC is worth all it is crack up to be. I like the new underseat pipes, the more aggressive springs, new look etc, but the engine has to have more grunt for me to trade in my 95 VFR.


yellowduc 12-22-2001 04:54 AM

Re: Year 2002 VFR Interceptor Dyno Run
Hello, the bike is ugly. I think Honda in general has lost it's charm and appeal. Their technical objectives are not driven by rider's inputs. This bike's technical features are questionable throughout. Looks like a science project.


Vlad 12-22-2001 05:25 AM

Re: Year 2002 VFR Interceptor Dyno Run
A second amen. I have a 98 VFR. My only complaint is that it's a little porky and my right foot gets a bit warm at times. So they made the new one heavier. It's also ugly and they replaced the bevel drive with a chain. If Honda really wants to improve the VFR, go back to the 1998-2001 model and put it on a diet and add 43mm inverted forks and factory hard bags. Meanwhile, I will stick to the best all-around bike ever made, 'specially since it's already in my garage.


two_wheels 12-22-2001 06:31 AM

Re: Year 2002 VFR Interceptor Dyno Run
well, looking at the dyno chart, i to am dissapointed.....wasent this thing suppose to have up to an extra 10 foot ponds below 7 grand...also, this thing has been regeared, perhaps to coverup the blunder that the vtec does very little...

Charlie 12-22-2001 08:29 AM

Re: Year 2002 VFR Interceptor Dyno Run
The new VFR is not improved enough to justify upgrading an existing VFR. I agree with most of these guys, Honda should have spent their VFR R&D budget on more displacement and an adjustable suspension. I also wonder how thrashed and or poorly broken in was the 2002 that was used in this dyno test?

drandall 12-22-2001 10:06 AM

Re: Year 2002 VFR Interceptor Dyno Run
This is hilarious; I can't stand technology for technology's sake. Looks like I can get a deal on a '98+ vfr800, spend a grand on the suspension, and still be thousands ahead!

starvingstudent 12-22-2001 12:04 PM

Re: Year 2002 VFR Interceptor Dyno Run
It's not what I'd own, but the new Veefer is darned attractive. Love the nose section, and it's about time Honda realized that a single-sided rear swingarm needs to be shown off. If you got it, flaunt it, right?

Honda must own stock in a company that only produces red paint though. I know it's company colors and all, but PUHLEEZE give us something different. Can you imagine a 2-tone black-and-silver VFR?

starvingstudent 12-22-2001 12:11 PM

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...

rvfrules 12-22-2001 12:46 PM

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.

VTR-Pilot 12-22-2001 12:49 PM

Re: Year 2002 VFR Interceptor Dyno Run
Good point, I wander too. It somehow does't make sense.

rvfrules 12-22-2001 12:51 PM

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.

VTR-Pilot 12-22-2001 01:01 PM

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.

starvingstudent 12-22-2001 01:37 PM

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.

The_Aerodynamic_Head 12-22-2001 02:19 PM

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.

baked 12-22-2001 02:49 PM

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.

slowburner_1 12-22-2001 02:56 PM

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.

Lincoln 12-22-2001 03:14 PM

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...

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:44 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.