Motorcycle Forums banner

Year 2002 VFR Interceptor Dyno Run

85602 Views 170 Replies 82 Participants Last post by  Twisted
First Post. Man, I don't know if that thing is pretty or ugly.
21 - 40 of 171 Posts
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.
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!)
Agreed. Gear driven cams were a definite plus in the VFR. They offer much more precise valve timing than a chain.
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.

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.


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.

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...
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?
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!
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?
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...
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.
Good point, I wander too. It somehow does't make sense.
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.
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.
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.
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.
See less See more
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.
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.
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...
21 - 40 of 171 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.