R65 vs CX500 circa 1979

[Mainerider]

Maybe this has been posted before but if you haven't seen it it's a fun read:
http://yeoldecycleshoppe.wordpress.com/2012/01/13/1979-bmw-r65-vs-honda-cx500-road-test/


Steven

[Barry]

Thanks,

It's always interesting to read a contemporary road test that judges our bikes by the standards of the time. "the BMW brakes are superb" wouldn't get written today but it shows they were very good in their day.


It occurs to me that we don't have on R65.org even a comprehensive list of all the period road tests that are available in electronic format. I've got 7 different ones from various magazines. How about I at least post the list in the FAQ section and this link can go with them ?

[Ed Miller]

Nice article.  I didn't know those Hondas were faster than R65s.  

[Barry]

My brother had a CX500. It 's was a very civilised bike for it's day. A bit heavy but quite powerful for a 500 at 50HP.  Bear in mind the R65 tested was an early 45 HP model.

[nhmaf]

Even though it did have pushrods, the Cx500 engine was quite a revvy engine and had ~ 2000 RPM redline advantage over the airhead 248 engine, IIRC.  

[montmil]

Pushrods? I thought it was a chain-driven overhead cam.

[Barry]

Definitely pushrods but also 4 valve heads. It was kind of a quirky engine design for Honda to introduce at that time but clever in a number of details  like the twisted cylinder heads which just about saved what was basically an ugly bike. The marginal looks were forgiven at the time because it was so quiet and civilised compared to contemporary aircooled motors.

[montmil]

The mention in the 1979 article regarding breaking cam chains lead me down a Honda rabbit hole.

I did find this info elsewhere:
"with overhead valves and a camshaft nestled at the base of the V between the cylinders. There are four overhead valves per cylinder, with forked rocker arms acting off each pushrod."

It's not surprising the testers found the R65 to be a better handling motorcycle:
"The crankshaft is located above the transmission, with both in the same housing. This keeps the engine short (length wise) but quite tall."

[donbmw]

I bought new a 79 CX500 Custom. In the 3 years of riding I had almost 60000 miles before I trade it for me 82 R65.  My first trip out west I felt i need more power than the CX500 had. Did have the cam chain tensioner break and also the plastic fan come loose from metal insert.  About tow years after getting the R65.i went out west again and on some of the same roads through the Rockys. The R65 felt to me to have more power than the CX500.

Don

[NC Steve]

Er, SCJJ has had both, and not too very long ago.

I'm sure he could step up and give a good "rider's impression" report.
I'll ask...

[Barry]

Yes it was a top heavy machine and you felt it's weight compared to a R65.

My brothers CX500 had the infamous cam chain tensioner problem that was fixed under warranty.  I think the chains only failed if the tensioner fault was ignored.  Once fixed these bikes were very reliable as evidenced by their popularity with high mileage dispatch riders.

[SCJJR65]

I've owned three of these bikes in my time, a '79 CX, a '80 CX Deluxe, and most recently, a GL500 Silverwing.  I never experienced anything bad mechanically on the '79 or '80 models, and other than a pesky oil leak on the GL500, it ran just fine.  Very smooth running motor!  A couple of BMW owners joking referred to the CX as an "Econo-Guzzi", since the cylinders were designed as the Moto Guzzi's.

I heard the 650 version of the CX were highly coveted amongst the faithful who rode them.  Honda even designed a "turbo" version of the CX650.  I would have liked to taken that bike out for a romp!    

[Tony Smith]

The CX 500 was the first (and perhaps only) motorcycle engine that was designed from the beginning to be turbocharged.

According to the book I read, Honda were actually surprised how civilized and tractable the engine was in normally aspirated form and decided to release the N/A version of the bike as a leader to the "real deal".

I got to ride both a CX500 and a CX500T shortly after they were released, and due to a friend who owned a CX500T having a very long term holiday from his license I got to ride it a lot - including nearly losing my own license in the process. The performance of the turbo version was awesome, but perhaps fortunately for a lot of us the whole turbo experiment kinda of fizzled out after a very short number of years.

[nhmaf]

I came very close to buying the Yamaha 650 Seca Turbo as a holdover model in 1986 - I should have done it for the thrill, but alas, I had to break down and buy an automobile that year..