VFR VS VTR That's the question????
 

There is one (VFR) for sale near me, new tires 28,000 miles, 1998 version, never down seller says excellent shape. I haven't heard much bad about the VFR's. Seller's moving accross country and is asking $2800. Good deal, anything to look out for or should I still be looking for a Hawk.

The V-tec on later VFRs is difficult to ride smoothly because of the transition caused by the valve actuation when the second set is kicked in. The VTR is subject to the common weak RR units installed by the factory and some riders have had trouble with cam chain tensioners. My '98 S'hawk is about 30K miles on the original CCT and the indy shop says not to worry (knock on wood) even though I'm running comp cams and pistons from Moriwaki.

I opted for the Hawk 'cause it has fewer moving parts, sounded deeper in the throat and was less work to ride well quickly. But then I'm getting long in tooth and have grown lazy.

There is a lot to like about the early VFRs, I'd take one at the price you were quoted.

You can't go wrong with a VFR or VTR that's in good shape. I have both and really like each one of them quite a bit. For the record, my VTEC operation is perfectly smooth and is not difficult to ride at all. However it is a moot point because the '98 (considered by some to be the best VFR ever) you are looking at does not use VTEC. It does have the popular gear-driven cams though...

Good luck!

It's a personal choice. You should ride both. Both have advantages. What are you doing with it? 2up, track days, x-country, commutting, around town? etc. etc.

Both are excellent.

R/R issue is present on both 98 VFR and 98 VTR (issue is null&void)

That era VFR is a true classic of years of V4 refinement w/the gear driven cams. (Beware of the different generations of VFR's especially v-tec and non. The character is very different, almost 2 different families)

My impression.
VFR-
++ more refinement, better distance suspension, seat, and ergos.
-- heavy, wind 5-9k for power, top heavy, lots of parts, linked brakes
VTR
++ excellent sound, light weight, character, will give wood, low end grunt
-- poor comfy ergos, passenger won't dig

I was actively shopping for a VFR as the only bike on the planet. Then I found a deal on a VTR. I had already ridden a couple of VFR's. When I tried the VTR it stole my heart. I wish I could have both, but to have one for my application I would choose the VTR again and again.

Try them both and follow your heart or at least compromise your end use.

I've had both and prefer the VTR...sounds better and has soul, which IMHO the VFR does not...

This is a steal if it's in good shape. This was the first year of the gear-driven cams coupled with fuel injection. I own a 97 VFR and a 98 Superhawk. I always watch the local wantads for 98-01 VFR's because that was the last of the best. I have been hugely happy with my 97 - I think the bike was way ahead of it's time. The 98's to 01's were the last of the fi/gear-driven cam racehorses.

The next year the Interceptor gained 70 pounds (mostly pollution control) and went to cam chains.

I loved the first Interceptors, my best riding buddy got the 2nd one that came into Long Beach Honda in '83. He was their former parts manager. I couldn't afford one at that time, but it was state of the art.

When I bought my VTR, new in '05, it didn't take me long to decide between the VFR and the VTR. Torque:D...and linked brakes are a deal breaker for me. When someone came out with linked brakes in the late '80s, I just figured they were made for inexperienced riders who were afraid to use the front brake. To own a VFR I would have to switch it to separate front and rear brakes, since I use only the front 95% of the time.

Pal of mine says you want to forget about using the rear - open the line and let a little bubble in.

Not all VFR's braking were linked. Most weren't.

I agree with your assessment in the years provided. The Interceptor was a dieing pig. The Superhawk was already dead a year.

In terms of character, I would say that (my 6th gen) VFR is like that of a luxury sports car - sophisticated and refined - and my VTR has more of a Hot-Rod feel to it.

The VFR is the high-school quarterback and the VTR is more James Dean.

Good assessment. The 1st gen Interceptor was a Hot Rod though, in it's time. On a trip back from Laguna Seca in '84, my friend hit 125mph on a straight section of US 1 above San Simeon...2-up with a 175 pound passenger.

When we got to our motel in Cambria, Mike, the passenger, got off the back and said "buck and a quarter, YEAH!".

I have owned both a VFR and a VTR! Cannot complain about either and still dearly love both bikes to this day! You will not go wrong either way - find a way to drive both and make your personal choice. People above have done a good job of summing up the various qualities of both bikes - it is all up to what you like now.

That is a great deal on the VFR, but I love my VTR just as much. I had a VFR first and then make the switch to the VTR. Thumbs up to Honda sportbikes!!!

It all depends on what type of riding you want to do. For a fun ride in the twisties and about town I would for sure take a VTR over a '98 VFR. If I was going touring I would have to think about it for a while. You can mod VTR to tour, but '98 VFR does the job well in stock form.

The VTR is more like the 2nd gen VFR (I've owned both the 1st and 2nd gen VFRs). I still miss the gear driven whine of my tricked out '87 VFR, but the growl of the big twin VTR helps me forget. Also IMHO the VFR turned into a portly touring bike over the years by '98.

One last point is the complexity of the engines. The VTR is super simple compared to the VFR. I will cost you less to maintain in the long run.

I'm 25 and fancy myself a bit of a styling snob. Most people my age don't really appreciate the light tourer segment or their styling for that matter but in the case of the VFR, i think they're great bikes, great looking, and would no doubt be uber comfy if you intend on doing longer hauls. The most i've ridden my Superhawk was about 600 miles over a day and a half and my legs and ass were completely shot by the end.

I guess what it comes down to is what type of riding you intend on doing. If i had the extra scratch, i would have an interceptor in my garage next to the hawk. $2800 isn't a small sum of money but i think it's a steal for what it is. that's just my $.02. What i do know is that my riding buddy's dad has one and takes it out probably more than any other of the other 10 or so motorcycles in his stable.

either way you'll be psyched, i can't say enough good things about my VTR, but as many have already mentioned...it's preference. take em for a ride.

I agree with Nuhawk...I also have a VFR (4th gen) and a Superhawk. Get that VFR it is a great deal if the bike is in good condition.

That's an excellent price with fairly low miles for a VFR. Get it! You will be happy. Put some cans on it and you will fall in love with the sound, plus the power delivery is the perfect combination of V grunt and I-4 scream. Check out vfrworld.com for more good info. I don't think there is anyone there with a 5th gen (98-01) that is unhappy.

I own a pair of each! The VFR's are a '99 and an '04! I favor the '99 over the '04. I think that of the two it's got more character. The '04 is the VTEC model and has been accused of spooking riders when the VTEC actuates. I don't find the VTEC jump at all un-nerving! But that's just me.
My VTR's are an '00 and '01. The '01 is a track only bike. In my opinion there is no comparison between the two models. The VFR's are quicker in the 1/4 mile but the VTR's are quicker 0-60. The VTR's power delivery is more linear. Where the VFR's power, especially the '04, comes on in the upper rpm's a bit harder. The VFR's are heavier but the net HP numbers on both models are about the same. I've done high mileage days (700mi. to 1000mi.) on both model bikes with no ill physical effects, but that's a subjective thing. If you're planning on more long trips I'd recommend the VFR, although it handles the twisty roads adequately. If you're commuting mostly then it's a toss up. If you just want to assault the twistys and not spend a lot of time on the slab then the VTR gets the nod. Either way you shouldn't be dissappointed.

I had both a 98 VFR and a 99 VTR at the same time also. Like stated above it all comes down with what feel you are after and what type of riding you do. You CANNOT go wrong with either. VFR super comfy, fast and has the I4 feel of more revs to go fast. VTR is more raw power/torque hooligan feel. Longer rides the VFR wins hands down, shorter rides the VTR won (for me). The VFR feels more luxury, has more aftermarket support, longer range per tank (over 200+ miles vs 100 miles on the VTR) and better gas mileage (45 vs my 32mpg on the VTR) but the VTR feels lighter, more racey, more entertaining power delivery and simply is more fun/playful.

For me the decision came down to fun factor. I've done 6+ hours on both bike and ridden the same canyons and both bikes are grrrrreat (cue Tony the Tiger). The VFR was a very nice bike (I plan on another if I ever get my garage back!) but the VTR was just more of a hooligan, smile in your helmet, loft the front wheel type ride. There was just more LUST associated with the VTR....Plus everyone knows the VFR and I still get people that have no idea what the VTR is.


Besides this is a more fun, intimate forum to hang out in then the overpopulated VFR sites.... But of course you are asking in a VTR fourm!!!