469 Timing Advancer

[bdento59]

I just learned that my '80 CB-X has the impotent original 469 timing advancer still installed. I have a very low engine number (SC03E-2000336) and apparently the advancer was never upgraded by any of the PO's through the years. Bummer. Any ideas on a course of action?

[EMS]

If you can't get a 469A advancer, I think the 422 advancer may work also.
If you are desperate to make 11 second ¼ mile runs you should really change. If not, I see no reason, really, to worry about it. Has your CBX performed badly with the 469 advancer?

[Terry]

Wasn't this an authorized ignition upgrade?

[EMS]

Wasn't this an authorized ignition upgrade?

Yes. It was sort of a "recall". Most bikes were actually modified before they were sold. Only a very, very few slipped through and should have been addressed during a routine service call.

[Achim Grabbe]

I have a "Service Bulletin" from Honda in Hands, to see here:
It says that from motor numer 1 to 1773 the advancer was wrong. But read by yourself.
Achim

[bdento59]

Only a very, very few slipped through and should have been addressed during a routine service call.

Well then, I have a rare bike indeed, as it is one of the very very few...

In any event, my engine number places it firmly within the range of the affected units listed in the TSB.

[EMS]

Only a very, very few slipped through and should have been addressed during a routine service call.

Well then, I have a rare bike indeed, as it is one of the very very few...

.

Another reason to leave it as is I would bet that riding it on the street, you will not recognize the difference.

[bdento59]

Only a very, very few slipped through and <~>

EMS, I realize that you're a posting god and all , but how can you possibly have the data to know your statement (above) to be factual?

[bdento59]

Another reason to leave it as is

Sorry Mike, but I don't covet deficiencies, no matter how rare...

[EMS]

Only a very, very few slipped through and <~>

EMS, I realize that you're a posting god and all , but how can you possibly have the data to know your statement (above) to be factual?

Sorry, but I didn't put that "title" there myself...it is more about quantity than quality
It was based on the fact that the story about the advancers was well published and Honda addressed the problem very early. Before bikes were actually shipped to the dealers the change was announced.
The subject was handled at length in the March 1980 isue of "Cycle" magazine. They found that the difference in quarter mile performance on the dragstrip was 12.16 sec vs 11.86 sec. Anybody who ever had a bike on a dragstrip would agree that this is well within the variation of results between different riders or runs at different ambient temperatures. Even "Cycle" found that the retest of the 469 single stage advancer resulted in only a 5.5hp max difference when run on the dyno at similar temperatures and the power curves only beginning to separate at around 5,000 rpm. The original run that ignited the issue, was done at 116 F in the dyno room and the retest at 86 F, showing that the CBX was quite sensitive to heat.

[bdento59]

It was based on the fact that the story about the advancers was well published and Honda addressed the problem very early. Before bikes were actually shipped to the dealers the change was announced.

Agreed, but when you say that only a very very few slipped through, are you referring to the first 1773 units, or a much smaller number? My recollection of the article is that Honda chose to handle the retrofit of those first units with a TSB to be administered at the dealer level during routine service visits, as opposed to a recall. Is this accurate?

[EMS]

Yes, it was not a recall. Honda had the choice to retrofit all bikes in the Gardena warehouse or tell dealers to do the change once they received the bikes, basically during the set-up procedure. 1773 bikes were affected and the assumption is, that most of them were modified and only a "very few" were not. You have one.