mokkybear54 September 27, 2011 08:51 AM The 700 cc engine\'s fuel economy isn\'t hugely remarkable - it\'s less than 10% better than what I get from my F800ST, which is ridden in a moderately vigorous fashion, and does without the complexities of variable valve timing. Nevertheless, the Honda is an interesting bike for what it sets out to be. James Davis September 27, 2011 10:04 AM I get 62mpg in my 1000cc CAR. How is this good for a motorbike? rdinning September 27, 2011 12:50 PM My Burgman 650 Exec typically gives me between 5.0 and 6.0 L/100 km depending on riding speed. This sounds like my next bike if it is even half as good as it sounds.Going into that equation is the fact that the Honda dealer is 3 km away while the Suzuki dealer, due to many shops going out of business, is now 35 km away. RXTR September 27, 2011 02:00 PM My 1986 Honda 500 Interceptor gets around 45 mpg in town, and I thought that was pretty good - I am talking real mileage as averaged over 20,000 commuter kms over the last 2 years, and now Iwant something considerably better, that will also give great riding fun - that is good acceleration with excellent brakes and super handling - I have ridden for over 40 years, and prefer the manual transmission (I tried the DCT 1200 Interceptor and it lacked character - I love shifting - more involving and more fun). So, for me, a sporty, lightwieght version with a manual gearbox is what I want to see - If it\'s as soulful an engine as I expect, with sweet handling, I will buy one! I love the character of the 500 V-4 in my Interceptor - smooth, torquey, and yet it revs out hard above 7000 rpm - really a treat to ride daily! I am counting the days now until I can try out one of these new 700 Hondas... Slowburn September 27, 2011 05:35 PM re; James Tarquin Davis The aerodynamics of a non backbreaking motorcycle is pathetic. Mike Barnett September 27, 2011 08:01 PM Strongly reminiscent of the Pacifica of old, when Honda got TOO far ahead of the game. I\'d have preffered the actual trunk of the Pacifica, as it seems more useful, but I\'d trade my 2003 NSS250 Reflex AND my 1999 Kawasaki Concours in for one of these in a heartbeat (unless I finish the plans for a 250CC, 400 LB, single seat reverse trike designed for rapid urban commuting that I\'ve been playing with!). chascarter September 27, 2011 08:44 PM It\'s interesting to hear that the BMW flat twin,the Harley Davidson V twin and the Triunph 3 cylinder bikes were consigned to obsolescence in 1968-CHAS vortexau September 27, 2011 11:47 PM chascarter- All of the machines that you list feature Drum brakes at BOTH ends. Is this a feature that you do not consider obsolescent for a modern motorcycle? How many of those brands did not respond with their own Disc brake on the front wheel as they upgraded their product/s? paulblez September 28, 2011 05:18 AM A fuel consumption claim means nothing without another reference point, such as speed. 75mpg at 30mph is nothing to shout about; 75mpg at 75mph would be very impressive. Slowburn is absolutely right. Conventional comfortable bikes do tend to have lousy aerodynamics. I only get 42-45mpg Imperial from my Burgman 650, whereas my Feet First Genesis, with exactly the same power train, returns 50-65mpg overall and has achieved 63mpg at 90mph. See the video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfS3ZYwWk1E And go to bikeweb.com for much more about FF motorcycles. The annoying thing about this new Honda is that the frame gets in the way of converting it to FF whereas the engine layout is perfect for it! PNB Terotech September 28, 2011 08:16 AM My 2.2ltr Nissan Estate car does well over 45mpg [diesel], shouldn\'t a motorcycle be considerably more economical? The weight difference must be phenominal. Perhaps somebody could explain?