It’s just over a year since I picked up my Crosstourer (CT) and its time to give you my views on the experience of owning one and the pros and cons that have become apparent during my ownership.
I have clocked up 7100 miles and in that time it has slurped fuel at an average of 45mpg. The original brake pads are still fitted although the front pads are wearing unevenly. The rear pads hardly look worn. It came fitted with Pirelli Scorpions which looking at some of the comments on the CT forum suggested they wouldn’t last long, but both were replaced at 5600 miles with the surprise being the front was down to the wear bars at the same time as the rear.
Reliability has been 100% with no breakdowns or component failures, but the finish has been a concern, with corrosion appearing on a number of fasteners, the paint rubbing off the handlebar end caps and the centre stand looking like it has been sand blasted and being in far worse condition than the centre stand on my wife’s 7 year old CBF 250, which looks new by comparison . It goes in for its service next week so I will see how Honda view this and what they will do.
So, how has the bike suited me? The riding position needed some changes, thanks mainly to the appalling seat. It is uncomfortable to say the least and the curvature doesn’t allow a rider to sit higher because you end up sliding down to the lowest part of the seat. The footpegs were also too high and exacerbated achy knees. The seat was replaced with a Touratech high seat which improved things immensely. It is better shaped and it elimanated the sliding down problem of the OEM seat. I also fitted SW Motech footrests which sit 15mm lower than the stock footrests. The combination of the two mean I can ride the bike all day now with no discomfort from my knees.
The standard screen is little more than a flyscreen so I fitted a Give Airflow which was a big improvement and made day long riding much more comfortable.
The other farkles fitted have been Givi crashbars and Kappa K33 panniers (same as the Givi V35) which have been mated to the Givi quick release pannier frames. Although the pannier shape doesn’t allow storing a helmet in them they do have a good capacity and they also fit quite close to the rear of the bike and don’t seem any wider than the handlebars.
Has the CT proved to be a worthy successor to my 2005 R1200GS and 2012 R1200GSA? No it hasn’t. My overall impression is of being distinctly underwhelmed by it. It hasn’t wowed me and as time has gone on its flaws have become more noticeable. The only area where it beats my old GS’s is the engine. The V4 pulls from tickover and is very grunty. It is a real road engine and is very well suited to the bike. It was one of the things that shone out from the test ride, especially compared to the KTM 1190 and Multistrada. Although the top end rush of those bikes was exciting they were no better in normal riding and in fact thanks to the lumpy nature of their power delivery at lower speeds they were not as nice to ride at lower speeds.
The quality of the front and rear suspension is poor. Honda charge a premium price for this bike (list price is currenty only £400 less than the list price of a GSA) but spoil it by fitting cheap and inadequate suspension which gives a poor ride quality. The front transmits every bump and ripple, and the rear is not up to the job with any adjustment having minimal effect. The rear was cured by fitting a Nitron Adventure shock but the front is not as easy to sort out. It looks like a complete strip down and re-valve would be the only solution.
Coming back to the price you have to ask why a centre stand is an optional extra when most of the opposition fit one as standard.
Honda have unilaterally chosen to swap the position of the indicator and horn buttons, which would be fine if I had no plans to buy any other make of bike in the future, but it has taken a lot of time to get used to this arrangement, especially as I ride other bikes with the conventional set up. It is a stupid decision, especially as no other manufacturer has decided to do the same.
The fuel consumption for this class of bike is poor. 45mpg is not acceptable (my GSA averaged 51mpg over a similar mileage) for an adventure bike and Honda really need to sort this out.
The weight of the bike (275kgs) makes itself felt and it could do with a reduction of at least 25kg to put it amongst the weights of the competition. When pressing on it does become noticeable and it doesn’t inspire anywhere near the confidence levels I got from my GSA and GS.
The brakes are not up to par either and the caliper design (sliding calipers) is the problem. The brakes need a good firm pull on the lever to get them working.
In short, as much as I really wanted to like and love this bike it just hasn’t happened. The bond hasn’t formed and it is mainly down to the deficiencies listed above. I have seen some posts where GS’ers have spoken to CT owners who have described the bike as “awesome”. Sadly it is not awesome or anywhere near and it is average at best. If Honda really want to pit it against the best bikes in the class they need to go back to the drawing board.
I have clocked up 7100 miles and in that time it has slurped fuel at an average of 45mpg. The original brake pads are still fitted although the front pads are wearing unevenly. The rear pads hardly look worn. It came fitted with Pirelli Scorpions which looking at some of the comments on the CT forum suggested they wouldn’t last long, but both were replaced at 5600 miles with the surprise being the front was down to the wear bars at the same time as the rear.
Reliability has been 100% with no breakdowns or component failures, but the finish has been a concern, with corrosion appearing on a number of fasteners, the paint rubbing off the handlebar end caps and the centre stand looking like it has been sand blasted and being in far worse condition than the centre stand on my wife’s 7 year old CBF 250, which looks new by comparison . It goes in for its service next week so I will see how Honda view this and what they will do.
So, how has the bike suited me? The riding position needed some changes, thanks mainly to the appalling seat. It is uncomfortable to say the least and the curvature doesn’t allow a rider to sit higher because you end up sliding down to the lowest part of the seat. The footpegs were also too high and exacerbated achy knees. The seat was replaced with a Touratech high seat which improved things immensely. It is better shaped and it elimanated the sliding down problem of the OEM seat. I also fitted SW Motech footrests which sit 15mm lower than the stock footrests. The combination of the two mean I can ride the bike all day now with no discomfort from my knees.
The standard screen is little more than a flyscreen so I fitted a Give Airflow which was a big improvement and made day long riding much more comfortable.
The other farkles fitted have been Givi crashbars and Kappa K33 panniers (same as the Givi V35) which have been mated to the Givi quick release pannier frames. Although the pannier shape doesn’t allow storing a helmet in them they do have a good capacity and they also fit quite close to the rear of the bike and don’t seem any wider than the handlebars.
Has the CT proved to be a worthy successor to my 2005 R1200GS and 2012 R1200GSA? No it hasn’t. My overall impression is of being distinctly underwhelmed by it. It hasn’t wowed me and as time has gone on its flaws have become more noticeable. The only area where it beats my old GS’s is the engine. The V4 pulls from tickover and is very grunty. It is a real road engine and is very well suited to the bike. It was one of the things that shone out from the test ride, especially compared to the KTM 1190 and Multistrada. Although the top end rush of those bikes was exciting they were no better in normal riding and in fact thanks to the lumpy nature of their power delivery at lower speeds they were not as nice to ride at lower speeds.
The quality of the front and rear suspension is poor. Honda charge a premium price for this bike (list price is currenty only £400 less than the list price of a GSA) but spoil it by fitting cheap and inadequate suspension which gives a poor ride quality. The front transmits every bump and ripple, and the rear is not up to the job with any adjustment having minimal effect. The rear was cured by fitting a Nitron Adventure shock but the front is not as easy to sort out. It looks like a complete strip down and re-valve would be the only solution.
Coming back to the price you have to ask why a centre stand is an optional extra when most of the opposition fit one as standard.
Honda have unilaterally chosen to swap the position of the indicator and horn buttons, which would be fine if I had no plans to buy any other make of bike in the future, but it has taken a lot of time to get used to this arrangement, especially as I ride other bikes with the conventional set up. It is a stupid decision, especially as no other manufacturer has decided to do the same.
The fuel consumption for this class of bike is poor. 45mpg is not acceptable (my GSA averaged 51mpg over a similar mileage) for an adventure bike and Honda really need to sort this out.
The weight of the bike (275kgs) makes itself felt and it could do with a reduction of at least 25kg to put it amongst the weights of the competition. When pressing on it does become noticeable and it doesn’t inspire anywhere near the confidence levels I got from my GSA and GS.
The brakes are not up to par either and the caliper design (sliding calipers) is the problem. The brakes need a good firm pull on the lever to get them working.
In short, as much as I really wanted to like and love this bike it just hasn’t happened. The bond hasn’t formed and it is mainly down to the deficiencies listed above. I have seen some posts where GS’ers have spoken to CT owners who have described the bike as “awesome”. Sadly it is not awesome or anywhere near and it is average at best. If Honda really want to pit it against the best bikes in the class they need to go back to the drawing board.