2014 Honda CTX1300

It's great to see more press on the CTX and that it tends to confirm my and other's thoughts on the machine.

I would agree that the CTX can easily be a touring rig for a lot of riders. I've only made to long rides (not LD) on my ST at 2500mi and 2800mi. Both times we stopped at about the 200mi mark for gas and lunch.

We were two STs and one 1800 'Wing. We hit a little speed in passing on open road but no real speed. So far I see no indication that a CTX1300 wouldn't be right at home. No allowances needed.

All my Hondas except the V65 (six-speed) seemed to turn about 4000rpm @ 70mph for a slightly buzzy ride. My Duc 750 Sport just loped along at a very relaxing pace. I'd expect to see a little of that in the CTX.

I'm glad I only have room for one bike.
 
rjs987 said:
and would only go about 200 miles per tank.



.
Click to expand...

Every body thinks the 200 mile mark is the magic fuel tank range for touring distance. That would be great with the Gas Stations every few miles or so. However, here in the Western US, one might have one station at 200miles and the next one at another 225 miles. (Ride across Utah and the Desserts of Az) Don't pass them up. I like the 300 mile range the ST1300 gives, as at 225 to250 miles, I start thinking about stopping and I don't have to worry if the bike will make the next station. With any range less than 200 miles per tank there is always the worry about, will a station be where it is needed when the tank is empty. I want to enjoy my ride and not be doing mathematical mileage/fuel range calculations in my head for my complete trip. A minimum range for a touring type bike should be at least 250 miles per tank regardless of MPGs
My NT and Wee 650 both have a range of about 240 to 260 miles per tank so I plan my stops at 200 miles. This way I know I have enough fuel for the unexpected (ie; High Speed riding in the Kansas Head Winds) 195 range of a fuel tank, in MY Opinion does not make for relaxed, worry free, enjoyable, motorcycle touring. If we were in Europe then the dynamics of this subject would be a complete different picture, As one could travel through 3 or 4 countries in 200 miles. Please Honda Give us a touring bike with the fuel range for the wide open expanses of the Western United States.
 
Last edited:
ChucksKLRST said:
A minimum range for a touring type bike should be at least 250 miles per tank regardless of MPGs...
Click to expand...

Precisely my point. The real life mpg on the CTX1300 indicated by owners so far would indicate well past that 250 mile mark per tank. In fact, 225-250 miles may be doable for between stops with a little left over.
 
rjs987 said:
Precisely my point. The real life mpg on the CTX1300 indicated by owners so far would indicate well past that 250 mile mark per tank. In fact, 225-250 miles may be doable for between stops with a little left over.
Click to expand...

OK. We will see, I was just quoting the articles specs. By the way I got to ride one today for about 6 or 7 miles. Nice motor, nice quality of build, Nice extra electric dodads, Good low end grunt. Pulled strong from 25 mph in fourth gear with out lugging the motor. But not for me. The seating was all wrong. Do not like my feet in front of me. I feel like I do not have any high speed control. And it needs a taller wind shield. If I really want such a bike I will take the wind shield off my ST and take the top box off and it would be the same with proper seating position. Each to his own. Hope those who buy it like it. " If you like your motorcycle, You can keep it"
 
Yeah, but the low end torque allows that you don't notice it until you get into the upper rpm ranges. Down low it acts like it has more power per the reports from current owners I've read on the CTX1300forum. 40% lower HP simply means it won't reach the same top speed as the ST. It will only top out somewhere around 130 mph I think. Besides, they are mistaken in their math. The CTX1300 is 84 HP and the ST1300 is 117 HP (last I checked). That would be more correctly 28-29% less power, but still...
Almost all riders who choose this bike will not likely care to go that fast anyway. Would be interesting to be able to ride through small towns along the county highways at 30 mph in top gear and then just power away back up to 55-60 going out of town without shifting and without lugging. Sometimes I think we put too much stock in HP and not enough in torque or even gearing (total picture of performance).
84 HP @6000 rpm
78 lb-ft @4500 rpm
Geared much taller (longer) than the ST
What is a Ninja 650R? (just for curiosity). Sport bikes are usually lower torque but higher HP, both at much higher rpm than even the ST.
 
caldercay said:
My Hayabusa: 175hp + 100+ ft.lbs :)
Click to expand...

At what rpms? that's almost as important as the number of ponies or lbs since those readings all start low and work up to those max numbers at a certain rpm. example: the CTX1300 has higher torque just over 4500 rpm than the ST1300 even though the ST has higher torque at 6000 rpm. The CTX torque curve is flatter than the ST and is higher sooner and stays rather level a bit longer until somewhere after 5252 rpm. I did find and see a torque/HP dyno readout for the CTX somewhere but don't remember where.
(again, you made me curious on this one now). I know... different bikes, different engines (mostly), different intended performances.
 
Last edited:
The low seat height pull back bars will make it attractive to a lot of buyers. I had enough experience with bikes to figure out how to lower mine with Works shock (plus lower profile tires and Corbin seat) and to put on Helibars, but a first time rider of a brand new bike wouldn't want to go through all of that. The way my ST1100 is set up it is not that dissimilar from a CTX.
 
rjs justifies the CTX power delivery system while criticizing the ST's, or at least that's how it comes across...as if 6000rpm is a useless or an unknown area; I see 6000 every time ride, every time i accelerate. I only wish the ST had more HP and more torque, not less. The ST's power is behind the Concour14, the FJR1300, the Trophy, the new R1200RT, to name only four. Going to 83HP and 78lb ft torque at 4500 is not my ideal, no matter how you massage the numbers.
 
BlueSTeed said:
rjs justifies the CTX power delivery system while criticizing the ST's, or at least that's how it comes across...as if 6000rpm is a useless or an unknown area;
Click to expand...

Huh? I don't see that at all just a comparison of specs. What he says seems to mirror the articles of those who've ridden the CTX. Personally I don't see 6K every time I ride and certainly every time I accelerate.


BlueSTeed said:
I only wish the ST had more HP and more torque, not less. The ST's power is behind the Concour14, the FJR1300, the Trophy, the new R1200RT, to name only four.
Click to expand...

I suppose that's a valid criticism if you tend to ride hard. I don't need more HP but the ST could certainly use some more low end torque.


BlueSTeed said:
Going to 83HP and 78lb ft torque at 4500 is not my ideal, no matter how you massage the numbers.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure who's massaging numbers but it's clear that Honda is aiming the ST at a specific market/demographic and it's not sports bike or sport touring riders. I think the intended riders will be fairly happen with the HP/FP 'curve' of the CTX.
 
There is NO criticism intended of the ST, only the fact that the peak torque on the ST comes at a much higher rpm than on the CTX (regardless what that number is) AND AT THAT rpm the HP is also higher and still climbing besides. The CTX was designed to start off with higher numbers at the lower rpm but is not intended to be driven over 6000 rpm for normal highway speeds since those speeds are reached at well below that rpm in top gear. I am certain there are many ST riders who ride at or over 6000 rpm regularly. I don't. My ST1100 rarely sees over 5000 rpm and then only if I am accelerating very hard (by my standard). I am usually always below 4500 rpm on my ST and run at 60 mph on my commute to work at about 3900+ rpm in 4th gear and a short 2 miles at 65 mph at 4200 rpm (again in 4th gear). I know that sport and sport-touring bikes are designed to run at higher rpms and get their power up there. The CTX is designed to run at much lower rpms and gets the power it has down low. That's just the way it is designed. And that is all I was stating. I, in no way, was giving a "this is better and that is bad" statement and I'm sorry (and surprised) you would take it that way. Don't be intimidated by the lower rpm power delivery designed into the CTX. The ST would quickly and easily run away from the CTX in any competition as rpm builds up. The ST is a powerful enough machine for what it is designed to do. It is true that other sport-touring bikes may have higher torque or HP at higher rpms but all things together do not make them necessarily better than the ST as evidenced by those who continue to ride the ST.

BTW- The ST1300 HP and torque is actually less than on the CTX at 4500 rpm so if that's not your ideal set of numbers then keep it higher than that. Obviously the ST is not a slouch at any rpm so I don't see any problem with those numbers. Again, not criticizing but just pointing out the way it is designed. ST1300 HP keeps going up and peaks at 8500 rpm and that is 1500 rpm past the rev limiter for the CTX. ST1300 torque peaks at 6000 rpm and is higher of course than the CTX which has dropped off somewhere around 5500 rpm. It's not better or worse (unless you really want to think of it that way, it's your choice), it's just different.



yeah, I guess I do get a little touchy when someone so totally misreads me.
 
Last edited:
Thanks, ST gui and rjs987, for your comments. Rereading my post, I came off in an unintended way myself. I've been looking hard at the FJR1300 and the new R1200RT and have joined several other like-bike forums. I'm learning more and more and I'm excited about the new offerings. Then I look back at what Honda's doing or NOT doing and I lament. About that time, I read rjs987's CTX engine comparison, thoughtful and correct as it is, it made me think of Honda's neglect of the ST again. The CTX comes off as a fine machine and our V4 powerplant should do very well there. Maybe one day I'll end up with a CTX and look forward to it but as it is now, I still have a sport-tourer or two left in me before I'll consider going back to cruisers. My beef is that Honda isn't doing a thing to retain me. In fact, they're pushing me away and into the waiting arms of other motorcycle companies who are working overtime to earn my business. Once there, I may not want to come back. There's a little bit of sadness in that for me.

More importantly, I apologize for making you gents raise your shields.
 
Understood. Just another confirmation of what is regularly stated... there are all kinds of riders and all kinds of rides. We each have to choose the ride that is right for us. That may change over time or it may not. The ST1300 is a fine machine and it is too bad Honda hasn't done more with it in recent years (thus a lot of frustration with the current owner base), but they chase a bigger market in a big world. Other makers fill in where they see the gap. I have enjoyed riding my ST1100 but see a change happening in what I want. I would like it to be another Honda since I like the company and the reliability I still see there. But it may also be another brand so we'll have to see. So far I don't see what interests me yet in other brands. But that's just me. We are all different. :)
 
Last edited:
Stopped into the dealer on Monday to pick up my backordered heated liner....finally......anyway, new CTX on the floor.....sat on it again.......(first time was at the show back in January)......still not comfortable for me.....pegs too far forward, bars too far back.....just bad ergos for me.........looked at it awhile.....and decided that all the new designers at Honda have scooter backgrounds....everything recently designed has strong scooter influences.....since scooters (in Asia) is their primary market I guess I can see why.....just disappointing not to see more traditional racebike derived lines......oh well, the FJR is nice too if I get the bug....gotta ride one and see how it fits...........enjoy the riding weather............ff
 
So I pulled the trigger a few weeks ago, and my CTX1300 finally came in. Thought I wanted it in gray-blue, but thought more about it and went with black instead. The black model the dealer had was a standard, so that's what I've got -- no sound system, TCS, ABS, auto-canceling turn signals, none of which I really care about anyway.

So a quick review -- first, the good:

- The riding position for me is just perfect. The bars are a comfortable reach and not too wide -- wider than the ST, but not as wide as most big cruisers. Foot position is very relaxed and natural, more comfortable to me than feet-forward of most crusers or feet-under like the ST.

- Seat is the most comfortable stock seat I've ever planted my backside in, even better than many after-market saddles I've used.

- The motor is the undeniable offspring of the ST1300's in sound and character. The biggest difference, as has been widely noted, is more low-end torque and less top-end (thought I have less than 200 miles on it so far and haven't yet opened it up). Lots of pull and very, very smooth.

- Handling is simply outstanding. I've owned a VFR800, the ST1300, and some heavy cruisers since then, and the handling of the CTX1300 is damn near that of the ST. Light, neutral, and planted. Again, with only a few miles on the rubber, I haven't really tested it yet. But so far, you just think about leaning and it's turning. Can't wait to get through the break-in miles and get the tires good and scuffed up to start seeing what this thing can really do.

Now the minor disappointments:

- The front end is extremely stiff, much stiffer than any bike I can remember that I've owned, including the VFR800. That really surprised me for a bike this heavy. I'll wait and see if it softens up over time, but I may well be looking for Progressive replacements as soon as they're available.

- When riding solo, you definitely feel the wind, but it is very smooth with no buffeting at all (that's not the disappointing part). The fairing blocks enough of the full blast that it's no effort at all to ride at highway speeds. You may not like it if you're used to that nice quiet bubble the ST gives you, but I'm used to cruisers with very small shields, so it's quite comfortable to me (in fact one of the things I didn't like about the ST was that overly-quiet bubble). However ... when riding 2-up, I felt a lot of turbulence around my head, especially on the highway. Not jackjammer-type buffeting, but more like somebody occasionally nudging my head to one side or the other. I think it's because my wife was leaning much closer than usual, because there's no backrest yet and she was kind of hanging on for dear life, which I think was upsetting the air flow. I'm hoping a backrest will let her sit back and relax and cure that wind problem, because part of the reason I wanted this bike was that she's been wanting to go out more and I wanted her to be more comfortable. Or I'll be looking for a taller windscreen. Or she'll just have to stay home. :p

Overall, i think Honda nailed it for what it is. A few little things will need tweaking, but I'm loving this ride. Feel free to throw any questions out there, I'll be happy to answer what I can.



IMG_20140411_165016.jpg
 
Ed, glad you like it. :yes: Have you ran it at night? I assume the LED headlamps are poorer than the stock ST13 headlights?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom