2014 Honda CTX1300

[rjs987]

+1 what Mellow said. Most mag reviewers are biased to one style of riding or another and most mags have a bent to one style of riding, so they don't really give a balanced, non-biased review if a bike doesn't fit their style or class. The CTX1300 is intentionally not in any of the established classifications so that throws off most critics trying to force it into a class of ride.

Oh, and OPPS, too late. I already have come to really like mine... A LOT. The ST1100 I had was a nice ride. I tried a ST1300 but that just didn't fit me at all. The overall best ride I've been on was my GL1500... except for the bulk of it. Even though I do agree the suspension is stiff on the CTX1300 it does soften quite a bit after a few thousand miles and is now really quite the same as my ST was. The ride is not a plush as the Gold Wing but now the same as my ST was and the stock seat is very comfortable for long rides. The power, well lets just say this one is a sleeper. Don't let the numbers fool you. I've said it here before, the CTX1300 has more power below 5000 rpm than the ST. Most of you know you have to get over that to have fun on the ST. I never get that high so this is great having more torque below where I ride.

 

[Kevin_56]

I've said it here before, the CTX1300 has more power below 5000 rpm than the ST

One thing that I have done in the past is to really find out who had the grunt power between bikes. Pull up to another in a given gear and just roll them on. One can then clearly see who has what power at what speed/gear. I can not out pull a K1600, but an older (2008-9) BMW1200RT - yes. It would be interesting to find out. Numbers do not show actual results.

 

[MileEater]

With Honda's new approach to styling, no wonder I'm seeing more folks jumping ship. Ugly!!! Just my 2 cents.

 

[Don B]

Ugly is in the eye of the beholder. There are folks who would never be caught dead on a BMW, or a Ducati, or a Harley, Kawasaki, Yamaha, or, heaven forbid, a Honda.
It's a benefit to everyone to have a choice.
My :tc1:

 

[sleepngbear]

"They found the suspension was harsh over 1" bumps, jolting the handlebars."
When the bike is new, yes. After a few thousand miles, no -- the suspension softens up pretty nicely in time.

"low ground clearance"
For a sport tourer (which the CTX1300 ISN'T), maybe; but it has more clearance than any other bagger I've ridden.

"(but it did 'carve arcs through the twisties with grace')"
Yes, and is this not all that really matters to those of us who aren't out to drag knees on every corner?

"...and the completely reworked ST 1300 engine lacking in power (their measured 73 hp vs. the ST's 106 hp)."
Comments like this make me wonder if the guy even rode this thing. As was noted earlier, this engine in the CTX1300 has more torque down low than the ST1300. For most riders, the power this bike has and where it delivers it is more than adequate. I've owned an ST1300, and a VFR800, and a couple of large-displacement cruisers that will dislocate your shoulders on a launch if you're not careful; I am completely satisfied with the performance of the CTX1300.

Is the CTX1300 perfect? No. But when they say "lots of flash, little substance", I have to wonder exactly what "substance" they're talking about. It's not a sport bike, sport tourer, or full tourer. It's something right in between, and it hits that target very nicely.

 

[broc11]

I place more faith in owners reviews than bike mag reviews, though I still read them. and you can't beat test riding the bike yourself.

 

[BakerBoy]

Upon reading about the CTX 'producing a lot of torques down low', I looked up some Dyno runs (attached). The CTX appears to produce the same torque as the ST, but at a couple thousand rpm lower than the ST. The CTX runs out of pull right when the ST picks up. My guess, 0 to ~80 mph is nearly identical (riders will choose shift points differently between them).

I can see how some like the CTX, although it's not for me.

 

[rjs987]

Too bad the recorders of the CTX chart didn't really even start it at 1800 rpm instead of not turning it on until 2800 rpm. Here is another dyno chart starting (as it really should for the CTX) at around 1800 rpm for a more accurate compare. The ST IS much faster (mph) than the CTX overall, but you do have to spin the engine faster (rpm) to do it. Which is what most ST riders do anyway.

 

[Blrfl]

Upon reading about the CTX 'producing a lot of torques down low', I looked up some Dyno runs (attached). The CTX appears to produce the same torque as the ST, but at a couple thousand rpm lower than the ST. The CTX runs out of pull right when the ST picks up.

I think I mentioned this 30 or 40 pages ago, but when you tune for torque at lower revs, the laws of physics forbid having more horsepower higher up.

Horsepower is what people (and reviewers, I guess) want when they buy the thing and torque is what they want when they actually ride it.

--Mark

 

[sleepngbear]

Upon reading about the CTX 'producing a lot of torques down low', I looked up some Dyno runs (attached). The CTX appears to produce the same torque as the ST, but at a couple thousand rpm lower than the ST. The CTX runs out of pull right when the ST picks up. My guess, 0 to ~80 mph is nearly identical (riders will choose shift points differently between them).

I can see how some like the CTX, although it's not for me.

Yep, it's not for everybody. There was a day when I wanted astronomical RPM's and used 'em if I had 'em. I'm not going to say I outgrew that, because that would be an insult to anybody who still craves that kind of scream; so I'll just say that I don't ride like that any more. Don't get me wrong, I had no issues at all with the ST's power delivery when I had it (it was the riding position that just didn't agree with me); but the CTX puts more of it exactly where I like it.

I think I mentioned this 30 or 40 pages ago, but when you tune for torque at lower revs, the laws of physics forbid having more horsepower higher up.

Horsepower is what people (and reviewers, I guess) want when they buy the thing and torque is what they want when they actually ride it.

--Mark

Well, at least for some people. HP alone is is usually such a misleading (and sometimes meaningless) metric, yet it's the first one everybody jumps to.

 

[SMSW]

Well, at least for some people. HP alone is is usually such a misleading (and sometimes meaningless) metric, yet it's the first one everybody jumps to.

HP usually translates (roughly) to top speed, torque to how fast you get up there. Like so called music power in amplifiers (or peak or instantaneous power) it is more or less irrelevant for most of us. Unless, of course, you are riding your bike at Bonneville trying for an LSR.

 

[ST Gui]

and I hope I'm not flogging a dead horse.

The carcass of that horse was decimated several times within those 813 posts.

"lots of flash, little substance - and little value"

So what we have here? Is a quick paint job with a very wide brush making a universal statement that isn't really accurate. Whether it's a poster or a motorcycle magazine critic/writer/hack it's neigh impossible to make statements that apply to everybody.

The writer is expressing his view of that bike. Fair enough. But trying to pass it off as fact is a joke. That some riders agree with him doesn't make it fact. That people disagree with him doesn't make their case fact. What goes unsaid in non-objective summaries is the writer's bias.

If somebody is satisfied and happy with a given bike say a CTX1300 than a statement as fact that it has "lots of flash, little substance - and little value" is of little value. It's up to the reader and anybody with an IQ above room temperature to know fact from fiction from opinion from preference and objectivity from subjectivity.

You might want to read posts written by CTX1300 owners and see why they like the bike. The writers have expectations and standards. Whether or not they're high (the standards not the writers) is debatable when it comes to opinion. Like what you like and don't like what you don't like. Just because you or they don't like it doesn't mean it's bad.

Lots of reviewers didn't care for the ST1300 either but that didn't make much difference.

QED

 

[SMSW]

In the end, what will really matter is the number of bikes (CTX's) that Honda sells. If the numbers are high enough, they will continue production, if not, it might become an instant classic, and be worth gobs of money in 20 years. Riders will vote with their wallets, not what anyone says about the bike.

I wonder how many Valkyries Honda sold. They discontinued production for a few years and then picked it up again this year, didn't they? I never followed this bike.

 

[veefore]

One thing is for sure, it certainly is polarizing.........maybe that was the objective

 

[ST Gui]

One thing is for sure, it certainly is polarizing.........maybe that was the objective

LOL I doubt that was Honda's objective. Their's is to sell bikes. Like the ST. I'd say that market stagnated for Honda and the CTX was an effort to look elsewhere for sales. Maybe it will sell as well as the ST maybe better maybe not.

Like STs regardless of how many CTXs sell or don't I'm glad to see some riders got the bike they really like. One model or style isn't for everybody. The magazine reviewer doesn't seem to have a grasp on that concept.

 

[TPadden]

........ I wonder how many Valkyries Honda sold. They discontinued production for a few years and then picked it up again this year, didn't they? I never followed this bike.

As far as the Valk (1997-2003) goes it wasn't a strictly sales number decision on ending production. Within Honda, the Goldwing 1500 flat 6 engine was replaced by the 1800 flat fuel injected plant, and Honda already had a new, large displacement cruiser V-twin engine, the VTX 1800(2003-2008) which they were trying to keep alive (it died in 2008). Honda doesn't like competing with itself and it was felt the Valk was taking sales from both the very different GW (touring) and VTX (cruiser) markets.

 

[Mellow]

Guess that riders voted on the ST with their wallets too .

As far as the Valk (1997-2003) goes it wasn't a strictly sales number decision on ending production. Within Honda, the Goldwing 1500 flat 6 engine was replaced by the 1800 flat fuel injected plant, and Honda already had a new, large displacement cruiser V-twin engine, the VTX 1800(2003-2008) which they were trying to keep alive (it died in 2008). Honda doesn't like competing with itself and it was felt the Valk was taking sales from both the very different GW (touring) and VTX (cruiser) markets.

LOL.. so they came out with a new 1800 Valk to compete with themselves.. lol

 

[TPadden]

LOL.. so they came out with a new 1800 Valk to compete with themselves.. lol

Nope, they just completely blurred the basic types with the same powerplants in different dresses. The 1800 GW is both a Tourer AND a Cruiser as a GW F6B but only a Cruiser as a Valk which they also call a "Goldwing" (they call the GW, F6B and Valk all GOLDWINGS. The V-twin 1312 is also a Tourer and a Cruiser, The 1300 V4 powerplant is strictly a Tourer in either ST or CTX dress.

The only engine displacement competition left is between 1300 V twin and 1300 V4; my bet is if there is a engine cut it will be the 1300 V4.

http://powersports.honda.com/#

 

[veefore]

I have yet to see one CTX1300 on the road here in CT...........then again I didn't see any EBR's either, lol

 

[Mellow]

Well, Honda probably makes more money in one day than I'll make my entire lifetime, so for me to questions their decision is a bit like my dog questioning why I vacuum the house. Okay, that's the best I can do on no sleep.