New Honda Rebel 300 and 500
 

Finally a new Honda Rebel based on the modern fuel injected, water cooled, and O2 sensored engines from the CBR300 and 500. These are two of the most fuel efficient motorcycle engines on the road (the third and fourth being the Honda CTX/ NC700 and the PCX). Now packaged in a minimalist low seat Bobber. This is the perfect starting point for an ultra fuel efficient Vetter style foot forward streamliner. Based on what the less efficient Ninja250 streamliners are doing, a Rebel300 based Vetter bike could break 200mpgUS at 50 mph.
.
https://powersports.honda.com/rebel....vePg1ThXcus.97
.
.
https://2yrh403fk8vd1hz9ro2n46dd-wpe...0-1024x682.jpg
.
.
http://craigvetter.com/images/2013-s...ite-196-we.jpg
.
.

I did finally buy that CBR250r and got a great deal on it. I had to drive 10 hours one way to get it, 2012 with 416 miles on it. This guy bought it brand spankin' new and then laid it down several times the first month he had it before finally losing control of it, giving it full throttle as he was falling off and ran it into his pickups' open tailgate smashing the front fairing, headlight tubular bracket etc. LOL, the insurance adjuster finally totalled it after that. I found absolutely nothing wrong with it other then cosmetic stuff, so i got it for $2k! Took it for a test ride and it was amazingly smooth just like you had said the little R's were. I still have it stored and am trying to finish a few other projects so i can get to work on a Vetter Fairing this winter! :{)

http://i67.tinypic.com/mlrvp0.jpg

Welcome to the club. 44,000 miles on mine. And it was off the road for a year and a half. So I put 19,000 on my PCX150.

Once the fairing is in place can the liquid cooled engine be fitted with a heater core and a fan?

There is very little wasted heat energy in the radiator of this single cylinder Honda. The radiator is already in the fairing. The Ninja twins do tend to run hot in a Vetter fairing and might help to keep your legs warm in bad weather.

The long stroke Honda 500 balance shaft twin is one of the smoothest engines on the road. After starting, you have to look at the tach to make sure it is running. And has a butter smooth clutch/ trans. And very fuel efficient.

Hopefully they didn't detune the smaller Rebel like they did the CRF250L. That bike turned out to be a total slug and heavy to boot relative to the Yamaha WR250R .

If they kept the peppy motor of the CBR this bike might have a wider appeal than just for beginners.

The original Rebel was $1495 in 1986. Doing the inflation calculation to 2015 dollars that takes it to $3295. Is the new Rebel worth the additional $1100? I'd say yes--if it runs well. If it's as slow as the CRF250L, no.

Apples to oranges. The WR 250R engine is a performance engine and the bike costs 30% more. The Honda250R and L are world bikes meant to be cheap, fuel efficient and indestructible transportation in developing nations. Not toys. But I still don't understand why Honda doesn't go with the 300 engine in any market that is not cc restricted to to 249.

For what it's worth Honda did a number of small modifications to the 2017 CRF-250L to increase it's power output. Someone at the Big H is actually listening to what people are saying about their machines.

That's what Yamaha is doing with the R3 everywhere except Japan and maybe a handful of other Asian markets with a lower volume. There's a JDM version limited to 250cc (R25).

@Sendler or any other automotively smart members. I'm an owner of a 2014 CTX700 (faired model with standard shift and standard brakes).

Do you really think that the 471 parallel is more efficient than the 670 and why? And my question is focused more on the stock set ups of these bikes and power trains; not so much on what the potential of each engine is through gearing, body changing, etc; although feel free to discuss potential as well.

The reason for my inquiry is that back when I was trying to choose a new bike to trade my Piaggio BV350 for, I was looking for the best bike that best fit me and my body type for commuting, and I was also looking at mpg as one of the major factors. I was immediately attracted to the 670, because I felt that I'd prefer it's low-revving quality to a typical high-revving bike. I had never owned a traditional motorcycle (only scooters), so I had no previous biases towards higher revs like most riders would have. I had become a fan of low-end torque through my experience with diesel-powered vehicles; but the NC700X might have been just a little tall for my frame at a 32" seat height, much like the BV350 that I could not flat foot, which was 30.5 but had a wider seat.

Then the 500s came out, and I was looking at the F and the X as the seat heights were slightly lower, but I did not look at the R just because I thought that I might prefer the upright stance as I really liked the positioning of scooters; but when I was looking at real-world mpg (following posts, reviews, fuelly, etc.) it looked to me that conservative-riding riders were doing a little better with the NC700X than with the any of the 500s.

As I've posted before, I'm still almost 100% stock; except for a 12" Madstad windscreen and a milk crate strapped to the seat, and new Michelin P4s; and since the new tires, I'm achieving at least 77 for summer time commuting and at least 70 for winter time commuting. I can achieve low 80s for 200 mile trips in the summer time. The tires have added another 2-3 mpg even after correcting for the higher odometer error. I know that the 471 is rated at 71, versus the 700s top rating at 64, but I feel like I'm doing slightly better than if I had chosen any of the 471 choices as a stock rider; but of course, I can't know that for sure.

Now that there is the Rebel 300 and 500, there is maybe even a more perfect bike for me but I'm going to stay pat. The one thing I don't like about the Rebel, but streamline wannabes' would love is that even lower seat height than the CTX700. I really don't like the idea of going lower than I already am on the seat as it creates a visibility issue on blind hills and sort of causes a cramped up feeling for city riding with knees up so high, and there is a little of that on the CTX700 with my 30.5 inch inseam. I wouldn't want that to be even more pronounced, but for shorter riders, it'd probably b great.

The CTX700 and the CBR500R both show about the same fuel economy on fuelly. Although I would have to expect the 500R's have a larger number of people that ride more aggressively. The NC700 has a large sample size and shows a nice curve at around 65 mpgUS. There only seems to be 1 300R with 21,000 miles there and it shows 75 mpgUS. The appeal for the new bikes is the low seat height to build a foot forward streamliner with less frontal area. Alan has gone to great lengths to make a new Ninja based streamliner with a chopped frame and a stretched swingarm to get a lower seat height but it is so much trouble he has yet to finish it since Craig got hurt. Now we have a ready made streamliner starting point with a low seat height that should be able to dethrone the carbed Vetter style Ninja twins which are already getting over 150 mpgUS.

With the recent purchase of of my 2012 CBR250r I had hoped to have it all striped down and have some body work done to it already. Shamefully, with working so many hours these past few months i haven't even started the Baby'R Streamliner. Although I would be thrilled with 150mpg, i think there is potentially more available there with the little CBR! :{)

2012 CBR250r 416 original miles!
http://i65.tinypic.com/oh35so.jpg

How many miles on it now?

sadly Scott, the same as the day i brought it home! It is still sitting at #416! i have gone out and started it a few times this fall and let it run for 15-20 mins. I have been working all fall/winter so far on another project with my girls. The 72' Westy and i've just about got it finished enough to be road worthy! About $4k later and a lot of my labor! As soon as the "non-hippie" bus is up and running then i get to start the Baby-R Vetter Fairing project! :{

http://i65.tinypic.com/2ptb98p.jpg

Please clarify or elaborate HHOTDI. More potential than which models? Do you think just more than Ninjas' and bigger bikes like mine? The new 300 CBRs'? The new Rebel 300s? Or are you saying more than any production gas bike when ecomodded to the extreme?

I get what Scott is saying about the new Rebel 300. It's so low already, so no frame cutting needed; it starts light like the other 300s; it's already got one of the most economical mc power trains ever mass produced that is already highway capable, but would be even more so when made more slippery; and so it's a bike now out there that someone could buy used in a few months and then modify it much more easily, simply and cheaply than other bikes available before now. It would likely break through the 200 mark if it were on a ride like the typical AMA with good warm weather and a ride that is impossible to convoy at a high speed safely on the run.

But it seems to me that if Alan and Vic wind down, that there are no young whipersnappers' coming up that have the finances, skill, and time, and are motivated to do a Rebel 300 project that I know of? From what I've seen and read lately, the electric folks are the one's doing most of the work, and while I'm interested in their work, I'm so far unimpressed due to how heavy, elaborate, complex, expensive, low ranged and impractical they are compared to what is possible with a new generation Honda streamliner. I think the electrics may start winning the contests regularly, but from a practicality and daily rider concept, the gas streamliners are far, far ahead.

Most of us like what we like in what we want to ride, 200 mpg be dam*ed, including me, and that's a good thing. So I don't know if we'll get to see two or three of these built and ridden in the challenges, but I wouldn't do it if I was able . My interest and desire would be to Ecomod a lower revving, bigger cc, higher hp bike just like Fred did and show whoever might care that there is more than one way to achieve great mpg on power two wheels than the minimalist approach, and small displacement, so often proclaimed by Craig as the only way. But that doesn't mean I'm not absolutely fascinated by what others are doing and improving upon in different ways.

For instance, I love to watch how the forward-leaning, tucking, sport bike guys keep creeping up towards the so-called only-way-to-do-it Vetter machines, and I say that with great respect and reverence for those guys and their work, but I still love to see their methods challenged. Scott's run last year was amazing with basically just a tail and gearing changes, and I used to love to see what Fred could do with, supposedly, too much horsepower and torque, 31 & 35 respectively, and the wrong kind of streamline shaping.

Getting Honda 250s or 300s in this thing with the same level of work as has been done with the Ninjas would be really cool, but it's not for me personally even if I were able. I like cruising at or about 3000 RPM at 60+ mph and would love to see how far I could take that technology; not to win of course, but a 120 score would be an amazing thing with 47 rated horsepower engine and 500+ pounds on two wheels.

I would say that given equivilent streamlining, the Honda 250 fuel injected single is the easiest off the shelf path to a winning highway fuel efficiency than any other production ICE vehicle. AND they are completely reliable in any weather and utilize an O2 sensor and a huge (for a motorcycle) catalyst. If you are willing to use a sport riding position as in the Hayes bike. The new Rebel300 will be that much better for a Vetter style streamliner kit due to the Bobber style ergonomics even though the cam is not tuned quite as much for efficiency as the 250 was.
.
Electric drivetrains beat the round trip energy consumption and carbon emissions of the best ICE engines by at least 2:1 and the only reason the latest Vetter challenge wasn't dominated by the three electric bikes was that the competition is based on cost per mile and gas is ridiculously cheap in the USA right now.
.
Just because we have the technology to suck the oil out of the ground at an alarming rate, doesn't mean we should. And we need to increase the road tax back up to at least where it was 20 years ago so we can afford to fix our roads. And start phasing in a carbon tax at the source to spur new clean tech and raise the price of carbon based energy and get people to quit blowing so much of it needlessly up into the air with their new pick up truck.
.

Since you brought up speculation on aggressive riding, just a couple of points and this is just speculation based on my perception of things.

#1 I don't have a perception on the profile of the typical 500 cc rider, but I don't see how it could be worse than the average CTX owner. From what I can tell there are hardly any CTX700 owners, at least the one's on the forum, that do anything close to conservative riding or have any interest in the great potential of that power train or their machines have at achieving great mpg. Over at that discussion board, there are all sorts of performance threads; riders discussing how they don't like to use the top gear; how they wish it had more top-end performance; how it performs best at or about 5000 RPM; how they're going to get a more sporty bike to supplement their CTXs; subjects I know nothing about, as I ride mine like a typical commuter would drive a car. If I start a thread over there about anything having to do with practicality, there will be no discussion, or there will be negative responses. Most don't want the CTX700 to be an economical bike.

Moreover, there is even a bigger group on that forum who are wealthier, older, often handicapped, and usually big bodies and they often ride 2 up. Lots of talk about all kinds of fuel-draining farkle and conveniences. These are usually those who owned big touring bikes when they were younger and they treat these bikes like they're big luxury bikes, at least as much as possible.

#2 Most CTX700s out there are automatic. I think that 65 mode is reflected in that number. Honda rates the DCT at 61 and 64 for the standard. I think they are both underrated, but that the straight shift may have more than a 3 mpg advantage. Nothing else explains my high numbers.

I got 75 or 76 commuting with the original tires. Now I'm at 77 and that's putting a little cold-weather riding in the average. I do not hypermile. Do not lug. Accelerate with traffic. I do not tuck. This is from tank-to-tank; not hwy only calculated. It is odometer corrected miles shown x .978. I'm using regular E10 gas. The bike is basically stock. The Madstad screen did not increase mpg. I'm smaller and lighter than the average man, and my speed is only slightly slower, but not below the speed limit. I achieved 96.9 by my own records at the AMA tucking, starting with a warm engine, and I've often achieved 81-85 on similar trips of my own only not tucking and starting cold. I don't see a 500 achieving that number in any variety on such a ride. A stock, standard CTX700 should get at least 73 when ridden within the law and ridden with FE in mind by the averaged sized person in warm weather, but hardly anyone owns one of these without saddle boxes, and I'd say near 80% is DCT. I can't know for sure, but I don't think that if I owned a CB500F, R, or X, I'd be getting the same mpg riding the same way and routes I'm riding now. If I owned a 250 or 300, I'd likely be achieving near 90 based on your early numbers, and the fact that my commute is slower than yours. I'm from 59-65 mph on state highways, five traffic lights, one small town, very rural. But I think the 670 cc in stock, standard transmission form is #2 in the current HPS list for both the CTX and likely the NCX as well. City mostly riding may flip them, but for alot of highway riding, those higher consistent revs wouldn't make up for the .99 cc advantage by my way of thinking.

[QUOTE=sendler;530917
.
Electric drivetrains beat the round trip energy consumption and carbon emissions of the best ICE engines by at least 2:1 and the only reason the latest Vetter challenge wasn't dominated by the three electric bikes was that the competition is based on cost per mile and gas is ridiculously cheap in the USA right now.
.
Just because we have the technology to suck the oil out of the ground at an alarming rate, doesn't mean we should. And we need to increase the road tax back up to at least where it was 20 years ago so we can afford to fix our roads. And start phasing in a carbon tax at the source to spur new clean tech and raise the price of carbon based energy and get people to quit blowing so much of it needlessly up into the air with their new pick up truck.
.[/QUOTE]

I don't disagree with your political assertions; I agree about the energy use advantage, and the price of oil should reflect the cost it takes to secure it's flow around the world, and fuel price should include enough tax to pay for the exhaust and production cleanup from pollution, maybe as a fuel tax. And I love electric motors. I think road tax should be enough to pay for roads, and heavier, more wheeled vehicles should pay more of the share, but that fuel type or emissions should have nothing to do with a pure road tax.

But the cheapest electric bike that can make my one-way commute is $17K and trips are out or would have to be modified. And so if my employer would let me recharge and double my pay, maybe I could buy one and commute on it. I'd love to be able to do that, but the FE challenges make me wonder if that $17K bike would make the 30 miles considering what they've got to do to make the trip.

Anyway, I'm absolutely not against what they're doing, but am somewhat put back and surprised by all the battery size and weight considering what Zero advertises on range..

The Honda 700 is a very fuel efficient engine. A very bold move by Honda. It very well might actually beat the 500. Neither one will get within 15% of the single given the same dedicated rider.

I'll detail how mine is performing right now, in case the picture is helpful:

My Zero DSR is making a daily 85 mile round trip commute at highway speeds, mainly because of windscreen tuning. When you rack up miles that quickly, the Zero starts to pay off (it does take a few years, so yes this is when the early adopters with the spare budget get in and tinker like Erasmo and others).

My employer does let me charge using a standard outlet, but I could get by without it. The one-way range is about 100 miles stock at 60mph, or 10% more or at 65mph with the right windscreen. My improvement is roughly 15% when I'm using my throttle lock.

Trips are just within reach, with my DSR able to make 400 miles per day (using a $3,000 charger upgrade, admittedly; a DIY charger can get you there with more work for less than half that price). Beyond a high-powered charger, aerodynamics help increase the ride-to-charge ratio (hopefully from 1.5-to-1 to 2-to-1).

Regarding the cost and weight, it's the most dense automotive battery you can buy, and almost half of the bike's price is the battery. My prior Zero came with two invoices that spelled that out explicitly. So, that's why EVs have a high price barrier to entry, in a nutshell, for now.

While I can't argue about the list price, it can amortize over the long term (right now that's about 60,000 miles or so) considering the lack of gas, oil, and most maintenance.

I'll concede that the 670 twin likely gives up around 15% to the 250 Honda single. That was right around my estimation for me and my riding and commute route, and that's only in a favorable scenario for the 670; comparing stock set-up machines to each other and only when comparing the 250 to the straight-shift-configured 670. I feel like, however, that the assumed 15% separates more when modifying and/or streamlining and for slower rides, i.e. 50 mph, just because the 670 is running so easy going with all that available torque at moderate highway speeds and such low RPM already in stock form, and so the potential for improvement is there, but likely not to the same extent. For instance, at 58 mph, I'm just barely breaking 3,000; and at 61, I'm still under the 3400 mark. Most likely, at those moderate steady highway speeds, the 670 is generating such low horsepower, that it's just sort of lugging along, but it's larger displacement means that it's already very near it's potential; whereas smaller-displacement machines can likely go way up in the same riding situation if measures are taken to lower the horsepower that they're generating at the same speed.

78 mpg (CTX) X 1.15 = 88.5 (CB250R)

CTX700 versus Rebel 300 ????

The figures above seems about what would happen for warm-weather commuting for my personal situation, but of course I'm only speculating and can't know without buying one and riding it, but it's still fun to speculate.

My intent is not to prove anything or to disparage any of these great Honda engines; only speculate and guess about things, because the Challenges don't have enough participation to bear these things out. I wish they would, because motorcycle fuel economy is something that interests me alot, and I find it fascinating yet frustrating that we don't know more.

I'm totally fine with not having the most economical gas bike on the market. The CTX700 is great for me; it's just my style with that low running RPM. And I think it's one of the most impressive for its size. I'd love to streamline either partially or fully and/or further modify it to improve mpg without making it unstable or unsafe, but I'm just not able financially or mechanically. Alternatively, I'd love it just about as much to see someone else do it and I'd love to see many others modify many other bikes as well; most-especially the new Rebel 300, since it'd make it an easier and cheaper project than ever before.

Stock bike comparisons also interest me. I'd love to see lots of different bikes with different power trains in stock form compete against each other, and at different levels of modification. I wish the electrics had more range where they could compete in stock form, because they interest me as well and they use just a fraction of the energy to do the same work, but I've been sort of taken aback by how much battery space and weight is being added just to make these not-so-long challenge rides. I would have thought that a stock Zero with it's biggest pack, when streamlinig to reduce drag, could have made it to the half-way point to charge, and then back considering their advertising. So that's a little disappointing to me, because it's not something I'd can consider even if I could afford it, and so it's not yet at the level of practicality for long commuters, but it is still very interesting to me to watch them progress!

The 300 and 500 supposedly use the same engine as the CBR300R/CB300F and CBR500R/CB500F.

They only further restricted the exhaust (more back pressure), and tuned it slightly different, resulting in more torque, but less HP.
If you ask me, they're great bikes for the city and suburbs, as well as occasional 10-20min interstate rides.
Some interstates here are known to have people ride 80-100MPH on. The Rebel 500 would barely do 100MPH (just like the CBR300R, and the CBR500R/CB500F).
Forget about the Rebel 300. That thing does 90-95 MPH tops.

Interstate riding really needs a quadruple 4:
A 44BHP at the wheels, 400CC, 4 stroke ptwin, weighing in at 400LBS hi-rev engine.
For a low rev engine, a 500-600cc would do.

Thanks for your input. I agree. I'm not very technically or mechanically minded, but have done some thought lately that if HPS used the same engineering concepts built in to my CTX700, they could maximize a real-world, highway-capable bike around 80-90 pounds lighter than my 494 lb bike and somewhere in the 550-570 cc range with that same kind of low-rev performance that's built in to my 670 cc parallel twin that would likely exceed a 300 cc bike with regards to mpg for highway riding, but probably lower mpg around town. They may even be able to get just a tad more out of such a hypothetical engine per cc w/o sacrificing mpg by adding something like dual fuel injection (DI + PFI), but of course they'd be an added cost for something like that, and that may make the torque too flat for a motorcycle.

I absolutely don't see anything like that on the horizon from HPS or anyone else for that matter. HPS has taken alot of grief from enthusiasts and the media about that kind of motoring for a motorcycle. For some reason, that is beyond my understanding as a former scooter rider and as someone who rides more for practical reasons, there is this a need for more top in performance by most enthusiasts. I didn't grow up riding, nor have I done alot of riding of typical motorcycles, so it's hard for me to understand what's missing on an mc with car-like or scooter-like performance. For my liking, the CTX700 is plenty fun, and it is for goodness sake, a cruiser; not a sport bike.

Hey Scott, we sold the hippie bus and i started to ride the little cbr. I quickly found that i'm getting too old to ride in that position any longer. So it's up for sale and i scored a really nice NC700x manual. Wow it i so much more comfortable for me. Easy to ride, sit upright, great power and spectacular "Smiles to the Gallon".

I purchased it back in Feb and got 55mpg on the way home. Mid 20's, snow flurries and gusty 20-30mph winds. i aired up the tires and lubed the chain and got 64mpg on the next tank. I changed the oil to Rot T6, K+N air and oil filters, added a throttle lock and lubbed the chain again and netted 75mpg. I lubbed the chain again(it was really dry when i bought it) and the very next tank netted my best to date of 86! So now once the baby R sells i'd like to start making a Vetter streamlining kit for it. I'll start a build log for it when i get it started! :{)

The 700 is an amazing engine. A very bold move by Honda. We had someone ride a CTX700 with us at Ohio once and got mid 90's.

That was me. It was atypical to be sure. Mine was a straight shift that Honda used to offer in the States that I theorize could achieve much better than the dual clutch automatic for FE. I had not come within 13 mpg of that result before it happened and some of those low-to-mid 80s tank achievements were slower and more conducive to high mpg than was that 96.1 mpg run than I had. That was 2014 Vintage Days event. However, I never tuck back home, but in that ride I tucked except when braking or urban riding. It was hot. It was calm weather, and I had a large Dewalt tool box strapped in behind me. I kept RPM fairly low, but just like back home, I focused more on light throttle pressure than I did low RPM. The box was about 55 liter volume, narrow (like me) and tall. Vic suggested that my tucking, combined with the big box may have created a streamline effect. It was way, way more than I expected, because I'd measured my mpg probably over 100 times, and so I had very consistent results and fill method; etc. Back home, I could expect mid 70s for commuting and low 80s for a winding road trip in hot weather, but nothing into the 90s ever. I think my high up to that point was around 83.3 after correcting for the estimated trip meter error, which I always do in any vehicle.

I went back one more time; 2016 I think, and achieved 88 mpg; again tucking, but this time with rectangular milk crate behind me. Most other scores were better this second time around than the others did the first time I went, but for me, it was more like what I expected than 2014. The 2016 ride was super short though, and so none of us liquid fuel guys felt very good about having enough data (miles) for a good measurement. I'm 5'8 and weigh only a buck fifty.

The first time may have been an anomaly (although I usually don't get anomalies), but more likely the tucking with the big box gave me a partial streamline like Vic suggested. I'm real careful about how I measure mpg; much like most who do these sort of things as a hobby or interest. Just like right now I can tell you that my F150 has around a 1.8% pessimistic trip meter error and that the mpg calculator has an error that ranges between 1.3-2.0 mpg; the higher my actual mpg, the more the error by the computer. I get consistent results in all vehicles that I drive, because I observe and take notice to any possible variables, and therefore correct over time. I'm sure it's the same way for Sendler.

I've sold the bike and plan on getting a Mitsubishi Mirage; slightly used, in about a year and a half. Something cheap that I can commute in all seasons in safety and get up to 50 mpg. The only thing that fits that bill that I can think of that can satisfy a 61 mph, 58 mile round trip commute is a Mitsubishi Mirage. Must be manual shift. A diesel Chevy Cruze hatch could also achieve this, but remember, one of the rules is that it has to be cheap. The diesel isn't cheap.

t looks better than the current model, which isn't saying much of anything. But it's better looking than the Suzuki GW, but not the TU. ummmm, kill it with fire? But who knows, it might be awesome.