cctxfjr
Well-known member
ride test on c14 in new cycle world-they seemed to like it-performance numbers looked close to FJR
c14 cycle world test
- Thread starter cctxfjr
- Start date
Help Support Yamaha FJR Motorcycle Forum:
zorkler
Ave U !!!!
loked liked they loved it to me . called it the best thing out there
Last edited by a moderator:
wildman
Active member
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2007
- Messages
- 27
- Reaction score
- 0
performance may be comparable, but it's not anywhere near as pretty. Looks like a prop from a batman movie. probably shouldn't matter, but that's what initially got me looking at the FJR, it just plain looked better than the ST. In my book got the c14 beat also.
(acknowledge that beauty is in the eye, blah blah blah) just my opinion
(acknowledge that beauty is in the eye, blah blah blah) just my opinion
OrangevaleFJR
R.I.P. Our FJR Riding Friend
Of course they liked it. Did they take it for a long ride yet with 10 gas stops? Oh, that would be 8 gas stops on the FJR 
Shinden
Well-known member
Thought the same thing when I read an article on it in a mag I subscribe to.Of course they liked it. Did they take it for a long ride yet with 10 gas stops? Oh, that would be 8 gas stops on the FJR
The whole article was cramed full of sales brochure type "fluff" in that particular narative I read, stuff making statements like "all the other sport tourers aren't sporty" :huh: , three pages of it made me want to reach for the air sickness bag. :bad:
I took issue with the article in the mag I subscribe to because there was no solid information, such as dyno tests, performance fugures of any kind, info on maintenance schedules, typical cruising range on a tank of fuel etc, just loads of sales pitch BS. Nothing informative to base any real opinion on, IMHO, that makes the info worthless.
So in the case of the article I read, of course they liked it (too), they got a trip and a chance to "play" with a new bike ,for free, without having to pay the purchase cost, do the maintenance and live with any issues they don't like until they sell or trade it; whats not to like?
panayoti
Well-known member
sat on one at a shop today. it definetly has a lower center of gravity, feels like a lighter bike. I know the weight is close to the fjr. It looks a littlle cheap compared to the fjr with respect to the cockpit area. It was a non abs model. several people are waitng on abs versions according to the salesperson. It also looks smaller than the fjr. Hows that for a nice objective evaluation?
ionbeam
2 FUN
I've had my Cycle World magazine for a while, but just had my first chance to read the review.
They didn't completely swoon over the C14. When ridden moderately it returns good fuel economy but when spanked fuel mileage dropped to 24 mpg. They forgave the C14 the poor fuel economy because 'to make power you have to burn fuel'. Doesn't bode too well for all you left coast desert burners where you can wick it up but then not have enough fuel to make it to the next gas station.
CW felt that there were some ergonomic issues with the seat, buttons, displays and display access. It was mentioned that many features that are routinely added were not stock, no provisions were made to add them and often the features such as heated grips & trunk aren't available. They kept saying that performance was there as well as handling. CW felt that many things were left undone to keep the price in the $13k range.
Numbers:
Price........................ $13,799
Weight, wet............. 693 lbs
Fuel Capacity........... 5.8 gallons
GVWR...................... 1118 lb.
Load Capacity, wet.. 425 lb.
RW HP, corrected.... 136.9 @ 9.2k RPM
RW TQ, corrected.... 92.1 @ 7.3k RPM
Electrical Power ...... 581W
Measured Top Speed 160 mph
1/4 Mile.................. 10.91 sec @ 126.54
Top Gear Roll On
40-60 mph.............. 5.0 sec
60-80 mph.............. 4.7 sec
(I would like to have seen 5th gear roll-on also, these numbers really tell you what it will be like on the road!)
Engine Speed @ 60.. 2755 RPM
Braking 60-0........... 133 feet
Warranty................ 12 mo; 36k miles
They didn't completely swoon over the C14. When ridden moderately it returns good fuel economy but when spanked fuel mileage dropped to 24 mpg. They forgave the C14 the poor fuel economy because 'to make power you have to burn fuel'. Doesn't bode too well for all you left coast desert burners where you can wick it up but then not have enough fuel to make it to the next gas station.
CW felt that there were some ergonomic issues with the seat, buttons, displays and display access. It was mentioned that many features that are routinely added were not stock, no provisions were made to add them and often the features such as heated grips & trunk aren't available. They kept saying that performance was there as well as handling. CW felt that many things were left undone to keep the price in the $13k range.
Numbers:
Price........................ $13,799
Weight, wet............. 693 lbs
Fuel Capacity........... 5.8 gallons
GVWR...................... 1118 lb.
Load Capacity, wet.. 425 lb.
RW HP, corrected.... 136.9 @ 9.2k RPM
RW TQ, corrected.... 92.1 @ 7.3k RPM
Electrical Power ...... 581W
Measured Top Speed 160 mph
1/4 Mile.................. 10.91 sec @ 126.54
Top Gear Roll On
40-60 mph.............. 5.0 sec
60-80 mph.............. 4.7 sec
(I would like to have seen 5th gear roll-on also, these numbers really tell you what it will be like on the road!)
Engine Speed @ 60.. 2755 RPM
Braking 60-0........... 133 feet
Warranty................ 12 mo; 36k miles
Last edited by a moderator:
Shinden
Well-known member
Interesting, in this one, the 2005 FJR was 10.78 @ 127.7 in the 1/4 mile.
https://www.sportrider.com/bikes/146_street...imes/index.html
Not much of a difference, given the hype about the "FJR Killer"
IMHO, the C14 offers another choice in the sport tourer class, which is a good thing, but is not quite up to the advertizing and early magazine article hype; but what is.
I thing I'll still keep the FJR
v65
ouch
It has taken a while for me to figure out why the c14 pisses me off. I road a 15 year old Magna because at the time there wasn't any new bikes that really caught my attention. The FJR changed that, and when the time was right I got one.
I had hoped that the c14 would be a dramatic improvement over the FJR, improves the breed and all that. Kawi certainy had long enough to develop it. That it's superiority over a 7 year old motorcycle is in question sucks. :angry:
I had hoped that the c14 would be a dramatic improvement over the FJR, improves the breed and all that. Kawi certainy had long enough to develop it. That it's superiority over a 7 year old motorcycle is in question sucks. :angry:
cctxfjr
Well-known member
Local dealer had one sitting next to a silver FJR the c14 bags looked real high compared to the FJR sure looked like they be easy to scrape with your boot when mounting up. The c14 looked pretty good but the FJR looked more finished or more planned out. I also noticed the c14 radiator was real exposed to the elements.
Geez, I'm not seeing that "smaller" thing. It looks much bigger to me, even though this picture doesn't help my cause.
It could be the lighter color. The Kaw looks a lot like a Burgman.
This dealer had the FJR marked down a bit, so both bikes had exactly the same out the door price on them.
Wicked Webby
Right is Harder than Wrong.
Interesting, in this one, the 2005 FJR was 10.78 @ 127.7 in the 1/4 mile.
https://www.sportrider.com/bikes/146_street...imes/index.html
Not much of a difference, given the hype about the "FJR Killer"
IMHO, the C14 offers another choice in the sport tourer class, which is a good thing, but is not quite up to the advertizing and early magazine article hype; but what is.
I thing I'll still keep the FJR
Shinden,
I hear ya on the top gear comparo verses 5th gears between both bikes BUT the bottom line is the C14's top gear roll on 60-80mph is way slower than the FJR's 3.75 seconds. I bet 5th with both bikes would result in a very close run..Just like the 1/4 mi times. Guess the FJR isn't gettin killed yet!!! It is the PROVEN bike.
WW
Last edited by a moderator:
bramfrank
BramFrank
A good friend of mine just dumped his R10 in favor of a C14 to complement his stable of a ZX14 (which he's spiced up by changing sprockets and exhausts, installing a PC3 and pulling the secondary butterflies) and a heavily modified Harley Road King that sees almost no use these days. He took delivery last night and we're scheduled to ride tomorrow (Saturday).
He owned an '04 FJR (that was replaced by an '05 Hyabusa, which, in his never ending quest to rip his arms out of their sockets was in turn replaced by his ZX14) and so has the experience to compare.
His initial report can be found here:
https://www.bikeland.org/board/viewthread.p...4200&FID=42
I can't comment yet on the rolling dynamics of the C14, but the bikes are priced the same (I'm getting tired of seeing people compare ABS against non-ABS pricing, because that is simply an unfair comparison price-wise, though if ALL you care about is price, I guess you could make a point with it).
In my opinion, the bikes are, statistically speaking simply *the same* in terms of performance. I've seen timings of stock FJRs roll faster than reported quarters with the C14. In other words, at these performance points and given the weight differential between the bikes it is more about the rider than it is about the machine.
I sat on my friend's machine when it was a showroom queen. It is tall. Taller than my FJR with the seat in the *low* position. The bags are high. Higher than I like for my 5'11, 32 inch inseam leg swing. Mirrors see the bags - then again, I rarely have bags on when I ride on week-ends with the FJR - and in any case, on the Yammy I see elbows, so which is better? The Yamaha is because overall it is a considerably narrower machine. The Gen-II is narrower even than the original version of the model, so concerned were the Yamaha designers about those of us who lane split (even if we don't live in California).
Features? The TPM system is neat - I could add it to my ride if I want, but I don't want. KiPASS? A really neat toy - until the transponder dies - but then I'm in Canada and we have the immobiliser, so I guess if I drop my key in the wrong way and break the active part I could be just as stuck. Gear indicators? They both have 'em. Mine has a thermometer? Whooppie. Again, they are pretty much the same there as well.
Heat? Well, my friend says it is an issue and he had a Gen-I, which seems to be the gold standard of how NOT to do air management on a motorcycle - then again, the ST-1300 is another machine that they say is even worse than the older FJRs!!
Would I like a 6th gear? Absolutely. Did I want a 7th gear when I had my C10? Absolutely. If they gave me an 8th gear would I want a 9th? Yes - it is just human nature.
Now, do I NEED a 6th?
The answer is that while droning along requirements are statistically unaffected by the gear setting because you need to make the same power to go the same speed, so spinning the engine faster (which makes more HP and more Ft-Lbs) is actually probably somewhat more economic. The best fuel economy for an engine is at the torque peak - i.e. at or close to red line with these designs. Spinning the engine slower means a downshift is almost absolutely required for fast-passing - I often blip down from 5th to 4th to 3rd when I need to zip past a slow(er) moving vehicle on a double yellow (only in Vermont, of course!!). On the C14, that means one more down shift and shifting more often.
Yes, I suppose that revving lower while touring is a good thing in terms of engine wear - but I really do wonder what percentage of FJRs aren't purchased more for their refined *sport* abilities than for the long range multi-day touring. I suspect that if the latter was the primary reason for buying an S-T machine, the designers actually would have provided us with standard or a factory-optional cruise control.
I'm not changing bikes. I wouldn't get a helmet lock (so no gain) and I'd lose my locking storage box.
He owned an '04 FJR (that was replaced by an '05 Hyabusa, which, in his never ending quest to rip his arms out of their sockets was in turn replaced by his ZX14) and so has the experience to compare.
His initial report can be found here:
https://www.bikeland.org/board/viewthread.p...4200&FID=42
I can't comment yet on the rolling dynamics of the C14, but the bikes are priced the same (I'm getting tired of seeing people compare ABS against non-ABS pricing, because that is simply an unfair comparison price-wise, though if ALL you care about is price, I guess you could make a point with it).
In my opinion, the bikes are, statistically speaking simply *the same* in terms of performance. I've seen timings of stock FJRs roll faster than reported quarters with the C14. In other words, at these performance points and given the weight differential between the bikes it is more about the rider than it is about the machine.
I sat on my friend's machine when it was a showroom queen. It is tall. Taller than my FJR with the seat in the *low* position. The bags are high. Higher than I like for my 5'11, 32 inch inseam leg swing. Mirrors see the bags - then again, I rarely have bags on when I ride on week-ends with the FJR - and in any case, on the Yammy I see elbows, so which is better? The Yamaha is because overall it is a considerably narrower machine. The Gen-II is narrower even than the original version of the model, so concerned were the Yamaha designers about those of us who lane split (even if we don't live in California).
Features? The TPM system is neat - I could add it to my ride if I want, but I don't want. KiPASS? A really neat toy - until the transponder dies - but then I'm in Canada and we have the immobiliser, so I guess if I drop my key in the wrong way and break the active part I could be just as stuck. Gear indicators? They both have 'em. Mine has a thermometer? Whooppie. Again, they are pretty much the same there as well.
Heat? Well, my friend says it is an issue and he had a Gen-I, which seems to be the gold standard of how NOT to do air management on a motorcycle - then again, the ST-1300 is another machine that they say is even worse than the older FJRs!!
Would I like a 6th gear? Absolutely. Did I want a 7th gear when I had my C10? Absolutely. If they gave me an 8th gear would I want a 9th? Yes - it is just human nature.
Now, do I NEED a 6th?
The answer is that while droning along requirements are statistically unaffected by the gear setting because you need to make the same power to go the same speed, so spinning the engine faster (which makes more HP and more Ft-Lbs) is actually probably somewhat more economic. The best fuel economy for an engine is at the torque peak - i.e. at or close to red line with these designs. Spinning the engine slower means a downshift is almost absolutely required for fast-passing - I often blip down from 5th to 4th to 3rd when I need to zip past a slow(er) moving vehicle on a double yellow (only in Vermont, of course!!). On the C14, that means one more down shift and shifting more often.
Yes, I suppose that revving lower while touring is a good thing in terms of engine wear - but I really do wonder what percentage of FJRs aren't purchased more for their refined *sport* abilities than for the long range multi-day touring. I suspect that if the latter was the primary reason for buying an S-T machine, the designers actually would have provided us with standard or a factory-optional cruise control.
I'm not changing bikes. I wouldn't get a helmet lock (so no gain) and I'd lose my locking storage box.
Last edited by a moderator:
ionbeam
2 FUN
For comparison, Cycle World's November 2005 test results for the FJR1300:
Price (as tested)........ $13,199
Dry weight................. 609 lbs.
Fuel mileage.............. 38.2 mpg
0-60........................... 2.8 sec.
1/4-mile..................... 10.93 sec. @ 123.48 mph
Horsepower............... 124.7 hp @ 7850 rpm
Torque....................... 88.3 ft.-lbs. @ 7025 rpm
Top speed................. 154 mph
FWIW, this is the same magazine from which I reported the C14 results, so hopefully there was some consistency in testing methods.
From personal experience at the drags, the FJR will run an honest 11.2 @ 121 mph with anyman at the controls, without abusing the clutch or tires. I'm sure there is more performance available, but I'm not willing to do what it would take to get the extra tenth or two out of it (like losing 50-75 lbs :glare: ).
Price (as tested)........ $13,199
Dry weight................. 609 lbs.
Fuel mileage.............. 38.2 mpg
0-60........................... 2.8 sec.
1/4-mile..................... 10.93 sec. @ 123.48 mph
Horsepower............... 124.7 hp @ 7850 rpm
Torque....................... 88.3 ft.-lbs. @ 7025 rpm
Top speed................. 154 mph
FWIW, this is the same magazine from which I reported the C14 results, so hopefully there was some consistency in testing methods.
From personal experience at the drags, the FJR will run an honest 11.2 @ 121 mph with anyman at the controls, without abusing the clutch or tires. I'm sure there is more performance available, but I'm not willing to do what it would take to get the extra tenth or two out of it (like losing 50-75 lbs :glare: ).
I wish they'd change the speedo scale to 0-160 rather than the 0-180 mph. Spread out the numbers and divisions on the same size scale.
Similar threads
