Posts: 853
Threads: 31
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Aug 2017
Ulvetanna Wrote:Good point about the six-speed; you're right, I could surely get a '14 for a lot less, even new. With ABS. So then, Racetech the forks, maybe do Ikons again. Still has another 1/2 gallon of gas. I wonder.
The '14 Standard and your old '13 share the same 3.8-gallon tank. You have to go to the '14 Deluxe to get the 4.6-gallon tank, but then you're up to a wet weight of 570 lbs. The '17's tank is 4.4 gallons.
Posts: 1,527
Threads: 78
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Mar 2016
(01-23-2018, 02:02 AM)VLJ_imp Wrote: Ulvetanna Wrote:Good point about the six-speed; you're right, I could surely get a '14 for a lot less, even new. With ABS. So then, Racetech the forks, maybe do Ikons again. Still has another 1/2 gallon of gas. I wonder.
The '14 Standard and your old '13 share the same 3.8-gallon tank. You have to go to the '14 Deluxe to get the 4.6-gallon tank, but then you're up to a wet weight of 570 lbs. The '17's tank is 4.4 gallons.
The '14 Standard and your old '13 share the same 3.8-gallon tank. You have to go to the '14 Deluxe to get the 4.6-gallon tank, but then you're up to a wet weight of 570 lbs. The '17's tank is 4.4 gallons. I know, more's the pity. I was thinking about that this morning. So the only real option is the '17 EX.
The CA model, I believe, for 2013 has only 3.6 gallons to allow for the air space in the tank which allows the evaporative emissions equipment to function. Most California models have less tank capacity, that's just why I ran out of gas on my ZX-10R; the bike has a "fuel used" display and according to the specs, I should've had another half gallon left. But I ran out.
The air space is to allow for expansion in the tank and avoid flooding the evap emissions canister and connectors.
So it's the 2017 or nothing, because I'm not going back to the 2013. Also, I want a new bike...no way to know what anyone's done to a used machine. Based on some of the posts here I've read in the last few years, there are some very creative backyard mechanics.
Does anyone REALLY know what the weight of the 2017 EX is? Honda says 540, but elsewhere I read 562.
Posts: 853
Threads: 31
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Aug 2017
Correction: the '13 CB1100 and '14 Standard share the same 3.9-gallon tank, not 3.8 gallons, as I erroneously stated above. (I was thinking of the T120's 3.8-gallon tank.)
Ulvetanna, according to Motorcyclist Magazine's scale, the '17 EX weighs 556 lbs, fully fueled...
http://www.motorcycle.com/shoot-outs/ret...otout-2017
As you can see from their dyno run, The '17 received a bit of a HP and torque bump, up to 88.3/66.8 at the wheel. Side-by-side comparison videos with the previous model clearly demonstrate that the '17 also has a deeper, growlier engine note, along with the improved suspension, smaller exhaust pipes, larger fuel tank, spoked rims, slipper clutch, and extra chrome pieces.
To me, the '17 is definitely the one to buy. Not only is it prettier, it's also slightly more powerful, better handling, and the finish is even nicer.
Posts: 1,527
Threads: 78
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Mar 2016
(01-23-2018, 03:26 AM)VLJ_imp Wrote: Correction: the '13 CB1100 and '14 Standard share the same 3.9-gallon tank, not 3.8 gallons, as I erroneously stated above. (I was thinking of the T120's 3.8-gallon tank.)
Ulvetanna, according to Motorcyclist Magazine's scale, the '17 EX weighs 556 lbs, fully fueled...
http://www.motorcycle.com/shoot-outs/ret...otout-2017
As you can see from their dyno run, The '17 received a bit of a HP and torque bump, up to 88.3/66.8 at the wheel. Side-by-side comparison videos with the previous model clearly demonstrate that the '17 also has a deeper, growlier engine note, along with the improved suspension, smaller exhaust pipes, larger fuel tank, spoked rims, slipper clutch, and extra chrome pieces.
To me, the '17 is definitely the one to buy. Not only is it prettier, it's also slightly more powerful, better handling, and the finish is even nicer. Agreed. Might cost more up front, but already has a myriad of new features. That's my plan. Also love the looks.
Also, being off by 0.1 gallons in a gas tank estimate is not quite as serious as miscalculating the distance of the Earth's orbit around the Sun by a factor of 100 percent. But then again I wasn't really planning on going into outer space just yet.
Posts: 853
Threads: 31
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Aug 2017
Looking over that dyno run, wow, the slightly lighter T120 absolutely stomps the CB1100 down low, precisely where mickey spends all of his time. At 3,400 RPM the Triumph is making a full ten-ft-lbs more torque than the CB, and quite a bit more HP, as well.
No wonder all the testers said the Triumph felt a lot more powerful than the Honda, despite being down nearly twenty hp on top.
Posts: 23,482
Threads: 697
Likes Received: 601 in 268 posts
Likes Given: 778
Joined: Apr 2025
Yea I've ridden my brothers T-120 quite a bit. There doesn't seem to be much difference between them the way we ride and when going down the road I will ask him what gear you in, how fast you going, how many rpms are you turning? and it's uncanny that we are always going the same speed, in the same gear, at the exact same rpms.
Posts: 16,313
Threads: 348
Likes Received: 865 in 475 posts
Likes Given: 997
Joined: Apr 2025
Ulvetanna, it's probably not important, but I thought the CB1100 2013-2017 is approved to be sold in all US states. There's no special Californian model. I could well be wrong, but my recollection is that the question's been asked and answered a number of times on here.
Posts: 1,527
Threads: 78
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Mar 2016
(01-23-2018, 06:51 AM)Cormanus_imp Wrote: Ulvetanna, it's probably not important, but I thought the CB1100 2013-2017 is approved to be sold in all US states. There's no special Californian model. I could well be wrong, but my recollection is that the question's been asked and answered a number of times on here. Pretty sure our evaporative emissions equipment is not present on 49-state models.
Anyone with a non-CA model can check and see if their bike has that stuff?
I can't even remember where the canisters are; maybe under the gas tank? I have no clue. There's also a sticker on the bike showing the routing
And the CA bikes always have a separate parts list and identification model.
For sure, my 2015 ZX-10R is different. The CA model has a different fuel tank and includes the evaporative controls. The 49-state model doesn't have the evaporative system and has a larger-capacity fuel tank.
Don't see those differences for the '17 CB1100, though.
Posts: 5,046
Threads: 137
Likes Received: 171 in 69 posts
Likes Given: 87
Joined: May 2013
From Honda's website and whatever it means: "Meets current EPA standards. California version meets current CARB standards and may differ slightly due to emissions equipment."
Posts: 8,043
Threads: 21
Likes Received: 195 in 115 posts
Likes Given: 140
Joined: Apr 2025
My ‘13 has evaporative emission equipment. All US bikes have it. You can see the canister easy with the left side cover off. Its mounted above the rear of the engine (transmission). About where the swingarm pivot is. Look up. Round can. Between the frame rails by a cross brace.
There is an evaporative purge valve too, but I’d have to look that location up.
|
