Author Topic: Tuning the CB750  (Read 6137 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: 15,467
  • ...not my choice, I was nicknamed...
    • Getting 'em Back on the Road
Tuning the CB750
« on: February 14, 2006, 01:03:28 PM »
Here's a chronology for the interested, and why the changes over the years. It explains how you can tailor your 750 to match your riding style, too!

K0-K1: These were the "performance years". The carbs were jetted 120 mains, the spark advancers were quick-advance units (all in by 2000 RPM) and the pipes were straight-through with fiberglass-wrapped tube inserts. Gearing was 16T/45T on K0, 17T/48T on K1. Gas mileage was about 32 MPG on premium (95 octane). These bikes developed about 67 HP, peaking at 8500 RPM, putting about 61 HP "on the ground". The K0 had 4 cables on the carbs, while the K1 had the bellcrank system most folks recognize.

Late K1/Early K2: The cam changed, getting advanced about 3 degrees, but the duration was the same (so the overlpa moved forward, too!). On the K2, the straight-thru pipes were changed to a 5-chamber baffled design. The spark advancer was delayed to full advance at 2500 RPM. The main jets on the K1 were 120, on the K2 110. The K2 jet needles were dropped 1 notch from the K1 settings (middle notch, K1 was 2nd from the bottom). The sprockets changed to 18T/48T. These bikes put about 58 HP on the rear wheel at 8000 RPM in 3rd gear.

Late K2: The cam moved to 5 degrees early (compared to K0) andoverlap was reduced about 4 degrees, while lift stayed the same. This was, I believe, an attempt to reduce the plug-fouling habits of the early K2 (1000 miles per set, typically). The spark advancer was given 2 degrees more "spread" with the same curve as the K2 early models. The static spark setting was reduced by that 2 degrees for better idle. The mainjets dropped to 100. The pipes were like the early K2. Sprockets stayed at 18T/48T. The airbox inlets were narrowed a little for quieter (but more restrictive) operation. This model put about 45 HP on the ground at 8000 RPM in 4th gear. They felt, and ran, like they were over-geared, and lowering the ratios helped both MPG and rideability.

K3: Most K3 pipes had 7 chambers. A few early ones still had the 5-chamber models, probably leftover from K2 production. Sales had fallen off dramatically at this point. The carbs received the "lifter collar" around the needle jet to make better atomization of the fuel and better MPG, about 40 MPG. (About this time, the U.S. entered the 55 MPH era, and gas shortages were causing Congress to cry out for better MPG on anything that moved.) The 5-chamber K3 had 105 mainjets, the 7-chamber ones had 100 or 95 (I saw both). The spark advancer was unchanged from late K2. These bikes had noticeably better midrange torque, from the "lifter collars", but less HP, about 59 at the crankshaft, and about 41 at the rear wheel at 8000 RPM in 3rd gear. These would also run on regular gas (octane 89). The K3 was the first 750 that would idle well, at about 1050 RPM.

K4: Pipes were like late K3. Carbs were similar, but the mainjet holders could no longer be removed after the first 4 months of production (to prevent "tampering" with "emission controls". Huh.) The earliest K4 had K3 carbs, the later ones were like the K5 and later, a slightly different design. Midrange torque, like at 55 MPH in high gear, was improved by having about .010" less exhaust cam lift and slower spark advance (full advance at 2800-3000 RPM), but 2 degrees less total advance. (We modified a lot of these advancers for more advance.) These bikes got real good MPG, even up to 50 MPG on premium, and would run on regular (87 octane). Power peak was at 7000 RPM (many were lower, like 6500 RPM), but only about 38 HP got to the ground unless you changed something. Idle was improved and very smooth, at about 1050.

K5: The only thing I really had time to "dig in to" on these was the mileage. They got real good MPG, frequently 45-50, running on regular 85 octane gas. They peaked at about 6500 RPM with noticeably less power than my K2. But, they were REAL quiet! And, they would idle endlessly at 1100 RPM.

I don't have specific notes after the K4, because I was by then only a part-time mechanic (weekends) and was getting away from the intense detail of it all. Sorry, k5-ers & later.
See SOHC4shop.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 My CB500/CB550 Book: https://www.lulu.com/search?sortBy=RELEVANCE&page=1&q=my+cb550+book&pageSize=10&adult_audience_rating=00
Link to website: https://sohc4shop.com/  (Note: no longer at www.SOHC4shop.com, moved off WWW. in 2024).

Offline Bob Wessner

  • "Carbs Suck!"
  • Really Old Timer ...
  • *******
  • Posts: 10,079
Re: Tuning the CB750
« Reply #1 on: February 14, 2006, 01:16:44 PM »
Are the mileage figures a mixture/average of city/highway?
We'll all be someone else's PO some day.

Offline Clutch Cargo

  • Enthusiast
  • **
  • Posts: 149
Re: Tuning the CB750
« Reply #2 on: February 14, 2006, 01:34:33 PM »
HondaMan, You're the MAN!

Regarding the early K1 and the late K1 cam change, do you have any idea at what S/N this change took place?

Mike

 
1976  CB750K6
1976 GL1000
1994 - ST1100
1985 - HRS21

eldar

  • Guest
Re: Tuning the CB750
« Reply #3 on: February 14, 2006, 02:28:55 PM »
Wonder what the power on a k8 is. Does not seem that gutless. main differences seems to be the cam and exhaust but I have after market anyways. Jets are 110 and 35 and full advance I think happens at 3000 rpm.

Offline diamondd

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 43
  • "75" cb750k5
Re: Tuning the CB750
« Reply #4 on: February 14, 2006, 02:41:13 PM »
Hondaman, You are really good and enjoy your posts. Lots of information that I find very useful. If you get any time elaborate on the k5 and up.

Offline Clyde

  • Hot Shot
  • ***
  • Posts: 474
Re: Tuning the CB750
« Reply #5 on: February 14, 2006, 03:33:59 PM »
Hondaman,
A great summary of those early 750's.
I have a question and a comment.
You refer to a change in carbs between the K3 and K5. What were the changes? I have several sets of carbs and apart from the jet changes that you have referred to the only change seems to be the change of idle screw from the LH side to the RH side to accomodate the change in petcock from RH to LH. Is there anything else?
The comment refers to the front sprocket. My understanding was that Honda changed from a 16T to a 17 T front sprocket very early-about #1003000. They then changed to a 18T front sprocket with the change to an 48T rear sprocket for the K1. Or was it different for other countries?
My K0 (#10035?? and 27000miles) had a 17T which I replaced with a new 17T sprocket. I believe it was the original, but am not 100% sure
Good to see someone documenting these changes as they get lost in time.
SOHC4 #1909
Honda CB750 K0(original and unrestored), K1(in pieces), K2(restored), F1(restored), 76 750a (awaiting restoration), 1966 Honda CB72
Suzuki GT750 1972 (restored), Kawasaki Z1 1973 (restored)

Offline eurban

  • Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,625
Re: Tuning the CB750
« Reply #6 on: February 14, 2006, 03:58:47 PM »
Well according to 1977 test done by Cycle magazine . . . . ..77F2 made 60 rear horses and 39 lbs of Torque while the 77K made  57 rear horses and 38 lbs of torque.  The F2 weighed 27lbs more than the 69 750  while the 77k weighed 17lbs more.  The 69 750 did the quarter mile (in their own tests done in 69 with a test weight of 645 <rider and bike>) 13.5 secs while the 77F2  (test weight 713lbs )did the quarter in 12.7 secs and the 77k (test weight 708lbs) in 13.3 secs.  . . . Cycle Worlds 69 test of the 750 managed a 13.38 quarter mile time . . . .
 
What does this mean?  Well if their numbers are to be believed then I think that at least on Cycle's dyno (comparing numbers from different dynos doesn't tell you much)  the 69 750 would  have made rear wheel HP in the mid fifties.  The factory hotrodding of the F2/F3 engines certainly earned it a place as the power king of the SOHC 750 lineage while even the refined K7K8s belted out more engine power than the early years of the 750s. . . . . . . .

Objectionableone

  • Guest
Re: Tuning the CB750
« Reply #7 on: February 14, 2006, 04:51:25 PM »
Outstanding info!  Thanks.

Buffo

  • Guest
Re: Tuning the CB750
« Reply #8 on: February 14, 2006, 07:39:54 PM »
I would be interested in the power of the K8 as well...

neilbron

  • Guest
Re: Tuning the CB750
« Reply #9 on: February 14, 2006, 08:01:03 PM »
Nice one HondaMan - good for newbies like me.

Cheers,

Neil.

Offline eurban

  • Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,625
Re: Tuning the CB750
« Reply #10 on: February 15, 2006, 04:18:15 AM »
I would think that the K8's and78F's performance would be very close to the 77K and 77F's. The changes that Honda made between those years shouldn't have affected performance very much.


eldar

  • Guest
Re: Tuning the CB750
« Reply #11 on: February 15, 2006, 07:44:44 AM »
I think there was some valve train changes as in added strength. The carbs also did not have the adjustable needle on the 78

Offline HondaMan

  • Someone took this pic of me before I became a
  • Really Old Timer ...
  • *******
  • Posts: 15,467
  • ...not my choice, I was nicknamed...
    • Getting 'em Back on the Road
Re: Tuning the CB750
« Reply #12 on: February 15, 2006, 06:37:27 PM »
Wow, questions!

Well, here goes:

The only way to reliably check your cam is to measure it. I saw 8 different cams over the K0-K4 years! All were checked on cylinder #1 when I did them (on every 750 I could get my hands on at the time).

The dyno we had access to was a built-in-the-floor unit at a local truck shop. I can't vouch for absolute number accuracy, just the numbers we used for comparisons in that shop. It was one of those rear-wheel roller units, tough to hold up the bike!

I remember wondering (in the 1970s) where Cycle used to get its ET numbers. My K1 would cover the local 1/4 in 12.8 seconds at 97 MPH. My K2, out of the box, did it in 13.2 at 88 MPH. That later changed to 12.7 at 101 MPH. Then I changed it again to roadrace (many, many RPMs), which makes a lousy digger. Heck, my CB450 would do it in 13.2 at 88 MPH!

The carb changes I most hated were the ones where the jetting could not be easily altered. Honda had a habit of using low emulsion mixes (because they were cheap), even though the Kehin carbs were less fussy and flowed better than equivalent Mikunis. But, they never seemed to get the jetting just right...

The cam chains went through many changes. Yosh mad a "heavy duty" unit that had bigger pins inside harder rollers, with larger, shot-peened sideplates. The chain "slider" and idler roller and tensioner roller changed formulations almost every year. There were even some soft steel replacement units in some bikes I saw.

The CB750 was also not always 736cc. I saw 2 bikes, one at Mannheim Honda in 1970 and another at a Michigan shop (name escapes me at the moment) that had a 4mm SMALLER bore and the crank was 2mm LONGER throw. The little "nameplate" (736cc) on the front of the cylinders had NO NUMBER on them. I don't know what the displacement was, but these were 2 kick-ass 750s that had radical cams and dominated the local street crowds, stock from those dealers. They were labelled 750 and the owners (and their shops) had no idea where they came from: I only got involved at Mannheim because I had some valves that would replace a damaged intake on it: the valve was the same size as the SuperHawk's Yosh intakes (!) - definitely NOT the stock 750 valve.



See SOHC4shop.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 My CB500/CB550 Book: https://www.lulu.com/search?sortBy=RELEVANCE&page=1&q=my+cb550+book&pageSize=10&adult_audience_rating=00
Link to website: https://sohc4shop.com/  (Note: no longer at www.SOHC4shop.com, moved off WWW. in 2024).

Offline eurban

  • Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,625
Re: Tuning the CB750
« Reply #13 on: February 15, 2006, 07:12:37 PM »
Not sure about the added strength of the valve train but  some if not all the 78Ks got valves with different type of keepers that were also used on the bigger valves of the f models.  I guess that these keepers helped to reduce some valve train mass but this is just a guess.  These valves are a PIA to find (From what I read in previous posts the Fs are unobtanium) but in the K8 you can use the earlier style valves with the earlier keepers.  Honda also introduced a mod to the clutch somewhere around 78.  This involved a double thickness metal clutch disc located in about the center in the clutch sandwhich.  Supposed to help minimize clutch disc rattle at idle. Carb wise the 78ks non adjustable jet needles can be shimmed to richen the mixture or replaced with 77 style adjustable needles  I think the mains jets were speced at 110s in the 78Ks and 105s in the 78Fs which is a bit smaller than the 77 specs. I know that alot of people don't like the pumper carbs but I think you have to give them some of the credit for the 77/78s 750s good performance.   As far as I know  77/78K stock exhaust pipes are now made of unobtainum and are very quiet when when working properly and offer decent performance.  Most used pipes that I have seen suffer from loose baffles inside the mufflers and since there is no way to open them without cutting they aren't easily repaired. . . . .Oh and (Sorry Eldar) the 77/78s aren't near as pretty as the earlier bikes, particularly the first ones! . . . .
Hondaman- sounds like you do a better job at those 1/4 mile runs than those testers.  Cycleworld did show a faster 1/4 mile for the 69 (13.38 at 100mph) than Cycle.  I guess temp, humidity, altitude, rider size, skill, fuel weight etc all play a role.  I didn't see any dyno figures for the 69/70 bikes in either review.  BTW, the 77f was doing 105mph at the end of the 1/4 and the K was doing about 101 mph.  Not sure what these numbers really means  to the performance minded CB750er, but I am quite happy with 78K engine in my current project bike.
« Last Edit: February 15, 2006, 07:14:18 PM by eurban »

Offline HondaMan

  • Someone took this pic of me before I became a
  • Really Old Timer ...
  • *******
  • Posts: 15,467
  • ...not my choice, I was nicknamed...
    • Getting 'em Back on the Road
Re: Tuning the CB750
« Reply #14 on: February 15, 2006, 07:47:04 PM »
Good observation, eurban, about the "floating backing plate" in the F. The clutch stiction problem led to the redesign of the clutch for the F model, with stronger metal in the hub itself, because of the increased HP. The extra looseness was designed to improve lube in the spinning plates, but a little wear, and they rattled on the hub.

I think the poor guys at the magazines usually got bikes that were pretty flogged by press time. It got to be such a joke at the local drive-thrus in Peoria (IL) that we used to trade each other a buck for every .1 second we bested the magazines with stock bikes (lots of money in the days when we were landing on the Moon!). Mostly, the money just got shifted around. My mentor, a New York-born mechanical engineer at school with me, name of Jim "Chambo" Chamberlain, usually took it all at the end of the summer with his "big four" K0. He ran back-to-back 12.65 runs one Sunday night, then drove it to New York the next day to visit his folks. He had the 2nd (of 4) Vetter Phantom full fairings ever built, and I have the 303rd Vetter hand-laid 'glass Windjammer. Craig Vetter was a real person in those days, and Jim and I used to meet with him at Illinois Champagne-Urbana in the wind tunnel where the tests were going on.

I miss those guys...
See SOHC4shop.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 My CB500/CB550 Book: https://www.lulu.com/search?sortBy=RELEVANCE&page=1&q=my+cb550+book&pageSize=10&adult_audience_rating=00
Link to website: https://sohc4shop.com/  (Note: no longer at www.SOHC4shop.com, moved off WWW. in 2024).

Offline eurban

  • Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,625
Re: Tuning the CB750
« Reply #15 on: February 16, 2006, 03:38:47 AM »
Good observation, eurban, about the "floating backing plate" in the F. The clutch stiction problem led to the redesign of the clutch for the F model, with stronger metal in the hub itself, because of the increased HP. The extra looseness was designed to improve lube in the spinning plates, but a little wear, and they rattled on the hub.

My 78K engine also has double thick metal clutch plate setup.
« Last Edit: February 16, 2006, 04:24:09 AM by eurban »

eldar

  • Guest
Re: Tuning the CB750
« Reply #16 on: February 16, 2006, 07:59:34 AM »
Now see, I like the added length of the 78K and the sleeker tank. It is an angular teardrop shape. It is the start of when tanks actually started being streamlined. I liike the seats better too and the front fender better over the earlier models.

Offline dusterdude

  • Really Old Timer ...
  • *******
  • Posts: 8,575
Re: Tuning the CB750
« Reply #17 on: February 16, 2006, 09:56:13 AM »
Now see, I like the added length of the 78K and the sleeker tank. It is an angular teardrop shape. It is the start of when tanks actually started being streamlined. I liike the seats better too and the front fender better over the earlier models.
yea,but you`re a strange one anyway ;D
mark
1972 k1 750
1949 fl panhead
1 1/2 gl1100 goldwings
1998 cbr600 f3

eldar

  • Guest
Re: Tuning the CB750
« Reply #18 on: February 16, 2006, 10:26:47 AM »
maybe so but there are those out there who ride harlesy, so I am not that strange!

Offline dusterdude

  • Really Old Timer ...
  • *******
  • Posts: 8,575
Re: Tuning the CB750
« Reply #19 on: February 16, 2006, 04:25:07 PM »
 :D
mark
1972 k1 750
1949 fl panhead
1 1/2 gl1100 goldwings
1998 cbr600 f3

Offline eurban

  • Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,625
Re: Tuning the CB750
« Reply #20 on: February 19, 2006, 06:48:40 PM »
Here's a link to an image detailing the double thick clutch plate mod (using a GL1000 part) //sohc4.us/files/clutch_rattle.jpg  .  The link mentions that this was a factory fix after a certain engine number.  Also,  looking through some of my older bookmarks for another thread and I found this site www.mginproducts.com/INDEX.html.  They make some interesting products for the 750s including a billet top clamp for the triple tree.  On their site they mention that in 77 Honda changed the design of the triple trees to bring the fork tubes 10mm closer to the steering stem and have a pretty good picture of their clamps for  older and later trees side by side. (Look in the section for the 77/78 750s)  Their view is that this alteration greatly improved handling.  Perhaps you can add this to your K8 supremacy theory Eldar?
« Last Edit: February 19, 2006, 07:00:17 PM by eurban »

eldar

  • Guest
Re: Tuning the CB750
« Reply #21 on: February 20, 2006, 11:17:29 AM »
Hey it might. I will have to add it in I think!

Offline HondaMan

  • Someone took this pic of me before I became a
  • Really Old Timer ...
  • *******
  • Posts: 15,467
  • ...not my choice, I was nicknamed...
    • Getting 'em Back on the Road
Re: Tuning the CB750
« Reply #22 on: February 20, 2006, 08:08:31 PM »
Here's a link to an image detailing the double thick clutch plate mod (using a GL1000 part) //sohc4.us/files/clutch_rattle.jpg  .  The link mentions that this was a factory fix after a certain engine number.  Also,  looking through some of my older bookmarks for another thread and I found this site www.mginproducts.com/INDEX.html.  They make some interesting products for the 750s including a billet top clamp for the triple tree.  On their site they mention that in 77 Honda changed the design of the triple trees to bring the fork tubes 10mm closer to the steering stem and have a pretty good picture of their clamps for  older and later trees side by side. (Look in the section for the 77/78 750s)  Their view is that this alteration greatly improved handling.  Perhaps you can add this to your K8 supremacy theory Eldar?

Yep, narrowing the fork width would reduce side torques to the frame...
See SOHC4shop.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 My CB500/CB550 Book: https://www.lulu.com/search?sortBy=RELEVANCE&page=1&q=my+cb550+book&pageSize=10&adult_audience_rating=00
Link to website: https://sohc4shop.com/  (Note: no longer at www.SOHC4shop.com, moved off WWW. in 2024).

Offline Quail "Owner of the comfortable k8"

  • Expert
  • ****
  • Posts: 813
  • Now thats good eaten!!
Re: Tuning the CB750
« Reply #23 on: February 20, 2006, 08:42:30 PM »
Hey it might. I will have to add it in I think!

Lets see. The best seat (even opens on the proper side), the best engine, Tank looks as fine as any LARGE breasted woman, Best triple tree set up, Ok Ok I will stop here because there are not enough K8's left to go around now!  How you holding up this winter Eldar?  Cold and windy the last 4 days here.
These wonderful little birds are great flyers, delicious eating, excellent for training your hunting dog, and just fun to shoot,or stuff and keep around the house.  Bobwhites can be put with other types of Quail and have very large penis's.  Quail are very popular with the babes.

Offline eurban

  • Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,625
Re: Tuning the CB750
« Reply #24 on: February 21, 2006, 04:18:21 AM »
Yep, narrowing the fork width would reduce side torques to the frame...

Actually the forks tubes are not closer together but rather moved rearwords by 10mm