automoderated, emailconfirmed
60,768
edits
(adding air filter) |
|||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{DISPLAYTITLE:{{PAGENAME}} Magna V40: history, specs, pictures}} | |||
{{Motorcycle | {{Motorcycle | ||
|name = Honda VF700C | |name = Honda VF700C Magna V40 | ||
| | |photo =Honda-VF700C.jpg | ||
|aka = Magna | |aka = Magna, V40, Super Magna | ||
|manufacturer = [[Honda]] | |manufacturer = [[Honda]] | ||
|parent_company = | |parent_company = | ||
Line 17: | Line 18: | ||
|torque = | |torque = | ||
|ignition = | |ignition = | ||
|spark_plug = {{sparkplug|NGK DPR8EA-9}} '84- | |spark_plug = {{sparkplug|NGK DPR8EA-9}} '84-87 | ||
|battery = {{battery|YUASA YB12A-A}} '87<br />{{battery|YUASA YB14-A2}} '84-85 , '86 | |battery = {{battery|YUASA YB12A-A}} '87<br />{{battery|YUASA YB14-A2}} '84-85 , '86 | ||
|transmission = | |transmission = 5 Speed | ||
|final_drive= Shaft | |final_drive= Shaft | ||
|frame = | |frame = | ||
|suspension = | |suspension =Front: 37mm Air adjustable forks <br> | ||
|brakes = | Rear: Dual shocks, spring preload adjustable | ||
|brakes =Front: 2x discs <br>Rear: Single disc | |||
|front_tire = {{tire|110/90-19}} '87<br />{{tire|110/90-18}} '84-85 , '86 | |front_tire = {{tire|110/90-19}} '87<br />{{tire|110/90-18}} '84-85 , '86 | ||
|rear_tire = {{tire|130/90-16}} '84-85<br />{{tire|140/90-15}} '86<br />{{tire|150/80-15}} '87 | |rear_tire = {{tire|130/90-16}} '84-85<br />{{tire|140/90-15}} '86<br />{{tire|150/80-15}} '87 | ||
Line 34: | Line 36: | ||
|dry_weight = | |dry_weight = | ||
|wet_weight = | |wet_weight = | ||
|fuel_capacity = | |fuel_capacity = 14 Liters / 4.3 US gal | ||
|oil_capacity = | |oil_capacity = | ||
|fuel_consumption = | |fuel_consumption = | ||
Line 43: | Line 45: | ||
}} | }} | ||
The '''[[Honda]] VF700C''' is a [[motorcycle]] produced by [[Honda]] from 1984 to 1987 and more commonly known as the '''Honda Magna 700'''. | The '''[[Honda]] VF700C''' is a [[motorcycle]] produced by [[Honda]] from 1984 to 1987 and more commonly known as the '''Honda Magna 700'''. | ||
==Engine== | |||
The engine was a Liquid cooled cooled Four stroke, 90°V-four cylinder, DOHC, 4 valve per cylinder. The engine featured a 10.5:1 [[compression ratio]]. | |||
==Drive== | |||
Power was moderated via the Wet plate. | |||
==Chassis== | |||
It came with a 110/90-18 front [[tire]] and a 130/90-16 rear tire. Stopping was achieved via 2x discs in the front and a Single disc in the rear. The front suspension was a 37mm Air adjustable forks while the rear was equipped with a Dual shocks, spring preload adjustable. The VF700C Magna V40 was fitted with a 14 Liters / 4.3 US gal fuel tank. | |||
==1984== | ==1984== | ||
Line 86: | Line 98: | ||
==Review== | |||
Bright Lights: A Comparison of Honda V45 Magna vs Yamaha 750 Maxim-X | |||
Pick your own proportion of luxury and performance | |||
for the street. | |||
Honda's hold on the 750 custom | |||
market in Canada has been overpowering in recent years, and much of that success | |||
has been won by the V45 Magna. For '85, the Magna has been given a minor face | |||
lift; its popularity doesn't warrant extensive changes. | |||
Yamaha, on the other hand, needed | |||
something special to crack Honda's sales grip. In a bold move, Yamaha slipped | |||
its most potent engine technology into the conservative Maxim styling package, | |||
hoping that an explosive amount of horsepower would shatter the Magna's status | |||
as reigning high-tech street cruiser. The question remians, however, whether | |||
Yamaha has succeeded in upsetting the Magna from its throne or in simply | |||
establishing a brand-new category of machine. | |||
Even though these two bikes | |||
ostensibly share the same class, they differ radically in design, performance | |||
and style. The '85 Magna's updated cosmetics are a closer reworking of the | |||
Harley-Davidson look. The seat has been lowered, the wheelbase stretched and a | |||
new backrest added. The Maxim-X is a typical representative of Japanese | |||
inline-four customs. Its wheelbase is shorter, the steering head high and the | |||
front fork very long. In contrast with some of the more successful Harley | |||
clones, the Maxim-X's custom styling appears a | |||
little dated. | |||
There's certainly nothing dated | |||
about the Maxim-X's engine design. The cylinder and cylinder head are virtually | |||
identical to the FZ750's, but are mounted on crankcases derived from the | |||
air-cooled XJ900. The advantages of a five-valve cylinder head design have been | |||
extolled in Cycle Canada in the April and June issues. To recap them, the five | |||
valves allow the included valve angle to be narrowed while maintaining | |||
sufficient intake area for high rpm breathing without the need for radical | |||
camshafts. The low valve angle permits a high compression ratio without the | |||
onset of detonation. The theoretical results of this design are a wide powerband | |||
and a high peak power output. | |||
Except for the changes required | |||
by the Maxim-X's nearly | |||
upright cylinder block, the FZ and Maxim-X | |||
powerplants are the same. Both use 33mm constant velocity carburetors, the Maxim-X's | |||
being the sidedraft variety while the FZ's are downdraft. The three 21mm intake | |||
and two 23mm exhaust valves are the same on both engines, as are the included | |||
valve angles. The resulting shallow combustion chamber allows a high compression | |||
ratio of 11.2:1 without requiring the use of premium gas. The camshaft specs | |||
also remain identical, with 276 degrees of intake and exhaust duration, and lift | |||
of 7.6mm and 7.4mm for the intake and exhaust valves, respectively. | |||
The bottom end of the Maxim-X's | |||
powerplant is based on the XJ900's crankcase, with the necessary changes to | |||
incorporate liquid cooling. The cylinders a canted forward 14 degrees rather | |||
than the 45 degrees of the FZ750, requiring a new lower cylinder head tier to | |||
accommodate horizontal intake ports and sidedraft carburetors. The different | |||
exhaust system and induction system with its curved ports result in a lower peak | |||
power of 90hp at 9000rpm compared with the FZ's peak of 102hp. | |||
The Honda's 90-degree V4 | |||
powerplant, first introduced in '82, has become the cornerstone of Honda's | |||
street bike line. Although three years is a long time for a motorcycle engine to | |||
remain unchanged in these days of rapid technical advances, a quick review of | |||
the V45's engine specs reveals a thoroughly modern powerplant. The bore and | |||
stroke are an extremely oversquare 70.0mm x 48.6mm, allowing the large paired | |||
26mm intake and twin 23mm exhaust valves. Liquid cooling and the low included | |||
valve angle of 38 degrees permit the high compression ratio of 10.5:1 without | |||
the onset of detonation, and 32mm constant velocity carburetors complete the | |||
intake system. | |||
The Maxim-X and Magna engines are as different in character as they are in | |||
design. The V45's mile-wide powerband has endeared it to thousands of riders, | |||
sporting and cruiser enthusiasts alike. Good power starts at 2000rpm and | |||
continues all the way to the 9800rpm redline and beyond. There is no discernible | |||
step in the powerband, just a linear progression in power as the revs increase. | |||
The smooth powerband and the lack of vibration at any engine speed give the | |||
Magna an impression of relaxed competence. | |||
A rider error at the drag strip | |||
resulted in a burnt clutch on the V45, and we weren't able to record a | |||
representative quarter mile time. However, the Magna delivers more than enough | |||
power for its intended purpose. Acceleration around town is authoritative, and | |||
passing power is readily available if the rider down-shifts to fifth gear. | |||
Overdrive has the engine spinning at such low revs that there is simply not | |||
enough torque to provide quick passing. | |||
The carburetion on our Honda was | |||
a little rough when we picked it up and it stalled repeatedly at stop lights. A | |||
quick trip to a local Honda dealer corrected the problem. Our only major | |||
complaint about the V45 engine also concerns the induction system. A | |||
disconcerting amount of noise emanates from the intake tract whenever the | |||
throttle is opened, enough to bother even those riders who wear ear plugs when | |||
riding on the highway. The drone was worse when the engine was given lots of | |||
throttle at low revs under heavy load. It's the loudest intake roar we've heard | |||
from a modern Japanese motorcycle, and all of our riders found it annoying. | |||
The Maxim-X's powerplant feels as | |||
nervous as the Magna's is relaxed, like a frisky quarter horse chomping at the | |||
bit compared with a constrained pacer. The exhaust note is raspy and uneven at | |||
low revs, reminiscent of a drag machine waiting to take off from the line. As | |||
the revs increase, it develops into a throaty roar that encourages the rider to | |||
keep on the gas. | |||
The exhaust note's impression of | |||
power is not an illusion. The Maxim-X is one of the hardest accelerating 750s | |||
we've ever ridden. It's quarter mile time of 11.66 seconds and terminal speed of | |||
186.9 km/h (116.1 mph) are just a heartbeat behind | |||
the FZ's 11.499 seconds at 191.4 km/h (118.9 mph). | |||
Considering that the Maxim-X uses a less | |||
efficient shaft final drive, these numbers are very impressive. The Maxim-X is | |||
quicker than any 750 sportbike except the Suzuki GSX-R750 and the | |||
Yamaha FZ750. Comparison of the intake tracts of | |||
the Magna and Maxim-X reveals the source of the Maxim-X's | |||
superior power output. The Maxim-X's effective intake area is more than 20 | |||
percent greater than the Magna's. | |||
However, the Yamaha's power | |||
delivery may not appeal to everyone. The powerband starts just past 6000rpm and | |||
continues well past the 10000rpm redline, but below 6000rpm the Maxim-X | |||
feels lethargic compared with the V45 Magna. Since the top-end components are | |||
the same as the FZ750's, which produces good torque as low as 4000rpm, we must | |||
conclude that the Maxim-X's intake and exhaust | |||
systems are less efficient. The 33mm carburetors may be too large for the | |||
engine, which feels over-carbureted at low speeds, similar to a hot-rodded | |||
engine fitted with large-diameter smoothbores. The engine surged noticeably when | |||
we first rode it, and though two subsequent tune-ups eliminated the surging, the | |||
low-end torque didn't improve. | |||
The impression of nervousness is | |||
increased by the Yamaha's short gearing. Fifth gear keeps the engine revving at | |||
little past 5000rpm at 100 km/h (62.1 mph), and a | |||
Maxim-X rider often searches for a sixth gear. | |||
The Yamaha's five-speed transmission performed flawlessly. We didn't miss any | |||
shifts and gear changing is smooth and precise. The cable-operated clutch stood | |||
up to the abuse of our drag strip session and gave more feedback than the | |||
Honda's hydraulically actuated clutch. | |||
The Magna's overdrive reduced the | |||
engine speed for highway riding and allowed more relaxed cruising. Down-shifting | |||
to pass was a minor penalty to pay for the benefits of the overdrive gear. There | |||
were no major complaints with the Honda's transmission. Occasional missed shifts | |||
can be avoided by more careful gear selection. The Honda's hydraulically | |||
actuated clutch has a narrower engagement point than the Maxim-X's. | |||
The Maxim-X's chassis | |||
specifications of 31.5 degrees of rake, 120mm trail and a 1520mm wheelbase | |||
should dictate a slow-steering motorcycle. At low speeds this is indeed the | |||
case, and the bike tends to fall into corners. But at more elevated speeds the | |||
Maxim-X feels decidedly short-coupled, with the | |||
immediate steering response of a much smaller bike. At the beginning of our test | |||
the Yamaha was stable at high speeds, though a bit twitchy. As the rear tire | |||
became worn, the Maxim-X's stability decreased to | |||
the point where it would occasionally wobble as speeds approached 160 km/h | |||
(~100 mph). That was particularly noticeable after | |||
the drag strip session, when the rear tire was near its legal wear limit. | |||
Despite these deficiences, the | |||
Yamaha was the preferred bike for fast cornering. The quicker steering and | |||
shorter wheelbase make cornering transitions easier, and the Yamaha's suspension | |||
is firmer, inspiring more confidence when well heeled over. | |||
The Maxim-X's fork has sturdier | |||
38mm fork tubes this year and is air-adjustable. The larger stanchions are a | |||
welcome change since the steering head is higher than on previous Maxims, | |||
resulting in a longer fork. With the increased power and weight of the Maxim-X, | |||
last year's 36mm fork tubes would surely have been overworked. The fork's spring | |||
rates are on the soft side, but stiffer than the plush Honda's, providing more | |||
control at the expense of compliance. | |||
The Yamaha's twin rear shocks | |||
adjust for spring preload but not for compression or rebound damping. Adjusting | |||
the preload can be awkWard, since the collars are close to the ends of the | |||
upswept mufflers. The shocks are firm, providing adequate wheel control for | |||
cornering, but they do bottom out over large bumps because of the short travel. | |||
The new disc-type cast rear wheel may enhance the Maxim-X's | |||
looks, but it's heavier than last year's version and adds to the already | |||
considerable unsprung weight of the shaft drive. The increased unsprung weight | |||
taxes the limited travel of the rear shocks even further. | |||
The Magna's steering strongly | |||
parallels its engine performance: relaxed and confidence inspiring. The wheelbas | |||
is a long 1565mm, rake 30 degrees and trail 106mm. The 701mm seat height lowers | |||
the centre of gravity and contributes to the Magna's good straight-line | |||
stability. Even with a handlebar windshield the Magna was more stable at high | |||
speeds than the bare Maxim-X. | |||
The Magna's suspension is even | |||
softer than the Maxim-X's. It provides the Magna rider with a plush ride, | |||
particularly around town, but does limit the Honda in other areas. The rear | |||
shocks bottom easily while carrying a passenger because of the soft springs and | |||
limited travel. Also, the softer springing causes the Magna to squirm if it's | |||
pushed hard through corners. Even though cruiser riders aren't known for | |||
aggressive cornering habits, most owners would benefit from stiffer spring | |||
rates. The mushy suspension is a shame, since the Magna steers more neutrally | |||
than the Maxim-X and falls into corners less. | |||
Stiffer suspension would allow the Magna to corner better without drastically | |||
reducing comfort. | |||
The soft front forks of both | |||
bikes result in a significant amount of dive under heavy braking. The Yamaha's | |||
dual front disc brakes provide more stopping power than the Magna's, though | |||
they're both limited by front tire traction. Both bikes have a large amount of | |||
rake and long forks, reducing the weight on the front wheel and limiting the | |||
front brakes' usefulness. This places more importance on the rear brakes. Most | |||
riders find the Maxim-X's rear brake more | |||
progressive and easier to modulate than the Magna's, but the Maxim-X's | |||
rear wheel locks easily during down-shifts. The Magna's front brake is spongy | |||
feeling compared with the Maxim-X's. | |||
The ergonomics of these two bikes | |||
differ as much as their engine and chssis performance. The Magna is more typical | |||
of recent Japanese cruisers; the footpegs are kicked way out front, the | |||
handlebar swoops back to meet the rider's hands and the stepped seat is | |||
extremely low to the ground. The Maxim-X takes a more conservative approach. Its | |||
handlebar resembles a low rise sportbike bar but is mounted on a riser to | |||
achieve the desired height. The footpegs are not set as far forward as the | |||
Magna's. | |||
As soon as we picked up the bikes | |||
we mounted a clear, handlebar-mount fairing to the Magna, while the Maxim-X was | |||
left bare. As a result the Magna was more comfortable than the Maxim-X | |||
for highway use. Its radical riding position was not a hindrance because the | |||
fairing deflected the wind blast. The Magna's seat provided more support for the | |||
rider, mainly because of its greater width. Equipped with the handlebar-mount | |||
windscreen the Magna made a reasonably comfortable mount for medium-length trips | |||
on the highway. | |||
When the fairing was removed from | |||
the Magna the tables were turned. The Maxim-X's | |||
riding position makes much more sense at highway speeds. Riding long distance at | |||
high speeds on the Magna is a sure way to build strong arms. | |||
Both bikes are better suited for | |||
urban riding. The Magna's superior seat coddles the rider, but the extreme | |||
forward placement of the footpegs is awkWard. The Maxim-X's | |||
riding position makes more sense even in town and lets the rider feel more | |||
comfortable balancing the bike while at a stoplight. The Magna's passenger | |||
seating is far better than the Maxim-X's. The | |||
longer wheelbase allows more room and its backrest provides good support for the | |||
passenger's spine. | |||
The Maxim-X's | |||
instruments are similar to those of the V-Max, with white faces for the | |||
tachometer and speedo. They are easier to read at night than the Honda's red | |||
markings. Both bikes have a low fuel warning light, but only the Maxim-X | |||
has a fuel petcock with a reserve position. When the Magna's light goes on, | |||
there is 3.5L (0.77 Imp. Gal., 0.93 U.S. Gal.) of | |||
gas remaining in the tank. | |||
The Magna garnered marks for its | |||
superior headlight, while the Yamaha's high beam lacked enough penetration to be | |||
useful for highway speeds at night. Both bikes' turn lamps double as driving | |||
lights, but only the Yamaha's turn signals are self-cancelling. A switch | |||
actuated by the sidestand kills the Yamaha's engine should the rider try to | |||
engage first gear while the stand is down. The Honda has no switch or warning | |||
light, just the usual piece of rubber on the end of the stand designed to touch | |||
the road first and push the sidestand up. | |||
It's hard to imagine two more | |||
different motorcycles competing in the same class. The Maxim-X | |||
may be dressed in a cruiser's clothes but its engine screams sportbike. It seems | |||
to us that the engine would be more at home in an updated version of the XJ750's | |||
chassis. Still, the Maxim-X is the sportiest 750 cruiser you can buy. | |||
Our initial impression of the | |||
Magna was that it paled in comparison with the sportier Maxim-X. | |||
Yet, its relaxed performance slowly gained the respect of our testers. The Magna | |||
performed every task demanded of it and can only be considered slow next to the | |||
very quick Maxim-X. The Magna's power output and handling capabilities will keep | |||
most cruiser riders happy. | |||
We preferred the Maxim-X for its | |||
sporting performance and handling capabilities. Even though these motorcycles | |||
appear to be in head-to-head competition for the same market, they appeal to | |||
distinctly different riders. The Maxim-X suits the rider who wants sporting | |||
performance but absolutely has to have it in a custom package, while the Magna | |||
appeals to the mainstream cruiser buyer, for whom ferocious acceleration and | |||
cornering ability are secondary to styling and relaxed performance. | |||
Source Cycle Canada | |||
Magazine, September 1985 | |||
==Specifications== | |||
{| class="wikitable" | |||
|- | |||
!Make Model | |||
|Honda VF700C Super Magna | |||
|- | |||
!Year | |||
|1984-87 | |||
|- | |||
!Engine Type | |||
|Four stroke, 90°V-four cylinder, DOHC, 4 valve per cylinder | |||
|- | |||
!Displacement | |||
|699 cc / 42.6 cu-in | |||
|- | |||
!Cooling System | |||
|Liquid cooled | |||
|- | |||
!Bore X Stroke | |||
|70 x 45.4 mm | |||
|- | |||
!Compression | |||
|10.5:1 | |||
|- | |||
!Induction | |||
|4x 32mm Keihin | |||
|- | |||
!Ignition | |||
|Transistorized | |||
|- | |||
!Starting | |||
|Electric | |||
|- | |||
!Max Power | |||
|81 hp / 59. kW @ 10000 rpm | |||
|- | |||
!Max Torque | |||
|62 Nm / 6.2 kgf-m 44.8 lb-ft @ 8500 rpm | |||
|- | |||
!Clutch | |||
|Wet plate | |||
|- | |||
!Transmission | |||
|5 Speed | |||
|- | |||
!Final Drive | |||
|Shaft | |||
|- | |||
!Front Suspension | |||
|37mm Air adjustable forks | |||
|- | |||
!Front Wheel Travel | |||
|129 mm / 5.0 in | |||
|- | |||
!Rear Suspension | |||
|Dual shocks, spring preload adjustable | |||
|- | |||
!Rear Wheel Travel | |||
|100 mm / 3.9 in | |||
|- | |||
!Front Brakes | |||
|2x discs | |||
|- | |||
!Rear Brakes | |||
|Single disc | |||
|- | |||
!Front Tire | |||
|110/90-18 | |||
|- | |||
!Rear Tire | |||
|130/90-16 | |||
|- | |||
!Wet-weight | |||
|240 kg / 529 lbs | |||
|- | |||
!Fuel Capacity | |||
|14 Liters / 4.3 US gal | |||
|- | |||
!Consumption Average | |||
|45.6 mpg | |||
|- | |||
!Standing ¼ Mile | |||
|12.6 sec / 106 mph | |||
|} | |||
==See Also== | ==See Also== |