Turbo NC

[Ticopilot]

WHY A SUPERCHARGER?

Would you buy an NC Turbo like the one in this article?
What will it take for you to change your current NC for the new turbocharged one?

 

[L.B.S.]

WHY A SUPERCHARGER?

Would you buy an NC Turbo like the one in this article?
What will it take for you to change your current NC for the new turbocharged one?

I would if I could, and with the very real possibility of me doing less and less off road as I age, I wouldn't rule out a swap. If it was even remotely like how much I loved my CX500Turbo, I would buy it in a heartbeat.

It's difficult to describe the fun feeling you get from adding a tiny little compressor to two wheels, lol. (I've never driven a turbo or supercharged car, so maybe more people have a better reference than I do, and it's just as fun with 4 wheels?)

The midrange torque and roll on rush you get is an awesome thing, without the tear your arms off or crazy high speeds like you get on a modern litre bike, but boy howdy, I bet a supercharged NC750 would surprise the ever living heck out of a lot of other motorcycles.

My CX500T just decimated my GSXR1100, my 1100 Katana, my buddies GS1150, and 900F's, in any kind of roll on acceleration under 100 mph. But it was a big fluffy, comfy, pussy cat of a bike, and got better gas mileage too, lol.

The engine characteristics and output of the CX were eerily similar to the NC, even to the sound; and is probably why I loved the NCX straight away.

I would mourn the loss of the frunk, for sure, though!

 

[kjang]

Its very tempting. I love the NC, but with more power and pretty much the same mpg then why not?

Now, whats the cost?

Ken

 

[MZ5]

I _had_ an enormously FUN bike that I sold to buy the NCX. It was a CBR600F4. If I lose the frunk and the mpg, all I'm left with is an overweight, slow-handling, (relatively) high-complexity bike of about the same displacement.

I would not be confident of the durability of the engine at double the HP PLUS double the low-end pull. Double the HP with a CBR-like power curve? Okay, no problem. Double the power (torque) at 3,000 rpm? Nope. Absent substantial redesign of the bottom end and tranny input shaft/gears, that's not a long-life power train.

In short, the way that supercharged (which term includes turbo-supercharging) vehicles get 'improved' emissions with decent economy is that we don't test mpg nor emissions at high throttle openings. In real life, forced induction engines both use _more_ fuel and also have worse emissions than naturally aspirated ones at high throttle openings. We just don't test them under those conditions.

I LOVE the output characteristics of turbo cars. They're fun! They're just worse than naturally aspirated, low-end-focused designs at basically everything, if they're Otto-cycle designs.

 

[Ruggybuggy]

I wouldn't worry to much about the reliability if Honda builds it. They will test it in ways you couldn't imagine before the consumer ever see it. Fuel mileage should be similar if you can keep control of your right hand. The question is would you be willing to give up the frunk (hate that word) for the supercharger?

 

[670cc]

Nah . . I'm done with the whole acceleration thing. It just doesn't do anything for me. Been there, done that. Look at my Fuelly number. Does it look like I have a zealous wrist?

I'm proud the article mentioned the "frunk" by name. That name was invented right here on this forum!

Bombardier did this when they introduced the Rotax 4-Tec PWC/jet boat engine. First year it was naturally aspirated with 155 hp. Next year it's supercharged and 185 hp. Then it gets an intercooler and they claim 215 hp. Then they added something else which I forgot, and it supposedly puts out 255 hp. All with the same 1503cc displacement. BTW, my boat has a pair of 155 NA engines that currently have 600 hours and zero problems. I like the simplicity of natural breathing.

 

[itlives]

It would take the frunk out of fruncuality. Sorry, just had to say that....
The NC is fast enough for me.

 

[JDE]

If the price is right, I could live with out the frunk.

 

[kebrider]

There are plenty of great engine/motorcycle designs that provide high levels of performance. The long stroke, low revving NC engine with its screw and locknut valves is appealing for its simplicity of design, under-stressed mechanical elements and high efficiency. The extremely low COG and decent chassis makes for low effort handling and great stability. The older I get the more I appreciate the simple experience of motorcycling and the less I need fire breathing performance but if a supercharged NC can retain the essential feel of the NC it could be a lot of fun to ride as well. But never as fun to own I suspect.

KEB

 

[Akar.Zaephyr]

Personally, I wouldn't buy it. I lack the experience to handle such bikes, and turbo addition will have only one result on the power/torque characteristic - more punch. And a lot of punch doesn't mix well with little experience. Not to mention frunk was one of the NC sellers for me. I don't think I will keep my helmet there, but it's a perfect place to put security locks, Oxford cover and other stuff I would have to have a top box for, otherwise.

However, I admit I may change my mind in few years when I get enough experience with my NC. Maybe a change then? Who knows, it is totally possible

 

[wildeone]

I would if I could, and with the very real possibility of me doing less and less off road as I age, I wouldn't rule out a swap

funny, it's the other way around with me - more and more off-road when I age
Hi speed pursuits not for me anymore, besides no frunk and I am no longer interested in nc700x.
Better options out there for racing bikes.

and the brilliant comments below:

Knuckleheads at Honda (again).

 

[Ruggybuggy]

Personally, I wouldn't buy it. I lack the experience to handle such bikes, and turbo addition will have only one result on the power/torque characteristic - more punch. And a lot of punch doesn't mix well with little experience. Not to mention frunk was one of the NC sellers for me. I don't think I will keep my helmet there, but it's a perfect place to put security locks, Oxford cover and other stuff I would have to have a top box for, otherwise.

However, I admit I may change my mind in few years when I get enough experience with my NC. Maybe a change then? Who knows, it is totally possible

Still not over your woopsie? Give it a week and you will probably change your mine.

 

[SergeantChuck]

I've said it many time and will say it again. Fuel mileage really isn't a concern of mine although it is a major plus. Adding a turbo to the bike will reduce the fuel economy. I'm not sure where that statement came from about same fuel mileage. That ain't gonna happen. I heard the same things before I put a SC on my Jeep. If you have access to the power, guess what, your gonna use it. If you use it, guess what, down goes the MPGs. Many of you own this bike because of the MPG. You'll loose the frunk and MPG. Might as well buy a CBR.

 

[johnakay]

I would consider it but without the turbo and keeping the frunk.
I like the styling.

 

[wildeone]

I would consoder it but without the turbo and keeping the frunk.
I like the styling.

what styling, it's nc750s...

 

[670cc]

what styling, it's nc750s...

Since when did the NC750s have a fairing like that?

 

[johnakay]

what styling, it's nc750s...

if you can't see the difference you need glass's

 

[Akar.Zaephyr]

I think what wildeone meant is that it's a NC750S with just fairing added, and what looks like Integra's lights.
Other than that, it's a regular S. I can't say, I would love to see some of the parts on my S, like the black plastic cover below the engine - looks ssssshweat!

 

[Ticopilot]

Will it become the NC 750RT?

 

[danwray]

I'm just happy they want to continue to use the NC platform to make new bikes. hopefully that would prolong the lifespan of our models, or at least the availability of common parts.