Opinions 97 or 03

Looking to get my first VFR, last bike was a '93 CBR1000F, and would like opinions between these two, neither which I have seen in person yet:

1)'97 with 25k miles: gear driven cams, carbs.

2) '03 with 20k miles: fuel injected, 2nd year of the VTEC engine, chain driven cams.

I am not going to be doing any distance touring, day trips and crusing around locally and going up the local mountain (9700').

Opinions.....

Fuel injected will help with large altitude changes and maintaining proper A/F ratio...

Personally, I would get a 6th gen if the available luggage and distance touring capability was desired and the 4th gen if spirited day trip riding was the projected use...

i spent 10 years on my '97 before I moved to an '07. The '97 was more of a SPORT bike, sounded better up front with the gear driven cams (Always getting compliments) and sounded better out back too (D&D), felt much lighter, and even though it was carbureted - I never had any issues from sea level to ten thousand foot passes. 

My '07 is a much better touring bike and I enjoy having the ABS to back up my brain.

I agree with Mailman above, the'97 is very sporty and the'03 is more on the touring side...so I suggest if you want the best of both worlds you split the difference and find a good clean 5th gen '98- 01!  I love my '07 but the '01 is much more fun to ride and a great balance of sport and comfort.

Thanks for the replies here and in Sixth Gen.....probably should have only posted in one area, but wanted to make sure I got input from both Generation riders.

So as stated above, the '97 is more or a sport bike with the '03 a tour'er....is the sitting position alot different between the two?  I am 6'1" if that makes any difference.

Thanks for the replies....going to check them both out on 3/6.  Will let you guys know which I end-up with.

Oh and there happens to be a '00 for sale, but I just do not like the yellow wheels.   I know...could always change that.

So as stated above, the '97 is more or a sport bike with the '03 a tour'er....is the sitting position alot different between the two?  I am 6'1" if that makes any difference.

I've done many multi-state tours on both and I think I was equally comfy on both gens. I tried a Corbin seat on my '97 and that didn't last 3 months with me. I went back to stock. I'm 6'-0" and 185#. My wife prefers the seat as a passenger on the '07 if that has any bearing on your choice.

Well....was not able to go look at either bike like I planned.  Do not know if both will be available when I can make the trip (2hrs away).

The '97 owner is asking $3200 for it with soft luggage and two seats.

The '03 owner is asking $4000 with no extras, has non -stock muffler and I think a Zero Gravity windscreen.

There is also a '96 with 30k miles, pretty much stock, asking $2575.  However it is also 2.5 hrs away.

Just nothing for sale locally except an '02 Blackbird for $5000....that is too much power!!!

Not knowing the mileage on the 97 I would still say the price is a bit high. I have two 95's with 26k and 17 k and got them for 22 and 17 hundred.

The 2000 near you should not have yellow wheels...can be easily changed to a graphite from an 07 or the correct black.

If I had to own a 6th gen it would be '06 or newer with the revised ECM and if you are commuting on it look for ABS. THere is a nice 6 G in the classifieds here located in San Jose with bags.

I love the 4th gen but the 5th gen is equally great. Most magazine articles of the day raved about they were sure that Honda could not improve on a 4th gen...until they rode the 98 models.

I have owned them all from the 83  bought new in Japan...my go to bike is a 5th gen.

My Y2K came with silver/grey looking rims when I bought it used, not polished or stripped, painted regular rim silverish color... was this not a color combination when new?

98-2001 all had gloss black.

In 1998 I bought a '98 rear wheel for my 1996. 

It was the same wheel as what was on the 2000 when I bought it.

I still have both wheels. Although the 1996 was destroyed by stupidity.

The wheel lives on attached to my current 1996.

I don't think they started mixing up colors until the sixth gen came out.

That is when I lost interest in the newer VFRs.

For $3200, the 4th gen should be under 50k and be in really good condition (no plastic or paint damage).

4th gen all the way if it was me, After the 4th gen, things just kinda took a left turn with the VFR, I was raring to change out me 4th with the 5th when it came out, but styling on the 5th just did not click with me at all. it just looked kinda thick and bloated looking to me, I thiought the 6th would do it, but then we lost gear driven cams with it plus VTEC was always a quesitionable item.

Sure the 5th and 6th gen bikes were more modern and had a lot of traits that could be considered as real improvements to the 4th,........but those were just never enough to pull me away from my 95...... When the 7th came out, I just totally gave up on my personal VFR dreams and figure I'll keep my 4th for good and maybe just compliment it with another bike in the future.

JMO's

Well....went and looked at the '97 and it was in better shape than the pictures showed.  Ran sikly smooth, saw no oil stains from what I could see on the engine, everything just looked really good.  Had just over 24k miles on it.  Owner showed me the soft luggage: magnetic tank bag, saddlebags, bag that fit over the rear backrest of the Corbin gunfighter seat.  He also had a rack that went onto the back, never installed it as notches were required to be cut into the rear fairings, and lastly had the original clear windshield.  Even had a tank bra....that we put on.

I could not pass it up....so I took it all home.  It was a 105 mile ride home, all interstate highway, ran an indicated 80-85 all the way, no problems of any kind.  Was a very nice comfortable ride...a bit boring, but oh well.

I did not look at the '96 or the '03.  The '96 was another 30 minutes further away and I decided that I did not want the '03 VTEC.

So add me to the list of 4th Generation owners.

Well....went and looked at the '97 and it was in better shape than the pictures showed.  Ran sikly smooth, saw no oil stains from what I could see on the engine, everything just looked really good.  Had just over 24k miles on it.  Owner showed me the soft luggage: magnetic tank bag, saddlebags, bag that fit over the rear backrest of the Corbin gunfighter seat.  He also had a rack that went onto the back, never installed it as notches were required to be cut into the rear fairings, and lastly had the original clear windshield.  Even had a tank bra....that we put on.

I could not pass it up....so I took it all home.  It was a 105 mile ride home, all interstate highway, ran an indicated 80-85 all the way, no problems of any kind.  Was a very nice comfortable ride...a bit boring, but oh well.

I did not look at the '96 or the '03.  The '96 was another 30 minutes further away and I decided that I did not want the '03 VTEC.

So add me to the list of 4th Generation owners.

Woohooo! Congrats!

Don't even THINK about mounting that rack, though. Damaging good plastic on any pre-'98 VFR would be unforgivable.

Cheers,

Glenn

NACA's are the best!!!

Congratulations and welcome to the club :-)

what and where would you have to cut into the rear cowling to fit a luggage rack?  Never heard of that before.

If the cut is minor/in an area you donot see anyway/done properly, I see no reason NOT to cut.

So the parts are not being made, so what?  It is a bike, not a trophy wife... :goofy:

See how you like touring with the soft bags, but if you want to go for the hard bags, go for it! 

Next? with the bike warmed up, do the measurement checks as described in the workshop manual (it is in the download section) for the RR and the altenator.

Post the results.

The RR on my '97 lasted some 50,000miles before she packed in. Put in a MOSFET one through Joshua from wiremybike.com (aka Tightwad here on VFRD)

Take the battery to s car/bike garage for a load test.

Fit a small voltmeter/monitor and you are good to go!

But before we forget..................

:worthlesswithoutpics:

go for the 96!!!!!!!!!  :cheerleader:    :cool:    :wheel:    :wub:    

I know...pictures....have not taken any yet and also need to read-up on how to post in this forum...but will do both very soon.

I took a look at this rack that the PO gave me...it is a GIVI art. 242F...shows it is for a VFR 750 F '94.  Within the instructions it states to "drill the plastic part to allow the anchorage of support...." 

Anyone know more about this?

More about the rack I got with the bike: it is the GIVI Monorack.

And a quick question; what is the octane requirement for my '97?  No owners manual, just service manual and have not been able to find the fuel requirement.

Thanks,

More about the rack I got with the bike: it is the GIVI Monorack.

And a quick question; what is the octane requirement for my '97?  No owners manual, just service manual and have not been able to find the fuel requirement.

Thanks,

No lower than 92.

And a quick question; what is the octane requirement for my '97?  No owners manual, just service manual and have not been able to find the fuel requirement.

Thanks,

 in america, its regular unleaded  87.. more octain doesnt do anything at all in these bikes.. 

The 4th gen VFR's do not have high enough compression to require 92 "octane" gas. I don't want to open the can of worms that is the octane discussion that has been discussed time and time again very thoroughly on here. Use the lowest octance gas local to you that does not cause your bike to ping. My 99 5th gen happily took 89 octane.

For example, the 4th & 5th gen VFR had a compression ratio of 10.5:1. The Hayabusa and ZX-14 however have a ratio of 12.3:1. That is why they require "premium" gas. That misnomer is nothing more than a marketing ploy. "Premium" burns no cleaner nor provides more energy than regular. It merely ignites later/slower than regular gas. So when an engine requires higher octane and gets regular, the fuel ignites before the piston is at the top of the cylinder causes the noise we call ping.

Also take into consideration that unless there are separate hoses for each grade of gasoline, you are getting anywhere from 1/3 gallon to a gallon of whatever the person before you had.  If you insist on getting premium to "treat" your bike, all you are doing is throwing money at the oil companies. Not trying to come across as a dick or know-it-all, just trying to save us all some money!

Fourth gen runs very well on regular, at least mine has for the past 87,000 miles....I had a wingrack set up for mine, never used it, but in fitting it there was no need to drill anywhere, I would love to see the instructions.

Hmm...In my country, the lowest octane gas I can buy is 95, permium is from 99 to 101.

For example, the 4th & 5th gen VFR had a compression ratio of 10.5:1. 

According to my Dutch Honda owners manual (also spanish and italian so no point in scanning it in its entirety..) the compresseion is 11,0:1

still not enough to warrant high octane.

In fact I tried some 102 octane+no ethanol last year and could not feel any major difference in performance. Maybe just a tad. Or maybe that was just me justifying the higher price.  :goofy:

[image: goodness_zpsa01370ab.jpg]

I filled up again for the winter stop, as not to have any ethanol "standing still".

Bringing her out her winter sleep though, there was not much difference in 1st time starting versus the previous 16 years...

YMMV

Marc87 - that brings up an excellent point. There really isn't a true octane rating anymore. Hell, even in the US the same advertised rating in the Northwest of the country can be a different fuel in the Southwest of the country. There is an excellent post on here about it, might even be one of my threads... I look in a minute.

anyways, what I am getting at is that what is low compression octane fuel here in the middle of the US is going different than other countries. I had no clue that it would a different number scale like what you described!

For example, the 4th & 5th gen VFR had a compression ratio of 10.5:1. 

According to my Dutch Honda owners manual (also spanish and italian so no point in scanning it in its entirety..) the compresseion is 11,0:1

still not enough to warrant high octane.

Damn, I was referencing another thread. I should have double checked that. Thanks for keeping me honest!

Ah, I found where I linked to the best answer to the octane question was:

http://www.vfrdiscus...grade/?p=874517

But it looks as though the post by BSL is gone. Archived maybe? It was such a great post it should have been stickied.

There are 2 different formulas for calculating octane ratings. The result is that the 95 rated fuel in Europe is about the same as our 87-89 octane rated fuel.

To the OP, buy whatever octane fuel you can get to get ethanol free gas. If I had to burn gas with ethanol I'd listen very carefully if using 87 octane. Up here some gas stations that sell ethanol tainted gasoline exclusively sell the premium rated at 94 octane as its performance is equal to 91-92 octane pure gasoline.

Cheers,

Glenn

To the OP, buy whatever octane fuel you can get to get ethanol free gas. 

Definitely have to agree with this.

At my first fill-up I put the mid-grade in which showed to be 89 octane.  Still on this tank, but air temps are getting warmer here and will continue to get warmer.  The ethanol gets added during the warmer months....no way around it....state law....so will likely need to run 91 during that time.

On a side note: finally after two weeks of ownership I was able to take bike out for a ride.....love it....what a pleasure it is to ride.  Seems to be quite nimble compared to my last bike ('93 Honda CBR1000F)....not as much "punch" but sure is a joy to ride!  Changed the grips from stock to a set of PowerGrips, dual compond and also added a seat cowl.

I need to check the speedo/odometer for accuracy though.....seems to be on the high side....????

For the record, ethanol has a lower energy density than 100% gasoline that is why you can have a decrease in mileage & performance; however, ethanol has a higher octane value than 100% gasoline and is added to premium fuels too... and often is used to raise the octane value of a given gasoline blend.

Buying premium gas will not reduce the impact of ethanol unless you are specifically buying ethanol free premium... which is often sold in areas with recreational boating so boat owners can fill up their trailered boats...

My apologies to the OP for the gas vs ethanol thread jack...

For the record, ethanol has a lower energy density than 100% gasoline that is why you can have a decrease in mileage & performance; however, ethanol has a higher octane value than 100% gasoline and is added to premium fuels too... and often is used to raise the octane value of a given gasoline blend.

Buying premium gas will not reduce the impact of ethanol unless you are specifically buying ethanol free premium... which is often sold in areas with recreational boating so boat owners can fill up their trailered boats...

My apologies to the OP for the gas vs ethanol thread jack...

True enough. Around here only Husky and Mohawk have ethanol in all grades of fuel. Not sure about the small privateers like Supersave. Everybody else has 3 grades (Chevron has 4) with 87 octane containing 10% ethanol and 91 octane containing no ethanol. They blend the two to make the mid-grade 89 octane with 5% ethanol.