Just picked up my 06 VFR- traded in honda sabre- wow, what a change; the v4 is such a sweet engine- now I know why honda produced it for 25 years- understand that 07 is the last year they will make the vfr800 because it is too expensive to build and honda makes more $$$ w/ the inline 4's.
That rumor has been out there for a while, but I have yet to see anything official on it. I can't imagine that Honda would discontinue the VFR. They would be leaving a huge hole in their sport-tourer line up. In a worse case, they can just keep producing the same bike as they have for the last 6 years. The bike is so refined as it is, what more really needs to be done for what the bike is? I know that many people want more power and less weight, but then it would be going more toward what the CBR line is all about rather than what the sport-touring side is all about.
It's all about $ - Honda has no problem discontinuing a great bike if it's not selling enough. There isnt a single cruiser ever produced that I'd trade my Valkyrie for, but they jumped ship with that design in 2003. Maybe it's because I lean more toward the sporting side of motorcycles that I like the flat 6 so much better than a cruiser Vtwin engine, but that along with the Blackbird is a great example of Honda's reaction to the market. It's pretty obvious to me instead of upgrading or continuing older bikes they are in a mode of streamlining their lineup.
what the dealer told me is the reason for discontinuing is based on the cost to build the V4 versus the inline 4- Honda can make more $$$ producing the inline and that is what is selling right now; but who knows that is one dealers' comment and have not verified it.
This is a really huge subject, but the one question I'd ask is why would it cost any more? it's about the same amount of materials, just arranged differently. What it comes down to is it's not selling enough to be worth their time in continuing. Honda will soon be down their 600 and 1000CBRs (maybe the 919), Goldwing and ST1300, 1800 and 1300 VTX's and of course the Rebel. But who cares? Honda's last forever, that's why I bought them. If I were to crash one I'd still look for a Honda replacement.
Actually, I believe that this bit of information is accurate. It has always been my understanding that the main reason for Honda transitioning the entire Interceptor line-up (back in 1986) from a V4 to an in-line 4 (in 1987) which became the Hurricane line-up, was due to the added cost of producing a V4 versus an in-line 4. In order to compete with the Ninja and GSX-R line-ups, they needed to cut production costs. I am not sure why it is more expensive, but I know I have seen this and read this before. Can anyone else elaborate as to whether it indeed costs more to produce a V4 and if so, why?
Someone can correct me at any time, but it's common sense that it would cost more to build a 600cc I4 with 110 hp than it would an 800cc V4 with 98 hp. If not, then I would conclude the V4 is a vastly inferior design then the I4 from a performance standpoint.
The reason its more expensive is because the slower sales don't absorb the cost of a seperate production line and all the workers and machines to run it. The big issue is the younger riders are buying a lot of bikes and the VFR is more refined and not extreme enough for that market. We like them, most of us are through the CBR phase of our riding. I did a long ride yesterday and I was thinking about how much more I actually enjoy my VFR than my CBR. I am never going to race. I like a smooth, refined, torquey engine with that unique engine sound. When I bought my CBR I only knew I wanted a fast bike with a high redline and it was a great color yellow. Now I know how I will ride and what I like. Hopefully this bike still exists when the group buying CBRs now gets more experience. It would be terrrible not to have the option......
I think whoever is running Honda is having an identity crisis - they are too afraid to try to define the market anymore and are simply following the market - Honda has lost confidence.
You might be right, but the question is why??? Alter ego might be on to something. I know that it costs money to retool a line for a particular production run. Once done, manufacturers want to keep that line running as long as they can before having to switch it over again for the next run. It is feasible that this is why I have seen and heard comments about the V4 being more costly to produce. It might not be that putting the engine together is not any harder or costly, but rather the costs associated with producing a small number of them. I'll try to see if I can find some articles that might address this in more detail.
