Not an owner...yet. I wanted to add a bike to my "collection" and I think the CBR fills the gap. I have an 09 HD XR1200 (based on old flat track- I call it the unHarley) A 2004 Thunderbird sport (naked and beautiful triple) and a new BMW R1150RT (Touring). I wanted a Japanese, somewhat vintage and good for day trips and short sunday rides. I ran across a 1987, 12000 miles and clean as heck (I'm new here so I won't say hell, yet) really nice. Then a saw a 1994 just as nice. Assuming price is similar on both (say sub $5K) I'm torn I also can't find much comparison of years online. I assume (but dont know if the CCT recall was done on the 87, I don't think it was an issue in 94) linked brakes are nice but neither a deal maker or breaker. As one unschooled in that model, my only thought is I like the look (color mostly) of the 87- red and black the 94 is red black and white- a little busier looking to me. I'm asking what differences there may be that could sway me in one direction or the other. Again, condition is NOT an issue here- they are both pristine. All things being equal, the 87 is first model year and a preferred color, but I could live well and happily with either! Beyond your personal preference are there more facts you can add to my limited gut based decision-making??

BTW- I'm really glad I found this site!

 

2 words....

Parts availability.

They both are aging bikes, but I would think that the 94 will be easier to find stuff for. But do your research and ultimately get the one that speaks to you.

 

Welcome to the CBR forum Rick,

Any CBR1000F is a geat ride, I have an '87 and a '91 that are mobile. The linked brakes are a love 'em or loathe 'em scenario. I've been riding so long that when disc brakes became the norm I was astounded
There are some mods that you can do, such as the stick coil mod to freshen up 25-30 year old sparks among others. The Hurricane Saloon is a place to say g'day to the other CBR1000F tragics.

Read a couple of reviews of the history of the CBR1000F and go from there.

https://www.bikesales.com.au/editori...ng-used-14248/

https://www.motorcyclenews.com/bike-...cbr1000f/1987/

Cheers, SB

 

Welcome to the forum Rick

 

 

Guess I missed where the OP was looking for a 1000F.

Both the CBR600 and the CBR1000 were introduced in '87, both were available in red & black color schemes in '87, and red & black & white schemes in '94.

Newer generally means better built and some nicer little tricks with the motor and suspension. The trickle-down theory of expensive race-type parts filtering over to less expensive bikes over the years is a valid one. There's 7 years difference in those bikes, and those 7 years were important ones at Honda. No question that I'd be giving the '94 a much more serious look, whether it's a 600 or a 1000 that you're considering.

 

Well as far as technical differences, they share an engine, with slightly better carbs on the 94. The CCT retrofit is straightforward, but will require the valve cover and cams to be removed. The best way to check is to start the bike up and listen for chain rattle. It's normal to hear a rattle when cold, but should quiet down as it warms up. If so, I wouldn't worry about it

The '87 will be 22 pounds lighter, with a skinnier rear tire, which I'd argue give it an edge in handling, though both bikes are sprung pretty soft by today's standards. The linked brakes as mentioned are a bit of a 'love it or loathe it' but I put a few clicks on an ST and never thought it was that big of a deal unless you really like having individual control over each wheel. The '94 gets a better oil cooler, but it's a bolt-on to the '87 so it's easy to swap if you live where it's hot. I've never bothered

Parts for an '87 are still generally common, but given the model's short run, they will be tougher to find in general than the '94. Bodywork is tough to find for either so if you don't plan on painting it, go with whichever is in better overall shape. If you can get one with original paint then you should expect it to fit together nicely. Check the panel alignment, especially if it's been painted in it's history since from firsthand experience, I'll say that getting all that plastic bodywork to fit together can be a hell of a job

I'd politely disagree with Echowars' point about engine tricks or build quality being a factor between these two. Aside from a couple ponies from the newer carbs, there won't be any racing developments that would necessarily favor one over the other. They are pretty much the same bike in different clothes, though the '87 will be a bit more of a stripped-down riding experience, while the '94 gets some extra features for touring. Go with whichever one you find yourself daydreaming about. That's what I always do in these situations

Full disclosure: I own an '87 in red/black and I love it to bits so I'm probably a biased source

 

For the 1000F, that's true. For the 600F2, there's a world of difference between an '87 and a '94. Much of my post was predicated on the fact that it is unclear as to which bike we are discussing.

It probably doesn't matter anyway, as the OP appears to have abandoned the discussion.

 

Oh for sure. The 600 had huge changes in the same period