VFR1200-T model, urban legend?

pray to jeebus that they gave it hydraulic valve lifters.

Thoughts of a VFR1200-T (or whatever it may end up being, IF it ends up being) is one reason it recently took me over a month to decide on a new bike. But the more I thought about it, the more I found myself NOT liking the idea of waiting. A few key reasons:

• As if the intentional 4K to 5K flat line in the F's torque curve wasn't enough, it sounds as if it will also include a return of the VTEC technology. Sure, Honda (or perhaps Dyno Jet) might be able to remedy the flat section of the torque curve, we know that the VTEC was and remains a sore spot for some owners.
• Not one word of increasing the tank size in anything that I've read. Less than 5 gallons -- on a TOURING model? In fact, the VTEC is being implemented to offset the loss of range due to the smaller tank. They better make it bigger. IIRC, the ST1300 had like a 300+ mile range, and this bike is supposed to replace it?
• I'm not a big fan of running out and buying a vehicle the first year it comes out (including major revisions of an existing bike, such as the generation to generation changes with the VFR). No matter how great the history or quality of a manufacturer might be, the fact remains that problems - including design flaws - are more likely to occur with first year vehicles than with those that have gone through a few years of improvements based on history, rider feedback, repair histories, etc. The Concours 14 is an excellent example. It came out in '08 and was essentially unchanged in '09. Kawasaki took 2 years worth of problems, issues, and complaints about the bike as reported by the riders- and there were some very legitimate ones, such as poor heat dissipation, too short of a windscreen, side view mirrors that (due to mounting height) gave the rider a better view of the side bags than the road behind him, etc. - and DIRECTLY addressed them with the '10 model.
• Price. Based on what I've read and all the "new technology" that's reported to be slated for this bike: airbags, crumple zones, VTEC, factory sidebags, etc. - I would venture to guess an MSRP of at least $18K to $19K -- and probably more. When you can grab a FJR1300 or Concours 14 for $6K or more LESS, the question will become: why?
• A small (but important) factor was availability of aftermarket accessories. I'm sure they'll come for the VFR1200F/T in the next few years, but right now, there is a buttload of stuff out there for the C14.

Disclaimer: While I've spent (literally) hours of showroom time on the VFR1200F, admittedly I have not spent any time on the road with a VFR1200F underneath me. Perhaps the first time I get a chance to ride one (or a VFR1200T) all kitted up for touring, I'll change my opinion about the 7th Gen VFR as a sport-TOURING bike. But after spending over 16 years on 4th and 5th Gen VFRs with all the best ST farkles I could find, and after 700 miles on my new Concours 14 ABS, my opinion remains that any future VFR1200-T would have a very difficult time competing as a sport-TOURING bike with either the FJR1300 or the Concours 14 - especially the '10 C14 ABS with the new K-TRC traction control.

I'm not making excuses to justify my recent C14 purchase - I'm just offering the reasons why I chose to buy it (now) instead of waiting for some potential VFR "T" to (perhaps) appear.

Oh, yes, and one last thing: This is my personal OPINION. I'm sure others will disagree.

What the hell would make you think it would have the same tank as the F? It's a different bike. Honda is using BMW's platform approach... VFR1200T is to K1300GT what VFR1200F is to K1300S.

Source?




I haven't heard anything about a return of VTEC but I have heard that it will have cylinder deactivation as is present in Honda's V6 car engines. Totally different animal. The "vtec" on the VFR800 wasn't really VTEC at all. It just shut down valves. If they gave it a "true" VTEC (Electronically controlled variable lift and timing) that would be awesome.

Shutting down valves is exactly how you deactivate cylinders if you want to do it most efficiently, so they are not totally different animals. The valve control for cylinder deactivation in the VFR1200T could look very, very similar to the VTEC found on the '02 VFR. That doesn't mean it will be the same, but it certainly could use that type of system.

Motogp air valves so you can be like Dani

I guess I should say, "so they may not be totally different animals."

I was referring to the article mentioning that cylinder and valve deactivation would be present on the T model. Whatever they call it, it's still cylinder and valve deactivation.

Article states that the cylinders will be shut down, and that the valves will be deactivated. I don't care what they call it or how they do it, but I don't think cylinder deactivation provides enough benefits to offset the complexity and increase in problems to put it into a motorcycle engine. Just my $0.02, of course.

That's the way I see it. Cylinder and valve deactivation is cylinder and valve deactivation, no matter how you accomplish it.

I meant your source for the "fact" that they employed a cylinder deactivation to offset the limited range. You are saying that they engineered a complex new valve train to accomplish what fitting a bigger tank would do. Sounds a bit absurd, no?

Would a 30% mileage improvement justify it?

The earlier VFR VTEC only deactivated select valves, not cylinders ... so the beast would be different. The value of full deactivation (which would include fuel and possibly ignition deactivation, and likely open the valves to reduce pumping losses) is the fuel improvement Phobe mentions.

Going from 30(for discussion purposes)mpg to 40mpg (or 36 to 48) on the highway would be a great value, and potentially reduce the need to make the tank bigger.

Styling, package space, and total vehicle weight are factors in potentially not increasing the tank size, or not increasing it as much as you might otherwise have to. So I can see that it isn't completely absurd to expect the tank doesn't get as big as a BMW's might.

The full deactivation closes all of the valves so the motor isn't wasting power pumping air. It just compresses and bounces off the same air over and over again. The fuel is cut as well (and I assume the spark)

It makes a lot of sense in a V4 to shut down the rear cylinders and cool them off.

Most of the energy it loses compressing air is given back when the air bounces the piston back down.

You would lose way more energy pumping air in and out.

The article states:

"On the performance-oriented VFR1200F, such economy wasn't needed, but on the touring bike, the extra range it will offer is a valuable selling point, offsetting the additional cost and complexity of the system."

Based on the article, it looks as if they DID add the 'cost and complexity' to to get the extra range instead of increasing the tank size. Don't ask me - I didn't write it!

Depends upon how much (more) it added to the cost, how much more it added to the potential that something could/would go wrong with the bike (and the cost to fix it), and how much an impact it (may) have on performance.

If their goal was increased range, all they had to do was increase the tank size and keep the price down by NOT adding all this nonsense -- unless they're more worried about making the tree huggers happy.

There's both, actually.

There's a trio of happy dots to tell you when you're making the environmentalists happy, even when the "ECO" map it not actively selected. Something like "Under 6K RPM, throttle under 30%, and (laugh) speed under 154 mph. Or something like that.

There's also a user selectable "Eco" mode that actually switches to a leaner fuel map. Typically, you'd switch to it if you got low on fuel and needed to conserve to make it to the next petrol station. The performance change is noticeable, but not too bad.

How much does it actually improve mileage? In all the reading I've done over at the ZG/GTR forums, not much. I'm still in "new bike" mode (about 750 miles), so I wouldn't even begin to try to run comparisons until after about 3K miles (the reported sweet spot for the C14 engine break in as far as mileage is concerned).

Makes sense this non-engineer.

True, but maybe not if it increases the complexity (chance for problems, increase in main and repair costs) or hikes the price of the bike by thousands of dollars. That would certainly turn away some potential buyers.

In looking at the new VFR, which I did for countless hours, I don't think it would be too difficult at all to get the tank back to the previous ~5.5 gallons or even better. Heck, there's a crapload of space wasted with the plastic fairings surrounding the tank.

I know I'm still in the break in period, and I know the electronics aren't perfect, but when I'm running in the ECO (selected) mode around 75 mph and NOT jamming the throttle up and down (e.g., slab), I regularly see 50 MPG on the "Current MPG" screen. Lots of Connie owners are reporting 46-48 MPH as a calculated average (actually comparing miles driven against fuel pumped in the tank). Not bad for a 679 pound (dry) bike.