Author Topic: The CB750 HP thieves, over the years...  (Read 29495 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline HondaMan

  • Someone took this pic of me before I became a
  • Really Old Timer ...
  • *******
  • Posts: 13,839
  • ...not my choice, I was nicknamed...
    • Getting 'em Back on the Road
The CB750 HP thieves, over the years...
« on: March 04, 2008, 08:30:12 PM »
Someone recently reminded me that I started to do this long ago, but forgot.  :-\
(Now they are all in my book!   :)  ).
This is the list  that I know of power-robbing changes that occurred, in the order I remember, to the CB750K over the years. Up to the K4, I knew these from hands-on: after that, they came from others who knew of them, but are not necessarily my own "knowledge".

K0: The very first ones had over 40 degrees of spark advance in their advancers. This dropped several times over the years, to as low as 28 degrees by K6 (more static, less total). Note the 9200 RPM redlines on the early K0, dropped to 8500 by the end of K0 production.

K0: The earliest ones had more dwell (and lift) in both cam lobes, about 5 degrees more than K1. The K1 had less exhaust dwell, and the K3 had less intake dwell, too. Each reduction "stayed" in production. The K4-5 introduced a later cam, with a sprocket that was adjusted about 3 degrees late, to cope with poor octane across the US, probably, during that gas shortage.

K0: the float levels in the carbs were 1mm higher than in late K1 engines, at 25mm. The carbs did not matter: the spec changed to 26mm for all in 1970. Torque went down with the float level, too. Roadracers generally ran them at 24mm.

K0: smaller, lighter, lower-geared sprockets (16T/45T) gave way to 17T/45T first, then 17T/48T "kits" with a sheet metal chain guard in the front cover. This became 17T/48T by late K0, which dropped again to 18T/48T on the K2 and later. The heavier sprockets and taller gearing really impacted (stock) street-strip performance.

K1: the exhaust pipes had a new baffle inside, right past the upward bend at the footpegs. They still had the fiberglass baffles at the end, though. This inner baffle collected water and made the pipes rust out quickly, though, triggering a recall at one point.

K1: the rear shocks were improved, a little larger diameter and better damping, but heavier. This extra unsprung weight costs a little more HP.

K1: the stock carb jetting was dropped from 120 mains and 40 or 42 idles to 115 mains and 38 or 40 idles. Leaner meant less torque, cleaner sparkplugs.

K1: the airbox inlets were smaller and narrower than K0.

K2: these bikes started out on Premium gas. By about 8/1972 production, they could run on regular, if not pressed, because the spark advancer had changed to the K3 spec (less advance, stronger springs).

K2: the HM341 pipes appeared. The earliest ones had 3 inner baffles, quickly replaced with 5 baffles during K2 production. I had the 3-baffle ones in my first set, destroyed in a wreck in September, 1972. The replacement pipes were already 5-baffle by that time. My original carb jetting was 110 mains, but had to drop to 105 with the new pipes, and torque went down with it. My original HP was 62 on the dyno at around 7200 RPM, went down to 60 with the pipe-jet change. The plugs did stay a little cleaner, though!

Late K2 (summer of 1972 or so): the airbox inlets got thinner, narrower, than K1.

K3 (after the headlights could be turned off again, i.e., late K3): the final countershaft bearing became a 2-row bearing. The original was a 1-row bearing, with a shoulder on the shaft that was cut back for the new 2-row unit. This change made the first owner complaints of the "high gear wall" effect show up in our dealership: the bikes would not reach 100 MPH in a high-gear roll-on test. This bearing required very careful alignment of the final drive inner (1-row) and outer (2-row) to make any improvement, but the cases were just not that accurately machined from Honda (the expensive "fix" was to heliarc it up and align-rebore with torqued cases). Roadracers usually replaced the 2-row setup with the earlier ones, to good effect.

K3: dual seals appeared on all the wheels bearings. They were one-sided seals before this change (and, the grease usually ran out into the inside of the hub, making a mess and wearing the bearings). Racers would pop off the inner seals on new bearings.

K4: these bikes ran on Regular gas, with less timing advance and leaner 100 mainjets. The HP difference with D8ES plugs (instead of D8ES-L plugs) was very noticeable, so we used a lot of the "-L' plugs to help things out. Today's equivalent: Nippon Denso's X24ES-U plug.
We often ran the mains at 105 and added 2 degrees of static spark advance, or widened the "stopping ears" on the advancers to reach for a few extra degrees on top.

K4: the rocker shafts in the heads were changed from free-rolling style to bolted-down shafts. This was a quieting measure for mechanical clatter, but significantly increased frictions and reduced rocker and shaft life. Roadracers would remove the new bolts and polish the shafts to regain the losses here.

K4: the longer, seal-less valve guides of the K0 (which lasted intermittently until now) were all replaced by this time with shorter guides with seals on them. Honda was trying for longer oil change intervals (1500 miles), to compete with Kawasaki's 900/1000cc bikes. The RPM dropped a bit from the drag of the seals. Racers just removed the seals, went back to 1000 mile oil changes.

K4: the airbox got quieter again, although I never took the time to find out where the changes were. I suspect the inlets got higher internal baffles, like the K2 late production units had.

K5: O-ring chains appeared as a dealer-installed option at extra cost. These chains deliver about 93% power, compared to 97% for a good, hard-roller plain chain like Diamond. O-ring spin friction (200+ of them) is the culprit.

K6: Although I'm not 100% certain on this point, I have it on pretty good authority that the "F" cam profile had appeared (5 degrees later, 5 degrees wider, generally) in the K6 engines as an anti-emission measure. I did not get a chance to measure this one, so you K6 guys can jump in on this one...

The overall difference: in about 1971, I tested one of my friend's K0 bikes at 65 rear wheel HP, at over 30K miles on the ticker. The last K4 I tested (1974, I think) was about 40 HP on the ground, at about 8K miles. All tests were on the same "truck" dyno, an in-the-floor type of rear-wheel dyno used for checking out diesel trucks, near Macomb, IL.

If I find or remember the other things, I'll add them later...but, as you can see, you can add 10 HP to a later "K" bike with no hotrod parts!
« Last Edit: November 30, 2011, 05:24:21 PM by HondaMan »
See SOHC4shop@gmail.com for info about the gadgets I make for these bikes.

The demons are repulsed when a man does good. Use that.
Blood is thicker than water, but motor oil is thicker yet...so, don't mess with my SOHC4, or I might have to hurt you.
Hondaman's creed: "Bikers are family. Treat them accordingly."

Link to Hondaman Ignition: http://forums.sohc4.net/index.php?topic=67543.0

Link to My CB750 Book: https://www.lulu.com/search?adult_audience_rating=00&page=1&pageSize=10&q=my+cb750+book

Link to website: www.SOHC4shop.com

fuzzybutt

  • Guest
Re: The CB750 HP thieves, over the years...
« Reply #1 on: March 05, 2008, 01:21:15 PM »
this is going to help me in my quest to get the most power i can from a stock motor. excepting the exhaust and ignition anyways

Offline mystic_1

  • Really Old Timer ...
  • *******
  • Posts: 6,071
  • 1970 CB750K
Re: The CB750 HP thieves, over the years...
« Reply #2 on: March 05, 2008, 01:28:24 PM »
Cool, this finally explains my funky 17/48 ratio.  When I got the bike it lacked the case protector, probably due to previous chain damage in the area.

17/48 moves like hell off the line, but highway cruising was a high-revving affair.


Thanks for all the great info, HM.


mystic_1
« Last Edit: March 05, 2008, 01:49:14 PM by mystic_1 »
"A ship in harbor is safe, but that is not what ships are built for."
- John Augustus Shedd

My build thread:  http://forums.sohc4.net/index.php?topic=68952.0

Offline kghost

  • Really Old Timer ...
  • *******
  • Posts: 6,855
  • www.facebook.com/RetroMecanicaAustralia
Re: The CB750 HP thieves, over the years...
« Reply #3 on: March 05, 2008, 01:28:48 PM »
As always Hondaman..excellent information.

Now I'll have to see if I can make my antique Dyno work.
Stranger in a strange land

Offline eurban

  • Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,625
Re: The CB750 HP thieves, over the years...
« Reply #4 on: March 06, 2008, 06:59:52 PM »
To be fair here:

75-Honda introduces the F model with the 4-1 exhaust.  Engine has higher compression pistons (9.2-1) and other performance improvements. New cylinder head castings with better flow. Sportier camshaft and lighter cam sprocket.  Closer gearbox ratios.

77-On the K Honda essentially uses the F0/F1 engine specs but without close gear box.  Accelerator pump carbs are used.   The F models engine compression is dropped back down to 9:1 but the cylinder head uses larger valves, stiffer valve springs and even sportier camshaft which (among other things) made this engine the HP king of the 750 lineage.

For what they are worth, period test(s) (Cycle Magazine) of the 77 K and F show roughly 57 and 60 BHP respectively with 1/4mile times of 13.3 and 12.7 secs.  Cycle tested the 69 at 13.5 for the 1/4 and Cycle World tested at 13.4.  The 77 models were at least a good 30lbs heavier than the 69 too.

If you are looking for performance, reliability and even fuel economy, it is at least worth taking a look at some (certainly not all as the F2/F3 exhaust valve guides prove to be problematic) of the late changes that Honda made in their attempts to keep the 750 competitive with its rivals. Not all their work was to detune!
« Last Edit: March 06, 2008, 07:04:09 PM by eurban »

Offline 754

  • Really Old Timer ...
  • *******
  • Posts: 29,058
Re: The CB750 HP thieves, over the years...
« Reply #5 on: March 06, 2008, 07:29:32 PM »
Here is a challenge,
show the 3 best magazine 1/4 mile times for a 69 or 70

and show the three best you can find for 77 or 78 K.. and we can all see..


 its not like magazines never got  specially prepped bikes given to them to test.

 Street performance is certainly not backing up some of the claims made on here..
Maker of the WELDLESS 750 Frame Kit
dodogas99@gmail.com
Kelowna B.C.       Canada

My next bike will be a ..ANFOB.....

It's All part of the ADVENTURE...

73 836cc.. Green, had it for 3 decades!!
Lost quite a few CB 750's along the way

Offline dustyc

  • I don't know why anyone would call me an
  • Expert
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,141
  • 1977 CB750K
Re: The CB750 HP thieves, over the years...
« Reply #6 on: March 06, 2008, 07:35:17 PM »
I'm feeling a race coming on.
1977 CB750

Offline HondaMan

  • Someone took this pic of me before I became a
  • Really Old Timer ...
  • *******
  • Posts: 13,839
  • ...not my choice, I was nicknamed...
    • Getting 'em Back on the Road
Re: The CB750 HP thieves, over the years...
« Reply #7 on: March 06, 2008, 07:55:40 PM »
To be fair here:

75-Honda introduces the F model with the 4-1 exhaust.  Engine has higher compression pistons (9.2-1) and other performance improvements. New cylinder head castings with better flow. Sportier camshaft and lighter cam sprocket.  Closer gearbox ratios.

77-On the K Honda essentially uses the F0/F1 engine specs but without close gear box.  Accelerator pump carbs are used.   The F models engine compression is dropped back down to 9:1 but the cylinder head uses larger valves, stiffer valve springs and even sportier camshaft which (among other things) made this engine the HP king of the 750 lineage.

For what they are worth, period test(s) (Cycle Magazine) of the 77 K and F show roughly 57 and 60 BHP respectively with 1/4mile times of 13.3 and 12.7 secs.  Cycle tested the 69 at 13.5 for the 1/4 and Cycle World tested at 13.4.  The 77 models were at least a good 30lbs heavier than the 69 too.

If you are looking for performance, reliability and even fuel economy, it is at least worth taking a look at some (certainly not all as the F2/F3 exhaust valve guides prove to be problematic) of the late changes that Honda made in their attempts to keep the 750 competitive with its rivals. Not all their work was to detune!

Thanks for the "F" info: I have precious little of it. The street plainly showed the "F" to be a better performer than the "K" of its day.

The other comments above will be interesting: the Cycle article that got me hot for my 750 showed a 12.9 sec/100+ MPH quarter mile. I witnessed some faster than that, with stock K0, in 1969 and 1970, with one from a farm town running 12.68 seconds with little more than a fresh tune, good launch skills, and a 16/54 gearing, 4.25 rear tire, circa May, 1970.

After a couple of days, I'll remember the town, but my friend Tom Hahn lived there with his Blue Streak. (Kept the mosquitos down.  :D ).
« Last Edit: March 08, 2008, 09:01:48 AM by HondaMan »
See SOHC4shop@gmail.com for info about the gadgets I make for these bikes.

The demons are repulsed when a man does good. Use that.
Blood is thicker than water, but motor oil is thicker yet...so, don't mess with my SOHC4, or I might have to hurt you.
Hondaman's creed: "Bikers are family. Treat them accordingly."

Link to Hondaman Ignition: http://forums.sohc4.net/index.php?topic=67543.0

Link to My CB750 Book: https://www.lulu.com/search?adult_audience_rating=00&page=1&pageSize=10&q=my+cb750+book

Link to website: www.SOHC4shop.com

eldar

  • Guest
Re: The CB750 HP thieves, over the years...
« Reply #8 on: March 06, 2008, 08:04:17 PM »
well I doubt there is little to find in REAL numbers on ANY year of 750 now. No one drags them stock anymore. So all we have to go by is what bike mags from back in those days claim.

754, why do you have such a grudge against the 77/78? Cause they look different? Cause everyone you know THINKS they are slower? You talk about specially prepped bikes but that would hold true for ALL bikes then and even then the 77/78 comes in right around the 69. Why is that so hard to believe. I put on a source, so did eurban and pretty sure bobby has put on some info in the past. What is the problem here? I mean you cant even accept the POSSIBILITY that this info is correct.

I mean the F is obviously as quick as the 69 and the 77/78 use that motor with a few differences, none of which are detuning, it stands to reason that the performance profile is very close.

All I can say is I would race a person with a 69, I might lose but that is more than likely my 220 pounds holding me back and not the bike.

Offline 754

  • Really Old Timer ...
  • *******
  • Posts: 29,058
Re: The CB750 HP thieves, over the years...
« Reply #9 on: March 06, 2008, 08:34:52 PM »
So, you wont take Hondamans word for it??


I have raced against a 78 SS on my 73 with a Hooker , K&N,s on a stock motor, and kicked his ass every time.. he never liked that.. ;D

 But if you were around them a lot it was pretty obvious they got slower & slower.. and 77/78 are without a question  heavier.

 Also I have a buddy that owns a 78K, as well as a72K, and 836cc & a 1080cc.. and he races most of them & he has no illusions about how quick the 78 is..

 I rode back from Bonneville with him on my wore out 25 yrear old motored 836.. and it his not seem that powerful, in fact it was pretty slow on the hills and passing, it also got worse gas mieage.every single tank than mine did.

 What I am saying here is it really sounds like you never rode any of the earlier ones the way you talk about them.

 Oh yeah, I forgot about the low miles 77 I bought as salvage, I did put the motor in an older CB and ran it to Sturgis & back (2800 miles)..it ran ok but certainly not quicker than a 73..

 I am just basing things on what I see and have ridden mostly.. how many CB 750,s have you owned or ridden?
Maker of the WELDLESS 750 Frame Kit
dodogas99@gmail.com
Kelowna B.C.       Canada

My next bike will be a ..ANFOB.....

It's All part of the ADVENTURE...

73 836cc.. Green, had it for 3 decades!!
Lost quite a few CB 750's along the way

Offline kghost

  • Really Old Timer ...
  • *******
  • Posts: 6,855
  • www.facebook.com/RetroMecanicaAustralia
Re: The CB750 HP thieves, over the years...
« Reply #10 on: March 07, 2008, 12:09:43 AM »
Fights on!  :D ;D :D
Stranger in a strange land

Offline Soos

  • Just a butcher with a carbide hatchet, definitely not a
  • Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,324
Re: The CB750 HP thieves, over the years...
« Reply #11 on: March 07, 2008, 02:17:52 AM »
 :o :o

Who has the beer, i got the nachos!
*sits back waiting for the first fist to fly*

l8r
-=≡ Soos ≡=-
Just think to yourself what would Alowishus Devander Abercrombie do?
"Brix will be shat by your neighbors." - schwebel
(61mm)652cc 1979 cb650

troppo

  • Guest
Re: The CB750 HP thieves, over the years...
« Reply #12 on: March 07, 2008, 02:20:23 AM »
rolls in a keg and grabs a plate of nacho`s

Offline toycollector10

  • Expert
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,134
Re: The CB750 HP thieves, over the years...
« Reply #13 on: March 07, 2008, 02:43:26 AM »
Jeez you guys......get a grip     ;D

My son's friend has a modern Suzuki 250cc 4 cylinder that he could whip our butts on, probably.  We're in it for the long-stroke way these old bikes deliver their power, amongst other reasons. It's all good. Why get into a pissing contest, it's history!
1969  CB 750 K0
1973  CB175
1973  Z1 Kawasaki

Offline GammaFlat

  • Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,565
  • humanitas, qualitas, quantitas and velocitas
Re: The CB750 HP thieves, over the years...
« Reply #14 on: March 07, 2008, 06:57:59 AM »
We're all better off because we're on this forum.  The collective knowledge is amazing.  It's a great place to learn, share, find parts and spice your passion.  (and there certainly seems to be some passion in this thread :))
K6
K7 
Suzuki GN400 - Ignition fixed!
03 KLR650 - Doesn't do anything very well but.. well.. does everything.

eldar

  • Guest
Re: The CB750 HP thieves, over the years...
« Reply #15 on: March 07, 2008, 08:12:48 AM »
754, all I can say is that you dont know how to ride the 78. Oh well. I know how fast they actually are.

First of all, my 78 will get 45 mpg and that is with a heavy hand. If he got worse than that, he does not know how to tune it. This is with 87 octane US. Maybe canadian gas is different.
I suppose it might not be quite as high with my new 17/48 set up but it should not drop by much. 

yes the bike IS heavier but then I do not have the had shakes the earlier bikes have, I can fit different tires plus really, if I want, most of that weight can be dropped. Yes I have a larger tank, which means I can go over 200 miles before filling. I can burn my rear tire if I want, with just the standard revving any cb750 needs.

You see, all your experience is with other peoples bikes that may not have been tuned right as most understand the early carbs and not the late ones. Different methods are needed and the 77/78 run lean and many try to richen them up thinking it will be better and it actually makes it worse.

Funny though how you call bike mags with "professional" riders wrong but the backyard mechanics you knew are right.

I will tell you this also, at 75mph, if I need to go to 85 or 90, I do not have to down shift, I gas it and get there in a couple seconds.

So all I can say is that I will take what others here say as they at least have the grace to not be a pompous a$$ about it.

As for hondaman, he admitted he did not know much about the 77/78 as he never raced or worked on one. He has not said the early Ks were better so I am not sure what you are trying to twist.

To the rest of you guys, sorry about all this but I have tried to stop this but 754 seems content to keep it going.

Offline 754

  • Really Old Timer ...
  • *******
  • Posts: 29,058
Re: The CB750 HP thieves, over the years...
« Reply #16 on: March 07, 2008, 08:23:52 AM »
Both mine and the 78 got over 50 mpUSgallon last fall and my motor was 25 yrs old..

My 73 with stock carbs usually got closer to 60 to a US gallon..
Maker of the WELDLESS 750 Frame Kit
dodogas99@gmail.com
Kelowna B.C.       Canada

My next bike will be a ..ANFOB.....

It's All part of the ADVENTURE...

73 836cc.. Green, had it for 3 decades!!
Lost quite a few CB 750's along the way

Offline 754

  • Really Old Timer ...
  • *******
  • Posts: 29,058
Re: The CB750 HP thieves, over the years...
« Reply #17 on: March 07, 2008, 09:04:25 AM »
Seriously Eldar,

I think what gets me going the most is the..........
 "MASTER OF THE K8 THUNDER"  :o  :o

You put it out there, not me..


And the fact that you constantly mention you think you have a 12 sec bike that will keep up to a KO..

If you take it to the strip and manage a 13.5 I would be very impressed..

In the real world most of us are riding OUR bikes..not the magazine bike.. and most of us are not Pee Wee Gleason either.. so its our bikes we compare with others in the real world
Maker of the WELDLESS 750 Frame Kit
dodogas99@gmail.com
Kelowna B.C.       Canada

My next bike will be a ..ANFOB.....

It's All part of the ADVENTURE...

73 836cc.. Green, had it for 3 decades!!
Lost quite a few CB 750's along the way

Offline BobbyR

  • Really Old Timer ...
  • *******
  • Posts: 12,367
  • Proud Owner of the Babe Thread & Dirty Old Man
Re: The CB750 HP thieves, over the years...
« Reply #18 on: March 07, 2008, 09:48:38 AM »
This is a very silly argument. First of all we are talking about bikes with models spanning an 8 year period. It could hardly stay frozen in time. My K8 is a nice bike, keeps up with traffic and is pretty nice to ride.
Outside of our circle of like minded people:

1. The HD crowd think we are either un American or irrelevant.
2. The Sportbike crowd thinks we are way behind the times. 

With all that positive Karma around us, do we really need to piss on each others shoes over some minor tweaks. 
Dedicated to Sgt. Howard Bruckner 1950 - 1969. KIA LONG KHANH.

But we were boys, and boys will be boys, and so they will. To us, everything was dangerous, but what of that? Had we not been made to live forever?

eldar

  • Guest
Re: The CB750 HP thieves, over the years...
« Reply #19 on: March 07, 2008, 09:54:20 AM »
So lets use YOUR reasoning. The 77/78 was tested about even with the 69. It would stand to reason that by YOUR thoughts, BOTH years including the 69 would have been perfect bikes, that said, the 77/78 STILL  is even with the 69. One off the track and into the hands of a private owner, anything can happen. That still does not erase the FACT that bike mags found the 77/78 to be equal to the 69 while being heavier. What that means is if you drop the extra weight, the 77/78 would be FASTER. This is all by the reasoning you put forward, it does not take into account you biased against the 77/78 which is all probably based on looks. Thats ok as I think the 76 and earlier bikes are kinda ugly, especially the double fender brace! YUK!

As for my nake, do you see a PHD behind it? IS this some official site? Are we the experts honda turns to? NO. It is JUST a name, same as yours. But compared to you, I DO have more experience on a K8.

As for gas mileage, You mean you both got over 50 mpg and you may have beaten his by a couple and that means anything?! Clearly you have not checked out the other mpg threads on this site where many here get only into the 30s with their pre-77 bikes.

Also I do not mention it, I put documented info on the 78 times. As have others here. I dont see you picking a fight with them, oh it must be my name which you take WAY to seriously.

At least I am not the first person you have picked a fight with, sorry but I disagree with you and I can make stuff up to suit my needs if I need to, You have no proof of your thoughts, at least I have some backup in the form of a period magazine.

maybe if you actually stopped taking yourself so seriously, your blood pressure would be lower.

Also if you bothered to look around, you would see that terry, dusterdude and I make fun of each other for our bikes and so do others.

Just one last piss bobby! :D

Get over it, you are no expert and neither am I.

Offline 754

  • Really Old Timer ...
  • *******
  • Posts: 29,058
Re: The CB750 HP thieves, over the years...
« Reply #20 on: March 07, 2008, 09:23:24 PM »
The expert is on his way.. :o

30 year owner of a 78 K. He is trying to find his road tests.. and I will look as well. Surely we wont have any trouble finding another road test, but if it will be with the same results as the one mentioned that ran a 12.9... will remain to be seen.

As well the 78K owner also has experience
on a few other years and models of SOHC 750,s and has been around them for 3 decades.

So, when he posts I think we will get a good evaluation from someone with extensive experience on these..
Maker of the WELDLESS 750 Frame Kit
dodogas99@gmail.com
Kelowna B.C.       Canada

My next bike will be a ..ANFOB.....

It's All part of the ADVENTURE...

73 836cc.. Green, had it for 3 decades!!
Lost quite a few CB 750's along the way

Offline eurban

  • Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,625
Re: The CB750 HP thieves, over the years...
« Reply #21 on: March 08, 2008, 10:05:04 AM »
Not so sure that the pissing war here is adding much to the discussion.  I do believe that Hondaman's original intent (this is posted in the tricks and tips section) was to give some people ideas on ways to un "detune" their 750s. That information can be quite helpful.  I did feel that his post suffered just a bit from "sandcast nostalgia" with some missing info on the late years, which is why I offered up that Honda's changes to the engine didn't all result in less power.  Over the years, Honda was indeed under pressure to change their design.  The detuning part seemingly was influenced by government regs on sound and emissions, as well as competition from other makes for ease of maintenance and fuel economy etc.  However, performance was also part of this competition and the introduction of F models, as well as the trickle down of engine tech to the late Ks, was certainly an effort to close the performance gap with its competitors.  Weight was up for sure but more power would help with that.

You would be hard pressed to argue that boosting the compression ratio from 9 to 9.2-1 wouldn't be beneficial to making more power.  You would also have a hard time arguing that the hemiish recasting of the combustion chamber and alterations to the ports on the F0,F1 and K7,K8s didn't result in more power, particularly when combined with a slightly hotter (don't know off hand how it compares with the earliest K profile) cam profile.  Clutch was "improved" with better oiling and less tendency to clatter, and the alternator rotor was lighter than the early bikes for sure.  For the most part, I would think that the multitude of other refinements that happened to the 750 engine over the years added to its reliability if not its performance.
     
For the 750 enthusiast, I would guess that there are a few out there considering what stock engine to use as basis for a build or as a replacement.  As you might have guessed, I personally would choose the late engines.  They seem to be plentifully available and certainly don't have collectiblity jacking up their value.  At least a few performance engine builders that I have spoken with and seen post on this site would seem to share this preference as well.
« Last Edit: March 11, 2008, 03:53:07 PM by eurban »

Offline dragracer

  • Really Old Timer ...
  • *******
  • Posts: 5,110
  • CB750F Dragbike
Re: The CB750 HP thieves, over the years...
« Reply #22 on: November 29, 2011, 07:48:45 PM »
You fellas are going to make me pull my K8 out of the shed and blow the dust off for some passes down the 1320 so we can post some real time, non rider ETs. The bike has been sitting for over 8 years now and was jumping out of 3rd gear periodically while speed shifting but i think with enough passes, i can get at least 2 cleans ones for comparision. I'm more curious about what i will do than attempting to be argumentative. The only changes i made was to the gear if i remember correctly. Its got a sidewinder but no rejetting has been done and the stock air box is still on the bike. Oh, i'll have to put some new tires on it since those on the bike are dry rotted and the rear one is worn.

I'm mainly going to do this test to get some baseline info before i take the stock engine off to put the 836 motor on that JimF has graciously donated to me. Call this some before and after data.

Thanks Hondaman for the details on the K model since that was the original intent of this thread.
« Last Edit: November 29, 2011, 07:54:16 PM by dragracer »

Offline zoomie

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 19
Re: The CB750 HP thieves, over the years...
« Reply #23 on: May 06, 2012, 06:15:09 AM »
Dunno about all the specific changes over the model years, but owned a K1 and worked in a Honda shop back in the day.  I recall that successive model years were indeed slower.  Never ran or drove an F bike, so can't say about them.  However, I do recall that when I dropped 2 teeth on the countershaft sprocket and kept the rear stock, it made a nice diffference in the bike's responsiveness and "fun" factor.  Stock gearing it would not pull redline in 5th.

Offline HondaMan

  • Someone took this pic of me before I became a
  • Really Old Timer ...
  • *******
  • Posts: 13,839
  • ...not my choice, I was nicknamed...
    • Getting 'em Back on the Road
Re: The CB750 HP thieves, over the years...
« Reply #24 on: May 06, 2012, 11:59:09 PM »
Not so sure that the pissing war here is adding much to the discussion.  I do believe that Hondaman's original intent (this is posted in the tricks and tips section) was to give some people ideas on ways to un "detune" their 750s. That information can be quite helpful.  I did feel that his post suffered just a bit from "sandcast nostalgia" with some missing info on the late years, which is why I offered up that Honda's changes to the engine didn't all result in less power.  Over the years, Honda was indeed under pressure to change their design.  The detuning part seemingly was influenced by government regs on sound and emissions, as well as competition from other makes for ease of maintenance and fuel economy etc.  However, performance was also part of this competition and the introduction of F models, as well as the trickle down of engine tech to the late Ks, was certainly an effort to close the performance gap with its competitors.  Weight was up for sure but more power would help with that.

You would be hard pressed to argue that boosting the compression ratio from 9 to 9.2-1 wouldn't be beneficial to making more power.  You would also have a hard time arguing that the hemiish recasting of the combustion chamber and alterations to the ports on the F0,F1 and K7,K8s didn't result in more power, particularly when combined with a slightly hotter (don't know off hand how it compares with the earliest K profile) cam profile.  Clutch was "improved" with better oiling and less tendency to clatter, and the alternator rotor was lighter than the early bikes for sure.  For the most part, I would think that the multitude of other refinements that happened to the 750 engine over the years added to its reliability if not its performance.
     
For the 750 enthusiast, I would guess that there are a few out there considering what stock engine to use as basis for a build or as a replacement.  As you might have guessed, I personally would choose the late engines.  They seem to be plentifully available and certainly don't have collectiblity jacking up their value.  At least a few performance engine builders that I have spoken with and seen post on this site would seem to share this preference as well.

You're right about the post-1976 bikes Eurban: Honda specifically changed a number of things then to make more HP, but it severely shortened the life of the engine, especially in the F2/F3 and K7/8 heads.

Here's what changed in those years:

In the "F0" of 1975 and early 1976 (which came with a big balloon-shaped 4-1 muffler), the cam was retarded 5 degrees and given 0.25mm more intake lift, compared to the K0 spec cam. (BTW: Honda listed the K0 specs as the all-time specs for these engines, until this "F" engine first appeared - despite the realities...). The carbs were physically the same as the 657B model, but designated either 087A or just 7A (and occasionally I have notes of some "086" carbs), with needle #27301 and mainjets #105. The head was made into a semi-hemi and compression was advertised to be 9.2:1 and the rods have a slightly larger cross-section. Drive chain was 530 with 18/48 gearing, and a 4.50x17 rear tire was added. Some other suspension changes also occurred. The head castings are numbered "392" on these engines, and were later found on the K7/8 engines as well.

The F1 received more spark advance and PD carbs with accelerator pumps, and the chain became 630 size. Some of the F1 had rear disk brakes: not all, though.

The K7 emerged with F0-like parts in the engine, and the PD carbs. The later K7 sometimes came in black, and the K8 was mixed black and silver versions.

The F2/3 engines came in black, with larger intake and smaller exhaust valves. The F2 at first had valves with stems like the F1, while the F3 had different stems. This causes lots of confusion when ordering parts for rebuild! The F2/3 valve springs are longer (so are the F1/2/3 clutch springs, compared to K engines). The F2/3 cams have 0.5mm more lift on both lobes, as compared to the K0 cams, but with 5 degrees later opening on the intake valve, and same 215 degree duration as the K0. The closing ramps are nearly vertical, which causes some wear ridges on these cams at the landing point of the rocker foot. These engines run very hot, so Honda added an oil cooling "plate" behind the oil filter housing, giving the filter a very pronounced, obtuse profile. This led to different pipes, to clear the filter housing. The F2/3 pistons (mid number identifier "410" type) are approximately 9.5:1 compression and have unique rings, as compared to the other post-1975 engines.

The valve guides of the post-1975 F and K engines are very short-lived, owing to their being simple cast iron (and especially on the hotter F2/3 heads). When rebuilding these, you can gain much life by installing APE's bronze guides. On the "F engines in particular, be careful to check for spring retainer clearance to top of guide when replacing guides, as some guides out there (like Kibblewhite) get sold as "fits 1976-1978" when in fact they can be too tall! I don't think this is on purpose, rather a mistake on some vendor's part with the Kibblewhite listings. Kibblewhite does make a proper guide, so just check to make sure you have the right ones.
See SOHC4shop@gmail.com for info about the gadgets I make for these bikes.

The demons are repulsed when a man does good. Use that.
Blood is thicker than water, but motor oil is thicker yet...so, don't mess with my SOHC4, or I might have to hurt you.
Hondaman's creed: "Bikers are family. Treat them accordingly."

Link to Hondaman Ignition: http://forums.sohc4.net/index.php?topic=67543.0

Link to My CB750 Book: https://www.lulu.com/search?adult_audience_rating=00&page=1&pageSize=10&q=my+cb750+book

Link to website: www.SOHC4shop.com