Yes 70 mpg U.S. gallons.While I understand the NC700X is not a true "Adventure Bike" and certainly not meant for hardcore off-road use.I think it is more of a modern standard motorcycle,more along lines of the Triumph Bonneville and the Honda CB750.A bike that you can use for most anything.

The so-called "adventure bike" has not been too well defined - that's probably just as well against the day that the fad wanes and there are loads of them stacked up in the motorcycle dealerships (as is tending to happen now with sports/race replica bikes if you can believe what some folks in the trade are saying).
The twin cyl parallel has had renewed interest for a while with a few bike manufacturers (Kawa versys, Triumph x various models, BMW x various models) - much simpler in the design and cheaper to manufacture than a V twin.

__________________
Dave

Biggest problem i see is that you have to lift up the rear seat to fill up , which would become a pain if you carried your gear in a tailpack or similiar . the Mpg on it is nearer 80 mpg (uk) according to some mags .

I was despatching on one for about 5 months until last week when I've moved courier company. This was the 'S' model though. Work was quiet all last year, so I only racked up a fairly low mileage on the bike in that time, 16,000miles.

The fuel economy is good, but not the 'game changer' that various people and magazines have reckoned. This S model has a relatively small 14litre tank, and believe it's the same for the 'X' model. The most I could ever get out of that was 220miles. 200 miles would be a more realistic regular tank mileage.


The bike is slow. I think I read somewhere less than 60bhp. It also has a very low redline, equivalent to single cylinder trailbike, but without such overwhelming low end grunt. Riding into a headwind or slight hill, you will struggle to get it to 100mph, and when riding on the motorway it has no power to accelerate when overtaking, cruising at 70mph you would have to drop to 5th gear to speed up and it still is sluggish, definitely slower than an average family car.

As a utility bike it fares well, and the fake petrol tank storage thing would be real useful when commuting or using it as a run around. But if you're planning on using it for going on holiday (which is what 'touring' is, really?), I think you'd find the engine really disappointing. One of the least 'fun' engines I ever experienced.

__________________
UK to Mongolia 2009, on a DR350

I've owned my X model from new for 7 months and done 4,000 miles on it.
It has a 14 litre tank and I'm getting around 68 mpg in the uk and on a trip to S France I saw between 73 and 75 mpg.
Despite a lack of horsepower it more than keeps up with the traffic, cruises at 80/90mph, handles very well and has excellent brakes. Service intervals every 8,000 miles so makes a great touring/travel bike so long as your not hoping to do too much off road; it will handle gravel tracks and any road where a car can go but for anything more you'll wish you had a KLR
The only downside is it can be uncomfortable after 3 or 4 hours and struggles in top gear going uphill at 80mph

I noticed that feature as well; it is very pillion-unfriendly for a splash and dash refuel stop and a real PITA for anyone carrying luggage strapped across the pillion seat.
It's maybe not so bad if you want to encourage the wifey to get off the back of the bike and pay for the fuel

I surmise that you had no problems with Honda quality in that 16K miles.

A lot of the modern design of bikes are installing smaller fuel tanks against the fact that the engines are far more fuel efficient.
So, a 200 mile range is good enough for most circumstances/people.

I wouldn't use the word "slow" to summarise the characteristics of this bike that you list; it is different from some other bikes but, as an example, the Kawa Versys has a similar maximum power output with a very similar size of engine.
Perhaps a remap of the ECU would sort it for more sporting performance??

__________________
Dave

I would concur that it is a nice handling bike, and the brakes on it are good. The ABS works well but I found the way the lever resistance disappears when it's triggered more disconcerting than on the only other ABS bike i've ridden (cbf5), but you can get used to that. I also like the fact that bike feels light for it's supposed weight, probably due to the a lot of the weight being low down.

200 Miles is a big enough tank range, but I reckon 250 would be 'perfect' for a bike with that fuel economy, so it's a shame they didn't make the tank that little bit bigger.


Speed and power are relative. I've never ridden a Versys but it does appear to be closely spec'd. However there can't be too many other bikes of a similar capacity that slow, especially if you don't include singles. Historical comparison can come into play as well. The thread currently above this one is about the cb550 four (I notice this because I replied to it some months ago). That bike is over 35 years old, yet made more power and was a lot faster despite not being a 'sports' model at the time, and of course smaller capacity. It seems the only way modern bikes can be made to be more fuel efficient is at the expense of performance. But I do maintain that above all else, the 'character' of the engine is not very pleasing when riding.

I didn't experience any problems with my bike. The company I was with had something like 30 of them. The only problems I saw first hand on other people's bikes was a failed spring in a horn switch, and another bike started coming up with an error code and display would flash on and off - They sent it back to the Honda dealership and I don't know what the result was. The two models used by the company (and the other big companies) before this were/are the cbf500 and cbf600. Every bike in the fleet would make it up past 100k miles easily, and don't think this would be any different for the NC (the courier companies wouldn't be buying them if it was).

__________________
UK to Mongolia 2009, on a DR350

Good feedback guys!

Realistically, I don't think much more can be asked of a 700cc engine that is tuned for economy with appropriate teeth fitted on the gears/sprockets (as Nath says basically).
Change down thro' the box is the answer of course.

Low down weight sounds good.

You mentioned earlier that 250 miles per tank is quite possible - I can get that from my Versys (with a couple of litres spare). I believe this to be an achievable range for the Honda, even though some riders may want to play safe and fill up earlier.

Slow is an emotive word: slow to accelerate, slow in top speed, hmm.
The torque is more important for the former and the HP for the latter - it's all a compromise of the design basically.
Slow is also relative of course (my Honda Blackbird was fast!).

Character: Yep. We need that also. The current crop of designs are in danger of losing it, but it is very much a personal thing. You've put in enough time riding this bike to have a clear view on this.

__________________
Dave

According to the dyno tests I´ve seen, it´s about 50 crank hp for the NC700, and about 70 for the Versys, DL650 and 650GS twin. The Transalp 700 was just about there in the middle, with about 60 hp.

These bikes are NOT about power, but 50 or 70 is still quite a big difference.

Fair enough, I was writing in very broad terms - having owned both a Blackbird (about 160 HP from memory) and a Fazer 1000 (150 HP?) all of these 650s feel much the same to me.
As you say, none of the 650s are about horsepower and the torque characteristics are more relevant.

I've just looked at the Versys handbook and the figures stated therein are:-
Power = 47 kW (64 PS) at 8K rpm
Torque = 61 N-m (45 ft lb) at 6.8K revs

I very much doubt that I have ever been near 8000 rpm on my versys (but I have on the inline 4s!)

__________________
Dave