Motorcycle Forums banner
1 - 20 of 171 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
158 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3 Posts
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.

--

Jeff
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
367 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8 Posts
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...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
44 Posts
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..................



 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3 Posts
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.

--

Jeff
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
337 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
337 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
48 Posts
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!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
146 Posts
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????

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
237 Posts
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
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
27 Posts
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......
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
367 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
80 Posts
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...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
142 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
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.
 
1 - 20 of 171 Posts
Top