XJ700X XJ-700 Maxim XJ750  XJ700X XJ-700 Maxim XJ700X XJ-700 Maxim XJ700X XJ-700 Maxim XJ700X XJ-700 Maxim XJ700X XJ-700S Maxim  XJ-750

1985-1986

Historia firmy

Yamaha

XJ 700 / 750 X 

 

Maxim

Maxim 700 i Fazer 700 posiadały taką samą 5-zaworową głowicę wywodzącą się z modelu FZ750; fot. broszury reklamowe
Wersja polska w opracowaniu!

W poniższych artykułach opisano zarówno Yamahę XJ700X Maxim-X jak również XJ750X Maxim-X. Oba modele różnią się jedynie pojemnością silnika i osiągami. Ze względów na ograniczenia wprowadzone przez rząd USA na tamtejszym rynku oferowano w latach 1985-1986 jedynie modele o pojemności 700ccm. Model 750ccm sprzedawano przede wszystkim na rynku kanadyjskim.

Oznaczenie i rynek przeznaczenia

XJ700N = 1985 XJ700 Maxim, wersja na 49 stanów USA: 1FG
XJ700NC = 1985 XJ700 Maxim, wersja kalifornijska USA: 1JJ
XJ700XN = 1985 XJ700 Maxim X, wersja na 49 stanów USA : 1AA
XJ700XNC = 1985 XJ700 Maxim X, wersja kalifornijska USA: 1FJ
XJ700S = 1986 XJ700 Maxim, wersja na 49 stanów USA: 1NH
XJ700SC = 1986 XJ700 Maxim, wersja kalifornijska USA: 1NK
XJ700XS = 1986 XJ700 Maxim X, wersja na 49 stanów USA: 1NW
XJ700XSC = 1986 XJ700 Maxim X, wersja kalifornijska USA: 1LT
XJ750XN = 1985 XJ750 Maxim X, tylko Kanada 1FL
XJ750XS = 1986 XJ750 Maxim X, tylko Kanada 1MY
 

 

XJ700X Maxim produkowany był na rynek amerykański tylko przez 2 lata; fot. katalog motocykli

Yamaha XJ700X Maxim-X z silnikiem chłodzonym cieczą o mocy 128kM przeliczenia na 1000ccm pojemności dawał wskaźnik obciążenia 3,33kg/kW; fot: katalogi motocykowe

Yamaha XJ700N/S Maxim silnik chłodzony powietrzem o mocy 77KM i momencie 61Nm. Motocykl rozwijał prędkość 200km/h spalając średnio 17km/l. Wskaźnik obciążenia to 3,76kg/kW, a moc 81,5kW z 1000ccm; fot. katalog motocyklowy

XJ 700 Maxim-X. prędkość ponad 200km/h i średnie zuzycie paliwa 15l/km; fot. katalogi motocykowe

 

 

Bazą dla silnika Maxim-X był FZ750. Ze względu na inny styl motocykla cały blok cylindrów musiał być dopasowany do bloku XJ900; fot. książka obsługi

W przeciwieństwie do XJ700 Maxim model Maxim-X chłodzony był cieczą - fot. książka obsługi

You know the policy book on cruisers: celebrations of form. Function missed the party or never got an invitation. Now Yamaha rolls out its new five-valve Maxim-X, and this bike says form and function can unite Peacefully in Coexistence. Make that High-Performance Coexistence.

 Sporting purists beware. It is no longer possible to soft-pedal cruisers as mechanized cosmetology, two-wheeled pompadours as debased of functional integrity as they are possessed of garish filigree. Yamaha's new XJ700 Maxim may sparkle with ornamentation and shimmer with stylish curves, but don't let its luminosity blind you. As a cruiser, it is extraordinary in its ergonomic sensibility and functional leanings, exceptional in its speed and acceleration. The new Maxim's five-valve, liquid-cooled engine delivers performance that absolutely flattens anything in its class and makes it as hot as any sporting 750 ever, save Yamaha's own five-valve FZ750.

 The Maxim-X lays to ruin the dichotomy of style and function: More significant even than its 20-valve technology and high-performance numbers is its demonstration that trendy fashion need not preclude comfort and versatility and that power and high-style need not be at odds. With the Maxim-X, Yamaha has rounded the corner and headed back with function as the central issue, back to the virtues of solid engineering that remain long after the glitter has lost its sheen.

 What's more, the Maxim provides an engineering perspective of cruiser evolution. Yamaha's original Maxim, introduced four years ago, marked the end of cruiser adaptations - the practice of bolting high bars and low seats to existing standard models - and the beginning of Japanese cruiser engineering from the ground up. The resulting 650 Maxim emerged as a huge marketing success even though it manifested distinct handling disabilities and set new lows in spatial deprivation. The 650 was a novelty - a bit of style in a single pictorial flash - but its 12-second engine screamed motion loud and clear.

 Four years later we have the Maxim-X, more stylized and in every way a more accomplished piece than the first-generation Maxim. Five-valve trickery aside, Yamaha trumpets no breakthrough technology in bringing about this metamorphosis, a quick scan of the essentials reveals precious little change from the original article-twin-shock rear suspension, leading-axle fork, full-cradle frame, stepped seat, and a shaft final-drive, crankcases and cylinder block that remain unchanged. So where are the big improvements in the Maxim?

 In truth, Yamaha engineers have made drastic changes, visually subtle yet significantly effective. In choosing to improve the Maxim while preserving the traditional cruiser look, Yamaha encountered the single most difficult problem for anyone who makes such an attempt. How do you maintain a profitable silhouette when the components most in need of change are the very ones that dominate the picture? (Could Dolly Parton become an effective sprinter without losing something along the way?) Sweeping handlebars cramp the riding positions, stretched front ends tend to flex, and low seats impose severe limitations in wheel travel. Cruiser engineers concerned with ride quality, cornering ability, stability and general comfort face formidable and unique problems.

 Look at the new Maxim's handlebar and see the previous buckhorns wrestled into a more sensible shape: lower, flatter, angled to position the rider's palms down: look at the seat and see a more comfortable perch that places a rider even closer to the ground - look at the footpegs and see them moved forward and down to provide more leg room. Simple enough, but what you don't see are the complex chassis alterations fundamental to the Maxim's reshaping. Yamaha engineered an entirely new frame for the X, one that plays visual tricks with the front end. The steering head is located considerably higher than the old Maxim's to offset the lower handlebar. Since the fork is much longer than the 650's, Yamaha increased the diameter of the stanchion tubes from 36mm to 38mm and linked them with an aluminum fork brace. In addition, the front end kicks out two and a half degrees farther, up from the 650's 29-degree rake figure, and trail has dropped four millimeters. To regain any steering agility lost in the additional rake, new aluminum triple clamps carry the fork with less offset.

 Given the additional fork length, Yamaha was able to increase wheel travel to 5.9 inches, up from 4.7. The extra travel also provides more latitude in suspension calibration: spring rates up front are lighter than before, and rebound damping is slightly increased. To keep the lighter coil springs from bottoming, Yamaha has provided a single air-valve which links and balances pressure in both fork tubes and makes adjustment easy.

 Yamaha engineers also worked style-engineering tricks on the rear. The tail section of the frame is lower, bringing the seat height down, and the dual rear dampers are canted forward. Though shock travel dropped 10mm, wheel travel is up three millimeters. We suspect this change in shock position has more to do with styling than rear-suspension performance; we also suspect the improvement in ride quality is a reflection of more sophisticated damping components and knowledge gained in coordinating spring and damping rates.

 Yamaha first sought to control heavy shaft-drive components in limited travel suspension systems with heavy compression damping, light rebound damping and light springs: In the original Maxim, the result was an alternately squishy and harsh ride with enough shaft-induced spasms to initiate high-speed wobbles. In the XJ700X, Yamaha has moved away from heavy compression damping, relying instead on heavier spring and rebound damping rates to control the shaft. The XJ700X's rear suspension is far more responsive than the old 650's - more linear, plusher, and more effective at muting the shaft drive's up-and-down antics. Yamaha's stylists made the job of recalibrating the rear suspension more complicated by fitting the Maxim with a heavier rear wheel. The 16-inch cast aluminum hoop is solid but for five narrow slots and carries in its hub a drum brake. Tire size and rim width are identical to the old 650's and put a good deal of rubber on the ground. Up front, we see function gaining clear advantage - in place of the 650's narrow 1.85-inch wheel is a cast aluminum five spoke, 2.15-inch unit which wears a correspondingly wider tire. With a bigger footprint up front, the Maxim rider can now take advantage of the XJ's additional front disc brake.

 Powerful and linear, the dual front brakes do an admirable job of stopping the Maxim but we'd prefer less lever travel. Coupled with a long travel throttle mechanism, the high-effort brake can swell your forearm quickly doing swift backroad work. It is precisely here - on snaky, torturous rovery, that the Maxim divorces itself from the traditional cruiser crowd. While the Maxim may be visually linked to its back contemporaries, its handling cues enable it to keep more sporting company. Its accommodating ergonomics, suspension balance, grippy and ample cornering clearance puts it in the same handling league as Honda's snappy Nighthawk S.

 Despite gaining some 40 pounds (but weighing in only 1.5 pounds heavier than the Nighthawk) 2.5 inches of wheelbase over the first Maxim, the five-valve X-model displays superior equilibrium and broader handling capabilities than the original. Though a good deal of driveline lash is apparent in the lower gears, shaft effect is less pronounced than anything we've sampled from Yamaha. With rear shock preload set on the number four of five positions, shaft induced rise and fall is minimal. Cushier during urban trolling and freeway riding at the lower settings, rear suspension action at the upper settings translates to a firm ride.

 Attribute much of the Maxim's comfort to its excellent seat. Wide, well padded and properly dished, the Maxim's saddle provides room to move about, support for the rider's thighs and a good measure of isolation from jolts that sneak past the rear suspension. Sharp bumps taken at speed would spike the rider's tailbone with a lesser seat or a bolt-upright riding position, but the Maxim's plush perch and subtly aggressive seating arrangement ensure unchecked jolts are dissipated.

 The front suspension needs only air resistance from 10-17 psi to perform its many tasks. Set up softly, the fork is plush and responsive but prone to dive excessively during hard braking. Even when the fork was set at higher pressures, some of our testers felt the need for an anti-dive system. Keep in mind, however, this need arose only when the Maxim was ridden well beyond the limits of the average cruiser. At these high speeds, the fork provides the Maxim's only serious weakness. Cornering at a truly sporting pace can cause the fork to flex, particularly on a ripply surface. While the fork brace prevents torsional movement, it provides little resistance to the fore and aft flexing that robs responsiveness in so many stretched cruiser front ends.

 Other manufacturers have solved this problem with larger-diameter fork tubes and by increasing the distance between triple clamps to provide more support. Yamaha instead fitted the Maxim with a gull-wing-shaped lower clamp that increases the unsupported length of the stanchions. This arrangement has traded style for function and is not in keeping with the Maxim's new character.

 Nevertheless, the Maxim-X has elevated cruiser form to new functional heights. It is beyond doubt, the most athletic cruiser we've ridden. This is progress. Yamaha's cruiser chassis engineers, at one time two steps behind the stylists and engine designers, have caught up in a single forward leap and freed the stylists and engine designers to proceed unshackled.

 Yamaha's approach to building the XJ700 engine was simple and direct. Four years ago, engineers designed a compact, in-line four to power the original Maxim. By moving the alternator from its standard crank-end placement to a gear-driven jack shaft behind the cylinder block, Yamaha could give this plain-bearing engine wide bore centers within narrow overall dimensions. Through several bore and stroke variations this same bottom end and drive shaft unit have proven a rugged foundation for eight different Yamaha models - ranging in displacement from 650 to 900cc - including the Maxim-X.

 The X distinguishes itself from this group by being the quickest incarnation yet. Yamaha's XJ900 Seca - a rocket just two years ago - posted an 11.82-second quarter mile, our Maxim ran a scalding 11.79-second quarter at 112.82 mph. Furthermore, its 0-60 acceleration is closer to Kawasaki's potent 900 Ninja than to anything in its own class. Its top-gear roll-on figures from 45-70 mph place it deep into big-bike territory and prove that the Maxim-X doesn't sacrifice mid-range for blinding top-end. If this broad-range muscle is five-valve technology speaking, we like what we hear.

 Not coincidentally does Yamaha's five-valve FZ750 sport bike share cylinder bore and bore-center dimensions with the Maxim-X even though the FZ's lower end is completely new. Yamaha had a fire-breather Maxim in mind when the FZ was on the drawing board, and by sharing dimensions the Maxim could also borrow from the FZ's parts bin. Both bikes use common valve gear, liquid-cooled cylinder block and, upper cylinder head castings. Though the bore centers were wide enough to accommodate liquid cooling, there was not enough material between bores to provide the needed structural strength with wet liners. Both the Maxim and FZ use semi-wet liners - a sandwich arrangement with dry liners top and bottom and liquid flowing against the iron liners in the center and up through water jackets to the cylinder head. This central section is positioned within the cylinder block so the piston always strokes within the wet liner where heat dissipation is most crucial.

 Sliding the Maxim under the ITC tariff wall was a matter of clipping the FZ's 51.6mm stroke down to 48.0mm, one of the shortest stroke dimensions in all of motorcycling. With the same top-to-bottom cylinder-block height as the FZ and a shorter stroke, new pistons had to be made to bring the Maxim's compression ratio back up to FZ-spec 11:1. These pistons are longer from wristpin to crown than the FZ's, and we suspect the weight of their additional material is partially responsible for the Maxim's lower redline - 10,000 compared to the FZ's 11,000 rpm.

 After much deliberation over valve configuration (see Cycle, March 1985, for the FZ750 Tech Analysis) Yamaha engineers arrived at five valves per cylinder because it produced the greatest benefits with the least complication. Which is not to say the system is simple or a snap to adjust. Placing 20 valves and 20 cam lobes in a space previously occupied by only eight is bound to complicate valve adjustment.

 As in the FJ1100, Yamaha chose direct valve actuation for the Maxim's five valve system. Each cam lobe rides against a cylindrical, flat-topped follower. Adjusting shims, located between the valve stems and the followers, can only be changed with the camshafts removed. While this system is no doubt more trouble to adjust than a rocker-arm setup with screw-and-locknut adjusters or a shim-over-bucket system, there are no rocker-arms to flex and no possibility of shim spitting at high rpm. To extend valve adjustment intervals, Yamaha used top-shelf valve components. Valve seats are sintered copper iron, and the hollow chrome-moly camshaft lobes have carburized surfaces - a treatment normally intended to decrease wear in heavily stressed gears. In addition, each of the Maxim's valves are small and light, requiring only a single, light-gauge spring for valve control.

 Aside from increasing displacement, the four-stroke engine builder must use innovative methods to gain horsepower: raising the engine's rpm and improving the combustion chambers' ability to burn fuel quickly and efficiently then become the goals. Using five valves - three 21mm intakes and two 23mm exhausts - the Yamaha system offers advantages in both areas. The Maxim's five valves yield increased valve perimeter compared to a four-valve system: This allows shorter cam timing, which means the piston requires almost no valve relief. The large cylinder bore and small valves allow the use of narrow valve angles and a shallow combustion chamber, which makes high-compression possible without domed pistons. In fact, both the Maxim and FZ use dished pistons to form what Yamaha calls a "lens-shaped" combustion chamber. This bi-convex chamber offers unobstructed flame travel and a high concentration of charge near the centrally located plug. By clearing the combustion chamber of obstructions, fuel can burn faster and more efficiently, allowing the Maxim engine to tolerate a high-compression ratio without the threat of destructive detonation.

 To make room for all that valve gear, Yamaha designed the Maxim's cylinder head in three tiers: the lower portion contains the combustion chambers, ports and valves; the second storey houses tappet guide bores, camshaft webbing and support bearings. A magnesium valve cover serves as a roof for the structure. The Maxim's lower half differs from the FZ750 because the FZ's cylinder block is angled forward at 45 degrees to facilitate straight ports and downdraft carbs. By utilizing the existing 650 crankcases, the Maxim's cylinder heads are locked in at a 14 degree forward cant, straight ports with such a head at this angle would put the carburetors somewhere around your belt buckle. A new lower tier was cast to accommodate the Maxim-X's downward port deviations and four standard sidedraft 33mm Mikuni CV carbs.

 With the Maxim's five valve system, Yamaha engineers have managed to thumb their noses in about five different directions. Not only does the Maxim make startling mid-range in a power curve that leads with few bumps to an astonishing top end poke, it does so with flawless carburation that sips instead of gulps. Extended deep throttle sessions dropped mileage to only 39 mpg. Leisurely highway riding delivered 51 miles for every gallon that passed over the Maxim's pallette.

 Frugalities aside, the Maxim's engine is a smooth piece - no fuss cold starting manners, slick, crisp, well matched gearbox, sturdy clutch, no annoying vibration. At 55-65 mph, some vibration passes through the engine's rubber mounts, but it is a muted roughness with no sharp edges. Down low, the X is aggressive enough to let you zip past freeway traffic without touching the shift lever, but at 7500 rpm an impressive disappearing act occurs. The X kicks so hard above seven five its midrange feels wimpy by comparison. From 7500, it will rev quickly past its 10000 rpm redline - quickly enough to lighten its front end exiting corners and trigger its 12000 rpm electronic rev limiter if you're not careful. Those who aren't careful may find reason to be - the Maxim continues to make serious power deep into the red zone and will pull to redline in top gear at 129mph.

 The Maxim X is a motorcycle that doomsayers claimed would never be built. Traditional cruisers have function all right, it's a function of style. In the Maxim-X, we see stylized function - a different matter altogether. The suspension still has some weaknesses and it is here that cruiser engineers must concentrate future efforts. Still, the Maxim's broad range is impressive. It is capable of out gunning anything in its class, while also being genuinely comfortable, nimble around town, and a willing and able backroad accomplice. At a time when all motorcycles are more specialized and yesterday's do all standard is history, Yamaha has created a balanced, versatile machine that imposes few limitations, a machine that could easily become the standard of tomorrow.

Cycle Magazine 1985

 

Maxim bez literki "X" to model z chłodzeniem powietrzem - fot. b/d

Protoplasta przyszłego power-cruiser'a Maxim 750 z 1983r ; fot. broszury reklamowe

Test drogowy YAMAHA XJ700X Maxim

 Slick, smooth and the quickest disappearing act in the 700 class.

 Motorcycling has its own magic act these days, with daily shows all over the country and sport-customs as the main attraction. If you don't believe it, then consider: The sport-custom is a blatant contradiction in terms, emphasizing two wildly divergent brands of performance and styling. And combining the two into a single package is a feat that makes turning lead into gold seem like a cinch. But the rewards for success might be worth more than gold; the right sport-custom could command a broader appeal than could a motorcycle from either single category. And that's got the manufacturers putting on pointed hats and waving magic wands, each one trying to build a sport-custom of its own.

 Well, Yamaha's wizards have performed their own special sorcery to brew up the XJ700X Maxim[-X], a laser-quick motorcycle that splits the difference between the two seemingly exclusive genres of sport and custom. The Maxim-X doesn't rely on any parlor tricks in its performance, though. Instead, Yamaha invoked a combination of proven and innovative engineering to conjure up this motorcycle, and sprinkled in a chest-full of custom-oriented talismans for good measure, such as a slim, teardrop-shape tank, acres of chrome and a Vmax-style disc/spoke rear wheel.

 Those are items that have successfully charmed riders of the custom persuasion before. But Yamaha is counting on the Maxim-X's engine to bewitch performance-minded riders, too, and claims 86 horsepower to help cast the spell. Like most previous incarnations of Maxims, the X's motor is a transverse inline-four with double overhead cams, five-speed gearbox and shaft final drive, with both its starter motor and alternator mounted on top of the cases behind the cylinder block. The X also retains the same shaft centres of Yamaha's 650/750/900 Maxim/Seca engine family, and even the gear ratios for the primary drive, transmission and final drive are the samethroughout. The 700's clutch, too, comes from the XJ900 Seca, which used a strengthened 750 clutch.

 Still, it took more than the mere wave of a wand over Yamaha's parts bins to create the Maxim-X's rubber-mounted motor. For instance, the crankshaft and connecting rods are 700-only items, and the cases are new, too. But it's the X's top end that really parts company woth past Maxim/Seca practice. For the 700, Yamaha reached into its hat and pulled out a liquid-cooled, five-valve design similar to that of the FZ750, the firm's new three-quarter liter sportbike. Both engines employ identical bore sizes, valve diameters, valve lift, cam timing and compression ratio.

 Moreover, the X enjoys the same benefits from its five-valve setup (three 21mm intakes, two 23mm exhausts) that the FZ does. For example, because the valves are smaller than would be the case with a comparable four-valve design, they're also lighter. Therefore, the engine can both rev higher before valve float sets in, and respond more quickly to throttle inputs. Lighter valves mean lighter springs, too, which decreases seat and camshaft wear while increasing service intervals. Five valves also offer more valve circumference than four - although not necessarily more total intake area - and so expose their area more quickly, which benefits cylinder-filling at low valve lifts. Finally, the five valves are arranged radially, with narrow included angles, making for an exceptionally compact combustion chamber that promotes complete, rapid burning, in turn allowing a high, 11.2:1 compression ratio without detonation. 

All the high-tech hardware would amount to so much hocus-pocus if it didn't produce horsepower. And in the Maxim-X's case, it does, making this motorcycle the 700-class top gun in the quarter mile. That's precisely what Yamaha intended, too, and the X ends any arguments to the contary with its scorching 11.779-second/113.63-mph time. What's more, the X smoked off that run on a bad day at the strip, when traction was a now-you-see-it, now-you-don't affair. Overall, that's a phenomenal display of power from an ITC-tariff-shunning 697.3cc engine, and it means the X can put the whammy on anything in its class, sportbikes and all.

 Summoning up that performance forced some compromises, though. Yamaha tuned the X motor for high peak horsepower - a necessity for quick quarter-mile times - at the expense of low-end and mid-range power. As a result, the Maxim[-X] requires its pilot to crank hard on the throttle to get to the class-leading acceleration. Yet, despite the tuning, the motor isn't particularly cammy; the power doesn't come in with a bang, as it does with Homda's Nighthawk S, one of the Maxim[-X]'s 700-classmates. Instead, the Yamaha's power gets progressively stronger as the revs climb. Just past 6000 rpm, the X's tuning really starts to work, and you need to watch the tach closely to keep from overrevving the engine, because it will pull straight past its 10-grand redline, effortlessly and smoothly.

 That style of power - not to mention the sheer volume of it - showcases the engine's FZ influence, and contributes to the X's ability to storm down backroads. Slick, positive shifting and well-spaced gearbox ratios make it a cinch to keep the motor in its best power range, where it can swoop out of corners in a thrilling, headlong rush. Yet the Maxim[-X}'s power also illustrates the compromises involved in creating a sport-custom. Low-end snap is far more useful for boulevard than the Maxim[-X]'s high-rpm power, and the Yamaha is at a disadvantage to pure cruiserbikes in that respect. Still, many riders will cheerfully accept that deficiency in trade for the 700's brand of fierce acceleration.

 In designing the X's chassis, however, Yamaha didn't take such a single-minded approach. For example, the 700's frame, albeit similar to the 750 Maxim's, has a lower seat height and a raked-out 31.5 degree steering head angle (29 degrees for the 750). Yamaha changed the head angle not only to make the front end take on a chopperesque appearance, but to add almost 3 inches to the wheelbase, too, which contributes a long, low look a cruiserbike is expected to have. Conversely, Yamaha wanted the 700's suspension rates biased toward sporting use, and chose new components with stiffer springs and more damping than the 750 Maxim's. But, oddly enough, the 700's shocks adjust only for preload (five settings), whereas the 750 offered both preload and rebound-damping adjustments.

 Even without that sport-oriented feature, though, the 700's chassis performs adequately - if not admirably - for frolicking in the canyons. The Maxim[-X] shows a basic willingness to be heeled into corners, and it responds to rider input with surprising ease, needling muscle only in fast esses. Considering the bike's chassis dimensions suggest they were chosen more for style and stability than agility, the steering seems almost supernaturally light. But Yamaha says the credit goes to careful tire selection - not magic.

 Unfortunately, Yamaha apparently didn't exercise the same care in selecting the 700's spring and rebound damping rates; both are too soft for aggressive riding or bumpy corners. But for a 160-pound pilot, with standard air pressure in the fork (6 psi; 17 psi is recommended maximum) and shock spring preload set to the fourth or fifth position, the X feels capable and satisfying at an 8/10ths pace on smooth roads. It's when you're really charging that the bike gets unruly. Then the X starts hobby-horsing on its suspension, the tail-heavy weight bias becomes evident and the front wheel's sensitivity to bumps increases.

 Hard riding points out some other shortcomings, too, such as the Maxim[-X]'s lack of cornering clearance. The footpegs drag fairly easily, especially if you happen to roll off the throttle in mid-turn. That causes the X to sink on its suspension, providing a pointed reminder that this is a shaft-drive motorcycle, and it wants the power kept on through turns. Fast riding, shaft-style, also means completing your braking before initiating a turn, and with the Maxim[-X] that's even more important. The X's front brake - the same dual opposed-piston calipers and rotors used on the Virago 1000 - takes a heavy squeeze and returns little feel in the bargain.

 Still, even with the bike's quirkiness, it would be wrong to say the Maxim-X can't live up to the first part of its sport custom sobriquet. Because, in the right hands, the X can haul down a twisting road almost as quickly as a pure-bred sportbike. A crack sportbike will perform the task for a wider variety of riders, though, and with far less drama.

 But sport riding subjects motorcycles to a harsh, unblinking scrutiny, and the Maxim-X regains much of its appeal when viewed as a custom. For example, the X feels far more at home in the city, where you can use the low-effort steering and crisp carburetion to dispatch traffic with ease. And if someone is foolish enough to challenge you on your own turf, just dial on the engine's top-end rush; they'll never know what hit them. Wherever you go, though, the bike's ergonomics feel just right. In fact, the X has one of the best seating positions of any custom bike. Unlike the traditional custom riding position that rocks you back onto the base of your spine and makes you grope for the far-forward pegs, the Maxim[-X]'s low, mildly swept-back handlebar tilts your torso forward only slightly, and finding the footpegs comes naturally, For conjuring up that combination, Yamaha should get a medal.

 

 COMPARATIVE TEST DATA:

 Yamaha XJ700X Maxim-X

 11.779 / 113.63

 121

 505

 135

 '85 Susuki GS700E

 11.978 / 112.21

 125

 485

 140

 '84 Honda Nighthawk S

 12.048 / 109.75

 125

 492

 125

 '84 Honda VF700F Interceptor

 12.323 / 106.50

 124

 512

 136

 '83 Honda Nighthawk 650

 12.287 / 108.04

 122

 451

 127

 '83 Yamaha XJ900 Seca

 11.949 / 113.20

 128

 499

 135

   No such commendations accompany the Maxim[-X]'s saddle or suspension, though. The saddle is a two-piece, loose-cover affair that's a near-perfect Harley-Davidson copy; it even makes you feel as uncomfortable as an H-D seat does, and in the same short amount of time, too. Fortunately, the Maxim[-X]'s saddle isn't dished too deeply, so you can move around some. But moving around won't help you much in coping with the suspension. We quickly learned to ignore Yamaha's recommended air pressure for the fork (6 psi), instead bleeding it down to 0 psi and getting a great improvement in ride quality. The shocks, on the other hand, start out harsh and stay that way, especially when the rear wheel needs to respond quickly to bumps. The problem stems from excessive compression damping, and the bike flat beats on you over abrupt paving irregularities. So, between the saddle and the rear suspension, you'll be plenty ready to stop when the gas tank goes on reserve - which takes only about 100 miles.

 And it's the suspension's shortcomings, more than anything else, thatthwart the Maxim[-X]'s sport-custom alchemy, because the suspension simply isn't up to either task the bike is supposed to take on. Just the same, the suspension isn't the root cause of the X's inability to serve two masters. It's only a symptom of a larger problem, of choosing the wrong set of compromises.

 Sportbikes and customs are so far apart in the spectrum of motorcycling that any attempt to fuse the two poses a nearly impossible task; compromises have to be made. The magic, though, is in making the right ones. And Yamaha certainly pulled a couple of good tricks from its sleeves, such as the riding position and that remarkable motor; those things guarantee the bike a broad apeal. Yet, with the right compromises the Maxim-X could have had them all, from the hard-core knee-draggers to the ardent profilers. But to do that, Yamaha's wizards need to try on some more pointed hats, and wave some more wands.

by Charles Everitt - Cycle Guide  Magazine, May 1985

 
 

Yamaha XJ700N/S z silnikiem chłodzonym powietrzem - uboższa wersja Maxim-X oferowana równolegle z modelem XJ700X - fot. b/d

Porównanie
Honda V45 Magna  kontra  Yamaha 750 Maxim-X

Pick your own proportion of luxury and performance for the street.

 Honda's hold on the 750 custom market in Canada has been overpowering in recent years, and much of that success has been won by the V45 Magna. For '85, the Magna has been given a minor face lift; its popularity doesn't warrant extensive changes.

 Yamaha, on the other hand, needed something special to crack Honda's sales grip. In a bold move, Yamaha slipped its most potent engine technology into the conservative Maxim styling package, hoping that an explosive amount of horsepower would shatter the Magna's status as reigning high-tech street cruiser. The question remians, however, whether Yamaha has succeeded in upsetting the Magna from its throne or in simply establishing a brand-new category of machine.

 Even though these two bikes ostensibly share the same class, they differ radically in design, performance and style. The '85 Magna's updated cosmetics are a closer reworking of the Harley-Davidson look. The seat has been lowered, the wheelbase stretched and a new backrest added. The Maxim-X is a typical representative of Japanese inline-four customs. Its wheelbase is shorter, the steering head high and the front fork very long. In contrast with some of the more successful Harley clones, the Maxim[-X]'s custom styling appears a little dated.

 There's certainly nothing dated about the Maxim-X's engine design. The cylinder and cylinder head are virtually identical to the FZ750's, but are mounted on crankcases derived from the air-cooled XJ900. The advantages of a five-valve cylinder head design have been extolled in Cycle Canada in the April and June issues. To recap them, the five valves allow the included valve angle to be narrowed while maintaining sufficient intake area for high rpm breathing without the need for radical camshafts. The low valve angle permits a high compression ratio without the onset of detonation. The theoretical results of this design are a wide powerband and a high peak power output.

 Except for the changes required by the Maxim[-X]'s [nearly] upright cylinder block, the FZ and Maxim[-X] powerplants are the same. Both use 33mm constant velocity carburetors, the Maxim[-X]'s being the sidedraft variety while the FZ's are downdraft. The three 21mm intake and two 23mm exhaust valves are the same on both engines, as are the included valve angles. The resulting shallow combustion chamber allows a high compression ratio of 11.2:1 without requiring the use of premium gas. The camshaft specs also remain identical, with 276 degrees of intake and exhaust duration, and lift of 7.6mm and 7.4mm for the intake and exhaust valves, respectively.

 The bottom end of the Maxim-X's powerplant is based on the XJ900's crankcase, with the necessary changes to incorporate liquid cooling. The cylinders a canted forward 14 degrees rather than the 45 degrees of the FZ750, requiring a new lower cylinder head tier to accommodate horizontal intake ports and sidedraft carburetors. The different exhaust system and induction system with its curved ports result in a lower peak power of 90hp at 9000rpm compared with the FZ's peak of 102hp.

 The Honda's 90-degree V4 powerplant, first introduced in '82, has become the cornerstone of Honda's street bike line. Although three years is a long time for a motorcycle engine to remain unchanged in these days of rapid technical advances, a quick review of the V45's engine specs reveals a thoroughly modern powerplant. The bore and stroke are an extremely oversquare 70.0mm x 48.6mm, allowing the large paired 26mm intake and twin 23mm exhaust valves. Liquid cooling and the low included valve angle of 38 degrees permit the high compression ratio of 10.5:1 without the onset of detonation, and 32mm constant velocity carburetors complete the intake system.

The [Maxim-X and Magna] engines are as different in character as they are in design. The V45's mile-wide powerband has endeared it to thousands of riders, sporting and cruiser enthusiasts alike. Good power starts at 2000rpm and continues all the way to the 9800rpm redline and beyond. There is no discernible step in the powerband, just a linear progression in power as the revs increase. The smooth powerband and the lack of vibration at any engine speed give the Magna an impression of relaxed competence.

 A rider error at the drag strip resulted in a burnt clutch on the V45, and we weren't able to record a representative quarter mile time. However, the Magna delivers more than enough power for its intended purpose. Acceleration around town is authoritative, and passing power is readily available if the rider down-shifts to fifth gear. Overdrive has the engine spinning at such low revs that there is simply not enough torque to provide quick passing.

 The carburetion on our Honda was a little rough when we picked it up and it stalled repeatedly at stop lights. A quick trip to a local Honda dealer corrected the problem. Our only major complaint about the V45 engine also concerns the induction system. A disconcerting amount of noise emanates from the intake tract whenever the throttle is opened, enough to bother even those riders who wear ear plugs when riding on the highway. The drone was worse when the engine was given lots of throttle at low revs under heavy load. It's the loudest intake roar we've heard from a modern Japanese motorcycle, and all of our riders found it annoying.

 The Maxim-X's powerplant feels as nervous as the Magna's is relaxed, like a frisky quarter horse chomping at the bit compared with a constrained pacer. The exhaust note is raspy and uneven at low revs, reminiscent of a drag machine waiting to take off from the line. As the revs increase, it develops into a throaty roar that encourages the rider to keep on the gas.

 The exhaust note's impression of power is not an illusion. The Maxim-X is one of the hardest accelerating 750s we've ever ridden. It's quarter mile time of 11.66 seconds and terminal speed of 186.9 km/h (116.1 mph) are just a heartbeat behind the FZ's 11.499 seconds at 191.4 km/h (118.9 mph). Considering that the Maxim[-X] uses a less efficient shaft final drive, these numbers are very impressive. The Maxim-X is quicker than any 750 sportbike except the Suzuki GSX-R750 and the [Yamaha] FZ750. Comparison of the intake tracts of the Magna and Maxim-X reveals the source of the Maxim[-X]'s superior power output. The Maxim-X's effective intake area is more than 20 percent greater than the Magna's.

 However, the Yamaha's power delivery may not appeal to everyone. The powerband starts just past 6000rpm and continues well past the 10000rpm redline, but below 6000rpm the Maxim[-X] feels lethargic compared with the V45 Magna. Since the top-end components are the same as the FZ750's, which produces good torque as low as 4000rpm, we must conclude that the Maxim[-X]'s intake and exhaust systems are less efficient. The 33mm carburetors may be too large for the engine, which feels over-carbureted at low speeds, similar to a hot-rodded engine fitted with large-diameter smoothbores. The engine surged noticeably when we first rode it, and though two subsequent tune-ups eliminated the surging, the low-end torque didn't improve.

 The impression of nervousness is increased by the Yamaha's short gearing. Fifth gear keeps the engine revving at little past 5000rpm at 100 km/h (62.1 mph), and a Maxim[-X] rider often searches for a sixth gear. The Yamaha's five-speed transmission performed flawlessly. We didn't miss any shifts and gear changing is smooth and precise. The cable-operated clutch stood up to the abuse of our drag strip session and gave more feedback than the Honda's hydraulically actuated clutch.

 The Magna's overdrive reduced the engine speed for highway riding and allowed more relaxed cruising. Down-shifting to pass was a minor penalty to pay for the benefits of the overdrive gear. There were no major complaints with the Honda's transmission. Occasional missed shifts can be avoided by more careful gear selection. The Honda's hydraulically actuated clutch has a narrower engagement point than the Maxim[-X]'s.

 The Maxim-X's chassis specifications of 31.5 degrees of rake, 120mm trail and a 1520mm wheelbase should dictate a slow-steering motorcycle. At low speeds this is indeed the case, and the bike tends to fall into corners. But at more elevated speeds the Maxim[-X] feels decidedly short-coupled, with the immediate steering response of a much smaller bike. At the beginning of our test the Yamaha was stable at high speeds, though a bit twitchy. As the rear tire became worn, the Maxim[-X]'s stability decreased to the point where it would occasionally wobble as speeds approached 160 km/h (~100 mph). That was particularly noticeable after the drag strip session, when the rear tire was near its legal wear limit.

 Despite these deficiences, the Yamaha was the preferred bike for fast cornering. The quicker steering and shorter wheelbase make cornering transitions easier, and the Yamaha's suspension is firmer, inspiring more confidence when well heeled over.

 The Maxim-X's fork has sturdier 38mm fork tubes this year and is air-adjustable. The larger stanchions are a welcome change since the steering head is higher than on previous Maxims, resulting in a longer fork. With the increased power and weight of the Maxim-X, last year's 36mm fork tubes would surely have been overworked. The fork's spring rates are on the soft side, but stiffer than the plush Honda's, providing more control at the expense of compliance.

 The Yamaha's twin rear shocks adjust for spring preload but not for compression or rebound damping. Adjusting the preload can be awkward, since the collars are close to the ends of the upswept mufflers. The shocks are firm, providing adequate wheel control for cornering, but they do bottom out over large bumps because of the short travel. The new disc-type cast rear wheel may enhance the Maxim[-X]'s looks, but it's heavier than last year's version and adds to the already considerable unsprung weight of the shaft drive. The increased unsprung weight taxes the limited travel of the rear shocks even further.

 The Magna's steering strongly parallels its engine performance: relaxed and confidence inspiring. The wheelbas is a long 1565mm, rake 30 degrees and trail 106mm. The 701mm seat height lowers the centre of gravity and contributes to the Magna's good straight-line stability. Even with a handlebar windshield the Magna was more stable at high speeds than the bare Maxim-X.

 The Magna's suspension is even softer than the Maxim-X's. It provides the Magna rider with a plush ride, particularly around town, but does limit the Honda in other areas. The rear shocks bottom easily while carrying a passenger because of the soft springs and limited travel. Also, the softer springing causes the Magna to squirm if it's pushed hard through corners. Even though cruiser riders aren't known for aggressive cornering habits, most owners would benefit from stiffer spring rates. The mushy suspension is a shame, since the Magna steers more neutrally than the Maxim[-X] and falls into corners less. Stiffer suspension would allow the Magna to corner better without drastically reducing comfort.

 The soft front forks of both bikes result in a significant amount of dive under heavy braking. The Yamaha's dual front disc brakes provide more stopping power than the Magna's, though they're both limited by front tire traction. Both bikes have a large amount of rake and long forks, reducing the weight on the front wheel and limiting the front brakes' usefulness. This places more importance on the rear brakes. Most riders find the Maxim[-X]'s rear brake more progressive and easier to modulate than the Magna's, but the Maxim[-X]'s rear wheel locks easily during down-shifts. The Magna's front brake is spongy feeling compared with the Maxim[-X]'s.

 The ergonomics of these two bikes differ as much as their engine and chssis performance. The Magna is more typical of recent Japanese cruisers; the footpegs are kicked way out front, the handlebar swoops back to meet the rider's hands and the stepped seat is extremely low to the ground. The Maxim-X takes a more conservative approach. Its handlebar resembles a low rise sportbike bar but is mounted on a riser to achieve the desired height. The footpegs are not set as far forward as the Magna's.

 As soon as we picked up the bikes we mounted a clear, handlebar-mount fairing to the Magna, while the Maxim-X was left bare. As a result the Magna was more comfortable than the Maxim[-X] for highway use. Its radical riding position was not a hindrance because the fairing deflected the wind blast. The Magna's seat provided more support for the rider, mainly because of its greater width. Equipped with the handlebar-mount windscreen the Magna made a reasonably comfortable mount for medium-length trips on the highway.

 When the fairing was removed from the Magna the tables were turned. The Maxim[-X]'s riding position makes much more sense at highway speeds. Riding long distance at high speeds on the Magna is a sure way to build strong arms.

 Both bikes are better suited for urban riding. The Magna's superior seat coddles the rider, but the extreme forward placement of the footpegs is awkward. The Maxim[-X]'s riding position makes more sense even in town and lets the rider feel more comfortable balancing the bike while at a stoplight. The Magna's passenger seating is far better than the Maxim[-X]'s. The longer wheelbase allows more room and its backrest provides good support for the passenger's spine.

 The Maxim[-X]'s instruments are similar to those of the V-Max, with white faces for the tachometer and speedo. They are easier to read at night than the Honda's red markings. Both bikes have a low fuel warning light, but only the Maxim[-X] has a fuel petcock with a reserve position. When the Magna's light goes on, there is 3.5L (0.77 Imp. Gal., 0.93 U.S. Gal.) of gas remaining in the tank.

 The Magna garnered marks for its superior headlight, while the Yamaha's high beam lacked enough penetration to be useful for highway speeds at night. Both bikes' turn lamps double as driving lights, but only the Yamaha's turn signals are self-cancelling. A switch actuated by the sidestand kills the Yamaha's engine should the rider try to engage first gear while the stand is down. The Honda has no switch or warning light, just the usual piece of rubber on the end of the stand designed to touch the road first and push the sidestand up.

 It's hard to imagine two more different motorcycles competing in the same class. The Maxim[-X] may be dressed in a cruiser's clothes but its engine screams sportbike. It seems to us that the engine would be more at home in an updated version of the XJ750's chassis. Still, the Maxim-X is the sportiest 750 cruiser you can buy.

 Our initial impression of the Magna was that it paled in comparison with the sportier Maxim[-X]. Yet, its relaxed performance slowly gained the respect of our testers. The Magna performed every task demanded of it and can only be considered slow next to the very quick Maxim-X. The Magna's power output and handling capabilities will keep most cruiser riders happy.

 We preferred the Maxim-X for its sporting performance and handling capabilities. Even though these motorcycles appear to be in head-to-head competition for the same market, they appeal to distinctly different riders. The Maxim-X suits the rider who wants sporting performance but absolutely has to have it in a custom package, while the Magna appeals to the mainstream cruiser buyer, for whom ferocious acceleration and cornering ability are secondary to styling and relaxed performance.

Cycle Canada  Magazine, September 1985

 

 

Yamaha XJ700X nowy motocykl
Standard-Cruising-Sport-Touring

 Back in the days when the French voyageurs were exploring the Canadian wilderness, they had an interesting way of starting their journeys. It was called a "Hudson Bay Start." This is how it worked. They got all their equipment packed in their canoes by noon. Then they started their journey after the midday meal.

 This technique accomplished two things. First of all, it got them moving. Even back in those days, that first step of a long journey was the hardest. The second thing the Hudson Bay Start did was limit how far they went that first day out. That way, if they'd left something important behind, or if something went terribly wrong, it was only a half day's travel back to their starting point.

 We have another reason for preferring this kind of a gateway to the more common, up-at-dawn routine. That is: we never seem to be ready to leave by 6:00am! There is always one more thing that didn't get done, so we end up taking off late and trying to cram a 500-mile day into a half day's ride. That's no fun! So after several years of struggle, we just finally gave up. These days we plan our first day as s shorty. One hundred or two hundred miles at most - just enough to get us moving and on the road. The second day out is now the heavy mileage day. (Also, by calling it a Hudson Bay Start, you see, we don't have to feel guilty about leaving so darn late!)

 That should explain why it was already 3:00pm on a dark and scary-looking afternoon, and we were only a few miles from home. The weather didn't look like it was going to cooperate with our Hudson Bay habit. Sure enough, it soon stopped looking bad and started being bad.

 Some miserable weather is actually a good thing on a test ride. You can tell a lot about a machine by the way it works when you are paying more attention to survival than to the operation of the bike. But so early in the trip? Darn!

 The good part was that the Yamaha XJ700X Maxim[-X] I was riding was handling the rain like a happy duck. It stayed smooth and solid, and seemed totally unaffected by the wet slippery road surface. We had installed Silhouette's small "Cruiser" fairing on the Maxim[-X] for the trip. It was doing a good job of keeping me dry from the knees up, but rain always seems worse when it's dark. It wasn't long before I was thinking, "Okay, I've gathered enough information about this rain-riding stuff, now it can stop." As usual, it didn't pay any attention to me. It just got worse.

 The "No Vacancy" signs were out in force in the town we had planned to spend the night in. Just great! We finally found a motel with no sign showing and pulled in. The woman behind the counter apologized; she had forgotten to turn the "No" sign on. Just great! She was a nig help, though; she called ahead to a smaller town 50 miles farther down the road and made reservations for us. Fifty more miles in the rain, huh? Just great!

 I kept trying to look on the bright side. At least the Maxim[-X]'s 60/55 watt quartz headlight was doing an exceptional job in the dark, rainy conditions. It threw out a nice wide beam that penetrated the gloom and gave me a secure feeling about the road ahead.

 By the time we pulled in under the motel carport, I was starving to death. So much for Hudson Bay Starts. But a few minutes later we were sitting in a quiet, dry, warm, wonderful-smelling Italian restaurant, and the lasagna was on the way. Just great!

 The next day was strictly freeway riding across the desert. Good conditions to all the Maxim[-X] to show me its travelling abilities.

 The 1985 Yamaha XJ700X Maxim[-X] is quite a bit different than the older version of the Maxim. Actually, it's a lot different. The engine is an in-line four, as was the earlier edition, but that's really about the only similarity. Displacement is 697cc, and each cylinder has five valves - three for intake of the fuel mix, and two to exhaust the burned gases. The Yamaha engineers chose this unique arrangement to produce efficient combustion and to allow the bike to operate well at higher rpm. This adds up to increased power, but without going over the 700cc mark.

 The disadvantage of having 20 valves whirring up and down in an engine is that valve adjustments are going to be more difficult, and will require more time to do properly. In other words - based on an hourly rate - tuneups on the Maxim-X are probably going to cost more. One thing that helps: the owner's manual indicates that valve adjustments should only have to be performed once every 26,000 miles!

 The Maxim[-X] has shaft drive, a five-speed transmission, and it runs on tubeless tires. Shifting is smooth and easy. The rear wheel is cast so that it looks almost "filled-in." It's even painted differently on one side than it is on the other - one side is black, the other side is polished aluminum. I guess this is stylish, but if there is any useful reason for such a design I don't know what it would be.

 Out on the road this machine certainly has plenty of get up and went for a 700cc motorcycle. You turn the throttle, the Maxim-X gives out a mean-sounding snarl and gets somewhere else in a big hurry. Though Road Rider Magazine has never done any quarter-mile acceleration tests, I'll bet this Maxim[-X] would hold its own up against some of the so-called "sport" motorcycles in the same class. It's really quick - and I love it!

 We travelled a bit more than 500 miles that second day. A medium-long distance that would have brought any points of discomfort to my attention. The Yamaha Maxim[-X] proved to be a most satisfactory mileage eater. Everything fits and works well for touring. The handlebars are unusual for a cruiser-style bike. I guess the best description would be that they're semi-straight. More like the bars used to be on "standard" machines. This was the type of bar I learned to ride with, so I was exceptionally comfortable with the shape.

 Though the front wheel on the Maxim[-X] is set out a bit to create the cruiser look, Yamaha has redesigned the area around the steering head to minimize the effect of the rake angle on the handling. Most cruisers have a terrible habit of the front wheel falling over into a corner. If you want to know, I have never liked the way they handle on a good curvey road. But the Maxim[-X] was a surprise. It looks like it should be a heavy handler, but it is definitely not. Only at walk-around speeds could I feel a slight front-end heaviness.

 The saddle was a good one for solo touring, too. It widens out at the right spot to give full support where it is needed. The rider section of the seat is most comfortable - firm but not hard. The back of the rider section is not at the correct angle to give any back support; its purpose seems to be to flow into the passenger section of the seat attractively. But the saddle is truly able to go traveling. I've ridden on much more elaborate, complicated saddles that weren't as good.

 I only did passenger duty for about 50 miles on the Maxim[-X] - the day we picked the bike up from the manufacturer. Based on that short ride, the seat seemed comfortable enough, but the passenger pegs were much higher than I have a liking for. Okay for around town, but I suspect the position would be uncomfortable for serious long distance.

 The instruments are set at a good angle and are extremely visible. One nice decorator touch: the faces of the instruments are white! I think they are the first white ones I've ever seen. It works for me; they are readable and clear - and kind of pretty. All the switches and hand controls are within easy reach. The tank tapers back nicely to blend with the shape of the saddle, and it also leaves a notch so your legs can reach the ground easily. The footpegs are positioned exactly where your feet want to go naturally, not way up near the front of the engine like so many cruiser bikes.

 All in all, the Maxim[-X] is kind to your body on a long day's ride. Even better, the Maxim[-X] felt comfortable the next day. Now that's the real way to tell if a bike is "comfortable" - how does it feel when you get on to ride it the day after a long day's ride?

 Our trip plans went bottoms up the next day. We had hoped to follow an unpaved back-country road across the southern tip of New Mexico. The hard rains had turned everything to gooey mud, though, so we had to turn back to the major highways. As it turned out, that wasn't so swell either. The freeway should have gotten us to Albuquerque in much shorter time. But 100 miles south of Albuquerque we ran into a late-season snowstorm. Snow! Again! We sure have had more than our share of that stuff this year.

 It got worse and worse - and the wind started blowing it crossways. Fortunately, in all this bluster, the 700 continued to handle properly. Confidence in the machine you're riding makes a big difference, and there was a lot of that developing. I would establish a line and the Maxim[-X] would hold to it. The strong headwind that was now hitting us, and the ice build-up on the road were things that had to be coped with, but through it all proper input resulted in proper response. The most disconcerting thing was the fact that Bob was riding without a windshield, and he was having trouble with his vision. Since this caused him to weave around in front of me, I had to be doubly aware of his movements. I could see fine. The Silhouette fairing was doing an exceptional job of blocking the snow from my upper body, and updrafting it away from my helmet visor.

 We had to stop for gas in downtown Albuquerque. Once the machines were filled, pulling out from under the roof was an extremely hard thing to do. It had started snowing harder while we were stopped. Our destination was on the other side of town, and getting there required a lot of surface-street maneuvering, with lots of stops for signals. Things were getting slippery. The front dual disc and the read drum brakes that had been doing such a good job were suddenly the enemy. There was one corner that was ice-coated, and the beginnings of a self-caused slide-out were corrected only because of the bike's cooperative response. Thank you, Maxim[-X].

 Somehow we managed to reach the day's final destination. I didn't care how good a machine I was riding, I didn't want to do this anymore.

 The next day - would you believe it? - was bright and shiny. It was a good sight to see. With a bit of time to play around with, we had a leisurely breakfast and a late morning start. We headed for the wildlife preserve at Bosque del Apache, south of Socorro, the wintering grounds of the whooping crane. Since that is a bird we were most desirous of seeing, off we went.

 The loop drive through the preserve is hard-packed dirt and, of course, we went very slowly so we could see as much as possible. The 700 never gave any indication of heating up; it chugged along in first gear just fine. It proved that it could behave as well at 10 mph as it could at 55 and above. Also, with all the stopping and starting, the low seat height of 29.9 inches became one of the bike's favorite features as far as I was concerned.

 In the gravel, just as on the highway, the kicked-out front end never gave the impression that it wanted to duck under. As a matter of fact, it wasn't noticeable at all. The bike stayed as true and steady as it had in the snow and ice. This saya a lot for the machine because, to be honest, I wasn't paying much attention to my riding technique; I was there to see birds.

 There were still five whoopers that had not started their spring migration, and we were able to find and see all of them. It was a great day. We were there much longer than we should have been.

 Back om the freeway and homeward bound. The facts that I needed to know now could only be calculated from the record book that had been kept during the ride. Gas mileage, as always, was a big question. I had only gone on reserve once, and that had been because we hadn't filled up when we left home. There is a red fuel warning light on the lower edge of the tachometer housing; it comes on when the fuel level drops below approximately 0.8 gallons [3.0 litres]. I had to switch to reserve before the light came on, though. When the light does blink on, it's best to find a station quickly, because you are close to being out of gas. There is very little warning time.

 On the trip, the 3.4-gallon [13-litre but actually closer to 11.5-litre useable] tank was always enough to make it to scheduled stops. The reserve was never needed except for that first time. Figures now show that the average for the trip was 51 miles per gallon (50.99 mpg US, 61.24 mpg IMP, 21.7 km/L). That isn't at all bad; it should make most owners happy. There was no oil useage at all on the 2600-mile test trip. 

The only thing that went wrong on the whole test ride - and on subsequent weekend outings with the Maxim[-X] - was that the metal fork-seal cover came loose. At highway speeds the wind would push it up the fork tube and make it rattle and jingle against the forks. Not really what you could call a major breakdown.

 I finished the test with the distinct impression that the Yamaha XJ700X Maxim[-X] combines a lot of good points from a lot of different motorcycle styles. It has the trendy look of a cruiser, the handling and response of a sport bike, the ergonomics of a standard, and the comfort and long-distance capability of a top solo touring machine. For putting all this good stuff together in one motorcycle, the Yamaha designers deserve a big round of applause.

 If you are interested in a mid-sized tiger, take a look at this machine. The Yamaha XJ700X Maxim[-X] has a jungle cat's power and agility; its appearance is dainty, but with a visual sensation of forward motion. Maybe the subtle design hides much that it has to offer. Don't let it hide from you - go out looking for it.

by Patti Carpenter - Road Rider  Magazine, August 1985

 

Różnice pomiędzy XJ Maxim-X z lat 1985 (XN) i 1986 (XS):

1) For both the 700cc and 750cc sizes, Yamaha used the XN model classification in 1985 and the XS model classification in 1986. For the 750XN ('85) you'll find 1FL in the V.I.N. and for the 750XS ('86) you'll find 1MY in the V.I.N.. Similarly for the 700XN ('85) you'll find 1AA in the V.I.N. and for the 700XS ('86) you'll find 1NW in the V.I.N.. For those with California models, the 700XNC ('85) shows 1FJ in the V.I.N. and the 700XSC ('86) shows 1LT in the V.I.N..

2) The XN ('85) model has a circular Yamaha tuning fork emblem on the gas tank, while the XS ('86) model has an elongated oval Yamaha text emblem on the gas tank.

3) The XN ('85) model electrical test circuit tests only the oil pressure light, while the XS ('86) model test circuit tests both the oil pressure light and the fuel level light.

4) The XN ('85) model has a more agressive foot peg tread pattern than the XS ('86) model which has only parallel grooves in the rubber pegs. Also, the XN ('85) model has rubber sleeves which slide over the foot peg posts while the XS ('86) has a bolt-on upper tread surface for the foot pegs.

5) The XN ('85) model has unpainted, all-aluminum oil pump covers on either side of the crankcase. On the XS ('86) model, the oil pump covers are only partially unpainted and the recessed areas in the covers are painted black.

6) The XN ('85) model has an ignition pointer on the rotor while the XS ('86) model doesn't. The XS ('86) model has a different ignition rotor and the marks align with the pickup instead.

7) The XN ('85) and XS ('86) models initially had different carburetor jets as a result of rushing the 700cc engine into production but that was apparently resolved in 1985 such that both of the 700cc models' jets became the same (but some of the 750cc jets are different than those of the 700cc model).

8) The XN ('85) models were documented as using NGK D8EA non-resistor spark plugs but the XS ('86) models were documented as using NGK DR8ES-L 5 k-ohm resistor spark plugs.

9) In 1985, Yamaha offered a backrest for the Maxim-X which apparently had a smooth surface, without any button imprints but it appears that in 1986 the same backrest was offered with a button imprint. Therefore, if you have an XN ('85) model that was originally equipped with a backrest, it probably won't have a button imprint but if you bought your XS ('86) model new, with a backrest, it will likely have the button imprint that wasn't there in '85..

10) The XN ('85) models had the word "YAMAHA" printed on the back of the rear seat while the XS ('86) models had the word "YAMAHA" printed on the fender above the taillight.

11) The XN ('85) models had a slightly narrower front fender with a small ridge around the front edge. The XS ('86) models appear to have had a slightly wider front fender with a smoothe contour and no such ridge.

12) The XN ('85) Canadian & International models had a speedometer which showed both kmh (outside) and mph (inside). The XS ('86) Canadian & International models had a speedometer which showed only kmh.

13) The XN ('85) models had no ornamental additions to the finish whatsoever. Only the XS ('86) models were offered with pinstriping on both the fuel tank and the side covers. Some models have chrome trim on the edge of the fuel as well but that was not a factory option - those are owner additions.

 

Dzisiaj modele te są dość cennymi okazami na rynku wtórnym, bowiem słyną z niezawodności. Zaawansowany wiek sprawia jednak, że trudno dzisiaj spotkać egzemplarze nie wymagające żadnych inwestycji. 

Niemal pełne koło z jednej strony polerowane, z drugiej malowane na czarno to cecha charakterystyczna dla Maxim X; fot. b/d

 

 

Identyfikacja modelu

Kod Model Rocznik Przeznaczenie Numer pocz. ramy Numer silnika Uwagi
1AA XJ700XN (Maxim) 1985 U49 JYA1AA00[]FA000101 1AA-000101 chłodzenie cieczą, 5 zaworów
1FG XJ700N (Maxim) 1985 U49 JYA1FG00[]FA000101 1FG-000101 chłodzenie powietrzem 2 zawory
1FH XJ700N (Maxim) 1985 Kanada   1FH-000101  
1FJ XJ700XNC (Maxim) 1985 Kalifornia JYA1FJ00[]FA000101 1FJ-000101  
1FL XJ750XN (Maxim) 1985 Kanada      
1JJ XJ700NC (Maxim) 1985 Kalifornia JYANJ00[]FA000101 1JJ-000101  
1LT XJ700XSC (Maxim) 1986 Kalifornia JYA1LT00[]GA000101 1LT-00101  
1MY XJ750XS (Maxim) 1986 Kanada      
1NH XJ700S (Maxim) 1986 U49 JYA1NH00[]GA000101 1NH-000101  
1NJ XJ700S (Maxim) 1986 Kanada      
1NK XJ700SC (Maxim) 1986 Kalifornia JYA1NK00[]GA000101 1NK-00101  
1NW XJ700XS (Maxim) 1986 U49 JYA1NW00[]GA000101 1NW-000101  

 

Literatura:  książki napraw LIT-11616-XJ-00 LIT-11616-05-04 LIT-11616-04-85, książki obsługi LIT-11626-04-85 LIT-11626-04-68, broszury reklamowe, katalogi motocyklowe, zdjęcia użytkowników Maxim-X,

 

Dane techniczne:

 
model XJ700XN 1985 USA 
Silnik: czterocylindrowy, czterosuwowy rzędowy, chłodzony cieczą, rozrząd typu DOHC, 5 zaworów na cylinder, pojemność 697ccm,  śred. x skok 68,0 x 48,0mm, moc maksymalna 86KM przy 9500rpm, moment obrotowy 69Nm przy 8000rpm, stopień sprężania 11,2:1, 4 gaźniki podciśnieniowe Mikuni BS33mm, smarowanie obiegowe wysokociśnieniowe z mokrą miską olejową, rozrusznik elektryczny 600W, akumulator 12V-14Ah, alternator 364W, zapłon elektroniczny TCI , 
Przeniesienie napędu: napęd pierwotny -łańcuch zębaty 97/58 (1,672), napęd końcowy - wał Kardana 49/36 x 19/18 (4,179), sprzęgło wielotarczowe mokre, skrzynia biegów pięciostopniowa mechaniczna, I - 35/16 (2,187), II - 30/20 (1,500), III - 30/26 (1,153), IV - 28/30 (0,933), V - 26/32 (0,812)
Podwozie: podwójna z rur stalowych, widelec teleskopowy 38mm z poduszką powietrzną (10-17psi), skok 150mm, wahacz wleczony podparty 2 elementami resorująco-tłumiącymi z regulacją napięcia wstępnego sprężyny, skok 99mm, kąt pochylenia główki ramy 31,5o, hamulec przedni dwutarczowy 267mm, zacisk jednotłoczkowy, hamulec tylny bębnowy 200mm, obręcze odlewane przód 2,15x19, tył 3,00x16, ogumienie przód 100/90-19 57H, tył 130/90-16 67H,
Wymiary i masy: długość 2235mm, szerokość 775mm, wysokość 1160mm, wysokość siedzenia 760mm, rozstaw osi 1520mm, prześwit 145mm, wyprzedzenie 120mm, masa pojazdu sucha 232kg, nośność 238kg, zbiornik paliwa 13,0l, rezerwa 3,0l,  min. promień skrętu 2,8m,
Osiągi: prędkość maksymalna 210km/h, przyspieszenie 0-100km/h 4,0sek, średnie zużycie paliwa 5,7l/100km, 
Dane eksploatacyjne: olej silnikowy SAE10W30 SE/SF 2,8l (z filtrem), świece zapłonowe NGK DR8ES-L, przerwa na elektrodzie 0,6-0,7mm, olej w zawieszeniu SAE10W 389ml / 151mm, luz zaworowy: ssące 0,11-0,20mm, wydechowe 0,21-0,30mm (regulacja płytkami), ciśnienie w ogumieniu przód 2,0atm, tył 2,8atm., wolne obroty 1050-1150rpm,  ciśnienie sprężania 154-165psi., poziom paliwa 2-4mm, poziom pływaka 16,5-18,5mm, olej przekładni końcowej SAE80 API GL-4 200ml, zbiornik wyrównawczy płynu chłodniczego 490ml, całkowita pojemność układu chłodzenia 2400ml, luz na dźwigni hamulca 2-5mm, luz na dźwigni pedału hamulca 20-30mm, luz na dźwigni sprzęgła 2-3mm,
 
model XJ750XN 1985 Kanada 
Silnik: czterocylindrowy, czterosuwowy rzędowy, chłodzony cieczą, rozrząd typu DOHC, 5 zaworów na cylinder, pojemność 749ccm,  śred. x skok 68,0 x 51,6mm, moc maksymalna 90KM przy 9000rpm, moment obrotowy 74Nm przy 8000rpm, stopień sprężania  :1, 4 gaźniki podciśnieniowe Mikuni CV33mm, smarowanie obiegowe wysokociśnieniowe z mokrą miską olejową, rozrusznik elektryczny 600W, akumulator 12V-14Ah, alternator 364W, zapłon elektroniczny TCI
Przeniesienie napędu: napęd pierwotny -łańcuch zębaty 97/58 (1,672), napęd końcowy - wał Kardana 49/36 x 19/18 (4,179), sprzęgło wielotarczowe mokre, skrzynia biegów pięciostopniowa mechaniczna, I - 35/16 (2,187), II - 30/20 (1,500), III - 30/26 (1,153), IV - 28/30 (0,933), V - 26/32 (0,812)
Podwozie: podwójna z rur stalowych, widelec teleskopowy 38mm z poduszką powietrzną (10-17psi), skok 150mm, wahacz wleczony podparty 2 elementami resorująco-tłumiącymi z regulacją napięcia wstępnego sprężyny, skok 99mm, kąt pochylenia główki ramy 31,5o, hamulec przedni dwutarczowy 267mm, zacisk jednotłoczkowy, hamulec tylny bębnowy 200mm, obręcze odlewane przód 2,15x19, tył 3,00x16, ogumienie przód 100/90-19 57H, tył 130/90-16 67H,
Wymiary i masy: długość 2235mm, szerokość 775mm, wysokość 1160mm, wysokość siedzenia 760mm, rozstaw osi 1520mm, prześwit 145mm, wyprzedzenie 120mm, masa pojazdu sucha 237kg, nośność 238kg, zbiornik paliwa 13,0l, rezerwa 3,0l,  min. promień skrętu 2,8m,
Osiągi: prędkość maksymalna ponad 200km/h, przyspieszenie 0-100km/h 3,2sek, zużycie paliwa 4,3-7,5l/100km, 
Dane eksploatacyjne: olej silnikowy SAE20W40 lub 10W30 SE/SF 2,8l (z filtrem), świece zapłonowe NGK D8ES-L, przerwa na elektrodzie 0,6-0,7mm, olej w zawieszeniu SAE10W (silnikowy) 389ml, luz zaworowy: ssące 0,11-0,20mm, wydechowe 0,21-0,30mm (regulacja płytkami), ciśnienie w ogumieniu przód 2,0atm, tył 2,8atm., wolne obroty 1000-1100rpm,  ciśnienie sprężania 1059-1138kPa,  wkręt składu mieszanki wykręcony o 2,5obr., poziom paliwa 2-4mm, poziom pływaka 16,5-18,5mm, olej przekładni końcowej SAE80 API GL-4 200ml, zbiornik wyrównawczy płynu chłodniczego 490ml, całkowita pojemność układu chłodzenia 2400ml, impulsator - opór 120om, stator - opór 0,46om, min. długość szczotek: alternator 10mm, rozrusznik 8,5mm, napięcie ładowania przy 3000rpm = 14,2-14,8V, dysz główna paliwowa #105, główna dysza powietrza #120, moduł zapłonowy TID14-35/Hitachi, cewki zapłonowe CM12-25/Hitachi, alternator LD119-19/Hitachi, regulator napięcia SH233-12/Shindengen, rozrusznik ADB4D2/Nippondenso,
 
model XJ700S 1985 
Silnik: czterocylindrowy, czterosuwowy rzędowy (1-2-4-3), chłodzony cieczą, rozrząd typu DOHC, 4 zawory na cylinder, pojemność 696ccm,  śred. x skok 65,0 x 52,4mm, stopień sprężania  9,5:1, 4 gaźniki podciśnieniowe Hitachi HSC33mm, smarowanie obiegowe wysokociśnieniowe z mokrą miską olejową, rozrusznik elektryczny 600W, akumulator 12V-14Ah, alternator 12 19A przy 5000rpm, zapłon elektroniczny TCI
Przeniesienie napędu: napęd pierwotny -łańcuch zębaty 97/58 (1,672), napęd końcowy - wał Kardana 49/36 x 19/18 (4,179), sprzęgło wielotarczowe mokre, skrzynia biegów pięciostopniowa mechaniczna, I - 35/16 (2,187), II - 30/20 (1,500), III - 30/26 (1,153), IV - 28/30 (0,933), V - 26/32 (0,812)
Podwozie: podwójna z rur stalowych, widelec teleskopowy 38mm, skok 150mm, wahacz wleczony podparty 2 elementami resorująco-tłumiącymi z regulacją napięcia wstępnego sprężyny, skok 99mm, kąt pochylenia główki ramy 31,5o, hamulec przedni jednotłoczkowy 267mm, zacisk jednotłoczkowy, hamulec tylny bębnowy 200mm, obręcze odlewane przód 2,15x19, tył 3,00x16, ogumienie przód 100/90-19 57H, tył 130/90-16 67H,
Wymiary i masy: długość 2235mm, szerokość 775mm, wysokość 1160mm, wysokość siedzenia 750mm, rozstaw osi 1520mm, prześwit 145mm, wyprzedzenie 120mm, masa pojazdu sucha 224kg, masa pojazdu gotowego do jazdy ?, nośności 246kg, zbiornik paliwa 13,0l, rezerwa 3,0l,  min. promień skrętu 2,8m,
Osiągi: prędkość maksymalna ?km/h, przyspieszenie 0-100km/h ?, zużycie paliwa ?/100km, 
Dane eksploatacyjne: olej silnikowy SAE20W40 lub 10W30 SE/SF 2500ml (bez filtra), świece zapłonowe NGK BP8ES, przerwa na elektrodzie 0,7-0,8mm, olej w zawieszeniu SAE10W 383ml, luz zaworowy: ssące 0,11-0,15mm, wydechowe 0,16-0,20mm (regulacja płytkami), ciśnienie w ogumieniu przód 2,0atm, tył 2,8atm., wolne obroty 1000-1100rpm,  ciśnienie sprężania 1078kPa min.882kPa przy 300rpm, poziom paliwa 0-2mm, olej przekładni końcowej SAE80 API GL-4 200ml, długość szczotek: alternator min.10mm, rozrusznik min.8,5mm, napięcie ładowania przy 3000rpm = 14,2-14,8V, dysz główna paliwowa #107, główna dysza powietrza #210, poziom pływaka 15-16mm, moduł zapłonowy TID14-44/Hitachi, cewki zapłonowe CM12-26/Hitachi, opór: pierwotnie 2,7om, wtórnie 12kom, alternator LD119-08/Hitachi, regulator napięcia SH233-12/Shindengen, rozrusznik ADB4D2/Nippondenso,

motolit@neostrada.pl

aktualizacja: 27 kwietnia 2012

Powrót do strony głównej