This article originally appeared in "Cycle World" magazine July, 1978

 

Not long ago, straddling a 750cc power plant made you King of the Street and Baron of the Byways.  Whether it was the then new Honda Four, the BSA and Triumph Triples or the big Norton Twins, you owned one of the hairiest snorters of the day.  But when the Z-1 exploded onto the scene, all of this changed, ushering in the current barrage of sub-12-sec. thousands.  The 750cc displacement slot was too convenient an integer in most manufacturers’ line-ups to drop, but the bikes lost a substantial chunk of their collective identity.  The new frenzy generators had bigger engines.  Even Honda, which had for some time devoted its biggest displacement bike to the touring market while retaining a 750 as its top sports model, finally yielded.  The result was the CBX Six, wildest rocket in a year of rockets.

  

Generally speaking, the major manufacturers are responding to the suddenly vague position of their 750 bikes by leaning their marketing approach toward touring.  Suzuki is particularly sensitive to the upstaging job its dynamite GS1000 has done to the GS750, former tiger of the line-up. Honda continues its 750 sports bike, the F, but for two years has been supplying a small but persistent market with its 2-speed automatic version of the 750. A high percentage of the automatics wind up hauling baggage and other gear in the wide-open spaces.  Yamaha’s XS750 shafty was a strong touring candidate when it was first introduced in 1976, and at BMW, where touring is the basic language spoken, the response was to make the popular 750 into an 800.

  

What we have here is a contrasting of these various approaches to 750cc touring.  A standard dohc Four with chain drive.  Another dohc Four transmitting power to its chain drive through a torque converter.  A shaft-drive Triple.  And a shaft-drive boxer Twin.  Because these bikes are all so different, holding only engine displacement in common (and we’ve even fudged on that), we aren’t taking the standard shootout approach. It wouldn’t be fair to some of the bikes involved and would wind up being largely reflective of individual tastes rather than demonstrably differing versions of the same thing. Where direct comparison is appropriate ride, handling, etc.-we make comparisons.  But generally we’re content to make one question the bottom line for the test:  At the end of the second day of riding, which bike were you willing to kill for?

  

The first day’s test route ran from San Juan Capistrano east through the Santa Ana mountains to Lake Elsinore, south to Warner Springs, then east again into the Anza-Borrego desert and our overnight destination, Salton City.  Heading home-ward again, we bore north toward Indio, but turned eastward short of there, at Mecca, one of those places they obviously named without benefit of a committee. The route out of town serpentined through miles of shallow rock canyon then looped up through Joshua Tree National Monument.  Intermittent downpours scattered the group after a final gas stop at Joshua Tree, just northwest of the monument, but the lead elements of the entourage dropped down through Beaumont and Hemet to conclude the ride on the Ortega Highway, State 74, which winds up at San Juan Capistrano.

  

This totals only about 345 miles, but each of the test bikes went substantially farther as a result of the demands of photography (ride through that corner again, willya? and try to get it leaned over, this time), a little after-dark foray and general high spirits. The total comes to something like 500 miles per bike, give or take 25. And even though this total is a mere warm-up for someone like Herb Gunnison or Roger Hull, it was nevertheless sufficient to produce some minor attrition.  The Suzuki disgraced itself by running out of gas, which required some five or six miles of pushing. Later, the tach cable came adrift. Then the Honda’s right rear shock came undone at the top-mounting eye during a flat-out run on a straight but bumpy stretch of lonely desert highway.  Not the fault of Honda. The bike arrived with this particular union Loctited, but we’d had ours apart for suspension dyno testing and no stickum was included in the reassembly.  But tiny maladies such as the foregoing gave us at least some hint of the sort of maintenance that comes with the territory in touring.

  

Further, our 500 miles included almost every conceivable road condition, a broad temperature range and rather more weather than we’d bargained for.  Everyone emerged with a fairly solid notion of what each bike could do under a fairly comprehensive variety of conditions. Given the number of rider styles and tastes involved, we think it makes for a fair test. It also lends particular emphasis to the “everybody’s favorite” title, which will be announced presently.  

But first, let us savor the cast of characters.

 

HONDA 750A

 

The problem with putting a bunch of sports and blitz touring riders on a solidly executed bike like the Honda 750 Automatic is you get feedback like, “The automatic is a fine device but not needed by me,” and “Reminds me of a ‘51 Buick Dynaflow,” and “Needs more gears.”  That’s the idea, men:  you sit down and handle the piloting with one hand while the other hand manages the map or the CB or harmonica or whatever.  As we were marshaling up bikes for our little excursion, a process that covered a couple of weeks, the Honda became a good around town companion since one could ride it and simultaneously clutch a family-sized bag of tacos and shakes. But fussless operation and a spare hand were largely lost on this group.  It was difficult for many of us to appreciate this machine on its merits be-cause its merits are present at the expense of equipment many of us hold dear:  clutches and standard gearboxes.

  

Try as one might, there is no escaping the fact that the mere act of churning oil around inside a torque converter short-stops a substantial amount of horsepower that would get to the rear wheel in a conventional drive train.  In fact, the 750A’s sluggish low-speed response and its congenital cold-bloodedness almost made us forget the virtues of this well established engine, which, once warm, operated as quietly and efficiently as all the other Honda Fours we’ve known.

  

And once it got going at highway cruising speeds. The auto-magic, as some of the impious came to call it, was able to jog along quite respectably.  The torque converter takes its biggest bite out of the low end, and the 750A performs quite satisfactorily in the 40-60 and 50-70 passing speed department.  At the top end, it will pull an indicated 105-106 mph, which is certainly more than enough.  Just ask your friendly local highway patrolman. And if the 750A’s quarter-mile times are substantially behind the other bikes in the test foursome, remember they’re still well ahead of most of today’s automobiles.  It’s all relative.

  

Brakes are an important part of the performance picture, and the 750A scored surprisingly well in this category:  surprisingly because its disc/drum combination and relatively high weight didn’t make this look like a promising point going in.  The Yamaha (triple discs) and Suzuki (discs at both ends) look like better stoppers on paper, but the Honda’s distances are competitive and overall control is good.  The rear drum, predictable, would fade under repeated hard use but the front refused to lose an inch of stopping power no matter how hard or how often it was squeezed.  This was dramatically underscored when the pack was turned loose to blitz the long, winding downhill into Borrego Springs as the Honda was able to reel in and then pass the BMW (also a disc/drum setup), chiefly on the tenacity of that front brake.  The surprised BMW pilot at that time reported later that the Beemer’s drilled disc required steadily increasing lever effort as the chase progressed. 

 

Handling also contributed to the  Honda’s success in that downhill play race.  Although it doesn’t have the cornering clearance of the other bikes, thanks to its chopperish looks and 17-in. rear wheel, it is nevertheless remarkably steady and wobble free in all sorts of cornering conditions.  This machine is a trifle too portly to be called frisky, but it certainly behaves predictably, which is about all its regular customers probably ever demand of it.

  

On the other hand, the consensus was it doesn’t ride as well as a touring machine should. “Harsh” was one summation.  Good-sized bumps - and we found many of these - sent a good-sized jolt through to the rider.  The two-plane seat seemed to contribute to this soft spot in the bike’s cruising character.  It’s the same one we carped about in our June 1977 750A test, a rather dictatorial thing to sit upon:  It tells you where to sit on the bike and no slouching, either.  The cushion material is fine, although long before you begin being aware of sensations from your nether regions you’ll be conscious of complaints from your right wrist, which will soon tire in its struggle against a powerful and implacable throttle return spring.  The slightly pulled back bars are allied with the return spring and the saddle in a conspiracy to keep you bolt upright and quickly arm-weary.  It is an all-too-successful conspiracy.

  

On the plus side, there’s a nice fat tank to hug with your knees and the passenger seat  rates as very good with our favorite seat-tester.  She gave special praise to the raised lip at the end of the seat, which made her feel secure.  Important to have your riding partner feel secure when the destination is more than, say, a hundred miles down the road.  

The 750A’s instrumentation isn’t readily comparable with the other three bikes.  There’s no tach.  The right-hand pod contains gear indicator lights (neutral, first and second) and a fuel gauge, the only bike in the quartet to have one.  It was a good thing to have, since the Honda’s good 46.1 mpg cruising mileage can dip as low as the early 30s when you’re trying to get the bike to go quickly. 

 

The controls are fine, what there are of them (everyone found themselves reaching reflexively for the absent clutch lever at least once or twice).  The turn signal is set up nicely for giving one or two blips to indicate lane changes and the like, although the repeater beeper sets up a raucous bleating, and the choke has the handiest location of any of the bikes.  

The horn makes a good lusty squawk, and the signal lamps double as running lamps, permanently on, as is the headlamp.  

Although there was little drooling done over the 750A’s cruiser styling, the overall quality of the bike’s root beer paint and general finish drew praise from all hands.  

 

All things considered, the 750A is a successfully engineered motorcycle concept that’s bound to appeal to a limited audience.  We didn’t happen to have anyone really representative of that audience in our squadron of heroes, so the bike got put through some paces it wasn’t really designed for and stood up well.  The 2-speed automatic works smoothly and the bike will go faster than we expected.  It should ride smoother than it does, the throttle return spring should be emasculated and the bars . . . well, the bars are part of the bike’s style.  It’s a successful style, and we don’t knock it.  But when it came time to pick the bike you were ready to kill for, it became readily apparent that the Honda was well clear of the impending struggle. 

 

YAMAHA XS750E

 

Here’s a bike that’s been popular around CYCLE WORLD ever since its introduction two years ago.  The industry’s only shaft-drive Triple is putting out a bit more horsepower than last year, a response to the potent presence of the Suzuki 750 as much as anything, and cosmetics have had some very thoughtful and successful attention, but it’s basically the same machine as it was in 1976.  Which is to say a good one.  But one which also draws mixed reviews from a mixed bag of street riders.

  

Some riders like the gruff-but-well-meaning beat of the Triple, some find it too intrusive.  Some like the throttle response, some find it a finicky barrier to smooth operation of the bike. Some like the responses of the shaft drive, some find them-selves thinking of the mating dance of the wallaby. 

 

One of the universal plaudits was the Triple’s ability to produce power in the lower reaches of its rev band.  Even coming out of a turn one gear too high and 2000 -rpm too low the Yammie will haul away manfully.  It’s a sub-13-sec. bike this year, thanks to changes in gearing, carburetion, cams and combustion chamber shape, and if the Triple’s pulses seem like mere vibration to some they feel like a motorcycle engine reminding you pleasantly of its presence to others.  Ditto the Triple’s exhaust note, which does seem to produce a more generally positive response.

  

The Yamaha starts readily (full choke, no throttle), warms up quickly and has the feel of bulletproof goods about it.  Its fuel efficiency ranged up to 49.5 mpg, and never went below 37, good marks considering the nature of some of the duty.

    

The brakes accumulated more good marks, and were generally acknowledged to be the best in the test.  There was some dive, a function of the power of the dual discs up front and the rather soft rate of the fork springs, and one of the front rotors began to squeal slightly, but the Yamaha’s brakes are generally formidable.  

The 5-speed gearbox and shaft drive fall short of these other elements.  The transmission operates smoothly enough, although there was some mention of the occasional false neutral between fourth and fifth.  But the gearing in the last three cogs is too low.  It can be argued that the lower gearing makes the task of hauling around a fairing and luggage possible with no other changes to the bike, but we found the gearing low even on the full-dress version of the bike tested for our March issue. 

 

The Yamaha’s handling qualities were the greatest source of criticism by our testers.  The ride seemed to please all hands, although the rear shocks were a bit harsh for some, but the bike’s performance in hard cornering was the biggest source of misgivings.  Manney remarked that it felt as though it was “hinged in the middle,” and while this may have been excessively unkind it is fair to say that making the Yamaha go fast through turns, particularly turns with irregular surfaces, is something to be done carefully.  Like most shafties, the XS750E doesn’t like sharp throttle modulations in mid-turn, but with this bike’s sensitive throttle it’s something that’s easy to fall into.  Aside from this, the Yamaha corners reasonably well on smooth surfaces, which argues against frame flex.  The cast wheels lend rigidity, but it may be that the too-soft forks and ribbed front tire contribute to the feeling of uncertainty.

  

The Yamaha’s topside layout was agreeable to all, and its special touches drew high praise. The seat is comfortable fore and aft, although its shape at the front becomes irritating when you’re trying to go fast; there’s a bit of extra padding just behind the tank, and this becomes uncomfortable if you’re trying to sit forward in tight going.  Aside from this, however, the seat allows the rider to move about quite freely. None of our crew particularly liked the bars, but no one actually disliked them, either.  Grips are OK, footpegs are a nice height and well designed to help isolate the rider from vibrations and the tank is well suited to knee hugging.

  

Yamaha’s excellent self-canceling turn signals head a list of small touches that help make this bike one of the most civilized of the quartet.  Others are dual bulbs in the taillamp; an automatic switch-over feature in the headlamp, that lights one filament if the other burns out; and a headlamp switch that allows you to keep the light from going on until the engine is actually running.  This is a nice compromise with lights-on laws, as it allows the rider to preserve his battery power for cranking. Aside from a warning light that lets you know when you’re down to one head-lamp filament, the instrumentation, by Nippon Seiki, is fairly standard and of good quality.  Our bottom line on tool kits for touring bikes is whether they’ll handle an emergency tire change or not.  All the kits pass, but the Yamaha’s kit is exceptionally comprehensive.

  

Cosmetics are a strong part of any Yamaha’s appeal, and this machine winds up being the prettiest face in our collection.  The highlighted black engine, the black control levers, the handsome cast wheels, the rich red paint, the tasteful striping-all are tastefully integrated into a package that’s sure to turn heads wherever it goes.

  

The XS750 is a solid bike with much to offer the tourer.  It has plenty of grunt at the low end, its ride and handling are good, its engine has character to accompany its more functional virtues, it stops instantly and looks good besides. But when the final tally was taken, no one seemed quite willing to risk homicide to possess it. 

 

SUZUKI GS750

 

The Suzuki, predictably, wound up rated as the best all-around handler and quickest machine in the test group.  When there was a spare moment for a quick dash around the next set of bends and back, the Suzuki was always one of those dashing off to do it (we also had a brace of Kawasakis in the Diversion Detachment accompanying the main test group). 

 

The GS750’s powerplant is very much in the mold of all Japanese Fours:  smooth, quiet, reliable and powerful.  Our bike was tuned for top-end performance, at the expense of the mid-range.  Using the higher rev ranges, it was definitely the quickest of the four bikes in drag races.  But in top gear roll-on contests from 60 mph the Suzook needed to get up steam before it could reel in either the BMW or the Yamaha.  The first GS750 we tested (January, 1977) also tended toward camminess, coming on strong at about 6000 rpm.  This one doesn’t really start to cook until about 6500 rpm, which is when it becomes the tiger of the group.

  

The 5-speed gearbox is well matched to the bike’s rather narrow powerband and was generally agreeable to most of the riders.  Braking also graded out strong, although no one felt moved to elaborate much beyond excellent.  The disc/disc layout struck us all as being strong, progressive, manageable and generally in keeping with the bike’s sporting character.

  

Most of this character is communicated by the chassis and suspension, which scores as the best go-fast combination in the foursome.  The Suzook is tightly strung at both ends, but compliance is good and the bike inspires much of the same sense of confidence generated by its bigger brother, the GS1000.  It lacks the air forks and adjustable rear shock rebound damping that distinguish the bigger machine, but is still as positive and precise as anything in its class. No one could detect even a hint of flex, and the Suzuki also showed remark-able stability and sure-footedness in wet going.

  

Considered from a touring point of view, the athletic suspension and rather firm seat suggest the possibility of sore buns.  It’s one thing to climb around on this piece while smoking your favorite back road, quite another to sit down and point it toward Kansas City.  (Kansas Citians may point their bikes to alternative destinations.  We suggest Walla Walla.)  The wheelbarrow bars drew a grudging OK from most riders, and the general pegs-seat-bars relationship seemed serviceable to all.  Grips are good, although most riders complained about excessive throttle travel and too much return spring.  Instrumentation, jazzed up by a digital gear indicator and aircraft style red back-lighting for good night legibility, was the hit of the parade. 

 

Fuel economy was a particularly weak point.  On our first tank of gas, the Suzuki ran out completely with only 146 miles on the trip counter, 20 of them on reserve.  The bike has a 4.8 gal. Tank, which figures out to just over 30 mpg.  This figure tells you something about what we’d been doing for many of those 146 miles, but it’s still indifferent.  Throughout the test the Suzook never did better than 37.5 mpg. 

 

The problem, of course, is that the Suzuki is a sports bike, and it invites frolic.  Most of the riders gave it high marks for handling (with a small minus for the non-folding footpegs), and all agreed it was the best street bike/canyon marauder in the line-up.  But what we were after here was the best blending of long-legged motorcycle comfort we could achieve; the bike you wanted cradling your tired old buns on the run home; the good friend that would nurse you along in uncomplaining style after responding to more boyish whims earlier in the day.

 

BMW R80/7

 

BMW, of course, would put it much more simply.  We can practically hear them saying it:  What you are after here, boys, is a BMW.  And so it proved to be.  

There was some carping about its cost compared to the other bikes.  One of the desert rats said he’d like to have it so he could sell it and buy two Maicos.  We noticed, however, it was hard to pry him off either of the BMWs in the entourage.

  

What is it that’s so seductive about boxer Twins, anyway? There was no commonly held theory in our group, but everyone found the Beemer’s pulsations pleasant, so long as the engine was operating above 2900 rpm.  This recently added model (first tested in CYCLE WORLD in our January issue) may be the right balance between the big snort Beemers and the earnest but uninspiring R60s, just as it used to be almost the right balance when the R80 was the R75.  Although the 1000cc BMW that came along for the ride was popular with all hands, the R80 was generally acknowledged to be a much smoother engine to live with.  It’s not a particularly inspiring piece to manage around town-quickness isn’t really part of its act-but on the open road it lopes along happily, the engine loafing at 3000 rpm or so to produce highway speeds.

  

Torque is plentiful, as evidenced by the R80’s ability to out-pull all three of its rivals in top gear roll-ons from 60 mph, and the gear ratios augment the broad powerband perfectly.  The close ratio drop from fifth to fourth is just right for passing situations, while the other cogs, wider spaced, are well chosen to get you up to speed.  

 

About the only complaint lodged against this engine was its roughness when called upon to pull hard below 2900 rpm, something neither of the two Beemers on the tour cared to do.  Gas mileage was unspectacular but consistent, ranging from 38.9 mpg on the opening leg of the trip to not quite 41.  All riders were conscious of the Twin’s power pulses, but when the engine was operating in its powerband these seemed to be a source of pleasure. 

 

The BMW slide rule guys are good at gear ratios but getting all the gears to work in harmony apparently still baffles them.  Even though shifting has been improved on ‘78 models by re-engineering the shift lever for a pivot point at the footpeg, there are still glitches.  One of these is the familiar clunk that signals engagement in the lower gears.  The other is an irritating lag in the shift from fourth to fifth.  These phenomena were reported by all riders on both BMWs, and this, combined with our experience with other Beemers, compels us to view them as characteristic shortcomings.  Leaving the smooth-pulling clutch out of the shifting process helped the 4-5 shift, but only seemed to aggravate the 1-2, 2-3 shifts.  Instead of a mere clunk it became clunk-and-lurch.  Practice helps to minimize these problems, but you’d think they’d be able to eliminate them at the factory after some 55 years of trying.

 

The R80 got good-but not great-marks on its brakes, which don’t seem to be quite as potent as those supplied with the Yamaha and Suzuki.  The rear drum showed the failing of its breed-fade-in heavy going, but made up for this to some extent with excellent control.  The front disc, drilled for better wet weather performance and better cooling, had good power but seemed to require substantially more lever effort under repeated hard use.  The effort was fairly easy to supply, though, thanks to the first-rate Magura dogleg control lever. 

 

BMW handling is another thing that requires a certain amount of practice to master, and as the tout progressed we had no shortage of volunteers.  The company has made its reputation by producing machines with wonderfully compliant, long travel suspensions, and our R80 was an excellent representative of the family on this score.  But getting about quickly on a BMW seems to require a certain amount of advance planning before one is actually embroiled with a curve.  This means getting most of the braking done ahead of time to give the bike a chance to recover from its fairly pronounced (under hard braking) front end dive and stabilizing the throttle to match it to the line.  After a little practice, most riders found they could trail either brake a bit if need be and roll the throttle on as necessary.  But sudden braking or sudden throttle roll-off in mid-turn can produce scary results as the bike drops down on its suspension.  These are a couple of the trade-offs for long travel and shaft drive, however, and are not all that difficult to adjust to.  We did find that the BMW’s supple suspension and Continental tires made it the most confidence-inspiring bike on the rough paving we encountered in Joshua Tree National Monument.  Straight ahead the R80 tracks like a Comanche scout and it wound up as champ in ignoring rain grooves. 

 

The Beemer’s long-travel suspension is designed to deliver long haul comfort, and does so, much more than the other bikes.  It’s still in a league of its own on this score.  But we’re not so ecstatic about the saddle, which has an agreeable-albeit limiting-shape but seems rather firm.  Ditto the passenger’s portion:  “Too hard,” she said.  

The shape and size of the bars was the most agreeable of the four offerings, and the Magura grips, though hard, were also well received.  All riders liked the BMW’s pegs-seat-bars relationship, even though one guy managed to kick the wire retainer loose from the right side carburetor float bowl.  Even though the rider’s toes are tucked in right under the Bings on all Beemers, we’ve never heard of this happening before and don’t really regard it as a common hazard of ownership.

  

For a bike as well equipped-and expensive-as this one, the sidestand rates as dumb.  It’s one of those automatic return numbers, touchy to engage and so close to vertical as to be useless most of the time.  It’s a treacherous piece of equipment better left out of service entirely.  The center-stand is better and easy to use, but could use a broader base. The bike also got bad marks for the awkward location of the ignition switch on the side of the head-lamp, and for the way the passenger foot-pegs force the passenger to rest her heels on the mufflers, where they do a slow broil that leaves big smudges. 

 

These are all curiously weak touches in a bike that abounds with unique features, such as: a tire pump, tucked away under the seat; the most comprehensive tool kit of the test-not only will it handle the tire change, it’s the only one to include a patching kit; a cable lock that stows inside the top frame tube: a quartz-halogen headlamp (Bosch) as standard equipment.  The turn signals, which feature an automatic shut-off for the beeper when the bike is in neutral or the clutch is disengaged, scored a close second behind the Yamaha setup, and the instrumentation, updated this year with light green numerals and an electric tach, are quality items.  

 

Quality is the key. It shows in the little touches, in the handsome blue finish and in the bike’s rugged running gear.  The BMW was neither the fastest bike in the test, nor was it the best stopper, nor was it the best high-speed handler.  And many of the riders are prepared to argue that it doesn’t offer the best value.  Which didn’t keep the bike from being the unanimous “kill for” choice.  The other machines offer individual touches that are superior.  But for the serious 750 tourer, the BMW is still clearly the best package.

 

Bike Comparison Chart