2014 Honda CTX1300

Then Honda succeeded at their goal. To make this ride similar to a cruiser yet retain as much of the touring ride as possible.
I just compared the dyno chart from this review with the one provided by dduelin HERE some time ago. Between about 3000 rpm and 5000 rpm torque is higher on the CTX1300 and HP is about the same. But over 5000 rpm is where the ST1300 pull away quickly. This is as I was expecting from all I've read on the CTX and the ST.

I don't know what rpm ST riders normally run at highway speeds. I almost never see 5000 rpm, and rarely see even 4500 rpm on my ST1100 (and that's only when I forget to shift when I normally do). Seems to me the best power/performance range for the ST would be over 4500 rpm on the ST. Looks like the best power/performance range on the CTX would be 3500+ (which is consistent with what I noticed when I took it out on the highway on my first test ride).
 
Blrfl said:
The review says it ticks over at 3,250 in 5th at 60 MPH
Click to expand...

I'd really like to ride that bike! That lower RPM must impart a different character to the ride. My Duc cruised at a really low RPM sort of a relaxed pace. At 65mph my ST indicates right around 4000rpm maybe a tick under. That give a kind of antsy quality to the ride as though I should be going faster faster.
 
I don't want to hijack anything or start a debate but I found the statement from the article interesting.

"Honda hopes to capitalize on the bagger craze with the CTX1300, but, to further buck the trend, rather than using yet another V-twin it adapted the engine, 5-speed transmission and shaft final drivefrom its recently departed ST1300 sport tourer."
 
Last edited:
ST Gui said:
I'd really like to ride that bike! That lower RPM must impart a different character to the ride.
Click to expand...

It should be the same speed as the ST. All of the gearing from the crankshaft to the rear wheel on the CTX is the exact same set of parts as on the ST.

--Mark
 
ST Gui said:
I'd really like to ride that bike! That lower RPM must impart a different character to the ride. My Duc cruised at a really low RPM sort of a relaxed pace. At 65mph my ST indicates right around 4000rpm maybe a tick under. That give a kind of antsy quality to the ride as though I should be going faster faster.
Click to expand...
It's actually very interesting -- the 'character' of the CTX is different, but still very similar. It's much closer to the ST than you might think, other than missing a few thousand RPM at the top end.

Blrfl said:
It should be the same speed as the ST. All of the gearing from the crankshaft to the rear wheel on the CTX is the exact same set of parts as on the ST.

--Mark
Click to expand...
I thought the CTX is geared slightly lower than the ST (tranny gearing is the same, but higher ratio final drive?). Combined with the extra low-end torque, the lower gearing gives it a little more low-end punch. It sure feels like it's spinning a little higher at highway speeds, though it's been about 11 years since I've ridden the ST. If I'm recalling correctly, it's taching just about 3K at 55 mph in 5th. How does that compare to the ST?
 
sleepngbear said:
I thought the CTX is geared slightly lower than the ST (tranny gearing is the same, but higher ratio final drive?).
Click to expand...

You'd think that, but I can't find anything that says that's the case. The marketing material refers to an "optimized final drive ratio." The fiche says the gear set in the final drive housing is 41310-MCS-G01, same part as in the ST.

I did overlook the final gears in the engine, but I just looked and found that they are specific to this model and could be a different ratio than the ST. But I don't think they are, and here's why:
  • The review says the CTX revs at 3,250 at 60 MPH.
  • If you enter 3,250 as the redline into my theoretical top speed model for the ST, the rear wheel speed with stock tires is 60. That seems about right to me, but I'll check it next time I'm out. The gear ratios in the model are straight out of the service manual.
  • Rider's review of the ST says 3,200.

If Rider's 3,250 figure for the CTX is right, then it's a dead match for the ST and means the final gears in the engine -- the one variable I can't confirm -- are the same ratio on both bikes. There could also be some eyeball error, as the tach on the CTX is marked in 500s. Even if it's off by as much as 50 RPM, that's still only a gearing change of about 1.5%, which doesn't seem like much.

Combined with the extra low-end torque, the lower gearing gives it a little more low-end punch.
Click to expand...

I'm beginning to think the difference is all in the torque. I don't usually test-ride bikes unless I'm interested in buying one, but I think I'm going to make an exception and track one of these beasts down at the next demo day I come across.

If I'm recalling correctly, it's taching just about 3K at 55 mph in 5th. How does that compare to the ST?
Click to expand...

The ST is the same. 55.406 if you go by the model.

--Mark
 
^^^ Interesting stuff, Mark, and makes plenty of sense. I thought I had read in one of the early reviews that the overall ratio was lower, but I could be mistaken.... or they were.

Anyway, grab a test ride if you can; at the very least you should find it interesting how 'similarly different' it is from the ST. ;)
 
Blrfl said:
It should be the same speed as the ST. All of the gearing from the crankshaft to the rear wheel on the CTX is the exact same set of parts as on the ST.
Click to expand...

I'll have to pay close attention at 60 and 65mph.
 
nuncles said:
With the price point being so close, what made decide on the CTX over the F6B? Did you happen to ride one of those for comparison?
Click to expand...

A couple of reasons. Partly I just don't care for the looks of the F6B. It's not bad, it's just not high on the list of bikes I'd want to own for myself. May sound weird because the two are quite similar, I know. It looks too much like a chopped-down Gold Wing, and it's just more bike than I really want or feel comfortable with.

But mostly I've got this thing in my heart for Honda V-4's, and this is the first time they've put one in a platform I really like. I loved the ST when I had it, but just couldn't stay comfortable and pain-free on it for any length of time. I guess I'm more of a cruiser guy. Since I got rid of it, I'd been dreaming of Honda putting that mill in a cruiser. And lo and behold....
 
sleepngbear said:
A couple of reasons. Partly I just don't care for the looks of the F6B. It's not bad, it's just not high on the list of bikes I'd want to own for myself. May sound weird because the two are quite similar, I know. It looks too much like a chopped-down Gold Wing, and it's just more bike than I really want or feel comfortable with.

But mostly I've got this thing in my heart for Honda V-4's, and this is the first time they've put one in a platform I really like. I loved the ST when I had it, but just couldn't stay comfortable and pain-free on it for any length of time. I guess I'm more of a cruiser guy. Since I got rid of it, I'd been dreaming of Honda putting that mill in a cruiser. And lo and behold....
Click to expand...
So should I berate you now or later for not liking the look of the F6B? :) Just messing. Next summer I plan to get rid of both of my bikes and go to one. The CTX1300 and F6B are at the top of my list. Thanks for sharing.
 
[QUOTE;1752155]I have tested both the CTX and Valkyrie...The valk is an F6B no matter how they tried to change the looks. Out of the two I did prefer the CTX as I felt at home with the engine. I will be keeping my ST but it would be nice to be looking...[/QUOTE]

Oh, it's always fun to be looking. ;)
 
CTX 1300 - I just don't get it.

I just finished reading a review of the Honda CTX 1300. I have also sat on one down at the dealer. I get the lower stance and am not even turned off by the styling. My HUGE problem is what they did with the engine. The new bike has the same basic drive train as the ST, but it has been completely de-tuned. The CTX makes 75 HP (compared to the 111 HP of the ST); and 76 ft/lbs of torque (compared to 86 ft/lbs of the ST).

Why in the world would you diminish the horsepower by 36 ponies (and 10 notches down on the torque). Shoot, a stock Harley makes close to those numbers. And there are even no gain in MPGs.

The ST 1300 engine was the finest engine I have ever experienced in 40+ years of riding. So now we have the CTX with 33% fewer horses and a 10% drop in torque with no MPG gains. Am I missing something here, or is Honda just STUPID.
 
Re: CTX 1300 - I just don't get it.

This type of thinking by Honda is why I went with a Triumph Trophy SE. I rode Honda's for over 42 years and if the ST had been updated I probably would never have changed. The TTSE feels much like a ST1300 with the updates that should have been done.
 
Re: CTX 1300 - I just don't get it.

To keep the HP under 100 in the European market. As HP goes up so do taxes. 100 HP is a bench mark for very large tax increase on the machine. The ST1300 develops it's HP at a higher rpm and speed. I believe Honda is trying to develop a bike that develops it's Max HP at a lower speed. Who really rides at 100mph+ in normal everyday riding anyway. Remember the CTX is marketed as a touring cruiser IE: Bagger. Don't need the high speed, high HP
 
Re: CTX 1300 - I just don't get it.

:bigpop: uh oh.......here it comes
 
Re: CTX 1300 - I just don't get it.

AND chrome exhaust pipes suck up horsepower too!
 
Re: CTX 1300 - I just don't get it.

preacherbo said:
Am I missing something here, or is Honda just STUPID.
Click to expand...

I've never placed Honda on any pedestal, they make some smart calls and some dumb ones too. Remember the ComStar wheels of the late '70s and early '80s. If you looked at them funny they bent and ran out of true.
 
Re: CTX 1300 - I just don't get it.

You really need to ride it before knocking it. This bike is no slouch by any stretch. Now understand that I greatly prefer that my vehicles perform (I will not settle for any run-of-the-mill sleds, no matter how many wheels); I'm not talking exotic sports cars, but I always get the bigger engine options and other fun extras when the are available. So I got to flog my CTX a bit for the first time today, and it did not disappoint. Maybe it doesn't have the top end of the ST; but for this style of bike, you don't really need it. It's got more low-end torque over a wider RPM range than the ST -- it'll blast you up to 80 in no time, and will keep pulling hard up to its electronically limited 120 mph. If you need more than that, you ought not be looking at this bike anyway. I had a ST1300 years ago, and I actually prefer how the CTX1300 goes. In fact there are many​ things about this bike that I prefer over the ST. You guys need to get off the spec sheet and into the saddle before passing judgment.

No, Honda is not STUPID.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom