CX 650 Turbo was my first motorbike. The acceleration in the third gear when the turbo entered was breathtaking. The V2 was perfect for touring and a low fuel consumption was possible due to the injection. It was no bike for racing.
I had the pleasure of riding one back then and they were so much fun to ride. Honda was way ahead of the turbo game, their turbo's spun much faster than other turbo vehicle of the day. They come up on Bring a trailer auction from time to time. it still looks good today.
As the owner of a CX500TC for over 30 years, I would like to revise the commentary a little on the reasoning behind the 650TC. It was not a case of turbo-lag that prompted this change but rather that off-boost / on-boost linearity that was mentioned. Off-boost on the 500 was pretty horrible and once the 19psi kicked in, the bars were nearly ripped out of your hands. The 650 was an attempt to get more off-boost power and by lowering the PSI that the turbo made on the 650, provide a more linear transition between off and on-boost. The turbo is located in the same place on both bikes so lag would be the same. I have owned the Seca 650 TC and also the 1984 GPZ Turbo from Kawasaki. Although the Kawi was definitely the best of the bunch as far as turbo execution was concerned, my heart still beats for the original CX500TC (I still have it!). Oh, and the CX500TC was also the first to have wind tunnel tested, integrated bodywork.
Location and distance where a turbo is located have nothing to do with Turbo lag. It is all to do with how fast the turbo spools up. Even if the turbo was five feet away somewhere on the bike, the millisecond difference from either location would not be noticable.
I had a CX500A: CX500 "solid handling".. you must be be joking, she wallowed like a hippo in mud on the bends, but was a solid tourer and quite fast for 500cc. Super easy maintenance. I did so want the 500T when I was a lad. 650T was the better model.
The curious thing was that the CX 500 was a 500CC shaft drive workhorse, solid trustworthy, and ever so slightly dull. It seemed a strange choice as Honda's foray into turbocharging. Now if they had just put a turbo on the CBX1000/6...
I purchased a CX500 turbo in the crate that had been sitting untouched in a warehouse. It was the most dangerous motorcycle I've ever ridden. The turbo lag was fine, but the problem was when you were under full throttle and then backed off to zero/idle throttle, the turbo was still spinning and you get about a half a second or more delay before the motor would stop putting out big power. Scary! But it was a hell of a quick bike and it was awesome It was kind of like putt putt putt putt and then all of a sudden thud thud thud as the turbo spooled up and suddenly you were riding the equivalent of a liter bike instead of a 500cc bike. Unfortunately, it was stolen from me during the aftermath of hurricane Andrew, in Miami. I still have the owner's manual for it somewhere!
As a former owner of a CX500 Turbo I can say it is the bike from the past I miss the most. To say the bike had quirks sounds bad. It was more of an eccentric sort of bike. It had style, got lots of looks. It had a learning curve to ride it to it's fullest potential. Spooling up the turbo in a curve was just something you didn't do and if you were cruising into a sweeping curve with the turbo boosting the handling was difficult due to the shaft drive more so than the turbo. Had two other bikes with shaft drive and experienced the same problem. ( Honda V65 Sabre and Kawasaki Concourse ) The bike had amazing brakes and could handle the stopping from high speeds. The TRAC front suspension was another plus for that bike. No other bike has given the thrill of experiencing the turbo hitting maximum boost and you had better have been gripping the handle bars tightly when it happened.
I like shaft drive bikes. When I would ride down to California with friends, I could take the bags off my Yamaha 650 Seca, and ditch them in the hotel while they were all lubing their hot chains. I know what you mean about the rising and falling suspension on shaft drive bikes, but the Turbo was different. The drive from the engine to the transmission turned the opposite way, negating the up/down side/side movement. I had to be careful on my Yamaha, but never noticed it on the Honda.
Kawasaki did it first with the Z1r Turbo in 1978...also 571lbs with half a tank of fuel and only 82hp is PITIFUL tbh! Its slow AF when riding even for the era, as ive rode a bunch of the coolest bikes from back then!
I've read elsewhere that people were also disappointed in the shaft drive as it meant you couldn't really get all that power into the back wheel as efficiently so even though it had 80+hp it rode as if it had less. I guess a hard 90 degree corner at the back wheel isn't as efficient, especially with early 80s tech.
Much more abrupt on mine as I have close to 100hp. Like getting rammed in the back by a tornado. So much so that the roll on would beat the liter bikes back then.
That's was not a true statement made by the video. A 1982 honda cb650 made 63hp and 38ftlbs. The CX made 82 hp and 68ftlbs. The CX did the quarter mile in 12.3 seconds compared to the 13.4 second cb650. Performance wise the cx blew it out of the water and the cx was meant to be a touring bike and not a sport bike.
@@Adrian-ek9ne my buddies brother had a CX500 and those were definitely some running ass motors, I can imagine one cammed and piped out, and that sound. Like a pissed off little V8, I could wheelie it no sweat.
Fastest quarter back in the day was 12.1 sec that I saw. Would beat the cb900 easily and mine would beat the cbx 1047...I had a cbx also. Todays 650's are light and fast but the turbo's roll on in high gear would walk away from even a new 650 in high gear. Its strangely satisfying. Been driving mine for 42 years..
Japanese imports were being taxed heavily by the government in an attempt to save the dying HD brand at the time. The tax kicked in over a certain CC so designing a smaller displacement but boosted engine was a clever way to get around the imposed tariffs. This was a big reason behind the turbo charged era of bikes.
The technology was there to reduce turbo lag and also to have twin turbo setup which also greatly reduced turbo leg it just wasn't implemented due to lack of innovation, curiosity, artistry, mechanically skilled and and knowledgeable mechanics besides one of the easiest ways to reduce the turbo lag was to actually increase throttle and Float the clutch and it would act just like a two-stroke you just needed the talent
these were a gimick back in the day- totally dead-end technology against the NA engines, and that's not even acknowledging the twisted-twin's architecture. That was Honda's first Fuel Injected engine, and, it was actually intended for a car, back in the early 1970's but the vehicle proposed was scrapped. Good Luck finding a replacement Turbo.
There were quite a few of these sold in Australia. The NA CX 500's were hugely popular here with couriers and had a stella reputation for reliability and longevity. That made it a much easier task for Honda to sell the turbo versions here than in other markets. The turbo version had a reputation for brutal power delivery, with many describing the throttle as an on/off switch, akin to a highly strung two stroke. They were known to make a mockery of many litre bikes between the lights. But what they were most noted for was killing people on corners. The turbo, by all accounts, would come in in an instant and either stand the bike up unexpectedly, or break traction. Either way, it often resulted in a trip to hospital or the morgue and the bike's remains sent to the wreckers. If you could find these in the early nineties, they were pretty cheap and you could get parts for them, but nobody wanted them. I had a housemate at the time who worked briefly as a courier. One of his colleague bought one of these, used. He kept it for about 2 months before declaring it a death trap and moving it on. But boy, when he gave it the gas, it went like a shower of...
@@davidbrayshaw3529 I was into the cx500 cafe bikes some years back, they're reliable althought not without their own quirks- some of which will absolutely destroy the engine if not addressed
![[#2024MAMA] ROSÉ (로제), Bruno Mars - APT. | Mnet 241122 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/dgGqD28J6aQ/mqdefault.jpg)
CX 650 Turbo was my first motorbike. The acceleration in the third gear when the turbo entered was breathtaking.
The V2 was perfect for touring and a low fuel consumption was possible due to the injection. It was no bike for racing.
I had the pleasure of riding one back then and they were so much fun to ride. Honda was way ahead of the turbo game, their turbo's spun much faster than other turbo vehicle of the day. They come up on Bring a trailer auction from time to time. it still looks good today.
Thank you for featuring my channel on your video! Great narration!
As the owner of a CX500TC for over 30 years, I would like to revise the commentary a little on the reasoning behind the 650TC. It was not a case of turbo-lag that prompted this change but rather that off-boost / on-boost linearity that was mentioned. Off-boost on the 500 was pretty horrible and once the 19psi kicked in, the bars were nearly ripped out of your hands. The 650 was an attempt to get more off-boost power and by lowering the PSI that the turbo made on the 650, provide a more linear transition between off and on-boost. The turbo is located in the same place on both bikes so lag would be the same. I have owned the Seca 650 TC and also the 1984 GPZ Turbo from Kawasaki. Although the Kawi was definitely the best of the bunch as far as turbo execution was concerned, my heart still beats for the original CX500TC (I still have it!). Oh, and the CX500TC was also the first to have wind tunnel tested, integrated bodywork.
Location and distance where a turbo is located have nothing to do with Turbo lag. It is all to do with how fast the turbo spools up. Even if the turbo was five feet away somewhere on the bike, the millisecond difference from either location would not be noticable.
I want one real bad. The 80s cyberpunk synthwave look is what I'm after
I just saw one for sale today
@@bfnurgf1 Do not buy it. I had a CX 650 Turbo. The bike has it's pro's but also con's
I had a CX500A: CX500 "solid handling".. you must be be joking, she wallowed like a hippo in mud on the bends, but was a solid tourer and quite fast for 500cc. Super easy maintenance. I did so want the 500T when I was a lad. 650T was the better model.
The curious thing was that the CX 500 was a 500CC shaft drive workhorse, solid trustworthy, and ever so slightly dull. It seemed a strange choice as Honda's foray into turbocharging. Now if they had just put a turbo on the CBX1000/6...
I agree, they could have used a different platform to explore turbocharging, they probably used the CX because of its reliability.
I would have bought a CBX Turbo in a heartbeat!
I purchased a CX500 turbo in the crate that had been sitting untouched in a warehouse. It was the most dangerous motorcycle I've ever ridden. The turbo lag was fine, but the problem was when you were under full throttle and then backed off to zero/idle throttle, the turbo was still spinning and you get about a half a second or more delay before the motor would stop putting out big power. Scary! But it was a hell of a quick bike and it was awesome It was kind of like putt putt putt putt and then all of a sudden thud thud thud as the turbo spooled up and suddenly you were riding the equivalent of a liter bike instead of a 500cc bike. Unfortunately, it was stolen from me during the aftermath of hurricane Andrew, in Miami. I still have the owner's manual for it somewhere!
I own a CX500 Turbo. Some of these comments are WAY off. :)
Yes they definitely are. You don't know what it feels like until you ride one😊
A lot of the words are off.... Weird huh? There are errors for sure.
It's a great bike ,
@@Adrian-ek9nethat’s what she said!
The CX engine started development in 1973. It was intended from the start to be a turbo-ised engine.
I didn’t realize you had a second channel! I’ve subscribed and everything is right in the world lol
As a former owner of a CX500 Turbo I can say it is the bike from the past I miss the most. To say the bike had quirks sounds bad. It was more of an eccentric sort of bike. It had style, got lots of looks. It had a learning curve to ride it to it's fullest potential. Spooling up the turbo in a curve was just something you didn't do and if you were cruising into a sweeping curve with the turbo boosting the handling was difficult due to the shaft drive more so than the turbo. Had two other bikes with shaft drive and experienced the same problem. ( Honda V65 Sabre and Kawasaki Concourse ) The bike had amazing brakes and could handle the stopping from high speeds. The TRAC front suspension was another plus for that bike. No other bike has given the thrill of experiencing the turbo hitting maximum boost and you had better have been gripping the handle bars tightly when it happened.
I like shaft drive bikes. When I would ride down to California with friends, I could take the bags off my Yamaha 650 Seca, and ditch them in the hotel while they were all lubing their hot chains. I know what you mean about the rising and falling suspension on shaft drive bikes, but the Turbo was different. The drive from the engine to the transmission turned the opposite way, negating the up/down side/side movement. I had to be careful on my Yamaha, but never noticed it on the Honda.
I'm from Louisiana I know a guy that has a cx650 turbo not for from me but he want let it go man I want that bike so bad 🤠
I seen one 2 weeks ago nw fort wayne.
Kawasaki did it first with the Z1r Turbo in 1978...also 571lbs with half a tank of fuel and only 82hp is PITIFUL tbh! Its slow AF when riding even for the era, as ive rode a bunch of the coolest bikes from back then!
I've read elsewhere that people were also disappointed in the shaft drive as it meant you couldn't really get all that power into the back wheel as efficiently so even though it had 80+hp it rode as if it had less. I guess a hard 90 degree corner at the back wheel isn't as efficient, especially with early 80s tech.
The cx turbo was meant to be a reliable touring bike so having a minimal maintenance shaft drive made sense at the time.
Yes, but at least there was only one 90 degree turn as the crankshaft was longitudinal, unlike some other shaft drive bikes.
Not meant to be a race bike . It performs perfect for the application!
But was the 650 noticeably smoother re: turbo lag?
I always wonder if the turbo kick feels like the 2 stroke power valve. If so, I think it might not be too hard to handle after some practice.
Much more abrupt on mine as I have close to 100hp. Like getting rammed in the back by a tornado. So much so that the roll on would beat the liter bikes back then.
A friend in 89 had a turbo kz1000 . No fun unless your going straight
All that tech to make a 500cc match the performance of a 650. Seems like a lot of work when it would be a lot simpler to make a 650 🤷♂️
I think it was mostly an exercise in turbocharging and a learning platform. Regardless I’d love to have one 🐾✌️🇺🇸
That's was not a true statement made by the video. A 1982 honda cb650 made 63hp and 38ftlbs. The CX made 82 hp and 68ftlbs. The CX did the quarter mile in 12.3 seconds compared to the 13.4 second cb650. Performance wise the cx blew it out of the water and the cx was meant to be a touring bike and not a sport bike.
@@Adrian-ek9ne my buddies brother had a CX500 and those were definitely some running ass motors, I can imagine one cammed and piped out, and that sound. Like a pissed off little V8, I could wheelie it no sweat.
Fastest quarter back in the day was 12.1 sec that I saw. Would beat the cb900 easily and mine would beat the cbx 1047...I had a cbx also. Todays 650's are light and fast but the turbo's roll on in high gear would walk away from even a new 650 in high gear. Its strangely satisfying. Been driving mine for 42 years..
Japanese imports were being taxed heavily by the government in an attempt to save the dying HD brand at the time. The tax kicked in over a certain CC so designing a smaller displacement but boosted engine was a clever way to get around the imposed tariffs. This was a big reason behind the turbo charged era of bikes.
The technology was there to reduce turbo lag and also to have twin turbo setup which also greatly reduced turbo leg it just wasn't implemented due to lack of innovation, curiosity, artistry, mechanically skilled and and knowledgeable mechanics besides one of the easiest ways to reduce the turbo lag was to actually increase throttle and Float the clutch and it would act just like a two-stroke you just needed the talent
I thought the Z turbo was first
"Based off the..."?
these were a gimick back in the day- totally dead-end technology against the NA engines, and that's not even acknowledging the twisted-twin's architecture. That was Honda's first Fuel Injected engine, and, it was actually intended for a car, back in the early 1970's but the vehicle proposed was scrapped. Good Luck finding a replacement Turbo.
There were quite a few of these sold in Australia. The NA CX 500's were hugely popular here with couriers and had a stella reputation for reliability and longevity. That made it a much easier task for Honda to sell the turbo versions here than in other markets. The turbo version had a reputation for brutal power delivery, with many describing the throttle as an on/off switch, akin to a highly strung two stroke. They were known to make a mockery of many litre bikes between the lights. But what they were most noted for was killing people on corners. The turbo, by all accounts, would come in in an instant and either stand the bike up unexpectedly, or break traction. Either way, it often resulted in a trip to hospital or the morgue and the bike's remains sent to the wreckers. If you could find these in the early nineties, they were pretty cheap and you could get parts for them, but nobody wanted them.
I had a housemate at the time who worked briefly as a courier. One of his colleague bought one of these, used. He kept it for about 2 months before declaring it a death trap and moving it on. But boy, when he gave it the gas, it went like a shower of...
@@davidbrayshaw3529 I was into the cx500 cafe bikes some years back, they're reliable althought not without their own quirks- some of which will absolutely destroy the engine if not addressed
How was it a dead end when it doubled the power of the NA motor. This was thought to be the future at the time but it did not catch on like expected.
Mine still runs perfectly on its original IHI turbocharger. It's a Honda after all
I'm already loving it. I would buy it today. 😊