New 2012 Honda NC700X 700cc Parallel Twin!

Understandable. They were not starting from a platform that was designed from the beginning for best economy. Percentage improvements are easier from a poorer starting point. It gets harder and harder as you go. I think the starting point for Honda is quite advanced.

Honda developed an unconventional engine with incredible fuel economy and decent performance. To make its performance more "normal" would make its economy more "normal" and there would be nothing special about it. I rode mine on the Blue Ridge Parkway last weekend and got 80 mpg. That is something you would expect from a 250cc scooter. The Honda has very decent power for its economy level. If I had wanted an ordinary 60hp midsize bike I would have bought a WeeStrom. Not a bad bike, but not what I wanted. Why should Honda build a WeeStrom clone, it is already in the market? What they did build was not already out there.

if the bump in power is in the midrange instead of the top end it'll mean your using the lower revs more saving economy instead of sitting in the upper reaches trying to eek out more oomph from the motor.

Were you at the UnRally?

They could/should build a WeeStrom clone because Wee sells like nuts.

They're maybe aiming for current NC700 folks with the CB500 series and
want to take the NC700 elsewhere.

Power was really my only complaint when I rode the NC700X, and not until
my 2nd and 3rd ride (first 100 miles were great). After the first ride I was
sold. 2nd ride.. I figured.. man.. if this thing only had 5-10hp more. On my
3rd ride I knew it would bother me and just forgot about it.

50cc more.. let's make it 5hp more then.. 53-55hp territory.. 500 revs
more just for fun, and 10lbs less - that could easy return same MPG figures.
Honda can do it if anyone can.

A slight hike in bhp and torque throughout the rev range, plus a slightly sharper restyle would interest me a lot

These are selling to experienced riders/commuters/downsizers, I can see why Honda want their entry bike to be the 500 series.

My main interest is MPG"S. (who would'a guessed) I don't need any more HP or torque or speed.

I do not miss more power when I am riding, I only think about it when not riding.

I fit the experienced rider/downsizer category. I find the ability to follow most roads attractive.

When I road a cruiser (Honda Valkyrie), I could spank most any other cruiser on the street. Pretty boring though.

I am riding over the Beartooth Highway this Saturday with a bunch guys on Harley's. They are the real thing, tats, no helmet, sleeveless T-shirts, no windshields, and they fear gravel. But they ride with me, ATGATT, and we have a good time. Course I usually buy lunch.

I attended the UnRally Tuesday to Thursday then went up to the ADV BYOB at Seneca Rocks for the weekend.

I led a ride one day at the Unrally about 200 miles on the fine roads in the area. Spirited ride. When we gassed up at the end my friend commented his R1200GS got 48 miles per gallon despite the pace. I got 73 mpg. On the mountain roads I got 70-75 all week and it is surefooted as a mountain goat in the corners and confident if you have to change line to avoid gravel and gravel was EVERYWHERE. This thing still amazes me.

After leaving Seneca Rocks I went down and spent the night at Willville. This led to an interesting story, at least to me. A Weestrom owner closely inspected my bike and asked a lot of questions about it including fuel mileage I was getting. He wanted to know the worst mileage I had gotten. I said 45 and predictably he said his Wee gets mileage better than that. "I get in the 50s all the time and once I got 62 riding the BRP. I always thought Honda was exaggerating the claims of fuel efficiency." I said that you asked me the worst mileage and that 45 mpg was was riding a steady 80 - 85 mph in a stiff headwind for 155 miles. Being the anal type I had all the gas receipts for this tour in the trunk with mileages jotted down on them. I pulled them out and started reading them out to him. "64, 56, 54, 63, 67, 73, 71, 76, 76, 73." He said something about those being better than he expected. He walked off and I unpacked my gear. After a while I went down the road for dinner and filled up the tank that had about 90 miles of the BRP on it. When I got back to Willville I mentioned to the Wee owner I had filled up with 1.16 gallons of regular after riding 90 miles on the BRP. "The math is a tad under 78 mpg". He shook his head and said that is better than Honda claimed and is amazing "if you don't mind the 6000 rpm redline". He wanted to know what I normally shift at and does the bike do OK on the interstate at 75 or 80 mph. I said it does great and will run all day comfortably at 80 -85 "but you only get 45 mpg". It was great, all that was lacking was a rim shot.

Well, a whole lot of people do not have any more excuses on not buying this bike in 2014. "it needs more power."

Done!
I really wish Honda would have went with 650 instead of 700 on the 2012-2013 years.
This new one could have been 700.

For me, I'd want the 2013 model. I'll not be doing any 2 up riding, and 80mpg for cruising on less than 55mph roads is about awsome! :eek1

Seems like the 2014 will be a tick heavier, so less confidence off-road.


Couple of questions:

1. Will this make the 2013 models that are still on the sale floor this December go down in value or up?

2. Does this hurt or help the resale value of the used 2012-2013 era?

I'd actually be willing to purchase a used NC700X, but any other bike I'd want to break in my self.

Thanks for reading.

I'm wondering how much power they expect to get out of a 50cc increase? Why not make it closer to 800 and really make something different.

I'm wondering how much power they expect to get out of a 50cc increase? Why not make it closer to 800 and really make something different.


2015

increasing the capacity shouldn't make the bike heavier it'll weigh the same and the power will probably be in the midrange when you want good torque the motor has torque but that bit more will make it easier to live with sitting at lower revs which a bigger engine gives.

That's already the bike's strongest point, a very FAT midrange.

I'd rather if they used the 50cc and 500 revs more to give us a slight
punch up to, it's got plenty of go for a 670cc bike as it is down low, it
absolutely demolishes my FZ6 with roll-on torque.

you'll notice the difference with any small increase in torque or power, when I unrestricted my supermoto of its emissions rubbish the difference was phenomenal might of only been 1-3 bhp difference but it made everything that more easier, a increase in capacity is normally for driveability not more revs short stroke engines rev hard where as the NC700 will naturally have a long stroke in its power delivery, for my current bike that revs to 14.5K adding 40cc to the capacity drops 1K in revs.

Yeah, you're right..
I just want the last few hundred revs to have a noticeable surge of power.
Flat is nice, but boring.

Don't want peaky.. just a "punch" from 5500 to 6500, that's all!
You get dissapointed a bit when you ride around at a sane pace from 2000
to 4000 revs, expecting a boost in power when you rev it out to the end,
and then nothing happens, it remains exactly the same!

I heard that the Versys was like that too - but my ER6F (Ninja 650R) wasn't,
there was a noticeable jump in power from 7k to 9k revs, and that's where
the extra 7hp between the two were.

THAT is what I want from the NC750X.

Same EVERYTHING up to 5500, which would result in same MPG figures
no doubt, but a kick from 5500+, for which I'd sacrifice a bit of MPGs.

That said.. my 650R, with 50% more power (!) was VERY close in MPGs
when ridden at low revs.

the NC700 has a very smooth running order so its smooth all the way up the Ninja 650 "ER-6F" has a 180 degree crank set-up meaning its very pulsey in the way it packs a punch a more aggressive manner compared the the 270 degree spacing of the honda, I do think this chassis maybe made abit lighter with fully integrated panniers and touring fairings would sell well.

Don't get me started on the 180 crank on the 650R.
That's one of the main reasons I sold it.
The vibrations drove me nuts, but the power delivery was great,
that engine is a gem.

I'd love to try a newer version (had 2007).

50cc increase will add 3.6hp to the 670cc engine. Giving 52hp at the wheel. The 500's have 44hp and it comes higher up the rev range.

I'd like to see a major weight loss to go w/the displacement/power bump. That'd be a huge step in the right direction, IMO, and I'd gladly pay a bigger chunk of change for it. More power and better economy from the changes, maybe? I'd like it and I'd gladly pay for it.

Beemerphile made fun of me. I cried.

He certainly knows the NC and is a valuable resource.