NC700x vs CB500X

[670cc]

Don't half-ass it man. If your in for a penny you're in for a pound (my philosophy). The horsepower figures, if true are NOT what moves you. Torque does. Besides the obvious no "Frunk" space on the 500X, you will be giving up "Real World" tractable Hp on the road. In this case, bigger IS better in the long run.

HORSEPOWER: HOW FAST YOU HIT THE WALL

TORQUE: HOW FAR YOU TAKE THE WALL WITH YOU.

Sorry, this explanation bugs me so I have to try to explain how I understand torque and horsepower.

Torque (lb-ft) X RPM
-------------------- = Horsepower
5252

This formula is true for all engines. With all engines, the torque and horsepower figures are equal at 5252 RPM. Look up the engine test charts and you will see that this is true.

Horsepower IS always what moves you. Torque isn't one source of motion and horsepower another. Torque is simply a component of the horsepower formula. Engine RPM is the other.

You can have 1000 lb-ft of torque (sounds like a lot!) at 10 RPM and you will go almost nowhere on a big bike because you have only 1.9 horsepower! You are not going to move the wall far with less than 2 horsepower, even with 1000 lb-ft or torque. Without the RPM to go with the torque, you have little power.

People say the NC700X is a torquey engine. What they mean is the engine generates a lot of torque at a lower RPM. As a consequence of that, the power (hp or kW) on the NC700X at low RPM is relatively high, compared to other engines that must be rev'd higher to produce the same power. The fact the the power is there at a lower RPM on the NC700X is because the torque is high at that lower RPM.

So, in the case of the Honda NC700X vs the CB500X, they may very well have about the same peak horsepower and performance. It's not a question of which bike has torque and which has horsepower, rather the question is whether you want the horsepower at a lower RPM, or a higher RPM.

 

[Beemerphile]

It's not a question of which bike has torque and which has horsepower, rather the question is whether you want the horsepower at a lower RPM, or a higher RPM.

Well explained. I think the other element as it related to driveability is how flat or steep the horsepower curve is. A flatter curve gives usable power over a broad range of engine speeds whereas a steeper curve means the a narrower range where effective power is being made. With the old 2 strokes we used to call this being "on the pipe". The motor was essentially gutless and then at a certain RPM, all hell broke loose. Shortly after that, it was gasping for air. You had to shift gears up and down ferociously to stay in the power band.

I am betting that the 500 will be peakier than the NC and not only will it have to be run at a higher RPM, but it will have to be shifted more often to keep the engine "in the zone".

 

[dduelin]

Well explained. I think the other element as it related to driveability is how flat or steep the horsepower curve is. A flatter curve gives usable power over a broad range of engine speeds whereas a steeper curve means the a narrower range where effective power is being made. With the old 2 strokes we used to call this being "on the pipe". The motor was essentially gutless and then at a certain RPM, all hell broke loose. Shortly after that, it was gasping for air. You had to shift gears up and down ferociously to stay in the power band.

I am betting that the 500 will be peakier than the NC and not only will it have to be run at a higher RPM, but it will have to be shifted more often to keep the engine "in the zone".

+ 1. People buy horsepower but they ride torque.

 

[bo7o]

I read about the NC700X engine that the technology is more car-like. The RPM maximum is intentionally lower since friction (piston and other) increases with RPM. The bore is also lower 73mm on NC700 vs. other bikes (though it's also low on the CB500X) since the bore diameter increases piston ring friction and also heat dissipation.

I really like getting the power at low revs - it's something that is driving me to getting the NC700X in Spring.

 

[MZ5]

Good explanation, 670cc. It's funny/ironic that I was contemplating a reply with almost exactly the same 1,000 lb-ft of torque example that you used! But you beat me to it.

 

[RubenAlonzo]

I stand corrected, 670cc thank you for a proper explanation.

 

[centex]

Go back and read any of the full tests of the NC in the motorcycling press. Honda intentionally designed a unique (for now) bike with ECONOMY as the primary goal, ease of riding as an introductory bike for new riders as the second (long-flat torque curve). Economy is measured in terms of both fuel use and purchase price. Those characteristics are what make it an interesting bike.

The market is full of lesser-displacement bikes with higher peak HP, better acceleration, higher top speed and better handling/braking. If those other characteristics are what you now realize are important to you, that’s cool, riding is a learning experience and Honda clearly hopes this bike will be used by new riders as a launching-point for subsequent motorcycle purchases.

Send me a PM, I might be interested in buying your low-miles NC

 

[duk2n]

to shift gears up and down ferociously

LOL

This is exactly how 16 year old boys here use their 50cc 2 strokes. Then, a lot of noise and some smell of fried squid follows

 

[beep]

I think there's room in Honda range for both of these bikes. It'll be great to have the choice. They may well take sales from each other but more importantly they'll take sales from the other manufacturers, many of whose ranges have become a bit stagnent at the moment.

There are significant differences many of them in the NC's favour, enough to make the extra cost worthwhile: the "tank" storage, lower center of gravity, more pulling power, more advance technology, the option of the DCT gearbox and maybe even build quality (but we'll have to wait and see about the one).

However the 500 is cheaper and might even be more fun to ride. I'll definately take a testride when they come out but won't be selling my NC to get one (not for a while anyway).

 

[happy]

It is almost like the BMW 323i or the 320i (in late 1990s, early 2000s). The difference is only in the minds of the buyer and on paper.
I am intrigued why Honda came out with this 500cc version.
But I read somewhere that it was because this is for the BEGINNER or power-limit for some States.
Our 670 is more for refresher guys and open-class licenses?

Just my quick 2 cents.

 

[Rocker66]

It's for the new A2 licences in Europe

 

[netizen]

the cb500x does not have 54 bhp and only the dct have 51 bhp.
the cb500 was developed for the european market, there is a new law coming out(2013) for riders progressing from a 125cc 12bhp to a bike which has a 47bhp limits hence the reason the ninja 300 and the cb500!! no doubt yam and suzy will follow.....

as for torque the NC is much better ..higher torque at low rev's.
the 500 will be higher up the rev range.in other words you'll probably have to wring it neck to get the max torque.
I think the NC was develope for a more decairning type of folks.
the 500 higher reving will appeal to a young wipper snapperView attachment 1783

I am glad you posted this Johnakay. I remembered reading that this bike was built for new European laws, but I really didn't know enough about it to post it as you did. It is a nice 500cc bike for someone looking at that market. I think it will mainly be a light commuter bike here in the US. It is probably capable of allot more though.

 

[turbodieseli4i6]

Looks like we have one on fuelly now. 71.6 mpg showing on the first fill.
Honda CB500X (Honda CB500) | Fuelly

 

[netizen]

Looks like we have one on fuelly now. 71.6 mpg showing on the first fill.
Honda CB500X (Honda CB500) | Fuelly

Nice Find! This is the first reported fuel mileage I know of for this bike.

 

[pahondafan]

Is that why sport bikes seem to scream like tortured cats when they take off at lights but the NC sounds like a locomotive moving 100 freight cars?

 

[T288msd]

My local UK dealer is selling twice as many CB500s as NC700s since they were released. Will be interesting to see if that lasts.

 

[turbodieseli4i6]

On a side note, while riding 75-85 mph on the interstate, I managed 69.8 mpg. I thought my mpgs would take a dump riding those speeds.
Evidently, commuting has a worse effect.

 

[bo7o]

Looks like we have one on fuelly now. 71.6 mpg showing on the first fill.
Honda CB500X (Honda CB500) | Fuelly

Nice. That's an English gallon probably (I assume since the cost still in pounds) so that's about 60 mpg. (Us is .85 of British I think)

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

 

[670cc]

Nice. That's an English gallon probably (I assume since the cost still in pounds) so that's about 60 mpg. (Us is .85 of British I think)

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

You view Fuelly units according to your preference, per the setting on the upper left corner of the screen. The example 71.6 mpg posted is US gallons. It's 86 mpg in UK gallons.

Greg

 

[bo7o]

Oops ... thanks Greg

Rob

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 4 Beta