Rider Magazine April 2019 Issue

[MZ5]

One thing I look at in magazine reviews is what fuel economy the testers achieved. For MCN's test of the NC750X, they reported average of 55 MPG, which we all know is quite low for this model. This tells me something about the testers' riding style and perhaps their expectations, and hence the validity of their comments as it might apply to me and my style.

MCN incorrectly stated the fuel grade as 91 octane, but without a measurement standard to accompany the stat, the number 91 is ambiguous.

They did list the wrong octane requirement. They also swapped bore and stroke in the text of the article, but got it right on the data page. The octane requirement is in no way ambiguous, though, because it’s an American publication, it mentioned riding in California, and the entire continent uses the (R+M)/2 octane number. If you’re outside N. America, I’d expect you to know you use a different rating system, just as I expect me (and you) to know when reading a European publication that I need to make an adjustment to whatever their listed octane requirement for a m/c is.

I look at the fuel economy a tester gets, too. I agree their figure is quite low, but not outside the experience of the membership of this forum. They also explicitly stated that they flogged it the whole time. So I got something useful from their feedback. I freely admit that I wouldn’t be much impressed with their figure if I had no other info about the NCX.

Despite their testing style, and their editorial oversights, they still really liked the bike. That’s pretty high praise.

I’m struggling with MCN’s new ownership and editorship, too, but apparently not nearly as much as you are? Hope you find another source you like better. If you do, please share!

 

[670cc]

They did list the wrong octane requirement. They also swapped bore and stroke in the text of the article, but got it right on the data page. The octane requirement is in no way ambiguous, though, because it’s an American publication, it mentioned riding in California, and the entire continent uses the (R+M)/2 octane number. If you’re outside N. America, I’d expect you to know you use a different rating system, just as I expect me (and you) to know when reading a European publication that I need to make an adjustment to whatever their listed octane requirement for a m/c is.

I look at the fuel economy a tester gets, too. I agree their figure is quite low, but not outside the experience of the membership of this forum. They also explicitly stated that they flogged it the whole time. So I got something useful from their feedback. I freely admit that I wouldn’t be much impressed with their figure if I had no other info about the NCX.

Despite their testing style, and their editorial oversights, they still really liked the bike. That’s pretty high praise.

I’m struggling with MCN’s new ownership and editorship, too, but apparently not nearly as much as you are? Hope you find another source you like better. If you do, please share!

I agree the octane number is just plain wrong. When I wrote to the MCN editor, the reply was basically that it wasn’t their fault, and that they used the numbers given by “Honda PR”, and being a Japanese company, Honda “must have” given them the RON octane. So, if MCN would specify their octane stats as PON, as we expect it to be anyway, MCN could no longer dodge responsibility by telling me they were just repeating what Honda told them. MCN would be a little more responsible for ascertaining that the correct octane standard was being quoted.

I guess I’m just a grumpy old man and no magazine is going to please me, so I’ve just about given up on reading the rags. I already own all the bikes I’ll need for a long time.

 

[dduelin]

Motorcycle Consumer News reviewed the NC750X in the May edition, too. Very similar overall review. They were pleased with the bike and did a good job pointing out its many positive attributes. MCN’s bike dyno’d at 53 hp, as I recall. They didn’t like the stock tires at all.

All the MCN haters missed the NCX feature!

I believe MCN has reviewed the NC700/750X four times now. In October and December 2012 the First Impression and Model Evaluation reviews were insightful and positive yet just a year later with two different journalists things changed ....”the engine low output and restricted rev range don’t generate the thrills we typically associate with motorcycles.” ‘Nuff said. This was a December 2013 comparison article with the BMW F800GT and Suzuki DL650. They really liked the 89 hp twin in the BMW.