Tag Archives: Retro/Vintage Motorcycle Reviews

Retrospective: 1965-1968 Greeves 24TFS Trail 250

1965 Greeves 24TFS Trail 250
1965 Greeves 24TFS Trail 250. Owner: Glenn Mueller, Tehachapi, California.

Few motorcyclists today are familiar with the Greeves name, but it was an interesting company, and had quite a bit of clout in this country back in the late 1950s and ’60s. Bert Greeves was an English fellow who got his start following World War II by bolting motorcycle engines into wheelchairs, and started a company called Invacar (Invalid’s Car). And to help construct these three-wheelers he added a light-alloy foundry to his factory, which was located in the appropriately named (for a motorcyclist) town of Thundersley, in Essex County northeast of London.

As an avid motorcyclist, he then got the notion of building a motorcycle, using someone else’s engine but his own chassis. At the Earls Court Show in London in late 1953, the initial Greeves line had several roadsters and a scrambler powered by two-stroke engines from the Villiers Engineering Co., Ltd. If one wonders where the Villiers name came from, the factory was on Villiers Street in Wolverhampton, and sold engines to a dozen small British motorcycle manufacturers.

1965 Greeves 24TFS Trail 250
1965 Greeves 24TFS Trail 250. Owner: Glenn Mueller, Tehachapi, California.

What made the Greeves stand out was the design of the frame and suspension. Instead of tubes, the frame, built in his own foundry, was essentially an aluminum-alloy I-beam that went down from the steering head and bolted on to I-beam cradles for the engine/transmission unit. A tubular steel backbone, made of Reynolds 531, went back to a tubular subframe. This I-beam frame was both lighter and stronger than conventional tubular constructions. The front fork was a Greeves design, and instead of springs had, “at the base of the stanchions, short leading links pivoting in rubber-in-torsion bushes….” Not sure what a rubber-in-torsion bush is, but apparently it worked well.

Being an observed trials riding enthusiast, Greeves developed a 250 trials model called the Scottish, after a noted trials event in — you guessed it — Scotland. This won gold in the 1958 International Six Days Trial, and gold again in the 1959 ISDT. Soon competition models ruled the company roost, with scrambler, trials, motocross and road-racing models. In 1963 the British ISDT team asked Greeves to supply motorcycles, and he happily complied. Gold again, and the lone woman contestant won a bronze on a Greeves.

1965 Greeves 24TFS Trail 250
1965 Greeves 24TFS Trail 250. Owner: Glenn Mueller, Tehachapi, California.

Back in 1958 a forward-thinking Californian by the name of Nick Nicholson began importing Greeves bikes, and soon the desert racing four-strokes were smelling two-stroke exhaust. Nick was selling a lot of racers, but the roadsters were not very popular in this country, riders preferring bigger bikes. In 1964 Nick saw an opening for a new model, a trail version of the 250 trials. With a few mods like lights, a speedometer and a more comfortable seat, this could be sold to people who just wanted to have fun going along some back roads and cow trails. Done!

This motorcycle was powered by the Villiers 34A 250 single-cylinder engine used in several models, including the trials, and was 246cc, with a 66mm bore, 72mm stroke. To improve the power Greeves made his own aluminum-alloy cylinder and head. The 1965 Trail/Enduro model was an “export-only” bike, and it beat the Yamaha DT-1 to the market by two years. It had an 11:1 compression ratio with a Villiers S25 carburetor feeding the petroil (petrol and oil) mixture into the combustion chamber. A large air cleaner worked hard to keep the dirt and dust out. A small but efficient muffling system was tucked close to the cylinder, staying out of the way of the rider’s right leg. Sixteen horses turned the crankshaft and a primary chain used a multi-plate clutch in an oil bath to spin the four gears in the oil-filled transmission. A 15-tooth sprocket at the tranny was connected to a 54-tooth sprocket at the rear wheel, with a box-section swingarm and Girling shock absorbers.

The aesthetics of the Trail were pleasing, with that I-beam frame easily catching attention. That curiously shaped leading-link front end also attracted the eye of the onlooker. An 18-inch wheel was at the back, a 19-incher at the front, and these were shod with Dunlop Trials Universal tires. Tire technology being what it was half a century ago, they were OK in the dirt, but not recommended for high-speed cornering on wet pavement. Shiny alloy mudguards stood far enough off from the tires that even the stickiest of mud could not jam the wheels. Cable-operated drum brakes were adequate for the purpose.

1965 Greeves 24TFS Trail 250
1965 Greeves 24TFS Trail 250. Owner: Glenn Mueller, Tehachapi, California.

No battery here, with a mag/dyno providing the electricity. No ignition switch was necessary, just a tickle on the carb and a kick on the right-side starter got things moving. Since there was no switch, nor kill button on the handlebar, stopping the engine meant stalling it by letting out the clutch while in gear. Headlight and taillight brightened with more revs, but would certainly not be legal today; the switch was on the headlight. A Smiths speedometer indicated the speed, which would top out at 60 mph or so. A 2.5-gallon (imperial sized, which is a spoonful more than three U.S. gallons) tank held the petroil, which was good for more than 100 miles. A modest seat served the purpose for one rider, but a longer one was available.

Business boomed in the mid-1960s, and then four things happened. First, with a change in British laws governing powered wheelchairs, Invacar had to shut down…and this business had always been more profitable than the motorcycle side. Second, in 1968 Villiers, now partnered with Norton, decided not to sell engines to outside companies. Third, by the early 1970s the Japanese pretty much had the dual-purpose market in hand. Fourth, Bert decided to retire. Following which the company finances floundered, not helped by a fire at the factory, and in 1977 the company went into receivership.

Source: RiderMagazine.com

Long Term Ride Report: 2019 Royal Enfield Continental GT 650

2019 Royal Enfield Continental GT 650
2019 Royal Enfield Continental GT 650. Photo by the author.

MSRP $5,999
Odometer: 1,958 miles

When Royal Enfield unveiled to the world its pair of all-new 650 twins, the Interceptor 650 and Continental GT, at EICMA in November 2017, the anticipation was already buzzing. We’d just visited its sparkly new state-of-the-art UK Technical Center on the Bruntingthorpe Proving Ground, near Leicester in central England, where the new twins had been wholly conceived, engineered and tested. We had to wait nearly a year, until September 2018, before we were able to swing a leg over each bike and take them for a spin through the redwoods at the global press launch in Santa Cruz, California (Rider, January 2019 and here), and it was shortly afterward that an example of each showed up at the Rider garage for a complete test.

Check out our Comparison Test Review of the BMW G 310 GS vs. Kawasaki Versys-X 300 vs. Royal Enfield Himalayan here!

Identical except for styling details, the Interceptor 650 and Continental GT share an all-new air/oil-cooled 648cc parallel twin, a chassis designed in conjunction with Harris Performance and standard Bosch 2-channel ABS. After a few rides we determined that both bikes not only look and feel the part, but considering their attractive price tags ($5,799 for the Interceptor and $5,999 for the GT) and three-year, unlimited-mileage warranty with free roadside assistance, they were also worth a serious look as “keepers.” The question at the forefront of everyone’s mind, however, was reliability. So we hung onto the GT for about seven months, with rides ranging from easy cruises down the coast highway, to full-on thrashing in the tortuous twisties of the Santa Monica Mountains, interspersed with stretches of just sitting in the garage as other deserving bikes got their test rides.

And it never missed a beat. The GT’s riding position is compact and sporty and the seat is about as comfortable as it looks (the Interceptor is a better choice if comfort is a priority), but leaning through the gentle curves of Highway 1, heading west out of Malibu into the setting sun, the Enfield just felt right. Goldilocks would understand. As Milwaukee-based Royal Enfield North America gradually builds a support base, the number and proximity of dealerships is the only concern for prospective new buyers, but if you’re lucky enough to have one close by, the new 650 twins are the genuine article.

Source: RiderMagazine.com

Retrospective: 1983-1986 Honda VF1100C V65 Magna

1985 Honda V65 Magna
1985 Honda V65 Magna. Owner: Van Krebs, Fresno, Ohio. Photos by Jason Keller.

The motorcycling world looked upon this machine in absolute amazement — a cruiser putting out more than 100 horsepower. Unheard of! Sure, sportbikes like Honda’s CB1100R were knocking out that many ponies, but those were for riders who liked leaning into corners at insane speeds. But a cruiser with feet-forward pegs and wide handlebars — and a shaft drive no less? This was nutso!

If this bike could be put in a category, it would be Power Cruiser. Harleys were the standard cruisers of the day, and they were lucky to get 55 horses to the rear wheel, using a pushrod V-twin that had been around for the better part of half a century. Whereas this bruiser was a V-4 with two overhead camshafts and four valves per cylinder. And liquid cooling to boot, so no worries about overheating when cruising down Main Street on a crowded Saturday evening. Except for that mildly unaesthetic radiator up front.

1985 Honda V65 Magna
1985 Honda V65 Magna.

What was Honda thinking? The company had a whole bunch of bikes in the showrooms that year, 40 different models covering all the bases, from shopping-friendly Passports to huge Gold Wing touring platforms. Even a V-twin cruiser, the 750 Shadow. And a second V-4, the 750 V45 Magna, introduced the year before.

This all began with Soichiro Honda’s wanting to again be celebrated for putting an entirely new machine on the market. The world remembers (although this may be news to some of the younger generation) when he introduced the overhead camshaft, in-line four back in 1969, beginning the evolution of the UJM — Universal Japanese Motorcycle. Now the V-4 would do it again…he hoped.

But the backroom boys wanted to create a jaw-dropper, knock the American public back on its heels, as they used to say. The 750cc V45 was just a starting point for creating a machine the likes of which the motorcycle crowd had never seen. The V65’s majorly oversquare engine, with a 79.5mm bore and 55.3mm stroke, would cheerfully rev to 10 grand, with maximum rear-wheel power of 105 horses coming on at 9,500, redline at 10,000. A lot could go wrong with 16 valves popping up and down 10,000 times a minute, but Honda’s engineers made sure nothing untoward would happen.

1985 Honda V65 Magna
1985 Honda V65 Magna.

These horses came from using some appropriate fiddling inside the head, with the four valves having a rather narrow 38-degree included angle. This and the shape of the combustion chamber effectively put the fuel as close to the spark plug as possible, compressed 10.5 times. Bang, bang, bang, bang — and the crankshaft spins.

Four constant-vacuum 36mm carbs, by Keihin, were accessible by lifting the gas tank. These had an easily changeable paper air cleaner. Fuel consumption was less than 40 mpg, but range was no problem as most riders wanted to get off after an hour or so. And at the time the U.S. was blessed (cursed?) with the 55-mph speed limit, so highway riders on the V65 had an excuse for not going very fast. With the V65 ergonomics city traffic was preferable to the interstates.

Power ran via straight-cut gears back to a hydraulically operated clutch. This had a diaphragm spring as an essential part of the device, which the engineers knew would be much abused, with the single diaphragm offering more consistent control than a multi-spring unit.

The gearbox had five speeds plus an overdrive sixth. If the bike could have pulled 10 grand in sixth gear, its top speed would be better than 170 mph. A more practical (!!) top speed was 140 in fifth. If the rider could hang on!

1985 Honda V65 Magna
1985 Honda V65 Magna.

A full-cradle frame, with double downtubes, held this unit-construction herd semi-firmly in place, as rubber mounts were used to keep any vibrations hidden away. Which were few as the 90 degrees between the two pairs of cylinders presumed good balance, enhanced by that short 55mm stroke. A shaft final drive went out the left side, so those Levi’s would be nice and clean on cruise night, not having to put up with an oily chain. An air-adjustable 41mm fork suspended the front end, with an anti-dive unit. Rake was a pretty lazy 30.5 degrees with more than four inches of trail, and while this was OK in town, it was best not to get too optimistic out on the twisties. At the back a pair of shock absorbers had all the adjustments: spring preload, rebound and compression damping. The fork had almost six inches of travel, the swingarm a little more than four inches. Axle to axle measurement was just shy of 63 inches.

Cast wheels were 18 inches at the front and 16 at the back, with two discs at the front and a single at the back, all three squeezed by twin-piston calipers.

This power cruiser was designed by the Los Angeles boys for the American market, because the rest of the motorcycling world was not much interested in cruiser styling, preferring standard or sport. Honda hoped that the numbers would blow the Harley riders into the weeds.

Which they did. Quarter-mile times? Don’t even think about them. The 1,338cc Harley was in the 14-second category, and couldn’t break 100 mph. While the 1,098cc V65? In the 10s!! At 125 mph! More numbers? At $4,000 this V65 was at least three grand less expensive than a Harley.

What Honda had failed to realize was that in the cruising world of the 1980s, style was far more important than performance. Power cruisers would be a passing fancy, whereas Honda’s Fury model of today is a V-twin.

One final note: apparently somebody in the 1980s was selling a supercharger kit for the V65 Magna. Boggles the mind!

Source: RiderMagazine.com

2020 Triumph Bobber TFC | First Look Preview

2020 Triumph Bobber TFC
2020 Triumph Bobber TFC. Images courtesy Triumph.

When the original Bonneville Bobber launched back in 2017, we were smitten. True, it had some quirks — not enough front brake and a limited fuel range being the most noticeable — but overall we loved what Triumph had created: a factory bobber that delivered in both looks and performance.

Then the following year we got the Bobber Black, with dual front brake discs mounted to its fat front tire — quirk number one, check. In the meantime, Triumph released its first Triumph Factory Custom (TFC) model, the Thruxton TFC, and we swooned. Then earlier this year we got a look at the new Rocket 3 TFC and we salivated.

Now Triumph has announced its third TFC model, and guess what? It’s the Bobber.

The 2020 Triumph Bobber TFC will sport more power across the powerband, with 39% lower engine inertia resulting in a 500 rpm-higher rev limit. It’s also a claimed 11 pounds lighter (although that number is subject to change as the bike is homologated for the U.S. market).

2020 Triumph Bobber TFC engine
2020 Triumph Bobber TFC. Images courtesy Triumph.

As with all TFC models, the Bobber TFC is dripping with high-end components, including fully-adjustable Öhlins suspension front and rear, Arrow exhaust, dual front brake discs with Brembo M50 monobloc calipers and MCS radial master cylinder, an additional Sport riding mode (joining the standard Road and Rain) and an LED headlight with distinctive light pattern.

It gets unique clip-ons rather than a traditional one-piece handlebar, carbon fiber bodywork, a billet top and bottom yoke with numbered plaque, a real leather seat and special TFC badging throughout.

Only 750 Bobber TFCs will be built and sold worldwide, and like all TFC models it comes with paperwork signed by Triumph CEO Nick Bloor, a personalized custom build book, a Bobber TFC bike cover, a TFC document wallet and a leather TFC branded backpack.

More details will follow the Bobber TFC’s homologation in January 2020. U.S. pricing is also TBD.

2020 Triumph Bobber TFC
2020 Triumph Bobber TFC. Images courtesy Triumph.

Source: RiderMagazine.com

2020 Triumph T120 and T100 Bud Ekins Edition | First Look Preview

2020 Triumph Bonneville T100 and T120 Bud Ekins Editions
2020 Triumph Bonneville T100 and T120 Bud Ekins Editions. Images courtesy Triumph.

Bud Ekins was a motorcycling icon, a top motocross and desert racer and professional Hollywood stunt man. You might remember him best as the guy who stood in for his buddy Steve McQueen, landing what became possibly the most famous motorcycle jump in film history in The Great Escape.

Now Triumph has announced two special edition Bonnevilles, a T100 and T120, to commemorate Bud’s legacy. Both models will come with a special two-color paint scheme and hand-painted coach lines with heritage Triumph logo. They will also feature a unique California “flying globe” Bud Ekins logo on the tank and front fender.

Other special details include a Monza fuel filler cap, higher-spec LED indicators, diamond knurled grips, bar end mirrors and special black engine badges.

Each bike will come with a certificate of authenticity that includes Bud’s incredible story, and signed by Triumph CEO Nick Bloor and both of Bud’s daughters, Susan Ekins and Donna Ekins.

Pricing and availability on the 2020 Triumph Bonneville T100 Bud Ekins Edition and T120 Bud Ekins Edition is TBD.

2020 Triumph Bonneville T100 and T120 Bud Ekins Editions
2020 Triumph Bonneville T100 and T120 Bud Ekins Editions. Images courtesy Triumph.

Source: RiderMagazine.com

Retrospective: 1958-1966 Matchless G12/CS/CSR 650

1961 Matchless G12CS
1961 Matchless G12CS. Owner: Steve Eorio, Paso Robles, California.

The 1950s and ’60s were the era of the UBM — Universal British Motorcycle — a parallel OHV twin sitting upright in the frame, in the 500cc to 750cc range. The original UBM was the Triumph 5T Speed Twin of 1938, soon to be copied by half a dozen of the major British motorcycle companies. Matchless, which built its first motorcycle at the Plumstead works in southeast London around 1901, came up with its own version in 1948, the 498cc G9, with a 66 x 72.8mm bore and stroke. And a fully sprung frame, with a swingarm rear suspension.

It should be noted that in the 1930s Matchless bought the AJS marque and the company became Associated Motor Cycles, Ltd., or AMC, the major difference between the two brands being the lettering on the gas tank.

The G9 engine differed from other UBMs in that it had a third bearing on the crankshaft, between the two connecting rods, to give added strength. The engine’s dry sump lubrication system used the camshaft to run two oil pumps, one on each side of the crank, aiding in efficient lubrication; apparently these engines could go 75,000 miles before any major work was needed. Quite remarkable for a UBM of the era, when top-end jobs were often done at 20,000 miles, bottom-end at 40,000.

1961 Matchless G12CS

The two cylinders were separate, as were the heads, and while this seemed to work well with the 500, as the engine grew larger the lack of rigidity appeared to enhance vibration. During the 1950s most factories increased the size of the engine, with 650cc being considered the maximum reasonable size for a UBM, due to those vibratory concerns. In 1955 Matchless elected to bore out the engine to 72mm for an increase to 593cc — called a 600, designated as a G11. This was followed by the G11CS, or Competition Sprung, a street-legal scrambler with easily removable lights, and the G11CSR, a more roadworthy version, often called the Coffee Shop Racer. The CS models came with higher compression ratios and other performance enhancements…and often more problems. The frame used a single downtube to meet up with the full cradle holding the engine.

In 1958 Matchless offered 17 different models, including the first G12 650. The very important American market had been demanding that 650, the dealers needing it to compete with the Triumph and BSA 650s. Small problem: the engine could not be bored out any more. Solution: increase the stroke to 79.3mm, or 646cc. That was the G12, with the basic road-going model having valanced fenders and a reliable 7.5:1 compression ratio, and two sportier CS models with an 8.5:1 compression ratio and light alloy fenders.

1961 Matchless G12CS

The restroked engine required a new crankshaft, made of “nodular” iron, which flexed enough to reduce vibrations. It was also designed to incorporate a Lucas alternator, though still with six-volt electrics. A new frame with twin downtubes now welded to the full cradle was developed, which did help in reducing the vibration inherent in a 650 vertical twin using a 360-degree crankshaft, although the single-tube frame was also used. The motorcycle seen here, which was built from bits and pieces, has a 1961 G12 engine in a 1959 single downtube frame. An AMC Teledraulic fork is up front, a pair of Girling shock absorbers at the back.

Gas tanks varied in size according to the model and year, but this ’61 G12CS carried only two gallons, all you would need in a race, and was said to weigh 425 pounds with a full tank. And with 5.3 pints of oil in the reservoir.

Other changes occurred over the G12’s years, including 12-volt electrics, sending out decent visibility from the seven-inch headlight. The basic G12 had 18-inch wheels, while this CS was running 19-inchers. Distance between the axles was a little more than 55 inches. Brakes were single-leading-shoe drums, an eight-incher on the front, seven on the back.

1961 Matchless G12CS

One interesting bit of history is that the Matchless marque was originally sold in the U.S. by Californian Frank Cooper, who became the AMC importer around 1946. He did quite well selling singles to win desert races, though the twins were not as popular.

In 1953, AMC acquired financially troubled Norton, although Norton production and sales remained quite separate, the U.S. importer being Joe Berliner, or J.B. Then, in 1960, AMC bought the Indian Sales Corp., which had been selling rebadged Royal Enfields — this was to get the Indian dealers, such as they were, to sell Matchboxes rather than Royal Oilfields. And AMC summarily fired Cooper, after 14 years of good work.

However, AMC filed for bankruptcy in 1962 (Cooper must have laughed), resulting in Matchless being merged more closely with Norton, and Berliner having to deal with Matchless as well. In early 1963, J.B. Matchless Corp. put a full-page ad in Cycle magazine promoting the G12CS and G12CSR…along with the 750cc G15 Matchless, which looked surprisingly like the Norton Atlas model that had appeared in 1962. In 1963 that old 1952 Matchless/Norton arrangement, keeping them separate, changed drastically as bill collectors were pounding on both doors, and Norton production moved from its old Birmingham factory 100 miles southeast to Plumstead.

Not surprisingly, interest in the G12 waned considerably. The last Matchless ad I could find in a U.S. moto-mag was in Cycle’s July 1966 issue, featuring the Atlas-based G15, and mentioning one G12CSR and two G80 singles. At the time British bureaucrats, knowing nothing about motorcycles, thought they could save the industry by merging Matchless, AJS and Norton into the company of an affluent entrepreneur and racecar driver, Dennis Poore. Poore was already looking after the Villiers engineering firm, which made most of the British two-stroke motorcycle engines. The Matchless and AJS names dropped from sight, and the new company was called Norton-Villiers.

Source: RiderMagazine.com

2020 Kawasaki W800 | First Look Review

2020 Kawasaki W800 in Candy Cardinal Red. Photos courtesy Kawasaki.

When the sharp-looking W800 Cafe was announced for the U.S. market for 2019, reactions were predictably mixed. Yes, the cafe racer look was cool…but there was a vocal chorus of Boomers who yearned for the classic look and feel of Kawasaki’s latest “W” iteration, but could you please lose the drop-down handlebar and give us something with a “sensible” riding position? Perhaps the standard W800 the rest of the world gets?

Someone at Kawasaki must have been listening (even if it was just to sales figures), as for 2020 Team Green has announced the W800 is coming to America, with its bench seat, chrome fenders and — thank goodness! — standard handlebar.

2020 Kawasaki W800 in Candy Cardinal Red. Photos courtesy Kawasaki.

The 733cc air-cooled vertical twin with its distinctive exterior cam shaft-drive is unchanged except for the polished aluminum finish, as opposed to the blacked-out look on the W800 Cafe. Other parts are also less modernized, like the classic large, round turn signals with orange lens covers, silver spoked tube-type wheels (though now a 19-inch up front rather than the Cafe’s 18), aforementioned chrome fenders, chrome tank badging and polished finish on the gaitered fork tubes.

Other modern conveniences carry over: standard 2-channel ABS, an assist-and-slipper clutch and a bright LED headlight. Notably, the standard W800 gets a centerstand, which was missing on the Cafe.

Best of all, the W800 is priced a bit more competitively than its Cafe sibling, at $9,199. The 2020 Kawasaki W800 comes in Candy Cardinal Red and exact availability is TBD.

2020 Kawasaki W800 in Candy Cardinal Red. Photos courtesy Kawasaki.

Source: RiderMagazine.com

Retrospective: 1967-1969 Kawasaki C2TR 120 Road Runner

1967 Kawasaki C2TR 120 Road Runner. Owner: Cliff Schoening, Bremerton, Washington.

This was a little cutie, and inexpensive, too. Just $430 ($3,200 today) would get you this minimalist high-piped single in 1967. Not that the bike was set up for quarter-mile times, but a real lightweight rider with a strong wind at his back might break 20 seconds. What do you expect from a 120?

Kawasaki was the last of the Japanese Big Four to get into the American market, when an American-owned subsidiary appeared in Chicago in 1963 offering a few two-stroke singles. Early ads promoted its connection with the Kawasaki Aircraft Co. Ltd., which was shut down following WWII but started building planes again in 1954. The big K soon saw the error of its ways and set up a Kawasaki-owned operation in Los Angeles in 1965, sensibly giving the Americans involved a good deal of say in what should be built for the U.S. market. 

Two-stroke singles were the rage, cheap and simple, the essential engine having just three moving parts. In the home market Kawasaki knew that winning on Sunday meant selling on Monday, so it worked hard to score points in the racing world of Japan, using rotary valves instead of the old-fashioned piston-port design and applying the same sophistication to its street bikes.

In 1964 Kawasaki showed the C2SS (Street Scrambler) to the home market, an attractive little single intended for the pavement, with a stylish upswept exhaust pipe. It also offered the “trail kit,” an optional bundle of pieces that would turn this into a proper trail bike…of sorts. The kit had an adapter for raising the front fender, a luggage rack and a second rear sprocket mounted next to the stock one. The stock sprocket had 37 teeth and a first-gear ratio of 25:1. In a few minutes time the rider could loosen a few bolts and slide the new 59-tooth sprocket over the old one, giving a ratio of 40:1. Good for going up Mount Fuji!

In 1967 two very similar C2 120 models came to the U.S., the TR (Trail Rider) and the SS, both with street-scrambler styling. Obviously the word was that Americans thought that an upswept exhaust system was cool, and that occasionally leaving the pavement was great fun. The bikes were also given the Road Runner name. Most of us can remember the Road Runner cartoon character, a bird that was always being chased across the desert by Wile E. Coyote. The owner’s manual had an illustration of the bird. Obviously the California fellows thought this would be a great name for the bike, but there is no mention of whether the KMC execs ever asked “Looney Tunes” for permission.

The TR was slightly more off-road oriented, having knobbier tires, a smaller front fender mounted well above the wheel, slightly shortened saddle, bash plate and a big luggage rack — for carrying all that camping gear for the trip into the wilderness. Although the engine was a bit on the small side for anyone wanting to tackle rough, steep terrain.

The cylinder was aluminum with a cast iron liner and was almost square, with a 53mm bore, 52.5mm stroke for an actual 115cc and a compression ratio of 6.7:1. The factory was claiming 11.5 horses at 7,000 rpm, which was a small herd from a small paddock, with one pony for every 10cc; very neat. The advertised torque curve — what there was of it — was pleasantly flat, with 6.5 lb-ft at 2,000 rpm, maxing out at 9.1 lb-ft at 5,000 and dropping off to 7 lb-ft at an over-revved 8,000.

An 18mm Mikuni carburetor was coupled with an automatic lubrication system, called Superlube. The oil tank, easily accessible under the seat, delivered the lubricant (the amount being dependent on the throttle opening) to the front of the rotary valve, where it would mix with the gas. Fouling plugs was a thing pretty much of the past.
Oil-level viewing was on the left side panel.

The engine cases, made of aluminum alloy, held the cylinder up front, gearbox behind. Power ran back to a four-speed transmission of the rotary style, which meant the rider could go all the way around from fourth directly to neutral to first gear, or shift backwards through third and second. The shift lever was heel and toe so downshifting could be done without besmirching the rider’s white bucks. Remember those? 

The chassis did have some off-road pretensions, the photo model having a curious optional brace bolted to the lower legs of the fork and looping over the wheel in front of the fender. It may also have fended off the brush that an enthusiastic rider might get into. The full double-cradle frame was made of mild steel and very strong by the swingarm pivot. The double-cradle aspect extended to a pair of tubes forming the backbone under the tank and then going farther back from the main cradle to support the saddle and the tops of the two shock absorbers. Even with the aforementioned bash plate, there was more than six inches of ground clearance. Suspension was, well, not competitive, but quite adequate for the college-aged fellow who liked having a coed pressed against his back as they cruised the city streets.

Wheels were 18 inches at both ends, with small drum brakes that worked OK considering the speeds the Road Runner went. Forty-five inches between the axles made for a short machine. With 1.7 gallons of gas in the tank, weight was a modest 186 pounds.

The C2 Road Runners went away late in 1969; did “Looney Tunes” have anything to do with that?

Source: RiderMagazine.com

Retrospective: 1971-1977 Healey 1000/4

1971 Healey 1000/4, Prototype #2
1971 Healey 1000/4, Prototype #2. Owner: Thomas Harper, Garden Grove, California.

This has to be one of the least-known motorcycles built since the end of World War II, with an Ariel 4G Mark II Square Four engine bolted into a Roger Slater frame. The photo model is one of the two prototypes, and lacks some of the amenities of the production versions – such as the side panels.

The Healey 1000/4 does not appear to be listed in any of the popular motorcycle encyclopedias, and the only major mention to be found in motorcycle histories are some three pages in Roy Bacon’s “Ariel – The Postwar Models.” I remember reading something about it in an American motorcycle magazine in the early 1970s, but that is about it. After punching a few keys on my computer a dozen different sites come up, with varied information. Any number of articles have probably been written about this bike in British magazines, but apparently those stories are not online.

Starting at the beginning means back to the first 997cc OHV Ariel 4G engine. An earlier, smaller, OHC version existed, but we’ll leave that out. That 4G was around from 1936 to 1959, with Ariel advertising Squariels that last year, along with the new two-strokes.

1971 Healey 1000/4, Prototype #2
1971 Healey 1000/4, Prototype #2

The biggest problem with an air-cooled square four is that the front cylinders do fine, but the rear pair can overheat. Over the quarter-century of the 4G’s production – minus a couple of years due to the war – there were continuous upgrades in the run that totaled some 12,000 bikes. The final Mark II version had an alloy cylinder block with pressed-in barrels, and a lightweight alloy cylinder head with a slightly X-shaped induction manifold feeding all four cylinders via just one SU carburetor. A single transverse camshaft operated the eight valves. Two separate cast aluminum exhaust manifolds ran four separate header pipes, better for cooling. The dry sump engine had eight pints of oil in the reservoir. The oil-bathed primary chain ran back to a dry clutch, and the four-speed gearbox was a Burman GB.

The original purpose of this model was to haul sidecars, so it did not have much in the way of horsepower – around 40 with the 7.2:1 compression – but bags of torque. Sprinting, the British word for drag racing, was popular in the 1950s, and a stock Mark II, being rather hefty, ran in the mid-15s with a speed of around 85 mph. One fellow put a supercharger on a Vincent V-twin and turned 11.3 seconds in 1958, but when somebody tried that with a 4G, it ended with a big BANG! as the cylinders separated from the crankcase.

1971 Healey 1000/4, Prototype #2
1971 Healey 1000/4, Prototype #2

A pair of brothers, George and Tim Healey, liked playing around with the 4Gs, and were sprinting them in the 1960s. Some time after Ariel shut down 4G production, the Healeys began gathering up the unsold stock. They had a shop in Redditch, a few miles south of the Ariel factory, and by 1967 the spares were running out and building replacement parts had become their full-time business, called the Ariel Sq4 Specialists. Then they decided to build their own motorcycle.

The old Square Four had a rather basic, and heavy, cradle frame, with an Ariel fork and Anstey-link plunger suspension at the back. The boys got in touch with Slater, who was making tubular spine-type frames for Vincents under an agreement with Fritz Egli (read about the Egli-Vincent here). Could he make a similar design for the Square Four? Not a problem. Essentially the engine was suspended from the frame, using half a dozen through-bolts. Up front a turnbuckle went from the steering head to the crankcase – just in case there might be a similar BANG!, this would prevent the crankcase from falling to the road. Slater built the prototypes, and production versions were manufactured in Redditch. The oil supply was held in the backbone, with the Healeys putting in an improved lubrication system and bolting an oil cooler on up front.

1971 Healey 1000/4, Prototype #2
1971 Healey 1000/4, Prototype #2

Metal Profile, a noted company that supplied forks to many British motorcycle companies, made the front fork, with tapered roller bearings used at the head. Rear shocks were by Girling, with two-way damping. Brakes were Italian, a powerful alloy drum having a pair of two leading shoes to slow the front wheel, single leading shoe at the back. Spoked wheels were both 18-inchers, with a 3.25 tire on the front, a 4.00 on the rear. The large gas tank on this prototype was a Slater design, but when the bike went into production, a more refined style was used. Instruments were speedo, tach, ammeter, sitting above a seven-inch headlight; a little clock was added to the production dash.

End result was somewhat impressive. Better cooling and lubrication allowed the compression ratio to be upped to 7.5:1. The Healey advertising said the 1000/4 put out 50 horsepower, 10 more than the old Mark II. Potential self-destruction kept radical changes at bay. Wheelbase was 57 inches, seat height 30 inches, and ground clearance at the unprotected sump was 7.5 inches. Most impressive was the weight, 355 pounds dry, 80 pounds less than the Mark II.

1971 Healey 1000/4, Prototype #2
1971 Healey 1000/4, Prototype #2

The first showing of a production bike was at Britain’s big motorcycle show in late 1971, and improvements went on over the next six years, ending with disc brakes and mag wheels, Italian fork and shocks. But the price was high, more than the new-in-1975 Gold Wing, and the company shut down in 1977. Precisely how many production models were built and sold is not known, but 18 seems to be a fair number. Plus nine or 10 kits for people who already had the 4G engine. Collectability? A Healey sold at auction for $40,000 in 2016.

Source: RiderMagazine.com

Retrospective: 1983 Suzuki XN85 Turbo

1983 Suzuki XN85D Turbo
1983 Suzuki XN85D Turbo. Owner: Cliff Schoening, Bremerton, Washington.

It would be entertaining to find out how much this little turbo cost Suzuki, as in development and manufacturing expenses versus sales. Probably it was a heckuva lot. In the very early 1980s turbo-mania was in the air, and Honda and Yamaha were the first out, with the four Japanese manufacturers prone to following one another.

Remember the Universal Japanese Motorcycle? Four cylinders in line, preferably with an overhead camshaft or two. Well, this was the turbo version, and while Honda used the OHV V-twin CX500 for its turbo, the rest were UJMs. In 1981 Suzuki came out with two 650cc UJMs, the chain-driven sporty E and the shaft-drive commuter G. Similar, but different. And Suzuki realized that this two-valve (per cylinder) motor was rapidly becoming obsolete, replaced by the four-valver. So how could it get a little more use from the powerplant? Put it in the Turbo!

1983 Suzuki XN85D Turbo

For the Turbo the engineers took the G’s one-piece forged crankshaft running on plain bearings, instead of the E’s roller bearings. Apparently plain bearings are smoother running. But the three 650s all had those two-valve heads, and twin overhead camshafts, that are the pretty much the same. However, everything on the Turbo’s engine, from connecting rods to cylinder studs, was strengthened.

Amusingly, when looking at the magazine spec sheets for all three bikes one notes that they all have a bore and stroke of 65 x 55.8, but the E and G are said to have 674cc capacity, while the Turbo is 673cc. The wonders of finite numbers. And copy editing.

After Honda and Yamaha began working on their turbos, probably a little corporate spying was going on. I can see the Suzuki marketing types charging into the CEO’s office and demanding that a turbo be built. Maybe somebody ran it past the financial department, maybe not. The XN85 appeared less than a year after the others, but more work had gone into the project, as it was truly a semi-new machine, excepting the reworked motor.

1983 Suzuki XN85D Turbo

As anybody who wrote a Ph.D. thesis on Japanese turbocharged motorcycles knows, that funny XN85 alpha-numeration came from Suzuki’s claim that the turbo 673cc put out 85 horsepower – which it might have, at the crankshaft. Fair enough, but the real world was more interested in what happened at the rear wheel, where a dyno measured 71 horses at 8,000 rpm. And close to 50 lb-ft of torque at 6,500 rpm. Which was quite respectable, and a lightweight rider might sneak into the 11s in the popular quarter-mile drags. The flow of air and a big oil cooler, with more than three quarts of oil in the system, kept the engine heat under control. A new aspect of the cooling system was the forcible spray of oil on the bottom of the pistons, quite useful in keeping these little round things intact.

The IHI (Ishikawajima-Harima Industries) turbo was mounted close to the electronic fuel injectors, which were just beyond the butterfly valve, and the blast of pressurized air would jam that fuel right into those combustion chambers. Where, in the interests of longevity, the compression ratios had been drastically lowered, from the 9.5:1 of the E and G to 7.4:1. The turbo had a non-adjustable pressure gauge and when the boost went over 9.6 psi the waste gate would open. The electronic ignition also had an ability to read boost pressures, retarding timing as the boost mounted. And should that waste gate get stuck, the ignition could deal with that as well. Pretty smart device. When the turbo began to intrude around 5,000 rpm, the lag was noticeable, but less than on the competition.

1983 Suzuki XN85D Turbo

The real trick with this XN85 was not so much the engine, but the chassis. The main frame was a round-tube double-cradle affair, with a triangulated backbone running to the steering head. Up front was a 37mm Kayaba fork, with anti-dive and air-adjustability, providing 5.5 inches of travel. Rake was a conservative 27 degrees, with trail of 3.9 inches. The fork connected to a 16-inch front wheel – which surprised many. Sixteen inches?! That was racing stuff. But even with a pretty lengthy 58.7 inches between axles, the bike handled extremely well. Probably helped along by the Full-Floater rear suspension, using an aluminum swingarm with caged needle bearings, the single Kayaba shock having remote hydraulic preload adjustment. And 4.1 inches of travel.

1983 Suzuki XN85D Turbo

The front wheel was endowed with a pair of 10-inch discs and single-piston calipers, while the rear wheel, a 17-incher, had an 11-inch disc with a single-piston caliper. They sound a bit iffy when compared to today’s GSX-R650 with radially mounted monoblock brakes, but the XN85 is 36 years in the past.

The half fairing looked great, and did a good job of protecting the rider if he wished to exceed the government-mandated 55-mph speed limit. The seat, 30.5 inches above the ground, was comfy, and the flat handlebar allowed for a cheerful 200-mile range – which was about what the five-gallon tank allowed. The fairing did disguise the fact that a modified version of the Ram Air System served to help cool the cylinders; the new design did not look at all like the RAS on the two-stroke triples in the 1970s.

Somehow the Turbo’s curb weight had shot up 70 pounds over the previous E model, weighing in at 550 pounds.

According to numbers found on the Internet, the factory produced only 1,153 of these turbos from 1983 to 1985, of which 300 in the first batch came to the United States. And sold at $4,700. A good reason for that was the third iteration of Suzuki’s normally-aspirated 750 four, which also came out in 1983, now with four valves per cylinder and Full-Floater rear suspension. It put out 72 horsepower at the rear wheel, weighed 30 pounds less than the Turbo and cost a mere $3,500. Talk about trumping your own ace!

Obviously the remaining 853 turbos were sold in motorcycling hotspots like Mongolia and Libya, in case you are looking for a used one.

Source: RiderMagazine.com