Speed Four, Honda Hornet or...?

[Baryonyx]

I'm hoping to buy a bigger bike soon and I've got my eyes on four cylinder naked things that are more to the sporty side of the market, without being a sports bike.

The obvious choices leaping out at me are the Triumph Speed Four and the Honda Hornet. I ended up at the Speed four by way of the Speed Triple, which I love but may be a bit much for me, as a beginner (I'm thinking of the older Speed Triples which were like a stripped down T595/955i). I really need a do-everything bike, as I only have space for one bike (a relative nearby has offered me use of their garage, which saves my headache I recently discussed on here about whether or not I could wheel a bike through to my back garden - the reality would appear to be that I won't be able to do that, even with a relatively slim bike.


Now, the Triumph and the Honda both seem like good choices. I work very close to both a Honda and Triumph main dealer so I'm confident I'll be able to get the ownership support I need. My commute is 12 miles either way, and is usually wrapped up in about 15-17 minutes. I've managed so far with a CG125 with no front screen, so I guess you might say I can carry on with little weather protection (although I'd have a fly screen on either bike I moved up to, for at least some protection). Apart from that, the bike will just be used for riding on the Northumberland, Cumbria and Borders B roads and doing some light day-touring round that way, so I've shelved my dreams of having a full size tourer for now.

Both seem to be available in good shape for around £2500, and the stats look pretty similar on paper. Both seem to be centred around a detuned sports bike engine. Obviously the Speed Four can boast the TT600 chassis too, albeit I believe with some slight revisions to soften it a touch. Does the Hornet handle anywhere near as well?


I'd be very much interested in hearing from anyone who has ridden either bike, or if there are any other obvious candidates I've missed. I'm not wild about the Fazer or the Bandit (though I gather Fazers typically love to rev) hence the Triumph and Honda being front runners.

[Tim85]

I can't comment on the triumph, although I do love the looks of them. Even those weird air duct things. I did have a hornet 600 and I loved everything about it. I've ridden fazers and most variation of bandits. Bandits are fit for a purpose but they're heavy old barges fazers are ok I just personally don't like the looks.
The hornets need to be rev'd big time but they are massively rewarding and can be thrown around. The high can sounds awesome with an aftermarket end can. If you ride them hard you'll rarely be too far behind newer stuff on the road but you do have to ride them hard. Oh and they're useless on motorways. Anything over 70mph for a period of time and your neck will no about it. I'd have another tomorrow. I loved how they look like a commuter bike but can really surprise a few people. In fact that was a downside as well. I find a proper sportsbike with a loud exhaust seems to intimidate other road users and they seem to move over a lot let you passed etc. On the hornet no one ever did that. I think most car drivers just think it was a 125 or a bike someone would just use to get somewhere

[marksx]

I had a 2013 Hornet as my first bike. It was a cracking bike, and I kind of regret selling it.

The fly screen/dash visor thing does cock all though. At much over motorway speeds it starts to get uncomfortable.

I can't really comment on how well it handles, as I have no experience of anything similar to compare it to. I could never get near its limits though.

[Tim85]

I'd try an sv650 if unwashed in your position as well. Just my opinion but an older hornet or pointy shape sv650 are just about the best 'budget' smaller bikes for fun factor. The hornet I though handled brilliantly. Mine was the older model 2005/6 I think, so it had pretty basic suspension but then I didn't expect anything else. The pegs touch down relatively easily but if you really search you can find some ex hornet cup rear sets if it becomes an issue.

Most will say this kind of thing isn't nesesary but I loved every minute of riding that bike

[neelyp]

I would honestly save a bit more and try and get an early Street Triple, they seem to be a much better bike.

[CaptainSlow]

The Speed Four seems to get good reviews but the consistent feeback is that they don't like going too slowly. My Daytona 600 of the same vintage hates town riding, quite lumpy and gets hot quickly.

Edited by CaptainSlow on Tuesday 21st April 10:16

[Jakey123]

I do 100miles a day commuting on a 900 hornet.

Brilliant bikes.
So cheap for a lot of bike!

Fast and fun


Highly reccomend

[Adamjr]

CaptainSlow said:

The Speed Four seems to get good reviews but the consistent feeback is that they don't like going too slowly. My Daytona 600 of the same vintage hates town riding, quite lumpy and gets hot quickly.

Edited by CaptainSlow on Tuesday 21st April 10:16

I've got a 2002 Speed Four and can attest to this. There's a well documented 'glitch' at around 3250 rpm, which makes it difficult to be smooth at filtering speeds in town. A power commander helps but doesn't get rid of the problem entirely. Other than this its a belting bike, very stable and accurate. I had my suspension refreshed and setup for me at MCT last year which improved ride quality immensely too, well worth budgeting for.

[Baryonyx]

neelyp said:

I would honestly save a bit more and try and get an early Street Triple, they seem to be a much better bike.

I had looked at the Speed Triple as it's something of a dream bike for me. But as my first big bike, I'd rather work up to it and enjoy it when I'm a better rider. In a couple of years I could see myself saving up a little bit more for a good 955i type Speed Triple.

Regarding the SV650S, I had looked at those for quite a while and I do like them. I think, based on my limited experience, that I prefer four cylinders though. Relaxed and easy at lower speeds, with a real rush up top. That feels great to me. I love the noise of a four too, as much as a twin, so that's another plus point for a twin beaten out for me.

Regarding the fuelling glitches and overheating on the Speed Four, I'm lucky to have very little commuting in traffic. Mostly I'm coming or going to work at odd hours and very rarely is there any sort of traffic jam on the way home from work that can't be negotiated quickly on a bike, so the foibles of the Speed Four aren't so much of a concern for me. I don't mind how either bike looks either, I quite like the idea of starting off on a naked bike with a little bike of poke, so I amble along at my own pace without looking like a fool in front of faster bikes, and enjoy the performance without pressure. I'd look for a lurid colourscheme on either bike though, so it didn't look too much like a commuter...

[Fastdruid]

Baryonyx said:

I had looked at the Speed Triple as it's something of a dream bike for me. But as my first big bike, I'd rather work up to it and enjoy it when I'm a better rider. In a couple of years I could see myself saving up a little bit more for a good 955i type Speed Triple.

Regarding the SV650S, I had looked at those for quite a while and I do like them. I think, based on my limited experience, that I prefer four cylinders though. Relaxed and easy at lower speeds, with a real rush up top. That feels great to me. I love the noise of a four too, as much as a twin, so that's another plus point for a twin beaten out for me.

I had an SV650 and in 2003 it got written off, for a short while I had a Hornet600 and hated it unless you're doing 50mph+ the SV650 was faster everywhere, it was only at silly speeds that it started to show it's lack of go and by that time you're already well into ban territory. Admittedly the 10k+ punch was fun but only for a few times then it began to annoy that there was so little low down.
All depends what you're planning on doing with it though, if you're planning on going for fast roads go for the Hornet (or similar), if you're going to spend most of your time <60 the SV650 is a far better bike.

Or get a 750 my wife described mine as "just like the SV, except at the point I was expecting you to change up it kept going".

[neelyp]

Baryonyx said:

neelyp said:

I would honestly save a bit more and try and get an early Street Triple, they seem to be a much better bike.

I had looked at the Speed Triple as it's something of a dream bike for me. But as my first big bike, I'd rather work up to it and enjoy it when I'm a better rider. In a couple of years I could see myself saving up a little bit more for a good 955i type Speed Triple.

Regarding the SV650S, I had looked at those for quite a while and I do like them. I think, based on my limited experience, that I prefer four cylinders though. Relaxed and easy at lower speeds, with a real rush up top. That feels great to me. I love the noise of a four too, as much as a twin, so that's another plus point for a twin beaten out for me.

Regarding the fuelling glitches and overheating on the Speed Four, I'm lucky to have very little commuting in traffic. Mostly I'm coming or going to work at odd hours and very rarely is there any sort of traffic jam on the way home from work that can't be negotiated quickly on a bike, so the foibles of the Speed Four aren't so much of a concern for me. I don't mind how either bike looks either, I quite like the idea of starting off on a naked bike with a little bike of poke, so I amble along at my own pace without looking like a fool in front of faster bikes, and enjoy the performance without pressure. I'd look for a lurid colourscheme on either bike though, so it didn't look too much like a commuter...

I suggested a Street Triple not a Speed. You can pick up a clean early Street for around £3.5K, insurance is reasonable and they seem to be pretty bulletproof.
Plus they're a fking riot of a bike.

[Tim85]

street triple in my mind is the next tier up in £ and what you want imo. I personally wouldnt spend any more than 2 grand on the original bike choices. i know it doesnt seem like loads adding another grand on but if you only have 2/2.5 that you can justify on a bike then getting 50% of that again often isnt the case or will take too long. I dont think youll be dissapointed with either of the bikes you like the look of. i think the triumph looks more like a 'proper' bike. the hornet does look a little bland. But ive not heard many good things about the speed four. Nothing bad but nothing good either. I know 3/4 lads that have had hornets and theyve all really enjoyed them for what they are.

for what its worth if you can get the money for the street triple then its no comparison get one of those.

[Baryonyx]

Yes, whenever I see 'Triple' I tend to think Speed Triple and forget about the Street, although last time I was at Triumph they were really eager to get me riding a Street Triple as they reckon everyone who tries them loves them. I do love the Street Triple but looking on Ebay, £3500 seems to be the starting point for bikes that haven't been written off in the past. That's perhaps a little more than I was hoping to spend this summer, as I typically buy outright and have no idea what financing smaller amounts would work out like (ie: I could easily get £2000 together towards an bike an finance the other £1500 or whatever, but it's been years since I borrowed any money through a finance deal and I don't particularly want to do it again now).


Being stingy with my budget, I may have to stick to Speed Fours and Hornets for now, get some good rides in over the next couple of years and then think about a Speed Triple (or perhaps I'll want to go in a different direction).

This is the sort of thing I'd want to jump on, were buying right this minute:

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Honda-CB600F-Hornet-/281...








http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Triumph-SPEED-FOUR-600-S...

[Mastodon2]

You probably can't go wrong with either of these bikes, I'd have thought that they'd both be pretty good for reliability and if there are dealers for both nearby you should have the support you'd need if something goes wrong. If I was buying with my head I'd go with the Hornet, if I was buying with my heart I'd get the Triumph.

[CaptainSlow]

Go for the Triumph, stand out from the crowd a little. Not that one though, you can get them with half the miles for the same price.

[stang65]

Jakey123 said:

I do 100miles a day commuting on a 900 hornet.

Brilliant bikes.
So cheap for a lot of bike!

Fast and fun


Highly reccomend

This! Get an insurance quote and if you can cope with the 900 then they're a bargain. Had mine from new and it's done 50k now with only service parts. 900s are as cheap as 600s with no real downside other than insurance cost (comparing my '03 900 with friends 98-03 600s). They're more economical than a carb Hornet, bigger tank gives better range, better brakes, a useful bit bigger for comfort, good pillion seat etc. etc. However the low down power makes them a pussy-cat around town so probably easier to ride than a 600, and I can honestly say I've never found it "bland". If you want an all-rounder naked they're hard to beat.

[Lytham Stag]

stang65 said:

Jakey123 said:

I do 100miles a day commuting on a 900 hornet.

Brilliant bikes.
So cheap for a lot of bike!

Fast and fun


Highly reccomend

This! Get an insurance quote and if you can cope with the 900 then they're a bargain. Had mine from new and it's done 50k now with only service parts. 900s are as cheap as 600s with no real downside other than insurance cost (comparing my '03 900 with friends 98-03 600s). They're more economical than a carb Hornet, bigger tank gives better range, better brakes, a useful bit bigger for comfort, good pillion seat etc. etc. However the low down power makes them a pussy-cat around town so probably easier to ride than a 600, and I can honestly say I've never found it "bland". If you want an all-rounder naked they're hard to beat.

I have to agree. I did exactly the same and haven't regretted it.

[Jakey123]

Amazes me they aren't more popular

You see 600s everwhere, when the 900 doesn't everything better for less money!

Not at all intimidating but sure does shift when you want it to.
And no lack of torque like the 600!

Can't go wrong at circa £1500!

[Baryonyx]

I know the 900 represents better value but if I were starting on a bike of that sort of engine capacity, I'd go for an older Speed Triple. I could do with more riding experience before getting something that quick, so I'll build up to a bigger bike in due course.



Sloo!

[H100S]

I ran a yellow 2004 speed four as a 1st big bike and loved it. Its sensational in the corners, and has great brakes. The motor is a peach too, low rpm can be lumpy but never a issue for me its something i got used to.

Build quality is very good indeed. Mine never let me down, lots of parts are stainless including the down pipes. These bikes are an aquired taste in the looks department, i loved the looks personally. Headlamps are look great and are very effective. Those intake tubes make for a sensational intake noise, amongst the best intake noise ive heard on a motorcycle.

Ridden steady they give great mpg too although no gauge can be annoying. I always got more mpg than MCN suggested, fuel light does come on early enough though.
Bike is easy to work on and spares seem reasonably priced.

I sold mine as i was riding faster than i really wanted, it really does handle very well indeed. I found the riding position sporty but comfortable enough to easily do 200 miles in one go.

Picture of mine.