I think the CB engine is just right

[ohiorider_imp]

What's the horsepower rating? 86-88hp?

Whatever it is, this bike delivers it nicely. When I first began riding the CB, I shifted at very low rpms. I mean, low.

And I probably still do, in contrast to how many owners ride their traditional in line fours from years past.

However, this engine isn't a 1980 design. It seems that rolling it up to approx 5000 rpm in first and second gets me to a respectable cruising speed quickly. And 2nd gear, at 6000rpm shows 60mph. Yet she'll move out smartly in a higher gear from 2000 rpm.

When I'm in a good mood, this bike is a hoot to run up in 2nd and 3rd gear. Unfortunately, in 3rd, I'm way over the legal limit! And over in 2nd as well.

By now, you've probably gathered that I don't have a history riding UJM fours.

This is a versatile machine.

Bob

 

[the Ferret]

I agree. The CB1100 has a great powerplant. No matter how you ride, the engine is willing, and very satisfying.

 

[Roper_imp]

I'm with you. I love the flat torque curve of the CB1100. Yeah, it seems underpowered compared to a lot of sport bikes. For a bit of perspective, though: 0-60 acceleration and 1/4 mile times are similar to a new Camaro ZL1. And those cost $60,000.

 

[peterbaron]

Yap.................

 

[SportsterDoc]

A very reasonable amount of HP & torque...and what amazes me: It gets about the same MPG as my 2016 Moto Guzzi V7II, which was marginally powered at about 1/2 the HP.

 

[Cormanus]

I reckon it’s very well powered for the sort of bike it is.

 

[LongRanger_imp]

Bob, so glad you've finally got yours sorted out.

 

[ohiorider_imp]

For all the positive responses!!

Bob

 

[Slow Poke_imp]

I think it is just about perfect as well. It has plenty of pull everywhere, and when pushed a little it has all I would ever want. I know some say it should have more power but I don't know what for. If you want to tear up a race track at 160mph, buy a sport bike. I was about two minutes into my test ride when I made up my mind to buy my 14 Standard. Two years and no regrets.

 

[DBM_imp]

UJM old school retro sport bike. Nothing more. If you try to modify it into something it was never intended to be, you are wasting time and money. My stock bike delivers miles of smiles just the way the engineers knew it would.

 

[PowerDubs_imp]

UJM old school retro sport bike. Nothing more. If you try to modify it into something it was never intended to be, you are wasting time and money. My stock bike delivers miles of smiles just the way the engineers knew it would.

I'm glad you are happy with your bike. But stop being passive aggressive about it in every thread where people mention modifying the bike. Plenty of modifications can and do improve the bike greatly so not a waste of time or money.

 

[VLJ_imp]

Most of the time, I'm fine with the motor. At elevation, however, climbing a grade, I want more power. On Monitor Pass or Hwy 395, I want more power. I would like more sheer grunt down low in the powerband, but I primarily want another twenty-five horsepower when I wind it out above 5,000 rpm. I would much prefer for the bike to continue accelerating, rather than flatten out.

I'm well used to the motor by now, and won't be swapping bikes, but I can't say that the motor is perfect for its intended use, or that I wouldn't appreciate having more zip everywhere, especially on top. I don't feel that the general appeal of the bike or my overall satisfaction with it would be diminished one iota with the addition of the usual thrust associated with an 1140cc I4.

As much as I love my CB, I have to say that the only thing (besides the intermittent squealing from the front brakes) keeping me from thinking my bike is perfect is...you guessed it...the motor. The bike is perfect for city riding, and relaxed country-roads riding. It's underpowered for certain highway situations, and some mountain passes.

I'm not asking for 160 hp, or track-ready acceleration. All I would ask for from the factory is a bit more grunt everywhere, with the torque figure rising to the mid-seventies, along with a good twenty-five more rwhp on top.

 

[SportsterDoc]

I am surprised how many times forum members comment about wanting more power on the CB1100.

It will exceed 100 MPH, in third gear in 8.6 seconds from 0 MPH.
90 MPH in 6.8 seconds.
Zero to 60 MPH, in first gear, in 3.3 seconds.

Typical 2 lane passing, from 65 MPH took me to 90+ before I am around just one vehicle, without dropping more than one gear. Solo, 185# rider.

My riding was frequently (weekly) from 2,200 feet to 8,500 feet elevation. About 5,000 feet of that climb was in less than a dozen miles. At the steepest grade, it did prefer 4th gear to hit 100, but 80 MPH in 6th was done effortlessly.

My snorkel mod may have helped slightly at elevation, but otherwise a stock bike.

The quickest 4 wheel vehicle that I have owned was a 73 Datsun pickup with a 1982 Chevy 350 V8. I became accustomed to it, after driving for a while, and wondered if I should have geared it lower. With a 2.92:1 rear end it was no faster than a new Corvette in 1982. I am sure that there were faster vehicles on the road, but being faster than most was more than sufficient. I feel the same about the CB.

The fastest vehicle I have driven was a rather ugly 1974 AMC matador police interceptor 401 V8. Contrary to published numbers, it would do 135 MPH at less than full throttle. The sway bars were so stout, it would out-corner a newer CB750 (with sparks from its footpegs) on a curvy mountain road near Los Angeles, circa 1978.

I got annoyed enough to pass that CB750, who was not yielding, then terminated the pursuit before the rider injured himself. Never cited a motorcyclist, although I was compelled to arrest one after a 5 mile, 120+ MPH pursuit across town.

I mention this to point out that I am not a stranger to speed, but still feel that the CB1100 powerplant provides a very responsive ride, with more HP than generally needed and with little need to get into the 6500 to 8500 RPM range.

I am also of the opinion that there will not be much power gain without a higher compression ratio and more timing advance, both of which would necessitate higher octane fuel. Considering the heat issues overcome during engine development by Honda, I would not be inclined to mill the heads.

The CB1100 is conducive to ride, refuel, change oil, lube chain and just ride and ride and ride...

 

[Wisedrum]

I am surprised how many times forum members comment about wanting more power on the CB1100.

It will exceed 100 MPH, in third gear in 8.6 seconds from 0 MPH.
90 MPH in 6.8 seconds.
Zero to 60 MPH, in first gear, in 3.3 seconds.

Typical 2 lane passing, from 65 MPH took me to 90+ before I am around just one vehicle, without dropping more than one gear. Solo, 185# rider.

My riding was frequently (weekly) from 2,200 feet to 8,500 feet elevation. About 5,000 feet of that climb was in less than a dozen miles. At the steepest grade, it did prefer 4th gear to hit 100, but 80 MPH in 6th was done effortlessly.

My snorkel mod may have helped slightly at elevation, but otherwise a stock bike.

The quickest 4 wheel vehicle that I have owned was a 73 Datsun pickup with a 1982 Chevy 350 V8. I became accustomed to it, after driving for a while, and wondered if I should have geared it lower. With a 2.92:1 rear end it was no faster than a new Corvette in 1982. I am sure that there were faster vehicles on the road, but being faster than most was more than sufficient. I feel the same about the CB.

The fastest vehicle I have driven was a rather ugly 1974 AMC matador police interceptor 401 V8. Contrary to published numbers, it would do 135 MPH at less than full throttle. The sway bars were so stout, it would out-corner a newer CB750 (with sparks from its footpegs) on a curvy mountain road near Los Angeles, circa 1978.

I got annoyed enough to pass that CB750, who was not yielding, then terminated the pursuit before the rider injured himself. Never cited a motorcyclist, although I was compelled to arrest one after a 5 mile, 120+ MPH pursuit across town.

I mention this to point out that I am not a stranger to speed, but still feel that the CB1100 powerplant provides a very responsive ride, with more HP than generally needed and with little need to get into the 6500 to 8500 RPM range.

I am also of the opinion that there will not be much power gain without a higher compression ratio and more timing advance, both of which would necessitate higher octane fuel. Considering the heat issues overcome during engine development by Honda, I would not be inclined to mill the heads.

The CB1100 is conducive to ride, refuel, change oil, lube chain and just ride and ride and ride...

I feel and think the same.
In Germany they tested the 2013 model with an acceleration of 3,9sec from 0 to 100km/h. That's more than enough, don't know if I ever tested it out....
A few bikes my accelerate faster, who cares. Most likely not the average or common CB rider.

Of course if you rev your CB often hard, you'll get to soon used to its power and may find it too early 'boring', if you've kept your driving license by doing so. But if you keep yourself back most of the time and only do the more full throttle thing once in a while in lower gears this will be the times, when the CB is able to spread surprises and excitment with only 90 HP. 90 fun and well assembled HP .

Wisedrum

 

[dbarkdoll_imp]

UJM old school retro sport bike. Nothing more. If you try to modify it into something it was never intended to be, you are wasting time and money. My stock bike delivers miles of smiles just the way the engineers knew it would.

I'm glad you are happy with your bike. But stop being passive aggressive about it in every thread where people mention modifying the bike. Plenty of modifications can and do improve the bike greatly so not a waste of time or money.

I'm glad you are happy with your bike. But stop being passive aggressive about it in every thread where people mention modifying the bike. Plenty of modifications can and do improve the bike greatly so not a waste of time or money.
Amen.

 

[DBM_imp]

"The CB1100 is conducive to ride, refuel, change oil, lube chain and just ride and ride and ride.."

Could not have said it better myself.

 

[GoldOxide_imp]

How much self-stroking can we do at this forum? We really like our CBs.

The CB has a great engine and drive train. I believe Honda engineered it just right for the majority of riders and typical riding situations. It definitely feels sooooooo good. Sometimes I can even get 3.9L/100 kms on level back roads. My typical is about 5.1L/100. When I am feeling "bad", it is about 6.0L/100. Unfortunately, for times when I want to feel "bad" by myself, the Canadian (and possibly North American CBs) cannot get above 200 km/h and the feeling approaching that point is ultra underwhelming as Honda retards the ignition.

 

[Cormanus]

GoldOxide, the CB1100 is speed limited to 180kph by Honda. I believe it is a requirement of Japanese law and they haven't bothered to supply different ECUs to different markets. It doesn't worry me much, but other members over the years have been quite exercised by it. Fortunately, Don Guhl Motors in the US has the ability to reflash your ECU to remove that restriction. And the rev limiter too. Use the search function to find threads all about it.

 

[GoldOxide_imp]

The CB1100 has a wonderful lump.

 

[Paris_imp]

I'm with you. I love the flat torque curve of the CB1100. Yeah, it seems underpowered compared to a lot of sport bikes. For a bit of perspective, though: 0-60 acceleration and 1/4 mile times are similar to a new Camaro ZL1. And those cost $60,000.

I’ve only had my CB 1100 EX for about a month, but I am struck by what a well rounded, well designed, engine it has. It sort of checks all the boxes without being at the top of any range. It has many virtues. It’s as close as I’ve ever owned to a universally good bike, and maybe that’s its one flaw.