Honda CB250N Super Dream power question

[treehouse]

Can any superdream buffs out there help me understand the horsepower figures I'm finding for the 250 please? Mostly I find it quoted as 27, but there are some 17s cropping up. This page suggests a sudden recruitment of another 10 horses around 1980, but apparently the additional beasts had to be shot in '82. It even lists two different versions for 1980! Are these 17s errors? If so, they've spread around: here's another odd pair 1979 and 1980.

I'm looking at buying one, and the difference would be pretty significant. I get one of the lower power ones I'd be switching from my CBR125 with 0.1 hp/kg to 0.09 hp/kg! I'd quite like the other, which would put it up to about 0.15, all I want to cruise more comfortably at A-road speeds and even dare to ride on the motorway. Top speeds are given as about 77 or 88 mph too.

If the above isn't just error, is there a definitive way to tell them apart, from the engine number or whatnot? I'm about to look at a 1979 bike, the owner of which has just realised hasn't got the original engine. If there really were two different power outputs, that could be because someone did the sensible thing and put an engine in it that might have a chance of pulling the skin off a rice pudding.

Also came across various confused figures re CB250RS (kick vs electric start), which is also very much on my radar if I can get one that hasn't been thrashed within an inch of its life. Any help appreciated.

Cheers

[truslack]

In my experience, superdreams are just shit. It doesn't matter if it makes 17 or 27bhp, the thing weighs about 3 tons and will have been ragged for 30 years and it's going to die within the next 5000miles.

the CB250RS is a much nicer bike.
____________________
Current: Suzuki RG 125 Gamma, Honda H100, Triumph Tiger 800XC, Suzuki SV650 (minitwin)

[Kal]

Teffers just answered this on the newb area.

The CB250 Dream of the late 70's has about 17bhp to its name, the CB250 Superdream has about 27bhp.

The Superdream is a barge. Its not a bad bike, but it isnt designed for ripping up tarmac. If you expect it to you are going to be horribly disappointed.
____________________
Kal...
I Like To Hoon It Hoon It I Like To Hoon It Hoon It I Like To Hoon It Hoon It Ya Like To (HOON IT!).
1984 GB250 Clubman,1983 CB250N Superdream, 1999 GPZ500S

[Moo.]

For the superdream the 27bhp figure is correct.

The early 70's one had 17bhp, and the New CB250 Nighthawk, sometime called the CB250N had around 20bhp.

I've just upgraded from a Superdream.. as said its pretty heavy, i'd go for the cb250rs as its alot lighter and more fun.

But i did find the superdream reliable over the 6000miles i rode it
____________________
A2 Passed 18/6/10

[Tenko]

If you can get one you would be better going for the CB250RS - faster, lighter and more economical.

If it has to be a Dream though, what about the 400? The 250 was a sleeved-down version of the 400 specifically for our 250 license laws and was much too heavy for the power it produced. If I recall it weighed the same as a 750 Bonneville...

[Skudd]

I had a 250 Superdream way back when......... It was the Ford Cortina of the bike world. Still liked it for what it was.
____________________
Famous last words of Humpty Dumpty. " Stop pushing me "
Petty Anarchists look at "1984".............. The Visionary looks at "Animal Farm".

[Blau Zedong]

[twostroketit]

I had a 400 Superdream and it was very good.
The 250n isn't really worth buying,as other people are saying get a CB 250 RS it will be a lot better all round.
____________________
sup up your beer and collect your fags

[Teflon-Mike]

[treehouse]

Blimey that was fast and almost unanimous advice! I am a 50-something (well, 50) who remembers them in my teens (actually the Dream was my er, dream bike, and still looks lovely to me now - never got anything more than a 125 - long break from it, just returned to biking a few years ago), but I put practicality before all that nonsense. I'm not into tearing up tarmac either, in fact I'm a very sedate kind of rider, but the weight does concern me. I'm after doing a bit of moderate touring with camping gear, maybe hitting some hills. I wondered if the twin might cope with longer journeys than the RS, and I've also heard that many of the latter were hammered by despatch riders, but I guess the ones that have survived are mostly the ones that weren't. I should probably start a new thread to yammer on about RSs, or post a general "I don't know what bike to get next!" thread. Thanks very much.

[greetingsfrom...]

[Shaft]

Just to echo what's already been said, there's no mystery to SDs.

All CB250Ns are called Super Dreams, they all have 3 valve heads and they're all 27bhp.

AFAIK, the UK spec Super Dream only had two major mechanical mods in it's lifetime; the kickstart was dropped from 1980 (when it became the CB250N-A) and an external oil feed to the cylinder head was added from 1983 (CB250N-C).

Every other change was purely cosmetic and had no effect on performance.

There's an awful lot still available as genuine Honda parts and, if you don't mind buying used or pattern parts, there's nothing to keep you off the road.

As for the idea that there's a dearth of decent bikes available, that's just nonsense, they're all over Ebay; head over to https://honda-superdream.proboards.com/index.cgi? and you'll find out all you need to know.
____________________
Things get better with age; I'm close to being magnificent........
20 RE Interceptor, 83 Z1100A3, 83 GS650 Katana
WooHoo, I'm a Man Point Millionaire! https://www.bikechatforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=234035

[treehouse]

OK, so those bike stats pages were wrong. Teflon-Mike, you rather put me off with all that about all the different versions, but you were going through the whole CB range. The superdream doesn't have much in the way of changes other than external oil feed and maybe just lekki start instead of dual, Shaft says. That's hardly such a problem when buying parts or a bike, is it? A superdream is very rarely going to have an engine out of anything other than a superdream, I'd have thought. But I'm here to learn, not meaning to criticise.

So on reflection I'm surprised by all the comments about how pointlessly heavy and slow they are. Are the weights wrong too? The highest I've found is 184kg kerb weight, which ok isn't very light, but still gives nearly 0.15 hp/kg, which is half again on my CBR125. I think I'd deal with that. I could almost manage with the CBR, I just want a bit higher cruising speed and more comfortable riding position.

So against the 250RS, with its 0.18 hp/kg, it's a compromise one might make in order to have less vibration of a twin, a lot more parts (and bikes to choose from in the first place - at a ratio of about 5:1), the possibility that it might not have been quite as hammered, and - I hear - the head worn out if left too long between oil checks, something to do with a cheap bearing (I'm not much of a mechanic). I was also surprised because I kept reading things like "the superdream is much underrated...", and it's still wazzing along after 35 years in reasonable numbers.

Still, I think the RS is heads above the SD on paper, if not looks, not that either is very attractive. Thanks for the proboards link Shaft - I'll check it out.

I nearly bought a Superdream for £450, but someone else got to it first. Kicked myself for ages - a rare trim on the tank I've only seen once or twice before (Larger HONDA between thin silver lines rather than the broad contrast stripe). Then I checked out an RS, but didn't bid because it had a bit of an oil leak and the centre stand didn't lift the back wheel clear on a flat surface - it was too dirty to bother scraping about to find out what was going on underneath, but that seemed wrong and I suspected rot, and feared that the swing arm might also be rotten. Besides, if you can't clean a bike to sell the thing, it hardly says "well cared for".

[Shaft]

I ended up with an SD for two main reasons, nostalgia (I despatched a couple when they were current) and physical size.

I never really got on with the RS, because I found it too small and cramped, plus I didn't like the vibey nature of the engine, which becomes pretty apparent when you rev it up, which you have to do to get it to go.

If I'm honest, next time I would go for a 400, just because it doesn't rev quite so hard, which suits my riding style (I haven't ridden anything smaller than a 750 since the late 80s, so I rarely feel the need to rev something til the valves bounce!) but the 250 will be more than adequate, if you're used to a 125.

The SD was always considered a bit of an old man's bike, but they were solid, reliable, no nonsense commuters then, and they still are now, I'm happy with mine (maybe because I'm now closer to the old man in question ).
____________________
Things get better with age; I'm close to being magnificent........
20 RE Interceptor, 83 Z1100A3, 83 GS650 Katana
WooHoo, I'm a Man Point Millionaire! https://www.bikechatforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=234035

[bridlad]

Ive got nothing against superdreams as has been said they aint fast they are heavy and arent brilliant at anything really but if thats what you want then go for it ,but before you do and if twins of the honda variety are your thing you should really do yourself a big favour and spend some time checking out a cb500 not the old 500t but the newer ones ,I think one of those would be far better suited to your requirments
____________________
Wheels polished and painted £90 a pair all in ..........bargain!

[Moo.]

The SD will have a power boost over the cbr, and it does have more brisk acceleration. But in terms of cruising speed... Its around 70mph, with not alot more omph over that. I could cruise at 70mph, but the engine was sitting at around 8000rpm, so sitting at this speed for a while may stress the engine (although mine has always been reliable.)

Im terms of weight, it is fairly heavy if you accidentally tip it, when the weights not directly over the wheels, or if you foot slips you will feel the weight. Its not too well balanced, and feels a little top heavy.

Mpg wise, i got around 40-45mpg Which is ok... but not a real winner.

Spare parts are cheap and easy too come by, and its pretty bulletproof, they feel fairly solid and are easy to work on.

If your not looking to go fast and can stick at 70, it'll be fine for you.

I'm 5'11 and after a few hours on it do start to feel my legs going.

For a comparison, i bought my SD for £250 with tax, mot and in working condition. Owned it for 2 years and have recently p/x'ed it for a Diversion 600. As a p/x value i got £350.

There does seem to be a recent price hike in the prices people are asking, but if you stick to your guns, a cheap one will appear. Good places to check are the back of the classic bikes magazines

A tip though, if you do get a superdream, ALWAYS keep a spare CDI on you They can be had for around £15-£20. But they are known to fail, it once happened to me and after that it will not start. I carried a spare, so i just swapped it over and went on my way Hth.
____________________
A2 Passed 18/6/10

[treehouse]

I hope it's ok to widen the topic in the same thread. I tend to go on a bit, but you're not obliged to read!

I just realised after my last post that the weight of the superdream didn't quite sink into my head in the several weeks I've been researching it. 184kg is heavy (and I've also found 186 quoted) especially for a basic commuter 250. Hell, I was getting sweet on MT350s a while back and finally discounted them largely on being about 175kg (also seat height, cost - I'm a cheapskate - and a distrust of the "easy maintenance" stories from their riders, who yet seem permanently elbow-deep in oily spanners).

I'm not sure if there's anything else I should be looking at, but the RS is definitely a better choice for me. I'd like a small, light bike (upto about 150kg), somewhere between 250 and 500 cc, mainly for day trips or longer jaunts camping. The higher revs and vibes of the RS you talk about, Shaft, are probably not ideal, but it's all relative, and I probably don't have to, or want to, sit at 70mph on the motorway hour after hour. I prefer A or B road alternatives to motorways even in the car. Sometimes I'd like to eat some miles a bit quicker before going back to the twisties, but long journeys would probably be a handful in the year out of dozens of sunday jaunts into the Dales.

I know choosing a bike is about prioritising desires, since nothing is likely to be perfect in every way. I'd quite like to do a bit of greenlaning, and longer suspension travel would be useful for the state of the roads these days, but I think offroad capability comes down the list and would compromise others too much.

It should cope reasonably well with cruising at 70, although I genuinely don't go above that (in the car, obviously) except temporarily to get out of a sticky situation. Moo, that mpg is pretty lousy too.

Bridlad, I did toy with the idea of a later CB500 I saw at a reasonable price. Thanks. I'll look into those more. This brings up another question: when you go up a few insurance groups (as a 50-year-old) is my insurance likely to go up just a bit or a lot? Dunno what group a CB500 is in. Also, what mpg is that likely to get? I was always a gas whore, and now the prices are going through the roof I'd like to aim for 70 or 80mpg, maybe drop to 60 if I'm hammering it.

Also considering CBF250s - had a short and pretty slow test ride on one which felt punchy enough for me and I was quite impressed apart from - I think - the frame being bent! Very nice man was honest about it being dropped, but I don't think he actually realised the damage beyond the paint job. He was also honest enough to say that it was fine upto about 65 and then ran out of puff. Maybe 4-stroke 250s are just too slow (and I don't want a 2-stroke).

I might kick RSs into touch and go for something bigger and more modern to avoid some of the worries of older machines. The "classic" thing is a bit irritating when you want a cheap hack. I'd like to do some basic maintenance myself, but I'm not one for the bigger jobs. I really appreciate my CBR125 for just going when I press the red button, and literally needing nothing in between annual services (in fact I've pushed it to 2 years this time as I do so few miles - I'd do more on a more comfortable bike).

I do have fantasies about hacking my machine, putting a single seat on it to use the pillion for better carrying capacity, lower and further forward than usual (like an MT!). Later machines tend to have upswept exhausts, just where I want to put the bottom 6 inches of pannier, and lights built into the tail, but I might mess about, keeping the original parts to put back when I sell it.

[Teflon-Mike]

I think you ought to go look at a Honda Transalp or an Africa twin.
For what you 'Want' they would probably be nie on spot on. What you have describes is an 'Adventure Sport' bike, and these are the bikes that created the class. I dont think they are much heavier than a Super-Dream, if at all. They certainly have the beef to shift what weight they do have. They are V-Twins with nice soft power delivery and not very vibey; long travel suspension, and continent crossing comfort. and NOT that expensive, either.
____________________
My Webby'Tef's-tQ, loads of stuff about my bikes, my Land-Rovers, and the stuff I do with them!
Current Bikes:'Honda VF1000F' ;'CB750F2N' ;'CB125TD ( 6 3 of em!)'; 'Montesa Cota 248'. Learner FAQ's:= 'U want to Ride a Motorbike! Where Do U start?'

[garth]

https://motoprofi.com/bikephoto/4133/bmw_f_650_2000_5.jpg



?
____________________
You ain't a has been if you never was

[bridlad]

I would go online and get a few quotes for the ins then see what suits ,I insure my sv1000n fc for £95 a year and Im roughly same age as you well 48 but near enough,with regards to the economy the cb500's are pretty good ,Ive got a mate who commutes on one and he rekons he's getting around 55-60 mpg but it will still get a wriggle on when you want to ,as to the africa twins etc if the seat height of the mt350 put you off the africa twins will do the same and although good bikes can tend to feel a bit top heavy until you get used to them
____________________
Wheels polished and painted £90 a pair all in ..........bargain!

[treehouse]

[Teflon-Mike]

BMW is the F650, also sold under the Apprillia badge, as was developed as a joint venture, and I believe they are built in the Aprillia factory & use a Rotax 650 DOHC single.

You mentioned the Armstrong MT350/500.... these things are kind of related.

MT350 was designed by Clews... other wise known as CCM, who made BSA B40 derived off-road 'specials' back in the 1970's.

Clewes, a back-yard bodger from Lancashire, bought a 'lot' of old BSA B40 spares from BSA Bankruptsy auction to build some Victor-Replicas, and then got a knock on the door from the MOD... part ofthe 'lot' aparently included the Contracts to support the Military B40 'spares' supply... or something like that!

Long and short was, he ended up talking to Military Contractors, 'Armstrong-Siddley', who bought his 'company', his ready BSA spares, and the B40 licences and contracts, in order to meet the MOD Contracts. And they started making BSA 'bits', to keep the army happy.

BUT Army wanted new bikes; so they asked Clews/Armstrong to develop a 'new' one.

Clews had been getting Cheeney to make frames for him to fit tuned B40 Victor engines into for scrambles. He took a Cheney frame, and stuffed an Austrian Rotax engine into it....

THAT was basically the Armstrong/Bombardier MT350/500.

Joint venture with Canadian snow-mobile maker, Bombardier, who part owned Rotax...

THAT opened the door, to sell the bike to the Americans who demanded a certain % of 'North American' construction..... So Bombardier bought a small scale dirt bike maker, 'Can-Am' to put together Armsrong's south of 42nd parallel and keep US Generals even happier.....

That became the 'Harley-Davidson' MT350/500! Who acquired, I believe the whole dang shooting match, out of the myriad of big-boy mergers and divestment in military ordinance industry!

ANYWAY.....

back to the plot.... options are plentiful. £1000 budget buys a lot of different bikes, though TBH, you'd be better looking to spend full £1500 if you really DO want a turn-key machine and not have to wield spanners very much. Its a competative bit of the market.

The bikes you are tending towards, are, also, the ones budget-bodgers err towards, as all-year commuters; and in that market, you tend to find higher-mileage machines, with less diligently applied maintenence. You dont buy a 'cheap' bike to chuck loads of money at it, now do you?

Once you get to around 180Kg.... weight is pretty much a non-issue.

MOST 'big-bikes' tend to be in that band centred on 200Kg, between about 180 & 220Kg, and the PRACTICAL difference is negligible.

5 gallons of petrol, is aproximately 20Kg.... so you are talking weights that are much of a much the same within the difference of a full and empty petrol tank.

BALENCE is by far the more significant factor, and unfortunately spec-sheets dont give nice easy 'oomph-y'b'stard!' manouverability indices!

I'd much rather wheel a 215Kg air-head BMW boxer out of a garage than, I dont know, a 190Kg CBR600.... weight is lower, bars wider, steering lock better..... AND if I drop it... no fancy faring to smash!

Four's tend to be rather more expensive to maintain. Bikes with fairings, easy to forget whats under the plastic. Older bikes, can be more difficult to live with; demanding more maintenence & suffering parts obsolescence as they drop from listings. More so less common models.

https://www.parcel2go.com/OrderProcess/complete.aspx?utm_nooverride=1&token=EC-1B0180344M027341Y&PayerID=2E5VCBZEEEXSQ

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/BMW-R45-Airhead-Boxer-1980-/160786445803?pt=UK_Motorcycles&hash=item256f9e75eb

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/1982-BMW-R65-Black-/130690054227?pt=UK_Motorcycles&hash=item1e6dbbf853

Just three to wet your appetite.... old air-head Beemers....

Old mans bikes.... BUT: they are BMW's. Popper Classics. Soft push-rod motor, all VERY DIY maintainable. Heavy... by 1970's standards, but NOT my modern ones, 'really'. R45 is probably not much more powerful than a 250 Super-Dream, and personally I'd avoid, but still cheap Boxer. 650's aren't exactly going to set the world alight, BUT they are respectably 'brisk', I think they knock out about 45-50bhp. They are about as powerful as a Suzuki GS500, and are as 'cheap', with the user serviceability & long term high-mile dependability, AND unlike a GS that you either use as stepping stone, and flog on before its knackered after a couple of years and hoe not to loose too much money, or run into the ground and throw away.... air-Head is a bike that will always be worth sensible money.

Personally, I'd probably stump up for an R80, that knocks out about 70bhp... still not earth shattering, but no heavier than smaller models, give or take, depending on spec.... but its in the same order as an SV650, or my Honda CB750 'Retro' or a Kawasaki Zephyr, Bandit 600's or 600 Diversions. Ie its no 'gutless wonder'.

Long haul, continent crossing comfort; reasonable fuel frugality; lots and lots of 'simplicity' in its favour, and THESE DAYS, oh-so, 'cheap'... OK relitively in the market place they aren't THAT cheap, but; they are not stupid money; and that 'bit' extra buys you a lot of good qualities and an awful lot of 'Smug', compared to Japanese offerings.

JUST to stimulate a few ideas.

F650? Personally, I just cant find anything positive to say about one. To me, they are an Aprillia. Might have a BMW badge... but sorry, its made in Italy! They are light. I suppose I have to grant them that, and I know a few people that have loved them, as everyday bikes, but... they just don't inspire, and they are not an awful lot of bike for your money.

Other suggestion, might be a Yamaha 535 Virago, if you like cruisery things. A very well regarded bike, and a very useful one, with low seat, relatively low weight, and shaft drive.

Back in the 'Main-Stream', sort of thing you suggest you 'want', says 'Diversion' really... a 'cheap' n all-round street-bike/tourer. & 600 Diversion, is not a BAD bike, though its not hugely inspiring, and is a tad ill-balenced manouvering around, & TBH, for the prices, I'd reccomend the 900 over the 6, becouse at that level, extra weight is not such a big deal, and the 900's just have that added 'oomph' and 'ah-shhhhh'!
____________________
My Webby'Tef's-tQ, loads of stuff about my bikes, my Land-Rovers, and the stuff I do with them!
Current Bikes:'Honda VF1000F' ;'CB750F2N' ;'CB125TD ( 6 3 of em!)'; 'Montesa Cota 248'. Learner FAQ's:= 'U want to Ride a Motorbike! Where Do U start?'

[garth]

Or a KLR650. or XT.
____________________
You ain't a has been if you never was

[treehouse]

Teflon-Mike, I don't know if I didn't emphasise my preferences enough or if you just can't help being a petrol head!

[flumpy7]

Hi

i recently bought an old shaft drive honda vt500ef (ed is pretty much the same). Its great and they are cheap as chips. Mine cost £750 and that was fully restored to mint condition (runs like new) Plenty of poke, look ok and really reliable. Worth a look if youre in the market for a smallish, reliable road bike that does over a tonne when necessary! Plus, v-twins seem to be a bit more lively and have more character than the parallels IMO. Heres mine

https://i870.photobucket.com/albums/ab266/flumpy7/vt500e1.jpg
____________________
2012 Sinnis apache