Where have all the Turbo's gone?
Masks R. Us
out there today. I've driven GS-1100's, zippy 750's and lots of other
haul-ass mochines, but I've never driven anything like this! When the
turbo kicks in at say 80MPH, it feels like you've been kicked by a horse!
Damn does that engine pull hard.
I suppose it wouldn't do much in a quarter - GSX/R's and FZ's would be
at the finish line before my boost guage even got into the green. But
it's reliable (so far), fast (if not quick), and sounds great. I can't
see why Japan abandoned them in '83.
Ed
Pete Butler
>As a new owner of a CX-650 Turbo, I wonder why there aren't more Turbos
>out there today. I've driven GS-1100's, zippy 750's and lots of other
>haul-ass mochines, but I've never driven anything like this! When the
>turbo kicks in at say 80MPH, it feels like you've been kicked by a horse!
>Damn does that engine pull hard.
>
Ed,
They're not all gone. I was on a ride up Mt. Palomar not too long
ago and there's this place up near the top where all the biker types
hang out and eye each others bikes. Lotsa bikes there on this
particular Saturday, GSXRs, FJs, FZs, CBRs, ZXs, Wings, K1s, you get
the idea. Anyway, by far the best looking (and sounding) bike there,
IMHO, was a CX650 Turbo in beautiful condition. Incredible custom
paint job (mostly maroon) and lots of polished pieces. A real show
stealer.
I like 'em too.
Pete
--
Pete Butler * FZ 700
U.C. San Diego * XZ 550 Vision
pbu...@ucsd.edu * 9' Hobie Tri-Fin
DoD #238 * 1973 MBZ 280SEL 4.5
**********************************************************************
Allen Tobias
One word "Insurance"!
Once they started seeing the number of crashes, or there preceived potential
for increase claims against them, they became cycle non-insura !
Also, technology made it possible to have a more tractable machine without
using the turbo.
Neal Bedard
In the words of (I think) Nick Ienetsch, "Turbo Surprise is no fun on
motorcycle". Think about that turbo coming on its boost as you're still heeled
over in a fast corner, and I think you can see where he's coming from. There
are much more user-friendly ways of getting horsepower; evidently the buying
public demanded them, and Japanese manufacturers cheerfully complied.
Further proof can be found in the "Heavy Artillery" issue of _Motorcyclist_
a few months back.
-Neal
[ni...@c3.com]
Paul Blumstein
+out there today. I've driven GS-1100's, zippy 750's and lots of other
+haul-ass mochines, but I've never driven anything like this! When the
+turbo kicks in at say 80MPH, it feels like you've been kicked by a horse!
+Damn does that engine pull hard.
+
+I suppose it wouldn't do much in a quarter - GSX/R's and FZ's would be
+at the finish line before my boost guage even got into the green. But
+it's reliable (so far), fast (if not quick), and sounds great. I can't
+see why Japan abandoned them in '83.
I'd suspect that the Insurance Companies made the cost of owning one too
unattractive for most wallets.
=====================================================================
Paul Blumstein | Need a personal servant, gardener, worker?
Citicorp/TTI | Just call Rent-a-POW!
Santa Monica, CA +--------------------------------------------------
{rutgers,philabs,psivax,pyramid}!ttidca!paulb or pa...@tti.com
FINAL WORD: The Procrastinator's Club will be meeting... shortly
Chuck Karish
>out there today.
>I can't see why Japan abandoned them in '83.
They weigh as much as a larger-displacement bike of comparable
power, cost as much or more to produce, are more complicated,
and, according to others' experience, are less reliable.
Buyers seem to prefer a literbike to a 650 with an asterisk.
Chuck Karish kar...@mindcraft.com
Mindcraft, Inc. (415) 323-9000
dan carter
Congratulations, the Honda CX650 Turbo is one of my favorite bikes from the
'80s. I bought mine brand new in '86, and it now has 20,000+ on it. Since
I have more than one bike in the garage, I try to keep the mileage down on
the Turbo (and its value up), but it's definitely my ride of choice if I'm
going more than 200 miles or so. It is comfortable, dependable, reasonably
good in the twisty bits, and can carry plenty of luggage. You're right
about quarter-mile times, but according to _Motorcyclist_, it produces
roll-on numbers in the FJ12 class. And if that weren't enough, it gets
55mpg when you're content to cruise at a steady 70mph.
The most major repair I've had to make was replacement of the starter motor.
They get tired, apparently, before their time. The symptom is hard
starting, similar to a weak battery. The water pump seal leaks a little,
but if all you see is a slight drip after the motor cools (and vapor inside
the housing has condensed) it doesn't need attention. I replaced fork
springs with Progressive Suspension pieces, since I had blown a fork seal by
running at the upper limit of fork air. The digitally-controlled
injection/ignition system has been flawless. It "carburets" perfectly
under all conditions, but does like to be warmed up thoroughly in the
winter.
Honda discontinued it for the simple reason that it didn't sell (which
explains why I was able to get the next-to-last new one sold in the US in
1986). It was perceived as a pure sport bike, which it wasn't. The
CB1100F, GPZ1100, et al. outran it in the quarter and outhandled it in the
twisties. The Turbo was more in the gentleman's express category, but was
perhaps a little too gaudy in appearance and too leading-edge in technology
to be accepted in that niche.
Pete Butler writes:
>Anyway, by far the best looking (and sounding) bike there, IMHO, was a
>CX650 Turbo ...
If you think they sound good from the side of the road, you should hear one
from the driver's seat. A nice loping twin sound in cruise mode, but open
up the throttle, wait about one second for the turbine to spool up, and all
hell breaks loose. The turbocharger whistles like a jet engine, the
wastegate snaps open momentarily as you shift up, and it occasionally pops
through the exhaust like an IMSA GTO car when you back off the throttle at
high revs.
Allen Tobias writes:
>One word "Insurance"!
>
>Once they started seeing the number of crashes, or there preceived potential
>for increase claims against them, they became cycle non-insura !
Surprisingly, my insurance company doesn't seem to care that the thing is
turbocharged. I pay the same rate for the Turbo as I do for the 650 Hawk
GT. That is certainly not true for all insurers, though. The turbo bikes
got a bad rap early on, not because they were inherently more likely to
crash, but because they tended to be owned by the terminally brave.
>Also, technology made it possible to have a more tractable machine without
>using the turbo.
I would argue with "more tractable", because the CX650 Turbo is quite docile
until you open up the throttle. The same is true of an FJ12, for instance.
But a turbo bike is definitely more expensive to engineer and build, per
horsepower. The Honda listed for $5000 in 1983.
Neal Bedard writes:
>In the words of (I think) Nick Ienetsch, "Turbo Surprise is no fun on
>motorcycle". Think about that turbo coming on its boost as you're still heeled
>over in a fast corner, and I think you can see where he's coming from.
With the CX650 Turbo, at least, there is no such thing as "Turbo Surprise",
except if you're riding it for the very first time and not showing it a
reasonable amount of respect. After you become familiar with its power
delivery characteristics, you can hear and feel the torque coming, and you
adjust your riding style accordingly. When exiting a turn, you learn to
*roll* the throttle on and anticipate torque delivery. The Turbo only
surprises me when I look at the speedo at the end of a straight and decide
how hard I'll have to brake to bend the thing through the next turn.
Dan Carter
Walnut Creek, CA