The CB1100 Community Forum

Dynojet was nice enough to send me a run from a stock 2017 to compare-




As you can see- the difference ramps up and you get more the longer you hold on!

Not that an additional 7.25wtq and 4.52whp at 3,2000 RPM are bad.

The shop is used to doing sportbikes- I forgot to tell him the start the pulls low.

Ah, next time- I’ll be back!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Josh, does your bike really have 'custom Web cams'? Am I displaying my ignorance?

Yea- http://cb1100forum.com/forum/showthread....light=cams

They didn't do much- but I also picked a mild grind because I didn't want to loose power down low.

I try to look at everything as a package- even bigger, more aggressive cams could ultimately make more power- but in my opinion right now, the cams aren't the bottle neck...and making power is all about removing bottlenecks.

Which makes this all interesting- remove a bottleneck and other 'mods' could make more gains than initially thought.

My guess is next limitation is the throttle bodies. 32mm is small, especially for 1140cc.

(11-11-2020, 12:16 PM)PowerDubs_imp Wrote: [ -> ]Yea- http://cb1100forum.com/forum/showthread....light=cams

They didn't do much- but I also picked a mild grind because I didn't want to loose power down low.

I try to look at everything as a package- even bigger, more aggressive cams could ultimately make more power- but in my opinion right now, the cams aren't the bottle neck...and making power is all about removing bottlenecks.

Which makes this all interesting- remove a bottleneck and other 'mods' could make more gains than initially thought.

My guess is next limitation is the throttle bodies. 32mm is small, especially for 1140cc.

Honda design spec likely targeted using 32 mm to meet the performance behaviour they were seeking as well as salvaging some economy. The stock CB1100 is surprisingly good on fuel consumption.

Honda knows how to make a 140 hp 1140 cc inline-4 (recall early 1980s). I reckon that wasn't the spec for these CB1100s.

(11-11-2020, 01:37 PM)GoldOxide_imp Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-11-2020, 12:16 PM)PowerDubs_imp Wrote: [ -> ]Yea- http://cb1100forum.com/forum/showthread....light=cams

They didn't do much- but I also picked a mild grind because I didn't want to loose power down low.

I try to look at everything as a package- even bigger, more aggressive cams could ultimately make more power- but in my opinion right now, the cams aren't the bottle neck...and making power is all about removing bottlenecks.

Which makes this all interesting- remove a bottleneck and other 'mods' could make more gains than initially thought.

My guess is next limitation is the throttle bodies. 32mm is small, especially for 1140cc.

Honda design spec likely targeted using 32 mm to meet the performance behaviour they were seeking as well as salvaging some economy. The stock CB1100 is surprisingly good on fuel consumption.

Honda knows how to make a 140 hp 1140 cc inline-4 (recall early 1980s). I reckon that wasn't the spec for these CB1100s.

Oh- I agree 1000%.

I'm not doing anything Honda couldn't do- they just had to contend with EPA for emissions and noise.

The 83 CB 1100F put out a reported 108 hp out of an 1062cc mill. That's a far cry from 140

(11-11-2020, 02:18 PM)The ferret_imp Wrote: [ -> ]The 83 CB 1100F put out a reported 108 hp out of an 1062cc mill. That's a far cry from 140

Crank or wheel?

My bike 'uncorrected' (true hp) put down a little over 106 so depending on what a person believes for drivetrain loss-

10% loss would be 118 crank.

15% loss would be 125 crank.

Dubs, I knew about your cams modification. I was just intrigued by the dynojet chart which referred to them as 'Web cams'.

(11-11-2020, 03:00 PM)PowerDubs_imp Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-11-2020, 02:18 PM)The ferret_imp Wrote: [ -> ]The 83 CB 1100F put out a reported 108 hp out of an 1062cc mill. That's a far cry from 140

Crank or wheel?

My bike 'uncorrected' (true hp) put down a little over 106 so depending on what a person believes for drivetrain loss-

10% loss would be 118 crank.

15% loss would be 125 crank.

Crank or wheel?

My bike 'uncorrected' (true hp) put down a little over 106 so depending on what a person believes for drivetrain loss-

10% loss would be 118 crank.

15% loss would be 125 crank.
I assume it was rated at the crank back in 83 and not dyno's. Maybe I can find a dyno chart for one.

Well couldn't find a dyno chart but found other sites listing the hp at 99 and 104.

Found these figures for the mighty 6 cylinder CBX which was faster than the CB 1100F

105 hp (78 kW)@ 9,000 rpm (claimed)
1978-1980 100–103 hp (75–77 kW) (claimed)
1981-1982 98 hp (73 kW) (rear wheel)

the V65 V4 Honda Sabre put out 121 hp (I imagine also measured at the crank)

There were no 140 HP inline 4's from Honda