Author Topic: XBR500 vs 400/4  (Read 1228 times)

Hornblower

  • Guest
XBR500 vs 400/4
« on: March 30, 2007, 09:28:42 AM »
I am 50 years old and have owned an interesting aray of bikes (CD175, YDS7, CBR1000, RD350LC, R80RT, VIRAGO - yukk, big mistake, KLR250, TS185, TS250 and others that I can't remember right now and a Bond Bug!!!!!) without break sence I was 17.

I owned a Honda 400/4 for 7 years and thought it was a nice bike. I never fell in love with the bike's looks, I always felt the 4 in to 1 gave it a slightly lop sided look and whilst the performance was impressive at the time it was never blistering. Equally, it was a bugger to keep the carbs ballanced and my model frequently suffered with a fuel overflow problem which I was never able to properly resolve.

On the other hand, I adore my XBR500. I don't agree with people who say that the bike is ugly. I think it's distinctive bulbous looks are entirely in character with the bikes handling and performance. Also, out of all the bikes I have ever owned it is the one that gets the most admiring glances from non-bikers when it's polished up on a sunny day - I think it's the Wallace and Grommit factor! It's quicker and handles better than the 400/4, it's a doddle to work on and my wife says it's the best of the bikes that I have owned for riding pillion.

My point is that in all the bike mags, particularly the jap classic mags, the 400/4 is renowned as an undisputed classic and yet I see very little reference if at all to the XBR. I know that to a certain degree this is all subjective but IMHO after 30 plus years of riding, this bike is the best I've ever owned and it appears to be one of the best kept secrets in the biking world.   

guest27

  • Guest
Re: XBR500 vs 400/4
« Reply #1 on: March 30, 2007, 09:59:57 AM »
400/4 - I think these are seen as classic examples - rather than just old - because they set a new standard.  They were pretty little things with a small but beautiful engine.  A starting point not an end point.  I think the same is true about many of the Yam strokers, The RG gamma was probably a much better bike than the 250LC, but the LC broke the mold and set the new standard. - Yam never made another w/c stroker that was not playing catch-up, the TZR never seemed to be in the class of the NSR, KR1S, RGV etc, but look at them all and you go back to the 250LC

400/4 - the forebear of all the sporty small bikes, I think today its bastard sons is the 600 class.  The XBR (and SRX etc) are fine bikes, but were a restatement of an old idea, the 400/4 was the first successful statement of the small 4.

Also why the RD500 is epoc making but the RG500 / NS400 are just GP reps, mind the RG500 track bike is THE classic stroker racer of the 500 class

R

hondamichael

  • Guest
Re: XBR500 vs 400/4
« Reply #2 on: March 30, 2007, 10:02:09 AM »
yes you`re right it is a secret so dont tell to many about it :-)
no to be serious
nobody or very very few would nowadays consider a single
as a bike of choise ,a supermoto perhaps but not a normal road bike
 it makes me sad when even young bikers
 walk around a lovely bike
and say yes looks nice but it`s underpowered and to slow
nowadays all comes down to how much bhp and topspeed


guest27

  • Guest
Re: XBR500 vs 400/4
« Reply #3 on: March 30, 2007, 10:06:23 AM »

nowadays all comes down to how much bhp and topspeed



Think it was alway so, from TE Lawrence and his SS100 through the Ton-Up-Boys to the LC heads and now the R1 brigade, there has always been a lusting after the best handling, fastest accelerating, top speedster that you can afford - for a group of riders.  There has also been the "My Aspencrate has more gadgets than yours" and the "Have you seen the new BMW broom-handle, reprofied for easier insertion before you ride" group.  The off roadies and the anti-anything new.  All part of the rich fauna that is biking.

R

Andy M

  • Posts: 1709
Re: XBR500 vs 400/4
« Reply #4 on: March 30, 2007, 11:20:34 AM »

The early boys I can understand wanting better bikes. Things like the Brough could be ridden fast or toured or anything in between and you did get more for your money than buying a Triumph or something from the same year. The limiting factor was the roads (as proven by T E Lawrence). By the time you hit the 400/4 the performance is way off what the traffic and the law will allow. The XBR in any practical sense does exactly the same for less mechanical hassle, so people buy the 400/4 based on ideas of wanting the best or the newest or something.

I'd agree that the 400/4 spawned the whole raft of bikes from the current Japanese sports bikes to Goldwings and Pan Europeans, and hence should be a bit of an icon.  I wouldn't find myself thinking this was especially a good thing but that's me. (I'd rate an MZ ETZ or a Bullet or a BMW R80 over an R1. The R1 looks good on the spec sheet for speed, power, brakes etc. but you pay for 100 mph you can't use and get a **** riding position into the bargain!)

I can see that the 400/4 ticks boxes for some of the restoration brigade too. Lots (relatively) available, but complex mechanically and in terms of model years etc. You can great conversations about carb balancing and cooling on the inner cylinders and having the wrong shade of tail light bulb for that model year and so on. The "kick it and it goes" XBR just can't compete, plus as it's a "copy" of a Brit bike so it "isn't real" (an argument that doesn't work on coppers BTW!).

To me it comes down to what you want to do with your bike. If you want to talk about it (or write magazine articles) or take it to bits the 400/4 is more interesting. If you want to ride it and ride it, the XBR's your thing.

Andy

Hornblower

  • Guest
Re: XBR500 vs 400/4
« Reply #5 on: March 30, 2007, 11:53:12 AM »
I take the point that the 400/4 was seminal whereas the XBR was retro relatively speaking. Nevertheless, the SR500 seems to hold a loftier postition in the jap classic market that the XBR and that doesn't make any sense. With the greatest of respect to any SR owners out there - and don't get me wrong I like the bike - it neither looks as radical as the XBR, is as technologicaly interesting or any where near matches it for speed, plus it can be a bugger to start as I know to my cost.

Sorry to rant on about this but I am finding the whole experience of getting this off my chest quite cathartic, so please don't stop me!

H

Steve H

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1850
Re: XBR500 vs 400/4
« Reply #6 on: March 30, 2007, 12:06:14 PM »
it neither looks as radical as the XBR, is as technologicaly interesting or any where near matches it for speed,
Maybe the simplicity of the SR is its appeal. I appreciate an XBR is simpler than a 400/4 but it stall has four valves, a balancer mechanism and two carbs (not sure about the last)

squirrelciv

  • Global Moderator
  • Posts: 1654
Re: XBR500 vs 400/4
« Reply #7 on: March 30, 2007, 03:32:52 PM »
I'll chuck my 2p worth in and see who I upset. I think part of the cult appeal is a bikes soul. 400/4 has it as it was one of the first mid wieghts using transverse 4 engine and was pretty on the eye to boot. SR500 gets it from being one of the first 'back to thumpers' road bikes from Japan, following on from the XT500, again another bike that was that bit different and nice to look at too.

The problem with the XBR (and I own one albeit in bits and getting heavily modded) is its souless. It does everthing you want a bike to do, but it's just comes across as a machine. It's all practical and purposeful and it doesn't even attempt to lure you with seducing curves, or sexy stances. The GB500 is a better attempt to recreate 60's style, but the XBR is what robots would invent if you asked for a cafe racer. When I look at it I can't help but think its German!

Honda and their search for perfection forgot to make her pretty too.
Live long, live well, live happy

MrFluffy

  • Guest
Re: XBR500 vs 400/4
« Reply #8 on: March 30, 2007, 06:03:29 PM »

My point is that in all the bike mags, particularly the jap classic mags, the 400/4 is renowned as an undisputed classic and yet I see very little reference if at all to the XBR. I know that to a certain degree this is all subjective but IMHO after 30 plus years of riding, this bike is the best I've ever owned and it appears to be one of the best kept secrets in the biking world.   
Thats because they havent owned both.
400/4's are a bit emperors new clothes, in that when you go back to them now theyre terrible but nobody really says it as they are firmly stamped with this perfect reputation, now the brakes are moped drumbrake standard, the handling is boingy and the engine is utterly gutless. I never owned a 400/4 for myself as I managed to get a GS550 instead (latecomer!) and was saved and pursued the ever increasing cc path upwards, but I got one for the father in law because he always wanted one and I bought into the easy and nice to ride reputation figuring killing him off with a kh750 so I could have it afterwards wouldnt be good form. I rode it four times in total then passed it him for a birthday present gladly as I hated everything about it.  He polished and restored it, then gave it back to me to flog without riding it, but tells everyone about his lovely little 400/4 and what a nice bike it was. He also had a xl125R that he rode whenever he could, but that didnt have the mystique that the 400 had so he hardly ever told anyone about it. I still have the XL from when his mrs decided he was too old for bikes...
My matey had a xbr, and although it was a bit bland Id take one over the 400/4 any day of the week. I offered him a swap when sale time came and 400/4 prices were stupid as part of my try anything once except a aspencade philosophy, but sadly he was of the same sound mind as me...


002

  • Posts: 1786
  • Stalwart(TM)
Re: XBR500 vs 400/4
« Reply #9 on: March 30, 2007, 09:48:48 PM »
Sorry !

But I think the 400/4 is Bloody awful !
I realise it was the first of the small mass produced multis.
And they made a big impact.
But having worked on and ridden countless examples,standard and modified.
I dont like them.Leak petrol,stupid cam chain tensioner and dont like the wet.
Nor the OHC CB750 let alone the DOHC 750/900,CBX Thou or CB1100R absolute rubbish.
Now the CBX750 marvelous engine,they got it right in that one.

C50,70,90,CG125,250RS,RFVC and a few others,great stuff.

But there just my opinion.

Jethro
Cooey
Martini-Greener GP
Lee Enfield
ELG

beeman

  • Posts: 428
Re: XBR500 vs 400/4
« Reply #10 on: March 30, 2007, 10:01:45 PM »
Isn't how a bike feels to its owner different from person to person,and from age to age.
I owned a 400/4 in the early 80's In those days it was not bland it was great. I'd just bu**ered up a 350 bullet and decided to jump ship from british is best brigade. What a revelation. Smooth engine, reliability, brakes that worked, a great noise when wound on and it looked good. I've never hankered after a british bike since. Yes I admire them but they can't take the hammer of modern road conditions. Yet I enjoyed all the bikes I owned before this one.
Today we are looking at the 400/4 with 30 years of improvements. The brakes, in comparision to todays bikes are cr*p. looking back a 400/4 could drop to 1 cylinder in the wet so reliability although better than most british bikes are not as good as modern bikes. My brothers 500/4 was always a better bike but the 400/4 was the first to get the balance right and so with rose tinted specs is now collected by old bikers who only remember the good bits.
I don't have an xbr but like srx's they have 10 years more improvements on them so should be better.
Having owned over 25 different bikes in my time,(conservative guestimate) and have additionally ridden many modern machines. Modern bikes are much better than most older bikes.
However as always speed and sexyness sells and the end game for manufacturers is sales. This is not new it has been going on since the first bike was produced. So manufactures try to create and develop new lines of bikes. We the punters are seduced by this, and we are all punters, just because most of us in this club can't afford new bikes doesn't exclude us from this fact.
Todays yoof may hanker after an R1 and in 25 years time will probably, when they can afford it, have an original 1998 model just as they remembered but never rode. In the mean time the parameters will have changed and R1's will be yesterdays dreams sounds familiar don't it.

I'm rambling ........Nurse, Nurse get me my tablets................
 
We all get Heavier as we get Older because there is a lot more information in our heads

002

  • Posts: 1786
  • Stalwart(TM)
Re: XBR500 vs 400/4
« Reply #11 on: March 30, 2007, 10:38:56 PM »
I agree Beeman.
I preferred the DOHC offerings from Kawasaki and Suzuki.
Stronger designs and nicer to work on,liked the XS650 lump too.
Mind they all got there funny little ways,even today.
Look at the Honda VTEC,10 hours to service and check the valve clearances,more if they have to be changed.
Silly butterfly valves in the exhausts...etc..etc..etc..

Going off subject now !

Jethro
Cooey
Martini-Greener GP
Lee Enfield
ELG

guest27

  • Guest
Re: XBR500 vs 400/4
« Reply #12 on: March 31, 2007, 12:14:19 AM »
So does anyone know Steve 400/4 from Plymouth Poly?  Last time I saw him was on the IoM riding a very nice monoshocked turbo 4/4....

Then there was the ex girlfriend with her chopped single carbed 4/4 - saw her not long back, kind of a shock when you log on to a web site and see your ex sat there...

R