2014 Honda CTX1300

And if it's a center stand you need, there is one available as an option. As happens with a lot of bikes, "options" for the USA versions are standard overseas such as (in this case) the center stand and heated grips and ABS and a few others.

+1 on reserving and opinions of performance until you ride one. It won't take long to realize it runs better than most here seem to believe. As I stated before... most ST riders never really see MAX hp anyway so those riders would not miss the lower max hp found on this bike. (that is, unless you regularly keep your ST up around 6500-8500 rpm).
 
Pete in PA said:
What's with the big box and bundle of tubes they call exhaust pipes and a mufflers?? Have noise restrictions gotten that bad? A lot of new bikes are getting these ugly systems. Won't be a centerstand option available.
Click to expand...

I also prefer my current ST to the CTX however, to be fair, ALL new bikes seem to have these hidden jumbled mess of pipes for exhaust. Not just the CTX. I'm sure it's a function of stricter emissions standards and the engineers' need for more plumbing (catalytic converter, etc.) to meet those standards, weighted against the designers' need for an aesthetically pleasing product.

I know the picture in Rider that you are referring to but, realize that the bike is leaned over and all that stuff is tucked up under the bike and is supposed to be out of sight normally. When I compare that picture to ones viewed from the side I see that the chromed part is what is meant to be visible.
 
STumped said:
I'm sure it's a function of stricter emissions standards and the engineers' need for more plumbing (catalytic converter, etc.) to meet those standards, weighted against the designers' need for an aesthetically pleasing product.
Click to expand...

Part of it is performance. The engineering tools available today are better than they've ever been and make what was being done 25-30 years ago look like barely-educated guesses. The length and shape of the whole system can be tuned finely enough that flow and backpressure are kept exactly where they should be for the engine to run at its best.

--Mark
 
ST Gui said:
You're not alone. Others have gone on to give pretty harsh criticism of the looks. Subjective. I get that. However other criticisms were alleged regarding performance and handling when the bike hadn't even been reviewed by anybody. I think this is the Sour Grapes Syndrome kicking in because there was no updated ST.

<sigh> Here's the thing: Honda DOESN'T label it a Sport Touring bike. Not at all. They show it under Touring along with the GoldWing F6B ST Interstate and CTXs. Each one of these is practically it's own class. Some people keep saying this is a Sport-Tourer and that it's to replace the ST. Not true. Whether the ST lives or dies the CTX1300 is a different bike. Honda says so in the CTX's ad copy.

No they're not. They're saying it's a new category of bike. Bagger or Cruiser-Tourer is a more accurate description and label. In the automotive industry "crossover" refers to the construction: SUV body on a car chassis. It's consumers making up their own definitions of a vehicle. Pretty much what's happened in this thread.

I say Honda has done a commendable job in making it a neither. They're not calling it either. Even though it's not an ST or an S-T I think people will find that there is still some sport and touring in it. There's no reason any motorcycle has to conform to a pre-existing category. Were that the case there would never be any sport-tourers.

One member here has already posted 50mpg for his CTX. This will be a fun bike for a lot of people. The optional (or third-party) windshield should extend the reach of the bike in distance and fans.
Click to expand...

Man, you have been doing your homework. ;)

I get that I'm on a site dedicated to sport touring, and a specific sport touring bike at that. I also get that not everybody is going to like this bike, either its looks or its function or both. But people here should understand that more than most, as the sport touring market in general and the ST1300 in particular play to a fairly small audience in relation to the whole motorcycle riding population. For me, there are bikes that are nice, and bikes that are not so nice; bikes that I would love to take for a ride, bikes that I like to just look at for their outward beauty. There are very, very few on the list of bikes I really want to own for myself; the rest I can only assume that, while not for me, must be floating somebody's boat or they wouldn't be out there. That's why I get a little short sometimes with people who automatically dismiss something as useless just because it isn't their own cup of tea. Something about motorcycles and smart phones seems to bring out the worst in people in that regard. :confused:

For me, the CTX1300 ticked my clock from the moment I saw it. I don't think I can say that about any other bike I've owned. Every other one I've had to look at and ponder over; it's usually been after deciding what kind of ride I want, and then going out to look around for the best fit with the least compromises. I could run down the list of bikes I've owned and what prompted me to trade them in and why I picked the models that replaced them, but that would likely bore everyone to tears (if I haven't done that already), and I think you get where I'm going here. I surely don't expect this bike to have that affect on most other riders, although there seems to be a fair collection of us already gathering over on the CTX1300 forums.
 
sleepngbear said:
I also get that not everybody is going to like this bike, either its looks or its function or both. But people here should understand that more than most, as the sport touring market in general and the ST1300 in particular play to a fairly small audience in relation to the whole motorcycle riding population.
Click to expand...

I want to put that on some stone tablets!


sleepngbear said:
For me, the CTX1300 ticked my clock from the moment I saw it. I don't think I can say that about any other bike I've owned. Every other one I've had to look at and ponder over; it's usually been after deciding what kind of ride I want, and then going out to look around for the best fit with the least compromises.
Click to expand...

I think it's a rare thing when someone finds a bike that ticks all the boxes straight away. Whether it's something that does it all or something that makes you forget other stuff it's a joy.

Even without a test ride (yet) I can see a time when the CTX might replace my ST.

I gather that regarding any and all things CTX my time would be better spent at a more appropriate forum. But I wouldn't mind seeing any objective rider comments posted here given the similarities of the two models.

Love my ST but I hear a Siren's call (not to be confused with a siren's wail).
 
ST Gui said:
Love my ST but I hear a Siren's call (not to be confused with a siren's wail).
Click to expand...

I traded a two-year-old Triumph Thunderbird for this CTX. I heard the wail. :D

Other strange thing I noticed while waiting for the office girl to finish her stuff before I took the keys... I had not one hint of apprehension during this whole purchase process. I remember with the T-bird, I was questioning whether I was doing the right thing right up until I signed that last paper, maybe even after. No such thing this time. All I'm feeling now is pissed off because the weather sucks and I can't be out there racking up miles!
 
Last edited:
I ride an ST1300 and a VTX1800. I really enjoy each of them, but for different reasons and different purposes. I can see where the CTX would combine the positive aspects of both styles into a single bike, and this seems to be what Honda was after. The F6B is similar in this respect and until the CTX was unveiled it was the only bike I considered buying to replace both of the current bikes. That said, Honda hit home runs with both the ST and VTX and I'm enjoying both enough that I can't see a good reason to spend the money required to move to either the CTX or F6B for a long time to come. Fortunately, when I do decide to consolidate, I suspect there will be a reasonable selection of well cared for, relatively low mileage, characteristically bulletproof used CTXs and F6Bs to choose from:)
 
Blrfl said:
Where'd Honda label it a sport-touring bike?

"Motorcycle."
Click to expand...

Okay, I've read three mag reviews and they ALL state similar verbiage, "is it a touring bike, is it a cruiser" ... "it's both".
Honda puts it under the "Touring" category.

I went to a Honda dealer today and sat on a red CTX1300 ...
Sales guy came over and i immediately stated, "just curious" so he wouldnt go down the "try to sell this to him" path.

So we casually talked about the bike ... he stated, "we position it to both the cruiser market and the touring market"

My g\f sat on it and stated, "there sure is a lot of --stuff-- up in front of you.". It never occurred to me until I sat on it again.
There is a bunch of plastic and such up "in front of you".

I thought it odd that the deluxe model didnt include grab rails.
 
Blitzen said:
I ride an ST1300 and a VTX1800. I really enjoy each of them, but for different reasons and different purposes. I can see where the CTX would combine the positive aspects of both styles into a single bike, and this seems to be what Honda was after. The F6B is similar in this respect and until the CTX was unveiled it was the only bike I considered buying to replace both of the current bikes. That said, Honda hit home runs with both the ST and VTX and I'm enjoying both enough that I can't see a good reason to spend the money required to move to either the CTX or F6B for a long time to come. Fortunately, when I do decide to consolidate, I suspect there will be a reasonable selection of well cared for, relatively low mileage, characteristically bulletproof used CTXs and F6Bs to choose from:)
Click to expand...

I am in an almost identical situation.
I saw a couple in person the other day. The first thing that jumped out at me was how huge the rear tire looked.
 
ST-Traveler said:
Hey guys, I was wondering since this engine is from the ST, does it have the same alt. How many watts output? Same as ST?
Click to expand...

It's the same one as on the ST, 31100-MCS-003. (The parts fiche for the CTX has started to appear in some of the usual places, so spelunk away!)

--Mark
 
Rider Magazine has the throttle bodies are smaller and the pistons changed which led to a lesser compression ratio. This must be how they went from 111 HP down to 75.6 HP and from 85 lb-ft of torque to 76.3 using the same engine. If they can decrease performance then they could probably take the same engine and increase it as well, I'm thinking, new ST ---- beef up the existing engine and add all the goodies.
 
Why did they cut the power from that of the ST? Was it a handling thing or gas mileage improvement that Mother Honda was going for?
 
wihardy said:
Why did they cut the power from that of the ST? Was it a handling thing or gas mileage improvement that Mother Honda was going for?
Click to expand...

Probably because cruiser riders don't expect their bikes to have an ST-like torque curve. Many V-twin designs make most of their torque at relatively low RPMs and peter out soon after, and most of the cruiser market expects that. A lot of us (myself included) had to get used to the idea that 3K was the beginning of the fun zone on the ST rather than the end. Retune for that and something else has to give.

Dyno charts for this bike will be telling once we start seeing them.

--Mark
 
Blrfl said:
Dyno charts for this bike will be telling once we start seeing them.

--Mark
Click to expand...
Rider magazine did the dyno chart on theirJune 2014 issue page 36, and it shows the HP at 75.6 and the torque at 76.3 lb ft. pretty much even- steven on both. Not sure what you get out of it when the HP = the Torque??
 
It's more significant at what RPM those peak figures arrive, and how quicky they plunge after.
 
wihardy said:
Why did they cut the power from that of the ST? Was it a handling thing or gas mileage improvement that Mother Honda was going for?
Click to expand...

It was the cost of moving more torque down to lower RPMs. They also dropped the redline by a couple thou, I think. More torque is available lower and over a wider RPM range, which makes for more usable power for a cruiser-type application. I.e., you don't need to wind it out to get the most out of it. Trust me, the only time you'll notice the power loss is up above 6000 RPM. How often do you actually run up there, even on a sport tourer? I did once in a great while when I had my ST; but with where the power delivery is now in CTX trim, you don't need to crack on it like that. I've only revved it to about 4k so far, and it pulls just fine. Again, I've had a ST, VFR800, and VTX1800, among others, and I've given all of them their share of floggings. I have no reservations whatsoever about the CTX1300's performance.
 
caldercay said:
I thought it odd that the deluxe model didnt include grab rails.
Click to expand...

Actually there are grab rails on both models. They are not like most grab rails where there is a definite "rail" that is open all around the circumference but more of a moulded handle or deep ridge (more than enough to grab) that is an extension of the tail as it wraps around the seat toward the front.
Also, it has been said before. There is a center stand option for this bike (available in July I hear) but to cater to some of the cruiser crowd it is offered as an option in the USA. It is standard in other countries.
Somewhere I heard that the exhaust is shaped to change the sound a little from the ST. There is an extra extension under the bike to make it sound like 2 cylinders are almost firing together. Makes for a unique sound and yet most the ST1300 engine sound is still in there.

Also, I don't know where some journalists/mag reporters are getting their numbers for torque and HP and why some riders think that these numbers apply to the entire rpm range. What seems to be insisted on being mentioned here lately is wrong. Torque and HP ramp up from low to high at a certain rpm (different for each) both are the same at 5252 rpm on any engine (the numbers are equal and the "curves" cross each other there), it just seems to work out that way due to the math and physics. Then both drop off after they reach max. The torque and HP numbers for the ST1300 are higher than for the CTX1300 but not at the same rpm for either. The CTX reaches it's max torque of 78.18 lb-ft (per Honda official specs) at 4500 rpm, and the ST gets to it's max torque of 86 lb-ft at 6500 rpm. The CTX is designed to actually have a flatter torque curve than the ST and has higher torque at lower rpm (2000 rpm) than the ST. The CTX reaches it max HP of 83.11 (again per Honda specs) at 6000 rpm and the ST gets to its max HP of 111 or 117 (depending who you believe) at 8000 rpm. Below those rpm numbers both T and HP are lower and after those rpm both drop off. Max only happens for a short time. As Sleepingbear stated most ST riders don't see those rpms all the time, especially not max HP, so you don't really know what you can do until you rev up that engine. All of the CTX official specs are more completely listed on the world Honda site and also on the Japan Honda site (some translation of numbers is needed to get the US equivalent numbers). An abbreviated list is on the powersports Honda site. Don't believe all you read in the mags, the truth is out there!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom