Jump to content
The MT-07 Forum

Honda 650cc Retro-Modern Concept Model


MT27

Recommended Posts

Not all inline 4's are buzzy. My ZRX1100 you could balance an nickel up on its edge on the gas cap at 6,500 rpm.

My 599  at low rpm was smooth. 9,000-13,000 the thing was smooth as glass. You would look down at the tach
and be surprised the engine was running. My friends new bmw xr1000 buzz's bad. I rode it one time and have

no desire to ride it again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yamaha showed themselves to be working on an MT-07 type with a 4 cyl. motor in their Design Cafe website. They invited comments. Fortunately for them and for us, they eventually gave it the twin engine we know and love.

Just do it! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

I also bloody love the look of the CB650R, and I'd be keen as hell to get one, but Australia being the little bitches we are are only getting a learner restricted version. And we already have the CB300R! So you can have a 30hp one, a 50hp one, or a 140hp one. Just doesn't make sense... Where's the 80-90hp bike for someone who wants something with a good amount of poke, but not a stupidly high amount. So yeah, not on my radar.

 

As for the discussions on 4s vs twins, all the 4s I've owned have been far smoother. But they trade torque at low rpms for torque at higher rpms. I've owned the 599 as well and it was smooth as silk, very nimble, and far comfier than the MT07. However, it was a screamer. It had very little power down low so you had to rev it a lot to get it going, but once up there it would blow the doors off the MT07. However, the twins are far more user friendly for general day to day riding as you're using the motor in its optimum range far more often. For a race in the hills and if looking to lose your license, 4s are awesome. For everything else, the twins wins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I admit to having only ridden a four once. The only notable thing about it for me was its stability when riding exceedingly slowly.  Always useful, I suppose.

Just do it! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not at all a fan of the way Inline 4's build power.

 

Feels like you're always chasing it or forced to keep the revs up. They lack that urgency that the 07 has. That being said, we're truly truly spoiled with the MT-07 CP2 motor. It punches far above it's weight class untill you're well over free way speeds.

 

Riding around my friend's GSXR 750 and 1000 and I prefer mine around town and in the canyons (well perhaps not handling wise, just the engine). It wasn't until my buddy massively geared down his 1000 that it feels comparable to the punch these little motors pump out at 30mph speeds.

 

inline 4's just don't seem punchy below 40mph - at least none of the ones I've ridden. Sure they'll rip your face off once you're going 60 or 70, but at that point you're already breaking a few laws. Why hide all the power where it's illegal to use it anyway?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

There seems to be a misconception that inline 4s can only be designed  to make power/torque in higher RPMs. 

 

Manufacturers choose to design them that way for all the squids who aren't happy unless they're up over 8k RPMs pretending they're racers or actual racers.

 

They could just as easily build them with a fairly flat power/torque curves. They've done it in the past. One example was the Yamaha YX600 Radian which used a peaky FJ600 inline-4 motor retuned/carbed/piped for more low and midrange power. I can personally attest that it made usable power starting around 2k RPM. I put 60K miles on mine. Reference this CycleWorld article or many others that speak to it's low and mid range usability. It was the FZ-07 of it's day. ✌️

DewMan
 
Just shut up and ride.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, DewMan said:

There seems to be a misconception that inline 4s can only be designed  to make power/torque in higher RPMs. 

 

Manufacturers choose to design them that way for all the squids who aren't happy unless they're up over 8k RPMs pretending they're racers or actual racers.

 

They could just as easily build them with a fairly flat power/torque curves. They've done it in the past. One example was the Yamaha YX600 Radian which used a peaky FJ600 inline-4 motor retuned/carbed/piped for more low and midrange power. I can personally attest that it made usable power starting around 2k RPM. I put 60K miles on mine. Reference this CycleWorld article or many others that speak to it's low and mid range usability. It was the FZ-07 of it's day. ✌️

Oh for sure. There are many bikes that make "usable" power down low. It just that most I4's - or any i've ever been on that were not 1000cc's or bigger stop at "usable" or "ample". Never approaching the FUN or Powerful range. It's the nature of smaller displacement pistons firing more frequently - they just pack less individual punch until you get the revs up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Torquey 4's are great. I've owned two CB900 Hornets (Honda 919 for Americans) and a Bandit 1250. When tuned for it, they can pull hard from down low, but then that's defeating the purpose of having all those cylinders with the exception of getting a much smoother bike. If you want low down torque, it makes more sense economically to use a lower number of larger capacity cylinders. I had the benefit of riding my XSR900 along with my mates CB900 Hornet back to back.

 

Honda CB900 Hornet

919cc Inline 4

109hp @ 9000rpm

92nm @ 6500rpm

 

Yamaha XSR900 (MT09)

847cc Triple

113hp @ 10000rpm

87nm @ 8500rpm

 

On paper, the Honda would appear to have the edge (although there's a 20kg weight disadvantage). But all three of us who rode them back to back agreed that the Yamaha had a much strong pull early on and no discernable difference as the revs got high. Looking at torque curves explains why. While both torque curves are relatively flat, the Honda's is more ramped. Although it reaches a higher peak sooner, it starts lower. The Yamaha has big torque from 2500rpm, and combined with a 20kg weight advantage, feels a lot faster. This is largely because the Honda runs a detuned (for torque) Fireblade engine and does not take advantage of having an extra cyclinder.

 

Point being, 4's are great if you want smooth power, and strong top end. But it's an inefficient way of getting low end torque compared to a triple or twin. Likewise, twins are great if you want usable torque more of the time. But are inefficient at getting top end power compared to a 4.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, kylerhsm said:

Torquey 4's are great. I've owned two CB900 Hornets (Honda 919 for Americans) and a Bandit 1250. When tuned for it, they can pull hard from down low, but then that's defeating the purpose of having all those cylinders with the exception of getting a much smoother bike. If you want low down torque, it makes more sense economically to use a lower number of larger capacity cylinders. I had the benefit of riding my XSR900 along with my mates CB900 Hornet back to back.

 

Honda CB900 Hornet

919cc Inline 4

109hp @ 9000rpm

92nm @ 6500rpm

 

Yamaha XSR900 (MT09)

847cc Triple

113hp @ 10000rpm

87nm @ 8500rpm

 

On paper, the Honda would appear to have the edge (although there's a 20kg weight disadvantage). But all three of us who rode them back to back agreed that the Yamaha had a much strong pull early on and no discernable difference as the revs got high. Looking at torque curves explains why. While both torque curves are relatively flat, the Honda's is more ramped. Although it reaches a higher peak sooner, it starts lower. The Yamaha has big torque from 2500rpm, and combined with a 20kg weight advantage, feels a lot faster. This is largely because the Honda runs a detuned (for torque) Fireblade engine and does not take advantage of having an extra cyclinder.

 

Point being, 4's are great if you want smooth power, and strong top end. But it's an inefficient way of getting low end torque compared to a triple or twin. Likewise, twins are great if you want usable torque more of the time. But are inefficient at getting top end power compared to a 4.

I think we're going to see a lot of naked bikes coming out with more Twins and Triples, that is if electric doesn't start to ramp up and take over.

 

I can't fault Honda for using I4's on the new CB's though. They're all existing engines that have been reworked so they're really economical to pump out (at least the 1000). Given the similar pricing though, either Honda is spending more money elsewhere or Yamaha can make the CP2 pretty affordably.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, topazsparrow said:

I can't fault Honda for using I4's on the new CB's though. They're all existing engines that have been reworked so they're really economical to pump out (at least the 1000). Given the similar pricing though, either Honda is spending more money elsewhere or Yamaha can make the CP2 pretty affordably.

From my recent experiences, Yamaha's have quality issues. I think they're managing to do what they do by skimping  in places that most people won't notice or don't care about.

 

I have a 2016 R3 with 5,000km. The bracket that holds the front fairing to the frame is covered in rust. It's come straight through the paint. And this is from a bike that isn't ridden in the rain and we're in a fairly dry climate. I now also have an MT-07. Rust is literally coming through the swingarm paint along one of the welds. I googled this and it's actually common! Apparently Yamaha replaces the whole bloody swingarm under warranty. Mine is two weeks out of warranty since buying it, but I think I'll just sand it back and touch it up myself as apparently a lot of others have done.

 

Not many people know what the manufacturers are doing behind the scenes and where they're cutting costs. Yamaha is CLEARLY cutting costs on paint and/or surface preparation. I'd hate to see what either of these bikes are going to look like in 10 years considering what's appearing after just two. Honda have a reputation for quality over quantity. They don't chase statistics such as weight or hp as vigilantly even though this is what sells. They're known for quality and making bikes that are easy to ride and last a long long time. Nothing against Yamaha, they definitely know how to make desirable bikes. They do this by making killer engines in lightweight chasis which is what reviewers rave about. It's just that their crap fuelling and suspension, and in my cases, paintwork, is less discussed, and not what people are concerned about when checking them out in the showroom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

My 06 599 was a much better bike than the MT07. The only thing the MT 
does better is low end torque. That's nice for the first 50 feet after a stoplight. 
But I don't live where there are a lot of stoplights and I'm not a newb that needs 
that type of powerband. I wish Honda had been a year or two earlier with the 650.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, MT27 said:

My 06 599 was a much better bike than the MT07. The only thing the MT 
does better is low end torque. That's nice for the first 50 feet after a stoplight. 
But I don't live where there are a lot of stoplights and I'm not a newb that needs 
that type of powerband. I wish Honda had been a year or two earlier with the 650.

The 07 is ALL engine.

 

Everything else is mediocre at best... but holy crap does this engine shine and make it all worth it. The rest you can upgrade anyway - provided you have the pockets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The engine shines.

It sure does all the way up to 7000 rpm. From there to 9 it doesn't do much. 
Speaking of upgrades, I wish I could upgrade a 7th gear into the transmission. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, MT27 said:

The engine shines.

It sure does all the way up to 7000 rpm. From there to 9 it doesn't do much. 
Speaking of upgrades, I wish I could upgrade a 7th gear into the transmission. 

 

Airfilter, akra, + tune and a lighter weight chain (also -3 in back +1 front) and it's a whole new bike my man.

 

It's so punchy with the exhaust uncorked you can easily gear it up. Even after gearing up it's still got more jam than when it was stock. With the K&N filter it loves to rev out to 9k. I imagine with the hordpower it'll be even more eager at higher RPM's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's to sandy where I live for a K&N style filter. My MIVV gets me at least 90% of the gain an

akra would at way less impact on the wallet.  I plan on trying  +1F sprocket.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, MT27 said:

My 06 599 was a much better bike than the MT07. The only thing the MT 
does better is low end torque. That's nice for the first 50 feet after a stoplight. 
But I don't live where there are a lot of stoplights and I'm not a newb that needs 
that type of powerband. I wish Honda had been a year or two earlier with the 650.

Totally agree! My 599 was one of the best bikes I ever owned, but for me the engine (and only the engine, nothing else) was just wrong for the riding I do, which is mostly stop/start commuting. The 4cyl screamer was useless for 95% of my riding, whereas my MT07 gives me all the power, all the time. This is the real charm of the bike and what makes it such a great bike, despite falling very short on quality. The engine is perfectly suited for the majority of riding that the majority of people do, and it makes a hell of a good sound while doing it.

 

If Honda had have put a 270 twin in the CB/CBR500/650's then Yamaha wouldn't have even been on my radar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My 919 had plenty of torque for the stoplights. It was fun for 3 years and 20k miles but when I found a 06 599 with only a few miles on it I jumped on it and sold the 9er to a friend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.