Japanese Sport-Touring Shootout

Model Comparison

Japanese Sport-Touring Shootout Text by LT Snyder, Photos by Dave Searle

Honda’s VFR1200F

Yamaha’s FJR1300

W

E ALWAYS LOOK forward to testing the latest sport-touring machines, as it gives us a chance to see a lot of country. For this year’s comparison, our original plan was to head north into the Sierra Nevada, enjoying the fresh air, scenery and excellent mountain roads. Unfortunately, as she did a year ago, Mother Nature had her own plans. Continuing rains in the northern part of the state and snow at higher elevations made us reconsider, and we decided instead to retrace a favorite portion of our 2008 tour: from Los Angeles to Las Vegas, over the mountains through Big Bear on day one. Into southern Utah through Zion Park and the Devil’s Backbone to Torrey on day two. Across the red rock landscapes through Monument Valley to Bluff, Utah, on day three. Into Arizona past the southern edge of Grand Canyon and through Sedona to Prescott on day four. And on day five, south into California through the Anza Borrego Desert and north on the San Diego backroads through Julian back to Irvine. We made the third day shorter to allow extra time for photos and detailed notes, which proved to be a good call. Our trio of sport-tourers for this year’s staff ride included our 2007 winner, the Yamaha FJR1300, the freshly redesigned Kawasaki Concours 14 (third place in 2007) and a new contender for 2010, the Honda VFR1200F (billed in Honda’s press materials as a sportbike that makes a capable sport-tourer). All three wore linked ABS, shaft drive and were propelled by fourcylinder motors. After five full days of testing, we each had clear impressions of the relative merits of each, and were anxious to see if our individual impressions and group rankings were the same.

Contenders Stand Inspection Yamaha’s FJR1300, first introduced in 2003, is the longest-running design in our test. The FJR1300 has received continuous upgrades over the years, but remains in essence the same topquality well-conceived sport-tourer it’s always been. And who can fault Yamaha for not wanting to make wholesale changes to a tried-and-true design? The FJR1300 led the pack against competing sport-tourers for years. Its engine makes satisfying thrust, it’s reliable, and it has an excellent reputation of satisfaction from 12

AUGUST 2010

●

MOTORCYCLE CONSUMER NEWS

Kawasaki’s Concours 14 weekend tourists to Ironbutt aficionados alike. Improvements made in 2006 to the basic design included changes to the fairing design to address heat issues, lifting of the gastank by 10mm to better exhaust engine heat, a redesigned radiator, a revised swingarm and slight instrumentation changes. In 2009, revisions included improved shifting, a different windshield coating, changes to the ABS system and a tweak to the engine mapping to improve driveability and high altitude performance. For 2010, Kawasaki attempted to fix every complaint about the original Concours 14, and a wealth of features are new this year: A new fairing that eliminates gaps that would allow hot air into the cockpit; a taller adjustable windscreen; an optional 2nd generation ABS with two modes (solo and “high combined” for passengers) which also buys KTRC traction control; a second engine mode called “ECO” for improved fuel mileage; redesigned front tire construction, new brake pad material, and a revised remote key access system. Most of these changes were indeed welcome improvements, but one proved so frustrating that we cursed it daily. More on that one later. The VFR1200F is an all-new design from Honda, although it continues to share many characteristics of earlier VFRs, which won accolades around the world as superb all-arounders. An appealing shape, the new VFR is powered by a V-4 engine design like the original 1983 VFR750, but the cylinder layout and valve gear is original. Its forward cylinders are outboard of the rear cylinders, which are siamesed for a narrow fit between the knees and use Honda’s MX-derived Unicam heads for more compact dimensions. Our April model evaluation of the VFR1200F provides an in-depth review of the engine design, and revealed that the VFR1200F has plenty of very accessible power although, at 590.5 lbs. wet, it isn’t particularly light. What we wanted to learn in this comparison was how well it worked as a sport-tourer. Like the last generation VFR800, dedicated hard bags are an option, not standard equipment like they are on the C14 or FJR1300. To us, this suggests that the VFR leans more to the “sport” than the “touring” side of the sport-touring equation. If so, how would this sporty tourer compete against the more luxurious bikes in the class?

Our trek across California, Nevada, Utah and Arizona covered over 1700 miles of riding, and included some of the most spectacular scenery the West has to offer. Our trio of sport-tourers should have been ideal mounts to gobble up such scenery but, as we were to find out, they didn’t all yield the same level of rider satisfaction. In the end, our test proved that newer isn’t always better, and that some gadgets are best left on the drawing board.

Engines—Concours 14 1st, FJR1300 2nd, VFR1200F 3rd Both the Kawasaki and Yamaha are propelled by big fourcylinder, transverse-crank inclined motors. The Honda’s transverse-crank 76° V-Four has 28° offset rod journals (to create a 90° motor’s balance and firing order) and is the most powerful in the group (148.94 hp to the C14’s 134.40 hp and the FJR’s 121.46 hp). Despite designations that suggest a 200cc difference in size, in terms of true displacement, the size spread is just 115cc: the C14 is really 1352cc, the FJR is 1298cc and the Honda is actually larger than advertised at 1237cc. The VFR’s V-4 has an eager-to-rev character the in-line fours can’t match, and its acceleration number back up its specs: a lightning-quick 1/4-mile of 10.16 sec. @ 134.90 mph with a stunning 2.70sec. 0–60 mph time. The C14 trails with a very rapid 10.82 sec. quarter @ 119.51 mph and a 3.14-sec. 0–60 time. This leaves the very potent FJR looking slow with an 11.14 sec. 1/4-mile @ 119.51 mph and a 0–60 time of 3.30 sec. In terms of engine electronics, the Kawasaki offers two engine maps for 2010: Standard mode and ECO mode. The C14 makes a peak of 134.4 hp in Standard mode. In Eco mode, the C14 peaks slightly higher, achieving a max hp of 135.57 @ 8800 rpm, but loses between four and eight hp lower in the rev range to its economy mapping. Interestingly, we didn’t get the highest gas mileage from the C14 in ECO mode, even on a long freeway stretch (45.8 mpg vs. its best of 47.7 mpg in its standard mode). The Kawasaki’s engine is very smooth and its fuel injection is seamless, but as we noticed in our previous test, its advanced VVT (variable valve timing) mechanism requires elevated oil pressure to advance the cam timing for maximum power. The engine thus feels slow to respond to the throttle from lower rpm, but becomes very quick if kept spinning quickly in lower gears. This also affects its downshifts, and it is more difficult to blip matching revs accurately from the C14 than its competitors. The Yamaha also has perfect fuel injection manners with no lurching during on/off throttle transitions or other glitches to interfere with your control inputs. Its counterbalancers add flywheel weight, like the C14, but FJR’s engine is ready when you are and pulls strongly once spurred into action. Alas, the Honda, despite its power advantage, was not the model of good fuel injection behavior we expected. Whether this is due to its fly-by-wire throttle setup (the first time Honda has used this system), we can’t be sure, but its on/off transitions could be particularly harsh in the lower three gears, making smooth control more difficult, and it also suffered occasional bouts of

elevated idle speeds, which could be very disconcerting when you were off the throttle and needed the bike to slow down. Despite the problems, the motor in the Honda is truly spectacular and has a sound all its own. If power were the only criterion, the VFR would win this category hands down. Given a whack of throttle, it literally leaps off the line and accelerates so fiercely between corners that it really deserves to have traction control. The fueling issues spoiled its ranking, but the VFR’s motor has the potential to be an excellent combination of smoothness and power. Gear choice is irrelevant and downshifting is an afterthought. It’s a rocket.

Transmissions & Drivelines— VFR1200F 1st, Concours 14 2nd, FJR1300 3rd Honda’s VFR1200F has the best transmission in this group. Its six-speed gearbox has a stacked gearshaft design to minimize engine length, and its very long vertical shift linkage is an indication of how high in the motor the shift drum is located. To support its sportbike cred, the Honda also has a slipper clutch to eliminate the possibility of rear wheel hop during deceleration. In use, the VFR1200s transmission is silky smooth, its shift effort is light and its gear ratios are perfectly matched to the engine’s powerband (a key to its remarkable powers of acceleration); arguably the best of the group. We always like to test top gear roll-on performance to assess the passing power of competitors. But, in this comparison, top gear roll-ons aren’t fair to the Concours 14 because of its very tall overdrive sixth gear. The C14 achieves a staggering 86 mph at a mere 4000 rpm in top gear, making downshifts mandatory for a rapid pass. But even with this gearing, the big Kawasaki still had the worst average fuel economy of the group (43.27 mpg compared to the Honda’s 45.51 and the Yamaha’s 44.76 mpg). We found the Kawasaki’s gearbox to be very smooth but its shift effort just sightly higher than the Honda’s. Neutral is easy to find, and we experienced no false neutrals. The C14 is also equipped with a slipper clutch, and we found none of the shock-damper clashing on the 2010 C14 that we did in our 2007 comparison. Even though the Yamaha only has five speeds, its upper gears are closely spaced and fifth allows 80 mph @ 4000 rpm. For 2009, Yamaha improved the feel of the gearbox by adding an upper oil galley to lubricate the top-most gears. While this gives the tranny noticeably slicker shifting, we found that locating neutral or engaging first gear wasn’t flawless and sometimes required repeated efforts. If the Yamaha didn’t win this category, it’s still very good. Perhaps a slipper clutch will be included in its next iteration, but it doesn’t have one currently. All the clutches gave smooth engagements, didn’t vary significantly in lever effort and all were sufficiently strong to handle the power of their various engines. In its favor, the C14 uses a radialpump master cylinder for a slight advantage in control feel. A variety of innovative shaft-drive systems are used by this group to minimize the “jacking” effects that traditionally occur; Visit us at WWW.MCNEWS.COM

●

AUGUST 2010

13

Model Comparison lift on acceleration and squat when off throttle. The Honda mounts the driveshaft below the swingarm and uses a sliding CV joint to compensate for suspension movement, using a series of four shock dampers in the driveline to minimize any unwanted suspension effects. Regardless of its engineering subtleties, it works as intended and creates no unusual problems. The C14 uses a complex-looking “Tetralever” arrangement to prevent torque in the final drive gearcase from affecting the suspension. Besides its visual appeal, it also works as intended. The FJR1300’s method is less complex. It uses a very long swingarm and driveshaft (made possible by its stacked transmission) to reduce leverage from the rear end, together with a ramptype shock damper in the driveline to reduce shocks and also employs a relatively small diameter ring gear in the rear end to minimize leverage on the suspension. Although short on complexity, it’s long on good execution. It, too, was very effective.

Suspension—Concours 14 1st, FJR 1300 2nd, VFR1200F 3rd We sometimes have difficulty agreeing on suspension quality because of differing concepts of “feel” between riders, exacerbated by different rider weights and riding styles. But this time, our test riders agreed that the Concours had the best suspension. The C14 felt planted and in control at all times, with superb compliance over the road. It never exhibited any tendency to stand up during braking (unlike the VFR1200F), and provided the best balance between plushness for highway riding and tautness for corner carving. The C14 is adjustable front and rear for rebound and preload, but not compression damping. The FJR has a fork that’s fully-adjustable for compression and rebound damping plus spring preload. In back is a monoshock with adjustable rebound damping plus an unusual twoposition remote preload lever to compensate for solo versus two-up riding. The preload is lever easy to use, and the rear suspension is effective with the weight of various solo riders and luggage, but we would prefer a traditional remote adjuster knob with a greater range of positions. The rear preload worked best for our purposes when set to “firm,” which would probably not be enough when a heavy passenger was onboard as well. Overall, the Yamaha is slightly less plush than the C14, but exhibits entirely enjoyable long-distance comfort. We fought with the Honda’s suspension during our entire fiveday test. The VFR has preload and rebound adjustment only front and back, but, like the C14, no compression adjustability at either end. However, unlike the C14, the stock suspension set-up is brutally stiff; not even close to being appropriate for surfaces rougher than a pool table. Based on its sportbike pretensions and lofty price, we would expect fully adjustable suspension on the VFR. Also, the rear shock’s remote preload adjuster knob is positioned so close to the bodywork that it is very difficult to grip tightly, and the effort to turn it was higher than any similar adjuster in memory—separating the men from the boys. We also found it hard to achieve a proper compromise between highway comfort and sporting prowess regardless of adjustment. Our initial adjustment 14

AUGUST 2010

●


was to take a full turn from the front preload and two turns from the rear. This greatly improved compliance, but the VFR still lacked cornering grip, as if the tires were overinflated (they weren’t); the bike tending to skitter across bumpy pavement even at moderate lean angles. Trailbraking, the VFR wanted to stand up and run wide on corners. Further experiments included a full turn less front preload and reducing rear preload to the minimum while dialing in full rebound damping. This finally gave us a sense of tire grip, but the ride became so soft that it pitched too much under strong braking or acceleration. We wondered if the stock compression circuits were too firm, but had no way to reduce the effect. The VFR’s rear rebound damping was also clearly inadequate, even at the maximum setting. Frustrated, we couldn’t remember a Honda with suspension so far off the mark, especially a flagship model like the VFR1200F. In the final analysis, none of these sport-tourers have fully-adjustable suspension front and back. For the prices charged, we would expect otherwise. However, if this is the choice, the quality of the standard set-ups should be very close to ideal. The C14’s and the FJR’s were, the VFR’s wasn’t.

Brakes—FJR1300 1st, Concours 14 2nd, VFR1200F 3rd All three bikes produce strong stopping performance. The FJR1300 and VFR1200F come standard with ABS, and the C14 offers both ABS and traction control together for an additional $800. And each uses its own version of combined or linked braking. As for equipment, both the Honda and Yamaha have 320mm dual front rotors, while the Honda’s calipers are 6-piston compared to the Yamaha’s 4-piston setup. The Kawasaki uses dual 310mm front rotors with 4piston calipers. The rear brakes on each bike are different. The Kawasaki has a rear rotor diameter of 270mm, while the Honda’s is 276mm and the Yamaha’s is 282mm. Both the Honda and Kawasaki’s rear calipers are dual-piston, while the Yamaha’s is a single-piston setup. The brake pads on the Honda are snatchy enough to be overpowering if a rider thoughtlessly grabs a handful of front brake, and it takes a steady hand to trail brake on the VFR. As a result, we think it is the hardest bike of the group to ride casually. However, it did post the best stop during our performance testing in the hands of Danny Coe, former 250GP racer: 117.4' from 60 mph. The Kawasaki comes standard with radial-pump master cylinders for the best possible brake feel, but unlike the previous iteration of C14 we tested, which had brake pads even more aggressive than the new VFR, the C14’s latest brakes aren’t nearly as sensitive or difficult to modulate. In fact, although one finger braking is possible, it now takes a firm lever pull to slow the C14 down quickly. Like the 2007 C14 we tested, Kawasaki’s ABS works well, but it now has two distinct modes: “solo” and “high combined” which adds more rear brake to the equation to match the weight of a passenger. Testing the system in the various modes

actually revealed insignificant differences with a solo rider, and our best stop was 123.0'; very good if just shy of a 1.0 G stop. The Yamaha’s brakes use the same linkage system as on previous iterations of the FJR; combined rear-to-front linkage that includes a threshold pressure valve to prevent front brake engagement at low lever pressures, such as during parking lot maneuvers. Revised for the 2009 model year, the Yamaha’s latest ABS brakes are significantly improved. Our best tested stop this year was a 119.6' (better than 1.0 G and achieved by carefully modulating the brakes to permit minimal engagement of the ABS), vs. a very long 144.5' in our Dec. 2007 comparison. The FJR’s brake feel was judged ideal, with excellent power and great control.

ing was enough to whisk the Kawasaki through sections of tight turns or switchbacks. It also loved fast sweepers and railed through the really high speed curves. We found it to be inspiring under all road conditions. The Yamaha handled predictably in our test, offering plenty of feel during cornering, but its steering is slightly heavy compared to the other bikes, although its tall bars help minimize the effort required to throw the bike into turns. The Yamaha feels poised until you experience strong mid-corner bumps, then the rear shock’s damping deficiency allows things to get a little dicey.

Ergonomics—FJR1300 & Concours 14 tie for 1st, VFR1200F, a distant 2nd

Handling—Concours 14 1st, FJR1300 2nd,VFR1200F 3rd Top speed for all three bikes is very quick; the VFR fastest at 157.0 mph, the C14 clocking 152.0, while the Yamaha runs only 146.2 mph. In terms of stability, the Kawasaki is best and also feels the most planted in cross-winds, thanks to its very aerodynamic fairing design. The FJR was also very stable in crosswinds, but not quite the equal of the Kawasaki. However, the Honda was affected badly by windy conditions. The cause was hard to identify, but the VFR fairing does have a unique layered design that may have contributed. Keeping the Honda on track was real effort when sidewinds approached 50 mph, a fact magnified by its low and narrow handlebars which reduce leverage. It reminded us of the last VFR800, which also had narrow bars that made countersteering at high speeds difficult, making the rider rely more on weight shift to alter course. The Honda’s 590.5-lb. wet weight is heavy by sport bike standards, but it feels light compared to the Yamaha’s 662 lbs. or the Kawasaki’s 689.5 lbs. Unfortunately, its subpar suspension hurts its handling prowess on other-than-smooth pavement. And its narrow handlebars, which makes sense at high speed, are wrong in tight canyons that require quick transitions. Where the Honda excels is in fast sweepers, where it tends to hold a line well and rocket out of corners. In the canyons, it finds maintaining traction on bumpy surfaces difficult, and if any bike here really needs traction control, the VFR is the one. The Kawasaki feels wide between the knees—and it is compared to the other two bikes in our test—and it requires more effort to make quick transitions. The handling of the new C14 has been dramatically improved. Where the old one gave the rider the sense that it had too much trail in its steering geometry, making it slow to turn-in and constantly want to run wide, the new one feels perfect. The official cure was a new, stronger front tire construction that uses a dual-compound rubber. However, we were also advised to reduce front preload one turn from stock and add three clicks to the rear preload to sharpen the handling even more, which we did. Thus corrected, the C14 doesn’t have a tendency to stand up when braking like the Honda, and one finger trail-brak-

A comparison of the ergonomics of the three sport-tourers yields a tie for first. The Kawasaki offers the more windprotection and shielding from engine heat than the Yamaha, but the FJR has the more comfortable seat, plus adjustable seat height and handlebar angle. The C14’s new, taller windscreen still isn’t tall enough to put a bubble of clean air around sixfooters, but it is improved. The bars on the Concours are high and wide, and the position of the hand and foot controls is optimum for long-distance riding. With the windscreen in the down position, clean air hits the midsection of the rider and cools the upper body. Seat-wise, the C14’s good, but tilts forward too much. It’s better than either the first or second generation of seats used on the pre-C14 Concours, but still not the best in our comparison. The Yamaha also has a nice upright riding position, making it very suitable for long-distance riding. Unfortunately, a lot of engine heat still escapes into the cockpit and hits the rider’s shins. When the windscreen is in the full-up position, negative pressure pulls on the back of the rider’s head. The adjustable bars on the FJR make the hand position and wrist angle more customizable than either of the other bikes. Like the Kawasaki, air reaches the rider’s midsection cleanly with the windscreen down. It was unanimous, the FJR has the most comfortable seat of our trio; a fact that entices the rider to use the full range of its 6.6-gal. fuel tank between stops. Its seat is also lower, for a smaller overall feel than the Kawasaki. The Honda offers the most pain-per-mile compared to the other two sport-tourers. The deep knee bend, low bars and uncomfortable seat were not conducive to highway riding, or anything over quick 75-mile jaunts for that matter. The only time we forgot about its uncomfortable riding position was when we found fast sweepers.

Riding Impression—Concours 14 1st, FJR1300 2nd, VFR1200F 3rd Even though we hit the Ortega Highway to avoid LA traffic and climbed the mountains through Big Bear to miss some of Interstate 15, we covered vast expanses of Arizona, Utah and California on straight roads. Gusting winds after the sun began to warm Visit us at WWW.MCNEWS.COM

●

AUGUST 2010

15

Model Comparison

the landscape were common and one day included 50 mph wind gusts while heading from Grand Canyon south to Flagstaff, Arizona. Although not as strong as the killer 70 mph winds we endured two years ago south of the Banning Pass outside Palm Springs, California, fortunately for us, the C14 and FJR sporttourers are less susceptible to cross-winds than the adventuretourers we rode in 2008. Not so the Honda. It takes a good sport-tourer to make you forget long miles of freeway. The only one that did that for us was the Kawasaki, which felt utterly plush and relaxed on the interstate. When we refer to a motorcycle as a Swiss Army knife, we mean it is an essential tool for use in most situations. In our minds, the C14 fits that bill. While it isn’t as nimble in tight twisties as the lighter bikes, this iteration of the C14 is a veritable sport-touring Swiss Army knife. Kawasaki has learned a great deal since the first Concours rolled off the assembly lines 25 years ago, and it shows. With the latest Concours, Kawasaki’s designers have answered our greatest criticisms of the 2007 model. The rider endures no engine heat on the Kawasaki. Furthermore, the C14 is great on the highway, handles crosswinds well, is fun in the canyons and has enough standard gadgets to distract even the most ardent techno-geek. The Concours offered very neutral handling characteristics under every condition we could throw at it. That said, it takes more than a light touch to direct it through turns. The Concours holds a line well, but you need to apply firm bar pressure to get the bike to transition quickly. Given the weight of the bike, this came as no surprise. Even though the C14 has what feels like a very low center of gravity and a remarkable balance, there’s only so much engineers can do to hide weight. Those of you who read our December 2007 sport-touring comparison may remember the handling problems we had with that first edition of the C14. Those complaints did not resurface during this test, and we were all delighted by the transformation. The Concours held a tight line well in corners and didn’t have any tendency to “fall” into turns. The Yamaha has a solid dependable feel, almost like it’s been around forever and promises not to let you down. It is stable under most conditions, handles well on good roads, and offers no surprises unless things get too bumpy. Unfortunately, after having ridden the new Kawasaki, we wish the Yamaha, too, would get a makeover. The design, while still beautiful, could use a sixth 16

AUGUST 2010

●


gear, and heated grips should be standard. That isn’t to imply that the FJR is a bad tourer. It is still a fine machine that can hold its own on the road with any other sport-tourer on the market. The seating position is neutral, it offers good wind protection, and it conquers most road types. We just think it has slipped a rung lower than the Kawasaki on the value ladder. That said, for the price difference between the FJR1300 and Honda’s VFR1200F, you could install an Öhlins shock, fix the heat issue on the lower fairing and buy a proper taller windscreen, making it even more desirable. But it would then be $2000 more expensive than the similarlypriced Kawasaki. We’re guessing Yamaha will respond in a big way to the Concours 14, but only time will tell. The Honda often felt like it was the odd man out in this comparison. In our minds, a good sport-tourer should have equal parts of sport and touring capability. The Honda is too radically skewed toward the characteristics of a sport-bike, but then spoils its appeal by comparison with the ZX-14 and Hayabusa by being overweight with badly conceived suspension settings that aren’t adjustable enough to fix completely and having balky fuel injection. For the price, we expected to be blown away by the VFR. The Honda costs over $2000 more than either the C14 or the FJR1300. And while there is a ton of technology in the motor, it doesn’t make up for the fact that this bike is better off being towed to the mountains instead of ridden there. We struggled during our whole tour to find a good suspension setup for the VFR. The problem seemed to be mainly with the rear shock, but we hunted for an optimal fork setup as well. We wondered if the compression valving at both ends might have been matched to its stiff-as-a-board spring rates, but without a way to adjust compression, it’s hard to know. And while the Honda isn’t a hard-core sportbike, its ergonomics and punishing ride don’t allow it to be much more comfortable than one, either.

Instruments & Controls— C14 1st, FJR1300 2nd, VFR1200F 3rd The Kawasaki’s cockpit provides all the information a pilot needs. The display is easy to view, and the screens of information can be toggled at the dash or via a button on the front of the left handlebar. Screens for the battery voltage, current and average mileage, range to empty, and tire air pressure can be scrolled through. The variable-temperature heated grip knob is easily reached on the left inner fairing edge and the rest of the control layout is easy, logical and well-positioned. Even the windscreen adjuster is easy to reach and can be adjusted on the fly. Speaking of flies, the one fly in the ointment for the Kawasaki is its new KIPASS system, which consists of a key mounted to a large handle and a remote key fob. If you don’t have the key fob with you, you can’t turn the key to start the bike. Nor can you remove the key without having the key fob. Unfortunately, without the key, you can’t open the fuel cap or remove the saddlebags. Plus, even when you remove the key from the ignition, it’s attached to a bulbous bezel that is awkward to put in your pocket.

Kawasaki’s answer was to provide a small valet key in the back of the key fob. In our estimation, the KIPASS system is still the answer to a question that nobody was asking. Even with the key fob, the key is hard to remove from the ignition. Should you lose the key fob, good luck. Like most bikes with such “immobilizers,” our guess is that far more owners have been thwarted by its design than would-be thieves. The Honda has a minimalist display compared to the Kawasaki and Yamaha. While the display has coolant and ambient temperature and a gear indicator, there is no additional information other than tripmeters. The instrument cluster is tightly packed and easy to read. The information provided is that of a sportbike, but at least the packaging is nice and integrated to the overall design of the fairing. But even many sportbikes have fuel gauges nowadays, so it comes up short of the spartan class and lacks many features that the C14 and FJR1300 share, like trip computer functions. The Yamaha takes second in the instruments and controls department by virtue of the quantity of information it provides, despite the fact that its display isn’t as good as the C14’s. Scrolling its information requires the rider’s right hand to leave the handlebar, reach out to the instrument cluster and push a button. Second, the speedo only covers 260° on the dial, and its marked top speed of 190 mph is at least 40 mph optimistic. As a result, the speedo’s numbers are too close together and hard to read. Same for the tach, which also has a limited sweep and numbers it can’t use. Like the other two bikes, the FJR has a gear indicator, but also a display for ambient air temperature, which the C14 lacks. In terms of controls, the Yamaha’s are easy to reach and operate, but we would like to see a handlebarmounted display toggle.

Attention to Detail— C14 1st, FJR1300 2nd, VFR1200F 3rd The Kawasaki Concours 14 was built by a company that listens to its customers. All of our biggest gripes with the original C14 are fixed on the 2010 model. In terms of attention to detail, the Concours is a well-conceived bike. From its smooth powertrain, supple suspension and remarkably adept handling down to the instruments and controls, the bike gives the feel of a carefully considered fresh design rather than a fancy but half-finished effort. The C14’s centerstand is designed for ease of use; the FJR’s is near hernia-inducing. The C14’s saddlebags are big and easy to install and remove, with comfortable round carrying handles, and the luggage rack is large and positioned so it won’t interfere with a passenger. The exhaust on the Kawasaki is tucked-in and unobtrusive. However, the C14’s exhaust is higher than the FJR’s, raising its saddlebags higher and affecting its center of gravity. It isn’t too noticeable, but it doesn’t look as tightly packaged as the Yamaha. The mirrors on the C14 were the best in the lot, shielding the hands from the wind and offering an unobstructed view of what’s behind the rider. The Honda VFR1200F is a gorgeous bike. The fairing, frame, engine, swingarm and exhaust are all well-integrated, and the paint is beautiful. The rear fender has convenient bungee hook mounting points and, due to the position of the exhaust, we imagine its saddlebags (not available on the press bikes) will fit nicely. However, the VFR does not include a centerstand and, for its price, deserves fully-adjustable suspension—at least.

The Yamaha FJR1300 is still the best-looking sport-tourer on the market by our vote. However, our gripes extend to a few other areas beyond the instrumentation, such as using the centerstand. It takes adrenalin and technique to heft the FJR onto its centerstand. While the fit and finish of the Yamaha are top notch, the fact that Yamaha didn’t completely fix the heat issue with tightly fitted fairing sections like the C14 indicates a lack of attention to detail. Riders wearing leather pants are less susceptible to this engine heat, but those who prefer mesh gear should be forewarned.

Value—Concours 14 1st, FJR1300 2nd, Honda VFR1200F 3rd The value determination of this comparison is a veritable slamdunk for the Kawasaki. With its optional ABS and traction control, it is priced just $109 more than the Yamaha (ABS standard), yet offers far more features. The Yamaha originally set the value bar in this class, but now the Kawasaki leads the segment. We’d still like to see fully-adjustable suspension on both ends on all three of these bikes, but you can’t deny the added value of the Kawasaki’s ABS, traction control and heated grips. The Yamaha is still a bargain compared to the Honda, but until the C14 showed up, the FJR appeared bargain priced. We expect the next iteration of the FJR to up the ante with similar features. There’s a lot of technology in the Honda, much of it you can’t see. The first time you twist its fly-by-wire throttle and sense the rush of power—devoid of any shaft drive effect—you feel it. You can imagine that it took a lot of engineering time to make its swingarm and frame. Unfortunately, appreciating technology isn’t the same as experiencing value. Other than the fact that you can impress your friends by rattling off the features of the Honda, we don’t know why you’d pay $15,999 for a sporttourer that you wouldn’t want to tour on. Nor would we spend that kind of money for a sportbike that’s too heavy and doesn’t have excellent suspension or driveability.

Bottom Line—Concours 14 1st, FJR1300 2nd, VFR1200F 3rd The Kawasaki Concours 14 is the current King of the Hill in our estimation. Its features, value, comfort, power and ability to handle every road condition we could throw at it make it an excellent choice for any rider interested in devouring beautiful scenery. The Yamaha still earns a close second, but it’s clearly time for the next-generation FJR. The VFR1200F has great potential, but is neither fish nor fowl. Honda will have to make up its mind.

Visit us at WWW.MCNEWS.COM

●

AUGUST 2010

17

Model Comparison Left: This is what an aerodynamic motorcycle looks like. The mirrors shield the hands and offer a great rear view. Venting is also improved for 2010. Right: Very readable and complete instrumentation plus a handlebar toggle switch to scroll screens make the C14 dash best. Left: No illusion, the C14’s saddlebags are angled to the rear. Bigger than its competitors’, the bags also have comfortable round carrying handles. But the rider’s seat tilts forward too much for best comfort, and the cockpit feels slightly wide between the knees. Right: The C14’s complex Tetralever rear end “floats” the rear gearcase to eliminate shaft drive effects. Left: Two issues greatly hurt the C14 when it was originally introduced two years ago. One was queasy handling that suggested the front end needed more trail. The other was frighteningly grabby front brakes that created more anxiety than comfort. Both have been fixed. A new front tire construction and a minor adjustment to front and rear preload has it handling the way we always wanted, and new brake pads have much better feel.

Right: Anytime you use a large engine, you will have significant heat that must be evacuated without cooking the rider at the same time. Complaints in this department have also been answered by redesigned body panels that don’t provide any gaps to let hot air into the cockpit. The C14’s sixth gear is an overdrive that gives an indicated 86 mph @ 4000 rpm. Plus, it offers an “Eco” mode for improved mpg.

TESTERS’ LOG What a difference three years can make! All of our complaints about the first edition of the big Connie have been answered. It’s got a linear tractable powerplant that just begs to get into triple digits, superb suspension, a rigid frame and a great 6speed tranny, making for a nimble locomotive, completely adept at canyon carving and luxurious two-up high-speed cruising. It sits a bit tall compared to the FJR, and the seat could use a bit of work or an aftermarket alternative, but otherwise this is a perfect long-distance ride. Kawasaki, Thanks for listening! —Don Searle After four days and 1700 miles of riding, any minor doubts I had that the Concours 14 would be the best of this trio had vanished like the horizon at our backs. The Kawi already had plenty of power, but its new Bridgestone tires and the slight increase in fork oil level have sharpened its handling significantly, and the KTRC traction control and K-ABS systems work well, adding an even greater measure of rider con-

18

AUGUST 2010

●


fidence should the road become wet or sandy. I also dig the ECO mode, which allows the Kawasaki to travel as far as any of the other bikes without requiring extra fuel stops. The C14 isn’t perfect; the seat could be more comfortable, and the KIPASS key system is a bad joke. It doesn’t outperform the FJR by leaps and bounds, but it does offer a lot more features for a mere $100 over the cost of the FJR, and that’s enough to make it the winner in my book. —Scott Rousseau After our disappointment with the Concours 14 in our Dec. 2007 comparison, and seeing no changes to its front end geometry, I wasn’t convinced its handling had been properly fixed. But it certainly has, and I’m shocked that a different tire construction can make such a difference. Now, I realize what an amazing package it actually is: with the best overall suspension, best wind-resistance, suberb fuel injection and transmission, and a newfound ability to slow down with inducing anxiety. The sporttouring bar has been raised, hail the new king! —Dave Searle

2010 Kawasaki Concours 14 SPECIFICATIONS AND PERFORMANCE DATA ENGINE

PERFORMANCE

Type: ..........Liquid-cooled in-line four Valvetrain:DOHC, 4 valves per cylinder, shim under bucket valve adjustment Displacement: ........................1352cc Bore/stroke: ................84.0 x 61.0mm Comp. ratio: ............................10.7:1 Fueling: ......EFI, 40mm throttle bodies Exhaust: ......................4-into-2-into-1

Measured top speed ......152.3 mph 0–1/4 mile ..................10.82 sec. @ 119.51 mph 0–60 mph ....................3.14 sec. 0–100 mph ..................7.10 sec. 60–0 mph ........................123.0' Power to Weight Ratio ........1: 5.09 Speed @ 65 mph indicated......61.6

DRIVE TRAIN MC RATING SYSTEM Transmission:........................6-speed Final drive: ..................................shaft RPM @ 65 mph*/rev limiter: 3166/10,000

EXCELLENT VERY GOOD GOOD FAIR POOR

*actual, not indicated

C

68.5" 56.3"

31.6"

Front: ......43mm male-slider fork, adj. preload and reb. damping, 4.4" travel Rear: ....monoshock, adj. preload and reb. damping, 5.4" travel

Front: ..120/70ZR17 Bridgestone Battlax BT021 S/T on 3.50" x 17" wheel Rear:190/50ZR17 Bridgestone Battlax BT021 on 6.00" x 17" wheel

MISCELLANEOUS Instruments: ..........................speedo, tach, odometer, 2 tripmeters, clock, battery voltage, current and avg. mpg, range to empty, tire air pressure, gear position, fuel gauge, coolant temp. Indicators:.......... hi-beam, t/s, neutral MSRP: ..................................$14,599 As tested:..$15,299 w/ 2-stage K-ACT ABS and KTRC traction control Routine service interval:........7500 mi. Valve adj. interval:..............15,000 mi. Warranty: ..3 years, unlimited mileage Colors:Candy Neptune Blue/Flat Super Black

ELECTRICS Battery: ..............................12V, 14Ah Ignition:........................Transistorized Alternator Output: 581W @ 5000 rpm Headlight: ..............................55/60W

: : :

FUEL Tank capacity: ........................5.8 gal. Fuel grade: .......................... Premium High/low/avg. mpg: ......47.7/38.6/43.3

J

: : :

:::::

–– Open Class Sport-Tourer–– ::::: Engine ::::: ::::; Transmission ::::: ::::: Suspension ::::: ::::; Brakes ::::: ::::; Handling ::::: ::::; Ergonomics ::::: ::::: Riding Impression ::::: Instruments/Controls ::::: ::::: ::::; Attention to Detail ::::: ::::: Value ::::: OVERALL RATING

::::; :::::

DYNAMOMETER DATA Low end Mid-range Top end

::::; ::::: ::::;

The C14’s motor is a velvet brute; smooth and relaxed but ready to fly when you are. It’s a little sluggish to respond from low rpm, but it wakes up quickly. Its fuel injection is also excellent, now with the option of ECO mode for higher mpg this year.

TEST NOTES PICKS Best suspension for all-day sport touring Potent and smooth-running powerplant Awesome handling in high speed twisties PANS Rider’s seat tilts forward enough to spoil all-day comfort Its weight and taller seat make the FJR feel small KIPASS “fob” controlled ignition is a nuisance

135.57 hp

••

Std. mode ECO mode

134.40 hp

89.99 lb.-ft.

•• 87.49 lb.-ft.

SAE CORRECTED REAR-WHEEL TORQUE, LB. FT.

TIRES & WHEELS

G HI

SAE CORRECTED REAR-WHEEL HORSEPOWER

Front:ABS, dual 310mm petal discs w/ four-piston radial-mount calipers Rear: ............ABS, 240mm petal disc, two-piston, double-action caliper

F

Vertical (ground to) F: Handlebar (center). G: Rider footpeg (top). H: Rider seat (lowest point). I : Passenger peg (top). J: Passenger seat (middle).

36.8"

52.4"

32.0"

62.5"

19.75"

D E

SUSPENSION

BRAKES

Horizontal (nose to) A: Passenger seat (middle). B: Rider seat (middle). C: Handgrip (center). D: Passenger footpeg (center). E: Rider footpeg (center).

13.2"

Wheelbase: ................................59.8" Rake/trail:............................26.1°/4.4" Ground clearance: ........................5.0" Seat height: ................................32.0" GVWR: ................................1172 lbs. Wet weight: ........................689.5 lbs. Carrying capacity: ..............482.5 lbs.

A B

41.4"

DIMENSIONS

ERGONOMICS TEMPLATE

RPM, THOUSANDS

STANDARD MAINTENANCE Labor Parts Item Time Oil & Filter ................0.5 ..........$22.00+15.25$40.00 Air Filter....................0.4 ..........$47.50 ..........$32.00 Valve Adjust..............3.2 ........$191.19 ........$256.00 Battery Access..........0.3 ............MF ..............$24.00 Final Drive ................1.0 ................................$80.00 R/R Rear Whl. ..........1.5 ..............................$120.00 Change Plugs............0.9 ..........$50.00 ..........$72.00 Synch EFI..................0.7 ................................$56.00 $680.00 $325.94 8.5 Totals * MCN has changed the estimated labor rate to $80 starting March 2007


●

AUGUST 2010

19

Model Comparison Left: The FJR1300 still has a lot to like: a compact feel, an electrically adjustable windscreen, great hard bags standard, an excellent seat (adjustable, like the handlebar position), good aerodynamics, strong brakes with great feel, a potent motor, fully adjustable forks and an even better-shifting transmission for 2010. It’s still an MCN favorite, but now falls short in value to the revised C14. Top: The speedo goes to an optimistic 190 mph in 260°, making the numbers too tight for easy reading at a glance. Same with the tach, which also has a reduced sweep and numbers it doesn’t use. Dash buttons must be used to scroll information—not as handy or safe to use as a handlebar-mounted switch. Below: The FJR’s seat adjusts to two heights, both lower than either the Kawasaki’s or the Honda’s. Rear preload adjusts with a simple lever for either one- or two-up, but should offer greater preload/rebound range. Top: Retractable bag support mechanisms take up some space inside, but the bags hold a lot and nice bag liners are standard equipment. Right: The FJR’s bags fit closely to the chassis, and the bike as a whole has a more compact feel than the Kawasaki that’s very appealing, especially to shorter riders.

TESTERS’ LOG The Yamaha FJR1300 has been relegated to the “just plain competent” camp, as the crown for best sports-tourer is now worn by the Concours 14. The FJR is still one of the most visually appealing and ergonomically comfortable sport-tourers on the planet, but when confronted by the new Connie, its engine comes in second. It’s also missing a host of amenities available on the Connie, such as heated grips, traction control, and sixspeed overdrive, just to name a few. And while it used to be the best handler in such camparos, that crown has also passed to the Connie, which now loves to carve canyons. It’s still a great bike, but in this competition, it comes in second. —Don Searle Same as with our FZ1 vs. Z1000 naked bike comparison (March 2010), the venerable FJR1300 has had its thunder stolen by a revised Kawasaki. And yet, just as with the nakeds, the FJR has still proved to be a worthy sport-tourer despite its slightly dated design. The FJR matches the C14 mile for mile in terms of rider comfort, and I believe its front end offers more feedback in the

20

AUGUST 2010

●


twisties and its brakes feel more powerful. My dream next-generation FJR “1400” (that’d take care of the power) would have more rear suspension adjustability, an overdrive 6-speed transmission like the C14, heated grips like the C14, a more comprehensive data screen like the C14, and a more enclosed engine that keeps heat away from the rider like the C14 does. If Yamaha could deliver these updates in the FJR, even if it cost a bit more, it might tilt the balance back into Yamaha’s corner. —Scott Rousseau Over the years, I’ve accumulated many fond memories from my time on the various FJR models. It’s still the most comfortable in this group, with a lighter more compact feel than the C14. Its engine may give up a few ponies, but it doesn’t get confused by VVT or fuel-injection issues when I grab a handful; its transmission is noticeably better now, and it’s still fun to ride hard on twisty roads. Still close to the top, it has no major flaws like the Honda. Just wait, Yamaha will respond! —Dave Searle

2010 Yamaha FJR1300 SPECIFICATIONS AND PERFORMANCE DATA ENGINE

PERFORMANCE

Type: .......... Liquid-cooled in-line four Valvetrain: .... DOHC, 4 valves per cyl., shim under bucket valve adjustment Displacement: ........................1298cc Bore/stroke: ................79.0 x 66.2mm Comp. ratio: ............................10.8:1 Fueling: ......EFI, 42mm throttle bodies Exhaust: ................................4-into-2

Measured top speed ......146.2 mph 0–1/4 mile ..................11.14 sec. @ 119.51 mph 0–60 mph ....................3.30 sec. 0–100 mph ..................7.71 sec. 60–0 mph ........................119.6' Power to Weight Ratio ........1: 5.45 Speed @ 65 mph indicated......61.7

DRIVE TRAIN

MC RATING SYSTEM

Transmission: ......................5-speed Final drive: ................................shaft RPM @ 65 mph*/rev limiter: 3476/9000



Front: .......... ABS, dual 320mm discs, four-piston, four-pad double-action calipers Rear: ..............................282mm disc, single-piston caliper, linked ABS TIRES & WHEELS Front: ..120/70ZR17 Metzeler Roadtec Z6 on 3.50" x 17" wheel Rear: ..180/55ZR17 Metzeler Roadtec Z6 on 5.50" x 17" wheel

62.2"

F

Instruments: speedo, tach, odometer, 2 tripmeters, ambient temp., fuel gauge, range, coolant temp., gear indicator, current mpg, average mpg Indicators:..........hi-beam, t/s, neutral, low oil, ABS MSRP: ..................................$15,190 Routine service interval:........4000 mi. Valve adj. interval:..............26,600 mi. Warranty: ....1 year, unlimited mileage Colors: ............................Liquid Silver

: : :

FUEL :

Tank capacity: ........................6.6 gal. Fuel grade: .......................... Premium High/low/avg. mpg: ......49.9/42.1/44.8

G HI

J

MISCELLANEOUS

ELECTRICS Battery: ..............................12V, 12Ah Ignition: ........3D-mapped, 32-bit ECU Alternator Output: 490W @ 5000 rpm Headlight: ..............................55/60W

53.25"


34.5"

D E

30.75"

32.0"

: :

–– Open Class Sport-Tourer–– ::::; Engine ::::: ::::; Transmission ::::: ::::; Suspension ::::: ::::: Brakes ::::: ::::; Handling ::::: ::::: Ergonomics ::::: ::::; Riding Impression ::::: Instruments/Controls ::::; ::::: ::::; Attention to Detail ::::: ::::. Value ::::: OVERALL RATING

::::; :::::


::::. ::::. :::;.

The FJR motor has needed no major changes over the years. It’s still plenty powerful and smooth running with an enviable reputation for reliability. Its fuel injection is now flawless, and it still puts a smile on our faces. Is a six-speed the next step?

TEST NOTES PICKS Best seat plus adjustable seat height and handlebar angle Low, compact feel makes twisty roads more fun Excellent ABS (new in ‘09) with very good feel PANS Now surpassed by the C14 in value for money Could use a sixth gear for better fuel mileage No longer the powerhouse it was when first introduced

121.46 hp

• • 85.80 lb.-ft.


BRAKES

C

:::::


Front:....48mm YHSJ telescopic forks, adj. preload, comp. and reb. damping, 5.3" travel Rear: monoshock, 2-position adj. preload, and rebound damping, 4.9" travel


69.0" 56.0"

17.25"

SUSPENSION

A B

12.25"

Wheelbase: ................................60.6" Rake/trail:..........................26.0°/4.29" Ground clearance: ......................4.63" Seat height: ..............................30.75" GVWR: ................................1109 lbs. Wet weight: ..........................662 lbs. Carrying capacity: ..................447 lbs.

ERGONOMICS TEMPLATE

40.5"

DIMENSIONS

RPM, THOUSANDS

STANDARD MAINTENANCE Item Time Parts Labor Oil & Filter ................0.4 ..........$22.00+13.50$32.00 Air Filter....................0.2 ..........$34.25 ..........$16.00 Valve Adjust..............3.4 ........$103.75 ........$272.00 Battery Access ..........0.2 ............MF ..............$16.00 Final Drive ................0.2 ................................$16.00 R/R Rear Whl. ..........0.5 ................................$40.00 Change Plugs............1.0 ..........$29.00 ..........$80.00 Synch EFI..................1.6 ..............................$128.00 Totals 7.5 $202.50 $600.00 * MCN has changed the estimated labor rate to $80 starting March 2007


●

AUGUST 2010

21

Model Comparison Left: The VFR1200F is confused about its mission. With lower handlebars than the ZX-14 or Hayabusa, it puts pressure on the wrists long-term, its footpegs are high and its seat hard. Its motor says sportbike, but its weight, shaft drive and optional hard bags suggest touring. To make matters worse, its stock suspension setup is stiffer than a Ducati superbike’s. We’re confused, too. Above: The dash is sportbike-like, with fairly minimal information, but adequate. Abrupt fuel injection and occassional instances of a too-high idle made smooth control difficult in the first three gears. The lack of compression adjustability in the VFR’s suspension is unacceptable at its price and badly needed.

Right: The VFR’s upholstery is a skin on the underlying foam, like a car’s dashboard. Despite its style, the VFR’s seat was unanimously voted the least favorite in this comparison. Strong sidewinds steer the bike off-line badly. Right: Curiously, the nose vents are fully covered by the lower windshield extensions. Dust that gradually collected inside was virtually impossible to remove. Left: A long driveshaft passes below the swingarm pivot in the VFR’s unique final drive. The knob above the swingarm adjusts rear preload but was extremely difficult to turn. Rear rebound also proved to be inadequate.

TESTERS’ LOG Honda has lost its way and decided to fill a niche that no one needs. A 600-lb. sportbike? I don’t think so! Save me $2000, and give me a Hayabusa or a ZX-14. For a sport-touring mount, the VFR’s ergonomics don’t work: Your wrists scream, your neck will wish for a guillotine, and your legs will say “charlie horse” within 30 miles, and heaven help your passenger on a long ride. Add jerky fuel injection to the package and all sense of fun is lost. Honda should name this version of the venerable VFR the “Enigma,” as in, what were they thinking? I loved the engine’s sound and acceleration, but after five days and 1700 miles, when it came time to trade mounts, we all murmured in Navaho Code Talk, “ITFYATB” (It’s time for your ass to burn). Honda, we know you can do better. —Don Searle Okay, okay, I’m now convinced that the VFR1200F doesn’t qualify as a bona fide sport tourer, but it really doesn’t matter because, to me, the VFR isn’t so overwhelmingly superior as a sportbike that I would choose it and its $15,999 price tag over

22

AUGUST 2010

●


either the C14 or the FJR1300. If, as Honda claims, the VFR1200F is a sportbike for more mature riders, why did its engineers insist on the same contorted riding position and anvil-hard seat as a superbike? And if those riders are as savvy as Honda’s market research claims, how come the VFR lacks fully adjustable suspension? With more upright ergonomics, standard hard bags and more compliant suspension combined with the VFR’s brilliant engine, excellent brakes and precise handling, it could’ve evoked the same passion as the Ducati ST4S. —Scott Rousseau Honda’s engineering teams seemed to go their separate ways. One created a great motor but didn’t get the fuel injection right. Another team built a suspension set-up so firm it could race on glass smooth racetracks. Another tried to copy the BMW K1300S, but ended up with a machine 27.5-lbs. heavier with less comfortable ergonomics. Put it all together and what do you get? A bike priced like a BMW but without the refinement; neither great sportbike nor great sport-tourer. —Dave Searle

2010 Honda VFR1200F ABS SPECIFICATIONS AND PERFORMANCE DATA ENGINE

PERFORMANCE

Type: .......... Liquid-cooled 76° V-four Valvetrain: .... SOHC, 4 valves per cyl., shim-under-bucket intake/screw-andlocknut exhaust adjustment Displacement: ........................1237cc Bore/stroke: ................81.0 x 60.0mm Comp. ratio: ............................12.0:1 Fueling:........PGM-FI w/44mm throttle bodies and 12-hole injectors Exhaust: ..........4-into-2- into-1-into 2

Measured top speed ......157.0 mph 0–1/4 mile..................10.16 sec. ..........................@ 134.90 mph 0–60 mph ....................2.70 sec. 0–100 mph ..................5.97 sec. 60–0 mph ........................117.4' Power to Weight Ratio ........1:3.96 Speed @ 65 mph indicated ....64.6 MC RATING SYSTEM

DRIVE TRAIN


Transmission:........................6-speed Final drive: ..................................shaft RPM @ 65 mph*/rev limiter:3925/10,500

C

D E

29.1"

64.25" 54.0"

35.5"

Wheelbase: ................................60.8" Rake/trail: ..........................25.5°/4.0” Ground clearance: ......................4.75" Seat height: ................................31.5" GVWR: ..................................992 lbs. Wet weight: ........................590.5 lbs. Carrying capacity: ..............401.5 lbs.

31.5" 19.75"

DIMENSIONS


68.25" 55.0"

13.5"

A B

33.5"


ERGONOMICS TEMPLATE


SUSPENSION

F

G HI

ELECTRICS Battery:..........................12 V, 11.2 Ah Ignition: ......................Integrated CDI Alternator Output: 552W @ 5000 rpm Headlight: ............55W high, 55W low Tank capacity: ........................4.9 gal. Fuel grade: ..........................Premium High/low/avg. mpg: ....54.4/39.2/45.5

: : : : : :

Engine Transmission Suspension Brakes Handling Ergonomics Riding Impression Instruments/Controls Attention to Detail Value

::::: :::;.

OVERALL RATING

::::: :::;.

::::: ::::: ::;.. ::::: ::::; ::::: :::.. ::::: :::.. ::::: ::;.. ::::: ::::. ::::: ::::; ::::: :::..


::::: ::::; ::::.

The VFR’s V-4 is a triumph of high power in a compact package and it accelerates the bike harder than its 590-lb. weight should allow. But its fuel injection is not up to the task, with harsh on-off response and occassional bouts of high idle speed.

TEST NOTES PICKS Exciting motor with great acceleration and a fine sound Excellent trans with slick gearchanges and light effort Powerful ABS brakes PANS Least comfortable ergonomics Harsh stock suspension that lacks full adjustability Traction control would be helpful, given its high hp

• 148.94 hp

• 84.68 lb.-ft.


Front:120/70ZR17 Dunlop RoadSmart CQ MC58W on 3.50" x 17" wheel Rear: 190/55ZR17 Dunlop RoadSmart MC 75W on 6.00" x 17" wheel

J

–– Open Class Sport-Tourer––


Front: .... 43mm male-slider cartridge fork, adj. preload, rebound, 4.7" travel MISCELLANEOUS Rear: Pro-Link monoshock, w/remote preload and rebound adjustability, Instruments: ....digital speedo, analog tach, odometer, 2 tripmeters, clock, 5.1" travel coolant and ambient temps. BRAKES Indicators: .. hi-beam, t/s, neutral, low fuel, oil pressure, ABS, check engine Front:Dual 320mm semi-floating discs, MSRP: ..................................$15,999 radial-mount, six-piston, four-pad Routine service interval:........8000 mi. calipers w/CBS and ABS Valve adj. interval:..............16,000 mi. Rear:......................fixed 276mm disc, Warranty: ....1 year, unlimited mileage two-piston caliper w/CBS and ABS warranty Colors: ..............................Candy Red TIRES & WHEELS

:::::

RPM, THOUSANDS

STANDARD MAINTENANCE Labor Parts Item Time Oil & Filter ................0.8 ..........$20+$55 ......$64.00 Air Filter....................0.8 ..........$65.00 ..........$64.00 Valve Adjust..............3.5 ..........$75.00 ........$280.00 Battery Access..........0.5 ............MF ..............$40.00 Final Drive ................0.3 ................................$24.00 R/R Rear Whl. ..........1.0 ................................$80.00 Change Plugs............1.5 ..........$30.00 ........$120.00 Synch EFI..................1.0 ................................$80.00 $752.00 $245.00 9.4 Totals * Costs are best-guess estimates as no data was available at press time


●

AUGUST 2010

23