Oh I hate you! I'm totally green with envy...... 😁😁😁😭😭😭

know how you feel ,should have got rid of the wife instead.I owned a 78 cbx in the 80s

Me too:(

uguysrnuts what happened exactly in 1980 when it tried to kill you?

SquillyMon I was around bike shops when these came out, as the saying goes, "Don't meet your heroes". Compared to the Suzukis & Hondas of the time, they were just overweight pigs in comparison. The factory horsepower was just 105, but at over 600lbs they just couldn't keep up with the others...the handling sucked, would wallow in the turns, the carbs had to have different jetting as to their location, the "inner" carbs, from the "outer" carbs. the center cylinders tended to overheat, the brakes mediocre. Why do you think they were "repurposed" later as a touring machine? Many examples of the CBX have been heavily modifyed now to address these issues, whole front & rear suspensions & wheels, brakes, all of it changed out or modifyed to fit from newer & better donor machines. The outright design limits of those engines cost multiple thousands easily, trying to achieve power levels that we can now get right off the showroom floor.

flip inheck Yeah, I guess I did note "...the Suzuki & Hondas of the time..." misspoke, substitute Kawasaki... From what I've read of those comparisons of the time, the big six brought up the rear in overall performance. The 82 900F & the 1100F of 83 handled "much" better, the outright mass of the six making it feel clumsy in comparison. The 79-83 Suzuki 1000-1100 getting the highest marks of the whole bunch. I had a 79 Suzuki(cast wheels, triple disc) GS1000 (two-valve), and a little later, the 84 GS1150ES, way lighter than the CBX, better handling, with 119 HP on tap, Fourteen more than the CBX...but the CBX was gone by 83...un-competitive, silly idea.

@@AndieBlack13 I owned a 78 Suzuki GS 1000, a 79 GS1000S and a 1979 CBX. I purchased all of them new. Most of your criticism is unfounded. AT THE TIME, the CBX handled just as well as or better many of its counterparts. An "un-competitive and silly idea"? Really? The CBX was a motorcycle of historic proportions. How many are still around compared to the others of its day? Few. Also, comparing an 84 GS1100ES to a motorcycle made half a decade prior is ridiculous.

@@rlyle5804 If you bothered to read the magazines of the time & the "Shootout comparisons"...the CBX ranked at the bottom. The CBX was an engineering exercise, an idea, a "can we do this?"...Considering the engines mass & more significantly, the polar moment of mass, the ability of the machine as a whole to handle as well as the others was significantly hampered by the width of the engine....there was no way "around that fact". Sure, the CBX is a remarkable feat, but its remarkable traits are also its limiting traits.

​@@AndieBlack13 I will start at the beginning. "I was around bike shops when these came out, as the saying goes, "Don't meet your heroes". Compared to the Suzukis & Hondas of the time, they were just overweight pigs in comparison." You are an incorrect. The CBX compared well to the GS1000, the Yamaha 1100, the Kawasaki 1000 in handling and overall performance. "The factory horsepower was just 105, but at over 600lbs they just couldn't keep up with the others..." Still incorrect. Here are some FACTS Dry weight: Quarter Mile time speed CBX 580 11.4 118 GS 1000 532 11.8 108 Kawi 1000 541 11.9 113 XS1100 603 11.8 114 Not that much of a difference for a STREET bike. "the handling sucked, would wallow in the turns," REALLY? This is from Motorcyclist Magazine March 1980 "The Battle of the Monster Bikes" CBX vs Suzuki 1100 (a MUCH better bike than the 1000 of Kawi or Yamaha) and here are some statements; "The GS1100 has an edge-but not a big one-on winding roads" "Five staffers rode the bikes, and three voiced a preference for the CBX. One chose the GS1100 and one was undecided" "the carbs had to have different jetting as to their location, the "inner" carbs, from the "outer" carbs." So? "the center cylinders tended to overheat" Total BS "the brakes mediocre." Again, total BS "Why do you think they were "repurposed" later as a touring machine? " Clearly the 4 cylinder engines are better, there is no question. But I hate when some sidewalk biker that clearly knows NOTHING about the subject spews garbage. "Many examples of the CBX have been heavily modifyed now to address these issues," NO, they IMPROVED it. MOST motorcycles from that day are either STOCK or heavily MODIFIED. "whole front & rear suspensions & wheels, brakes, all of it changed out or modifyed to fit from newer & better donor machines. " Newer machines are better. you are comparing the CBX with later motorcycles. Not an logical comparison. "The outright design limits of those engines cost multiple thousands easily, trying to achieve power levels that we can NOW get right off the showroom floor."NOW? Get it? How can a FORTY YEAR OLD MOTORCYCLE compete NOW? It cant. Now for the later post. "If you bothered to read the magazines of the time & the "Shootout comparisons"...the CBX ranked at the bottom." Show me the comparisons. FYI I have MANY of the magazines from that day. PS the superbike revolution had just started. Technology was advancing by leaps and bounds. Three years later a LOT changed. "The CBX was an engineering exercise, an idea, a "can we do this?"... That is correct. Honda wanted to show off, and they did. "Considering the engines mass & more significantly, the polar moment of mass, the ability of the machine as a whole to handle as well as the others was significantly hampered by the width of the engine....there was no way "around that fact". The engine width did have an effect, not to the degree you are saying. The CBX handled very will especially when you take into consideration its width.

fidel catsro

Martin Hughes nu

Hondav

Yes I want one!

A nice bike BUT too complex. Why six separate carbs? Three two barrels would make the same power with less tuning necessary. Now it could be made with port fuel injection with more power and fewer problems. Truly, a bike before its time.

Because it was an ill handling beast that wouldn't stop or turn and cost more than many motorcycles that easily outperformed it. In '79 they sold for $4995.OO.

BIG, heavy, and expensive. And if you can't do your own maintenance, you'd have to sell a kidney to afford a valve adjustment and carb overhaul.

Because someone invented corners 😊

Cause it was a bad design. The only thing that it was 6 cylinder. Many other bikes outperformed it, it was bulky, heavy eat a lot of gas wasn't nice looking wasn't fast nor speedy. Even it's cousin the Honda 1000 CR by far outperformed it. Nobody used it in racing cause in performance wasn't good in any category. If they would have tried and made it V block who knows but not the strait 6. All around it was a dull bike !

because 6 parallel cylinder??? big nope, huge waste...

tom thompson a 1975 triumph Bonneville sounds better m8

I had a 1965 CB 350 , and met a guy that used to race them at Amaroo in 67 and he reckons they were one of the faster bikes in its class . Loved going to Amaroo with my late Father in the 1970s and loved watching the Harley's race . loved their noise and loved the sound of the screaming 2 strokes , Dad and I would ride there on his Harley or his 1972 Kawasaki Mach 3 750 . Give absolute anything to go back in time just once to sit back on his shoulders and relive those days : ) PS Have to love an Inline 6 on the old bikes , they were wonderful ,,, Its obvious that 14 ,,, well 70 now,,, people are not mentally equipped to admire beauty and sound

jealousy and racism. oh yeah, some people are so racist and their hatred run so deep that they will actually hate a machine base on origin. if its not built by the hands of their own race, they hate it!

I was just thinking- sounds like a growlier version of the RC166!

you must be too young!!!!!!

Also it was just short of 1000 cc ?..........capacity was 1047cc.

Honda manufactured the CBX (and yes,they ALL came straight from the factory,with inline-6 engines in em)from 1978,through 1982. 82 was their last year of production unfortunately!!!

Factory

ghotichooder89 like a straight six..... obviously

get.google.com/albumarchive/104884464513882441445 its a club of my parrents maybe they can get you one cheap.

Damn that's a whole lot of CBX's in one place! Thanks man! But I am afraid I don't have the money right now for it... Maybe in a far future!

100 percent agreed!!!!!

I mean "for ageing Joe Six Packs" ?

two is bad enough lol

Nah, pretty easy- if you can do a four- you can do a six- they're split/paired up the same way. Tip- use Tally-Ho papers if you don't have a set of vacuum gauges!