CTX 700 Forum banner
1 - 20 of 25 Posts

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
6,250 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
The 700 will be upgraded to 750 and expect ABS standard! The DCT will still be an option for both CTX's models.
The NC has already converted for 2014. The CTX's have always lagged a year behind the NC, so expect this for the 2015 models!

Proof!

Specs:
Parallel-twin, 8 valve SOHC, liquid Cooled
Displacement 745CC Bore & stroke 77X80mm
Compression Ratio 10.7:1
Maximum Power 40.3 KW (55HP)/6,250r/min
Maximum torque 68Nm at 4,750 rev/min 95/1EC
3.7l Oil Capacity
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
975 Posts
According to the torque conversion website I used, 68 NM converts to 50.1 peak foot lbs of torque. This should be a nice little bump in power and twisting force. Sort of what is needed in a near-500 lb bike.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31 Posts
Other changes?

The 700 will be upgraded to 750 and expect ABS standard! The DCT will still be an option for both CTX's models.
The NC has already converted for 2014. The CTX's have always lagged a year behind the NC, so expect this for the 2015 models!

Proof!

Specs:
Parallel-twin, 8 valve SOHC, liquid Cooled
Displacement 745CC Bore & stroke 77X80mm
Compression Ratio 10.7:1
Maximum Power 40.3 KW (55HP)/6,250r/min
Maximum torque 68Nm at 4,750 rev/min 95/1EC
3.7l Oil Capacity
How do you think this upgrade will affect gas mileage? Obviously, it usually follows that more power = less gas mileage. Just your speculations though...
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
6,250 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
Most bikers don't care about mpg. But if I where to guess, If the 700 is advertised at 64 I think the 750 would be advertised at about 56-60 which is still remarkable. With the additional power you will be less on the throttle kind of leveling it out.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
463 Posts
Personally I don't think going up to 750ccs. is going to make a big difference in either power or gas mileage.
Perhaps the biggest difference will be on the DCT units. With a little extra power they can change the shift points and not let the bike lug as much.
Those of us with standard shifts we (I) tend to wind out when going thru the gears so I don't think there will be a lot of difference.
Gas mileage is a consideration of a small number of riders.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
795 Posts
I pretty much agree with Vulcan.
The jump to 750cc is welcome but the rpm range remains about the same which impacts speed ranges in any give gear so the gearing will most likely stay the same. Somewhere around the cruising rpm's you get 4.4 more ft lbs of torque (9.6%). Might be noticeable but not a big increase. if you take the 700 it developed 1hp for every 13.7cc the new 750 develops 1hp for 13.9cc. Again not a big improvement if one is looking to get a kick in the ass for the increased engine size. A high performance engine like my 3 cylinder 850 develops 1hp for ever 7.4cc. The new CTX with larger engine might still get pretty good gas mileage.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
975 Posts
Lots of comments on here about how the bump won't make that much of a difference performance wise, but isn't the biggest complaint about this power train (mostly from NCS and NCX owners) that it just needs a little bit more. I mean, alot of folks are not asking for a complete change in character from the power plant, you know, like a traditional high-revving bike, but just a little more grunt for those times going 2-up or uphill at 70+ mph.

I don't know much technically about engines and such, but aren't they somewhat limited on how much they can increase displacement when they only want to tinker with bore and stroke, while keeping the same engine design?

Personally, I think its a good move. There are plenty other bikes with that sport character where peak torque occurs in the stratosphere. The 700 has 90% of its peak torque from 3K-5.6K., and now that torque will be up by about 6 or 7 more foot pounds and since the displacement increase will come from only (maybe) a longer stroke, I would think it will still be very fuel frugal, although most members on here don't give a hoot about that.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
795 Posts
Lots of comments on here about how the bump won't make that much of a difference performance wise, but isn't the biggest complaint about this power train (mostly from NCS and NCX owners) that it just needs a little bit more. I mean, alot of folks are not asking for a complete change in character from the power plant, you know, like a traditional high-revving bike, but just a little more grunt for those times going 2-up or uphill at 70+ mph. Every little bit of power will help the CTX

I don't know much technically about engines and such, but aren't they somewhat limited on how much they can increase displacement when they only want to tinker with bore and stroke, while keeping the same engine design? Bore and Stock are limited due to engine castings of the cylinders and the crackcase but more power can come from intake, exhaust, cam timing, and fueling. Each change to get power will take away from fuel economy so there will be trade offs that only Honda will decide. If it gained 15hp and lost 5mpg that would be a good trade.

Personally, I think its a good move. There are plenty other bikes with that sport character where peak torque occurs in the stratosphere. The 700 has 90% of its peak torque from 3K-5.6K., and now that torque will be up by about 6 or 7 more foot pounds and since the displacement increase will come from only (maybe) a longer stroke, I would think it will still be very fuel frugal, although most members on here don't give a hoot about that.
6-7 is more that I calculated the difference would be but getting solid HP and Torque figures on the CTX is not easy to find. I tried. Even the Honda Service manual is missing that data. But again, like you said, it should still be frugal. There are some sport bikes that have very flat torque curves. Like 2k rpms (non stratosphere) all the way to 10k (stratosphere) rpms. 3 cylinder engines by Triumph and Yamaha are such engines. Amazing torque at very low rpms.

I think Honda figures it will sell ok as it for 2014 in the USA.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
975 Posts
Thanks Bill for the technical explanations. I guess these 3 cylinders are inline? I love the character of inline motors.

I did notice these one of these super-performing 3 cylinders that you're referring to when I read the specs. on the FZ-09. I looked at it closely after you had posted about it some time ago. I saw how powerful and torquey it was on the power and torque charts and in Yamaha's specs; very flat and impressive and high rev limit to boot. I found this performance amazing considering the displacement and arrangement, but then I quickly lost interest when I scrolled down and saw that a similarly-sized, lighter-weight, mid-sized standard from Yamaha accomplished this great performance at the expense of 35% loss in fuel economy as compared to the CTX. In this particular review, the riders couldn't get the mpg out of the 30s, however, I'm always skeptical of reviewers who are testing vehicles for performance and then trying to evaluate mpg. They're probably not doing typical daily riding, even compared to most sport enthusiasts.

The 670 gives me all I want and more with respect to power. I cruise from 55-65 daily and sometimes need to get to 75 pretty quickly to negotiate a pass. I've not once found or noticed the performance weaknesses that other enthusiasts are complaining about, but then again, I don't ride for sport; fun yes; but not really for any kind of thrill. Maybe Honda has designed the near-perfect power train for daily commuters like myself who is light weight, riding for primarily transportation, rides mostly solo, and one who never reaches 80 mph or even cares too. This makes such a power train a tough sell in the U.S. where power-two wheel commuters are a minority.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
975 Posts
I think it's funny how the author of the article states that the 745 will come to the CTX last, as it has always trailed the NCS, X, and Integra.

As if the CTX700 or any of the MCs with this power train has had a long history to establish this so called fact???
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
71 Posts
Aren't they somewhat limited on how much they can increase displacement when they only want to tinker with bore and stroke, while keeping the same engine design?

4mm is too much in my opinion as a hot-spot could occur, although modern engineering as practiced by Honda, probably means your 750CTX will never overheat or need a re-bore in the timespan of several owners. But I’m still not convinced. Many people will upgrade, so I’ll look at a cheap discarded 700, before considering the new 750. I just happen to like a long stroke engine. I can then blow the dough on the fancy alum swing-arm and other yummy stuff off the other models and an aftermarket exhaust system that is still legal but won’t weigh a ton. There must be even more ways to reduce weight. I prefer wheels with less peripheral weight, but they’re not cheap. All that dress-up plastic and its mounting brackets can be exchanged for a centre-stand which is at least useful. Honda’s reaction to poor performance has been to increase power (cheap) as opposed to reducing weight…expensive. Although somewhere in there is the need to remove a 500+ pound, 100+mph bike from the hands of beginners.

Removing a hundred pounds off the CTX may not be possible and certainly won’t be cheap, but that’s the path I’ll now consider. I happen to need DCT, and in spite of what others may think, it’s the way of the future. Perhaps it needs Gen-4, but a DCT will win a GP and after that, it’s goodbye stick-shift. Remember when wire wheels and tubed tyres were all the go and tubeless tyres would just roll off the rim if pushed hard? Same goes for drums versus discs, or kick-start versus press-button, or manual versus auto-advance, or more recently fuel injection versus the humble carb. Latest in a long line, is digital versus analogue where digital will win hands down. Not because it’s cheaper, but because you will need to know your speed with greater accuracy. Errors will occur within the lifespan of the tyre of choice, but if you can’t work that one out, you’ll just have to learn fast.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
795 Posts
Thanks Bill for the technical explanations. I guess these 3 cylinders are inline? I love the character of inline motors. Inline is really smooth everywhere in normal rpm range 4k to 7k lets say.

I did notice these one of these super-performing 3 cylinders that you're referring to when I read the specs. on the FZ-09. I looked at it closely after you had posted about it some time ago. I saw how powerful and torquey it was on the power and torque charts Torque is the new sales GOLD. and in Yamaha's specs; very flat and impressive and high rev limit to boot. I found this performance amazing considering the displacement and arrangement, but then I quickly lost interest when I scrolled down and saw that a similarly-sized, lighter-weight, mid-sized standard from Yamaha accomplished this great performance at the expense of 35% loss in fuel economy as compared to the CTX. In this particular review, the riders couldn't get the mpg out of the 30s, however, I'm always skeptical of reviewers who are testing vehicles for performance and then trying to evaluate mpg. They're probably not doing typical daily riding, even compared to most sport enthusiasts. I just hit 600 miles and did my second oil change. Last mileage was 43.67mpg which still had some aggressive break in miles on it. I think I can get to 48 easily now and with my bags and windshield I have only been getting about 59 on my CTX but more 70-75 freeway riding lately too.

The 670 gives me all I want and more with respect to power. I cruise from 55-65 daily and sometimes need to get to 75 pretty quickly to negotiate a pass. I've not once found or noticed the performance weaknesses that other enthusiasts are complaining about, but then again, I don't ride for sport; fun yes; but not really for any kind of thrill. Maybe Honda has designed the near-perfect power train for daily commuters like myself who is light weight, riding for primarily transportation, rides mostly solo, and one who never reaches 80 mph or even cares too. This makes such a power train a tough sell in the U.S. where power-two wheel commuters are a minority.
Like my favorite bike the Hawk GT 650, the CTX was it's replacement. For me, it just did not have what I like above 65-70 mph. The FZ-09 does so maybe I am destined for 2 bikes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
124 Posts
I've read in one of the releases of this, that the possible reason for the increase in engine size was to give it more separation from the 500cc models.

Chris
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
36 Posts
I think Daboo is right about separating the CB500 family from the NC700/750 family.

I've read that the NC750 has taller gearing, and it has improved acceleration and fuel consumption ... that's for the NC family.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
329 Posts
glad they are upgrading. I do not require anymore power or acceleration, as I have hovered around 85-95 with NO difficulty whatsoever. another 50cc, taller upper gearing, etc., will indeed be a nice bump though.
BIGGER GAS TANK BIGGER GAS TANK BIGGER GAS TANK BIGGER GAS TANK BIGGER GAS TANK BIGGER GAS TANK BIGGER GAS TANK
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
267 Posts
I'm a little sad we don't the 750 given that we hope to do some longer trips at times, but really I don't think it will make that much difference. I could be wrong though!

Since it's not likely going to be here in the US for a while if at all, I'm content. By the time this one needs replacing they'll have a solar powered, electric hybrid model anyway :p.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,911 Posts
I have read on a NC700 site where the people in the UK think the 750 is a nice improvement but not a huge improvement. I wonder if the 700 can just be bored out and have the pistons replaced? Not that I would do that though.
 
1 - 20 of 25 Posts
Top