Honda CM200 Twinstar
Paul Hirons
a nice looking bike, with Easy Rider type handlebars, built in 1979, has
anyone stories or experiences of these bikes. What problems they had?
Anyone got any photos of their CM200T in use and they could email me. I
have restored the bike and am now using it eveyday. I bought it for £150
in a bad way. I would appreciate any info as I am thinking of putting
the restoration and any articles I can find on a website so its
available for anyone who wants it. Thanks.
Paul Hirons Rugby Warwickshire UK
paulh...@btinternet.com
Hoyt McKagen
> The engine is the same as that used in the CD200 (note: *not* the old
> 175 twins, whatever you may hear to the contrary). It's the CD185 engine
> hogged out a fraction.
Neil is apparently unaware that there were two 175 motors, the old
sloper derived from 160cc and a newer near vertical unit that did in fact
grow to the 185cc and 200cc twins. This also grew into the Rebel CB250,
which was actually 234 cc. The vertical 175 was not sold for long and in
fact is a bit rare. Possibly Neil's lack of savior here is because none
of them made it to Britain.
Regards,
Hoyt McKagen
Belfab CNC - http://www.freeyellow.com/members/belfab/belfab.html
Best MC Repair - http://www.freeyellow.com/members/batwings/best.html
Camping/Caving - http://www.freeyellow.com/members/batwings/caving.html
Animals have fleas and ticks and Americans have the British
Unknown
>Hoyt McKagen <batw...@i-plus.net> wrote:
>
>> The Older Gentleman wrote:
>> > The engine is the same as that used in the CD200 (note: *not* the old
>> > 175 twins, whatever you may hear to the contrary). It's the CD185 engine
>> > hogged out a fraction.
>>
>> Neil is apparently unaware that there were two 175 motors, the old
>> sloper derived from 160cc and a newer near vertical unit that did in fact
>> grow to the 185cc and 200cc twins. This also grew into the Rebel CB250,
>> which was actually 234 cc. The vertical 175 was not sold for long and in
>> fact is a bit rare. Possibly Neil's lack of savior here is because none
>> of them made it to Britain.
>>
>Bwaaahahahahahaha!
>
>Neil is *well aware* of the two units, and actually posseses the later
>unit. Which is listed in his sig. And pictured in his home pages.
>And they sold *loads* in Britain. It was a *hugely* popular motorcycle
>and I've owned, at a guess, about 20 in the last decade.
>So you're wrong on *that* count*
>
>*And* I've also owned three CD185/200s. So I'm well familiar with *that*
>design.
>
>Right - if you want your ignorance published to all and sundry, I shall
>list the main differences between the later CD175 engine and the the
>185/200cc engine:
>
>175cc: Single row camchain. 185/200: duplex (twin-row) camchain
>
>175cc: camshaft revolves in outrigger bearings. 185/200: camshaft
>revolves directly in head
>
>175cc: points mounted on end of camshaft. 185/200cc: points mounted on
>end of crankshaft.
>
>175cc: Valve clearances accessed via old Honda circular tappet covers.
>185/200: one-piece cam cover
>
>175cc: oil filter centrifugal type behind righthand engine cover.
>185/200: washable mesh filter behind *lefthand* engine cover.
>
>And most crucially of all: 175cc: horizontally split crankcases. 185/200
>- vertically split crankcases.
>
>Now all that suggests a totally different engine, does it not? Yes, it
>does. Two totally different engines albeit intended to produce a
>motorcycle of similar style, aimed at similar markets.
>
>Yup, game set and match - Hoyut cocks it up *again*. On several counts.
>So - if anyone's thinking of getting an old Honda CD175 modified to
>185/200 spec and Hoyt says it's the same engine: he's wrong.
Interesting. Where does the '77 ish CB200 fit into this scheme ?
I had a CB175 new in '76, my mate had a CD175 followed by a CB175, and
our pal Spaz had a CB200. I always thought that it was a very similar
(externally) engine to the CB175. CB200 had rubber carb stubs, all
else looked the same as I remember.
Performance was identical, the CB200 not revving as high as the 175.
Several miles of dual carriageway, both flat on tank, left hand
gripping the fork tube, indicated 80mph.
(CB200 rider did the first stoppy I'd ever seen, using his cable
operated disk.)
A twat with a Kawa S2 used to own a '74 CB175 (the one that looked
like a scaled down CB250K1), and he reckoned he'd had 95 out if it.
Considering we used to ride around his S2 on our CBs, I doubt it ..
Cheers, Richard
Andy Bonwick
Older Gentleman) wrote:
>Hoyt McKagen <batw...@i-plus.net> wrote:
>
>> The Older Gentleman wrote:
>> > The engine is the same as that used in the CD200 (note: *not* the old
>> > 175 twins, whatever you may hear to the contrary). It's the CD185 engine
>> > hogged out a fraction.
>>
>> Neil is apparently unaware that there were two 175 motors, the old
>> sloper derived from 160cc and a newer near vertical unit that did in fact
>> grow to the 185cc and 200cc twins. This also grew into the Rebel CB250,
>> which was actually 234 cc. The vertical 175 was not sold for long and in
>> fact is a bit rare. Possibly Neil's lack of savior here is because none
>> of them made it to Britain.
>>
>Bwaaahahahahahaha!
>
snip the bits Hoyt will try to deny>
>Yup, game set and match - Hoyut cocks it up *again*. On several counts.
>So - if anyone's thinking of getting an old Honda CD175 modified to
>185/200 spec and Hoyt says it's the same engine: he's wrong.
>
>Hoyt, this is what I mean when I say your ignorance is sometimes awesome
>and possibly dangerous. Why don't you do some basic research before
>posting this sort of rubbish?
>
>Oh - this query was originally posted to uk.rec.motorcycles, so I've
>x-posted this to both groups, so that the original poster doesn't miss
>it.
>
>Dan, Rick, Road Glidin' Don et al: do me a favour: am I being
>unreasonable in pointing out the man's ignorance in such a comprehensive
>fashion?
>
This one is a true modern day classic. Excuse me while I go for
another box of tissues to dry my eyes :)
--
Andy Bonwick
'99 Ducati 748 Biposto(f****d). Yamaha FZX750.
BOTAFOT #22
Paul Hirons
a bit tame compared to my Kawasaki. In the wet they can be a bit hazardous.
Were they all fitted with the monkey hanger type of handlebar and chopper
style America looks?
The Older Gentleman wrote:
> <snip>
> >
> > Interesting. Where does the '77 ish CB200 fit into this scheme ?
>
> I've owned several of these as well. And a few CB175s
> >
> > I had a CB175 new in '76, my mate had a CD175 followed by a CB175, and
> > our pal Spaz had a CB200. I always thought that it was a very similar
> > (externally) engine to the CB175. CB200 had rubber carb stubs, all
> > else looked the same as I remember.
>
> Very similar. CB175 got twin-carb head, 12v electrics, electric starter
> (blanked off on the CD175), five-speed box, TLS front brake, adjustable
> rear suspension, and more. CB200 was a slightly enlarged CB175 engine.
> All the CD/CB/175/200 engines are interchangeable between frames, and
> you can puit a CB twin-carb head on a CD.
> >
> > Performance was identical, the CB200 not revving as high as the 175.
> > Several miles of dual carriageway, both flat on tank, left hand
> > gripping the fork tube, indicated 80mph.
>
> Absolutely. No difference in on-road performance as well. CB175 was
> better bike, IMHO.
> >
> > (CB200 rider did the first stoppy I'd ever seen, using his cable
> > operated disk.)
>
> Whaa-at! Those cable operated discs were *awful*. If he managed to do a
> stoppie, big respect! Actually, the first UK model CB175s had the same
> TLS drum brake as the CB175 - a great little stopper. But then marketing
> decided a disc would sell the bike better, and they fitted that godawful
> cable thing. In fact, you can fit a complete hydraulic disc set-up from
> a CB250G5/CJ250, because the caliper mounts on the fork leg are
> *identical*.
> >
> > A twat with a Kawa S2 used to own a '74 CB175 (the one that looked
> > like a scaled down CB250K1), and he reckoned he'd had 95 out if it.
> > Considering we used to ride around his S2 on our CBs, I doubt it ..
> >
> I doubt it too. 80mph was top whack for a CB175, or CB200. The CB175 was
> actually geared for 95 at the redline in top, and would *never* pull it.
>
> Lots of people think that the CD185 which followed the CD175 (and was
> then rapidly replaced by the near-identical CD200) was a development of
> the earlier engines, simply because of the near-identical designation.
> They're wrong.
>
> --
> The Older Gentleman
> 750S S GT750 CB400F CD175
> BOF#30 GAGARPHOF#30 GHPOTHUF#1 WUSS#5 YTC#3 OETKBC
> http://www.btinternet.com/~Chateau.Murray/homepage2.html
Hoyt McKagen
> And most crucially of all: 175cc: horizontally split crankcases. 185/200
> - vertically split crankcases.
Not a chance. The last folks stupid enough to put twins on vertically
split cases were the british. Honda in particular has never done so.
Hoyt McKagen
> > Not a chance. The last folks stupid enough to put twins on vertically
> > split cases were the british.
>
> bikes I mentioned. Check out also Honda CB125 singles, CB100 singles
> CG125 singles (Makes Sign of Holy Pushrods), check out workshop manuals
> for any/all of the above.
You have a point on Ducati. I am particularly talking about twin Hondas,
which is what you asserted. I see you've listed a number of singles,
which were something I never mentioned. This is perfectly in keeping with
your trend toward expansion of the discussion into the straw man zone.
> Look, Hoyt, this *isn't* attacking you. It's just pointing you out to be
> completely *wrong*.
Let's see you find PNs for vertically split cases for any twin Honda,
which I will check out. Then if you're right I'll say so and then you can
crow.
Hoyt McKagen
> Yamaha RD200?
Nope, have worked on them. They're like other RD and RZ with hor split.
You may be thinking of YDS3, the 250 cc Yams. These had a vert split but
they were sixties stuff.
--
Hoyt McKagen
> Best have a look at a CD200, then.
I checked with people I trust on this, not strangers. One said all Honda
twins were on hor splits. The other said he didn't think Honda would
abandom 50 years of practice to go vert on one model.
*I* say if any Honda TWIN-CYLINDER MC engine is on vertically split cases
somebody like you or TOG would have no problem providing me with part
numbers for LEFT and RIGHT crankcase and not UPPER and LOWER. Those would
be crankcases and not side covers. I'll be very happy to check these with
my own sources and if you're correct I'll be delighted to say so.
I will also assume that if nobody can or will provide these, you and TOG
are wrong.
James Clark
Hoyt McKagen wrote:
> The Older Gentleman wrote:
> > And most crucially of all: 175cc: horizontally split crankcases. 185/200
> > - vertically split crankcases.
>
> Not a chance. The last folks stupid enough to put twins on vertically
> split cases were the british. Honda in particular has never done so.
>
And Harley.
And BMW.
And Ducati.
Rick Damiani
>Dan, Rick, Road Glidin' Don et al: do me a favour: am I being
>unreasonable in pointing out the man's ignorance in such a comprehensive
>fashion?
Hardly.
--
A host is a host from coast to coast ..................... Rick Damiani
and no one will talk to a host that's close .... ri...@nospam.paton.com
Unless the host (that isn't close) ......... ri...@nospam.earthlink.net
is busy, hung or dead ..............................NGI# T695 DoD #2659
Dan Nitschke
>
> The Older Gentleman wrote:
>
> >Dan, Rick, Road Glidin' Don et al: do me a favour: am I being
> >unreasonable in pointing out the man's ignorance in such a comprehensive
> >fashion?
>
> Hardly.
Right. Neil was hardly wrong, and Hoyt is hardly
reasonable.
But we've known that for a long time.
So, Hoyt: when you gonna admit you're wrong?
We're waiting...
--
/* dan: The Anti-Ged -- Scary Git, IY (tm) #1, YJP #1, LCDB (tm) #1 */
Dan Nitschke © peDA...@idiom.com ® (.....)@(.......).net
£¥$.¢£¥$.¢£¥$.¢£¥$.¢£¥$.¢£¥$.¢£¥$.¢£¥$.¢£¥$.¢£¥$.¢£¥$.¢£¥
I'm down with Bill Gates, I call him "Money" for short; I
phone him up at home and I make him do my tech support!
-- 'Weird Al' Yankovic, "It's All About The Pentiums"
Hoyt McKagen
> > And if you ask what this part number is: 11100464305 you will find out
> > it is a right hand crankcase for a Honda CD200.
Thank you. I suppose you thought I'd really make int ph call?
I got luckier than that. Yesterday while I was out cruising I saw a Rebel
parked on the side of raod. So natch you having said they're the same
basic mill, I stopped to look. Know what I'm going to say now? You were
right.
This I suppose will inspire a great batch of hooting, but frankly I don't
care. Know why? It doesn't bother me to be wrong once in a while. Don't
get swelled head though, this would be the first time you've actually
provided proof instead of just stirring up a vote by the unwashed
contingent. And you should consider this point: it's a damn sight more
mature to admit error when it's shown as I did than to make a huge fuss
over it, which you will no doubt do.
Did I learn something? You bet: don't get dragged off onto tangents by
TOG. In the final analysis, it doesn't matter where the split is or if it
has six-piece cases; the bottom line is I can still bore it successfully.
Now one more note and for the most part goodbye: I've had a lot of grief
inposed on me ny a certain group who inhabit some of the mailing lists
I'm on. Just recently someone confirmed for me there is a connection
between that activity there and similar activity here. So I'm going to
continue reading the NG and answering questions as I see fit, and
offering goods or services as indicated ... only I'm not going to give
the minions a hook to hang on but will be doing that by private mail. I
do reserve the right to correct bad info out front as always though, and
of course you're grist for that to barely imaginable degree. Have a good
one and now back to your reg programming.
Dan Nitschke
> I got luckier than that. Yesterday while I was out cruising I saw a Rebel
> parked on the side of raod. So natch you having said they're the same
> basic mill, I stopped to look. Know what I'm going to say now? You were
> right.
OK. So here, Hoyt spends a lot of buildup, and three words
that actually admit he was wrong.
> This I suppose will inspire a great batch of hooting, but frankly I don't
> care. Know why? It doesn't bother me to be wrong once in a while. Don't
> get swelled head though, this would be the first time you've actually
> provided proof instead of just stirring up a vote by the unwashed
> contingent. And you should consider this point: it's a damn sight more
> mature to admit error when it's shown as I did than to make a huge fuss
> over it, which you will no doubt do.
>
> Did I learn something? You bet: don't get dragged off onto tangents by
> TOG. In the final analysis, it doesn't matter where the split is or if it
> has six-piece cases; the bottom line is I can still bore it successfully.
>
> Now one more note and for the most part goodbye: I've had a lot of grief
> inposed on me ny a certain group who inhabit some of the mailing lists
> I'm on. Just recently someone confirmed for me there is a connection
> between that activity there and similar activity here. So I'm going to
> continue reading the NG and answering questions as I see fit, and
> offering goods or services as indicated ... only I'm not going to give
> the minions a hook to hang on but will be doing that by private mail. I
> do reserve the right to correct bad info out front as always though, and
> of course you're grist for that to barely imaginable degree. Have a good
> one and now back to your reg programming.
And then spends three long paragraphs ranting about how
it doesn't matter, in true Hoytian style.
Could it be that making such a *spectacular* ass of yourself
has given people a poor opinion of you? Do you think?
Thanks for confirming what kind of a "man" you are, Hoyt.
It's appreciated.
--
/* dan: The Anti-Ged -- Scary Git, IY (tm) #1, YJP #1, LCDB (tm) #1 */
Dan Nitschke <( peDA...@idiom.com )> (.)@(.....).net
\\\///\\\///\\\///\\\///\\\///\\\///\\\///\\\///\\\//
Well, he's big and dumb as a man can come, but he's
stronger than a country hoss. -- Jim Croce