Today, MD received a press release from Triumph announcing U.S. pricing for the large displacement (1200 cc) members of its 2016 Bonneville family. The 79 horsepower T120 starts at $11,500, while the 96 horsepower Thruxton and Thruxton R begin at $12,500 and $14,500, respectively. Here is the breakdown on U.S. MSRP for the various models and colors:
T120
- $11,500 (Jet Black)
- $11,750 (Cinder Red)
- $12,000 (Cranberry Red / Aluminum Silver duotone, Jet Black / Pure White duotone)
T120 Black
- $11,500 (Jet Black)
- $11,750 (Matte Graphite)
Thruxton
- $12,500 (Jet Black)
- $12,750 (Pure White, Competition Green)
Thruxton R
- $14,500 (Diablo Red, Silver Ice)
Triumph now has full details and specifications for the Thruxton and T120 models on its web site.
See more of MD’s great photography:
A 1200cc parallel twins seems like a crazy idea. Nobody has loved parallel twins since the 1960’s and only then because there were few alternatives. Now it seems everybody loves these things. Go figure.
We’ve come a long way. They are economical to produce, compact and easy to package in a frame, make decent power, and are reasonably light. Looking at the Thruxton realistically if you can use all the power of that bike on the road most of the time then its time for a race contract. Or a license.
speak for yourself. What Scotty said, plus parallel twins are easier to maintain.
Truth is parallel twins always made enough power, they were light, and narrow but shook like dogs after a bath (says the guy who had (3) 650 parallel twins). What makes them viable now is they finally figured out how to add counter balancers to the crank to make them smooth.
My 03 Bonnie was as smooth as my Honda V4
Read a half dozen ride reviews last night about the T120. Surprisingly, nearly all of them were very positive, with some bordering on outright raves. I couldn’t find any criticisms of the throttle response. Everyone said the fueling was excellent. Everyone also said the handling was excellent, for what it is. The handling competency of this new one supposedly represents a vast improvement over the old one. People kept mentioning dragging the tips of their boots before the pegs touched down, and they expressed surprise regarding the decent lean angles available.
Power-wise, that’s really where the raves came in. While everyone was unanimous in describing the superlative detailing and overall fit and finish, the one area that seemed to catch everyone by (pleasant) surprise was just how much better the new motor is. No one complained about the lack of peak hp or outright speed. Instead, everyone went on and on about the incredibly smooth delivery and effortless thrust way down low, as well as through the midrange. They described it as being perfect for that style of bike.
Honestly, it was like reading mickey talking about the CB1100: the perfect motor for the relaxed ride he prefers, with gobs of smooth, right-now torque exactly where it ought to be.
Even MCN liked it. Heck, even Cycle World liked it. And the thing is, they really liked the entire bike, giving it praise in all the key areas, not just for the “ideal” motor.
One very good thing about this bike is that I can bag an actual test ride on one, since it’s a Triumph. In fact, my local Triumph dealer will doubtless call me soon, inviting me to come ride the thing.
We’ll see, but I’m a whole lot more enthused about it today than I was yesterday, after reading mickey’s summary of what he read about it. With the idea of a new CB1100 being a nonstarter these days in the U.S.—thanks a million, Honda—this new T120 likely represents the top of the retro upright-standard heap.
HEY VLJ.. weren’t you supposed to test ride a T120 a couple of days ago? What’s the verdict?
BTW here’s what one of the CB forum members said that also picked up a new Bonnie:
A quick 100 mile ride yesterday revealed the Bonnie is much like my old 2002 with more of everything. Power, brakes, features, 6 speed box etc. Bonnie feels more “flick able” than the CB. Ride is harsher than the CB. Engine feels like it has more grunt than the CB but is not as free revving.
The only irritation so far is that the switches are different. I am honking horn when I reach for the turn indicators!
I think Triumph really has a line-up of winners here with all of these water cooled Bonnevilles from the Street Twin, to the T120 to both Thruxtons. I’ve got an ’06 Scrambler and an ’08 T100 and soon might have a T120 in my garage. The ’06 will end up being sold off to a new owner at some point. These Triumphs have made my riding days much more enjoyable as I wind down my riding career. Having come from Guzzis for 30 years, the Triumph dealer network is more than adequate these days.
Where are you? My son is looking for a nice ’06 Scrambler.
Priced to high, not enough dealers
They are priced well within range of other equivalent bikes. And if you need your hand held every step of the way then buy a brand that has a dealership on every other corner.
Move. There are ten Triumph dealers near me.
I wonder how Norton is going to compete with this. They won’t lose all their potential clients, but without a doubt the Thruxton R will steal some of them, given the significant price difference.
According to Norton’s website (http://www.nortonmotorcycles.com/company/dealers-and-distributors/), they only have 8 dealers and one distributor. 3 of the dealers and the distributor are in California. Norton can’t compete with Triumph, not in the US anyway.
I think MCN just tested the T120. I didnt read the article but was told they wished Triumph had released the T120 first then the Thruxton because after riding the Thruxton, the T120 is not very exciting. Complained about power, suspension and brakes I think.
With regards to the T120 it might be a little faster than the CB1100 because even though it has less hp it also has less weight to push. Those that have sat on them say the T120 is physically smaller than a CB1100 ( which is pretty small for an 1100 to begin with) which might be an issue for those over 6′ tall.
It remains to be seen whether the T120 has less hp than the CB1100. We know it has more torque. The Thruxton makes ninety-six hp, but we don’t know exactly how much less the T120 makes, and the CB1100 only comes in at around eighty-five rwhp. So, yep, it’s possible the T120 still makes as much hp as the Honda.
Regardless, I’m sure I would agree with any tester that said the T120 felt less exciting than the Thruxton. The thing is, at only ninety-six hp from a liquid-cooled 1200, it’s not as if the Thruxton is a firebreathing monster tuned to within an inch of its life, so why even bother offering different states of tune? The Thruxton mill makes plenty enough torque, so Triumph had no reason to tune it down for use in the T120.
Man, I hate when manufacturers do that.
Reports are already putting it at 79 bhp @ 6500 rpms
Test reports I read tonight put it at 79 bhp@ 6500 rpms.
And torque was reported as 77 ft lbs.
One report also said the fueling is poor and they ended up riding it around in rain mode where the fueling is cleanest.
Not trying to put the bike down. I think it’s a great looking bike. I do think Triumph made a mistake by down tuning this from the Truxton model, but like the CB1100 it probably has enough power to satisfy most of those that will actually buy it, and if the buyer wants more power and better suspension he can always buy the Thruxton R.
It does seem manufaturers are leaning toward the easy to ride power bands vs the supersport powerbands of the past, with lots of torque and redlines below 10,000 rpm, and peak hp and torque well below that figure.
mickey, for a lot of people the Thruxton is not a viable alternative to the T120. The semi-extreme seating position of the Thruxton prevents cross-shopping.
I’m one of those people, unfortunately. The seating position of the concept CB1100R described in the other thread poses the same problem for me. I can’t do that lean-over anymore, so I’m relegated to the porky, pokey CB1100, or the profoundly ugly CB1000R.
Which would work out to something like 72 rwhp, which would be mighty sad for a clean-sheet designed, liquid-cooled, non-Harley, 1200cc twin. Actually, it would be downright pathetic. Hell, my old SV650 with a Yosh pipe made 72 rwhp.
If that does indeed turn out to be the case, I’ll pass. I’ll either stick with my STR, add bar risers, and try to convince myself to slow down, or I’ll track down a CB1100 Deluxe.
I’d be fine with the new six-speed FJR1300, or even another R1200R, or an R1200RT, but I’m not spending $18K+ on my next bike. So, if your hp numbers are correct, I’ll either stick with my current ride or figure out a way to get a CB1100 Deluxe.
VLJ…79 is the rwhp figure
Couldn’t you take a Thruxton and put higher bars on it?
Did you see my post about the new 2016 1250S Bandit? The numbers are right up your alley @102 hp and 79 ft lbs of torque, 6 speed, ABS, less weight than a CB1100 and Cycle or Rider said it was dead smooth at all rpms with a secondary balancer, plus a little wind protection for less than 10K new. Always a good bike, maybe now it’s even a better bike. I know you had a 1200 Bandit, but maybe another look at the improved model is in order.
Yes, I saw your Bandit post, and I replied. My response simply vanished. The same thing happened to me a few times the other day, too, but a day later a couple of those vanished posts magically appeared. So, I was waiting to see whether my Bandit post would also magically appear, and it did, again, a day later. If you scroll down this page a bit, you’ll find it.
Also, I just read Cycle World’s first ride review of the T120. They liked it, but some of the things they mentioned would be deal-breakers for me, above and beyond the limited hp (79 rwhp or crank hp, they didn’t specify, but either way it’s far too low); namely, the lack of ground clearance, the too-soft suspension, and the meh brakes.
I understand that the CB1100 is also sprung softly and has relatively middling brakes, but from all accounts it can still be hustled along at a fairly reasonable clip without auguring itself into a guardrail. Supposedly it has decent cornering clearance. Supposedly it handles competently.
It’s a Honda, so I tend to trust those “supposedly”s. The problem is, I just called my local Honda dealer, who told me there is no chance of sourcing a Deluxe, and Honda won’t be bringing any more CB1100s to America, as it was only meant to be a two-year run.
I’m pretty certain he’s full of crap regarding that last bit, since there is no way for him to know something like that, but I do believe that he can’t get his hands on one.
As for putting higher bars on a Thruxton? I don’t know. It would spoil the look, for sure, and in order to make them high enough for me, it would need all new cables too. As expensive as the Thruxton R is, at that point I may as well just bite the bullet and get the new water-cooled R1200R.
This is becoming quite depressing.
I saw 79 hp in the press release, so that must be crank hp.
Today, MD received a press release from Triumph announcing U.S. pricing for the large displacement (1200 cc) members of its 2016 Bonneville family. The 79 horsepower T120 starts at $11,500, while the 96 horsepower Thruxton and Thruxton R begin at $12,500 and $14,500, respectively.
Gads you guys might be right, that 79 might be crank HP.
The British Sportster has arrived.
I have a 650 with 74hp at the crank and it has plenty of power. At least I don’t often find myself redlined with the throttle wide open. It gets a bit too quick when I do that.
I think the entire line is priced about $1,000 too high.
I was hoping for the Triumph America and Speedmaster 1200cc.
How much longer do we have to wait?
I would bet they come out next year. Or they may come out when all the 865 engines have been used up?
Can someone please explain those two tone mirror’s? I don’t see them as retro or classic, and not from the early prewar days either.
They just look wrong.
Mirrors are an easy fix.
Not sure what you could do about that front fender bracket though.
Otherwise, it’s a great looking motorbike.
Paint it to match the front fender.
Is the silver thingy IFO the fork slider not a wind cowl?
If you’re not impressed by the side view of that bike, get a new hobby!
VLJ, just go get a Bandit 1200. It’s a 20 year old model now (1996, vintage enough) and largely unchanged. A UJM is a UJM. Bandits are cheap too, even brand new.
I used to own a ’97 Bandit 1200S. Even did the Reg Pridmore school at Sears Point on it. Cold tires, off-camber Turn Two, morning sessions. Scary.
My wife liked that big ‘ol Bandit a lot more than I did. Riding pillion, she used to squirm happily and giggle in her helmet whenever we’d come to a stoplight and I’d rev the crap out of that hulking I4.
“Mmmm…nice tingles….”
🙂
Actually the new 2016 Bandit 1250S has the exact numbers you are looking for in a bike VLJ with 102 HP 79 ft lbs of torque with ABS and a 6 speed trans upright seating 5 gallon tank, decent wind protection (according to the test) less weight than the CB DLX for under $10K new. Cycle World or Rider just tested it and came away impressed saying no vibes anywhere (thanks to a secondary balancer?)and power everywhere. Just might be something that would replace my ST 1300 as well someday because it sounds great.
Might take another look at the big Bandit. Probably make your wife happy too.
The problem with the new Bandit is it’s still butt-ugly. Back in the late ’90s it already looked stodgy and dated. Now, nearly twenty years later, it looks even more dated, and not in a good way.
It doesn’t look classic. It doesn’t hearken back to a better time. It just looks cheap, plasticky, and very uninspired, as if its designers were tasked with creating one of those old blue stripe plain-wrap products: “budget motorcycle.”
In terms of retro-styling and hearkening back to a different time, the Bandit is not so much “Apocalypse Now” or even “The Great Escape” as it’s a really just a bad episode of “Friends,” featuring Chandler trying to teach Joey how to parallel park.
Lol. It did get a new fairing for 2016 which looks pretty good. If it were shaft drive, I’m afraid I’d have to buy one.
Finding the perfect bike is such a chore isn’t it?
Yep that slow selling CB1100 sold out of DLX’s early last year. People are scrambling for them now. When a used one pops up it’s gone within a couple of hours.
If we old timers can’t buy a Thruxton R to get back into the fun riding, then we old timers will never get back into fun riding. That’s an awesome new bike. I want!
Beautiful bikes. I’m plagued by my memory of buying a 66 160 for $650, and a 72 750 for $1399. I’ve got two bikes now with a combined cost of $12,000(which I’m keeping). So-all you young whippersnappers out there-go buy these cool bikes!
Back in my day…! Why, I remember when gasoline was just a dollar a gallon… Oh, wait.
Not cheap, but to the rider that is enthralled with Triumph products it’s probably well worth it.
If they can find a dealer..
there are 180 dealers in the US, shouldn’t be too hard to find one.
Dirck, I beseech you to do a full test of the T120 (including dyno numbers and the real-world wet weight), just as soon as you can get your mitts on one. Also, could you pleasePleASePLEASE!! do a head-to-head comparo between the T120 and the 2014 Honda CB1100 Deluxe, the one with the six-speed tranny and dual pipes. Even though Honda didn’t bring the CB1100 to the U.S. last year, I’m hoping you can still source one.
Better yet, maybe Honda will bring the new one here, sooner rather than later.
I realize that most of the magazines are itching to test the new Thruxton R, and that’s fine. Combining killer looks, a capable chassis, and realistic power for a modern Sport Classic, it promises to be a huge hit for Triumph. The thing is, a couple of Peyton Manning-esque neck surgeries have put an end to my days of riding lean-over bikes. I love my Street Triple R, but I’ve reached the point where I’d prefer something a bit more upright. Also, I really need to start slowing down on public roads, plain and simple.
Enter the CB1100 and Bonneville; to my eyes, the best-looking, coolest, most comfortable upright nakeds on the market, excluding the crazy-expensive Power Nakeds that have sprung up in recent years, all of which would undoubtedly sabotage my plans of slowing things down a bit on public roads.
But I’m not looking to go too putt-putt slow, okay? I still want some tabasco with my Metamucil, which is why I’ve been reluctant to pull the trigger on the big, docile Honda. I’ve always been afraid it will bore me to tears, the moment the honeymoon is over. I’m hoping the T120 is as smooth and composed as the Honda, while offering significantly less weight and equal or greater acceleration.
The thing is, no Honda dealers in my area offer test rides, and I don’t know anyone that owns a CB1100, so I’ve never been able to bag a ride on one.
Dirck, this is where you enter the picture. Do me a solid, man. Do us all a solid. Please give us the real-world scoop on the new T120, a.s.a.p.
One of my bikes is a CB1100, along with a bunch of naked bikes, some from the 70s, some new, like BMW 1200r, KTM 390 duke, 1976 cb400f, etc etc. The CB has more than enough power and if it was given more power the suspension couldn’t handle it. I have added Race Tech springs and cartridge emulator up front and Race Tech G3 shocks out back. It now handles as well as my 1976 CB400f:).
People keep asking for more horsepower when, in my opinion, most people never use more than 70pct of the power. U know the old saying, more fun to ride a slow bike fast etc. My 390 Duke can keep up with most bikes where I live, which is near Hwy 1 north of San Fran. In fact my Duke keeps up with my 145 Hp Monster 1200s.
I owned. 2001 Triumph Bonneville, and aside from looks, it had no character and was actually boring. Also had the Triumph Scrambler, and wasn’t that good even after adding Ohlins shocks. With a little tweak the CB 1100 could be a most interesting ride.
Well, if Honda did give the CB1100 the additional twenty rwhp and ten lbs of torque so many of us fence-sitters want from such a bike, of course I would also expect Honda to adjust the suspension and brakes accordingly.
You say that the bike has “more than enough” power. Okay, but more than enough for what? More than enough to pull you up a hill without needing to drop two gears? Sure, I suspect it has more than enough. More than enough to prove exciting to a person that wants to do more than merely tool around at a leisurely place?
Just about every magazine review has described the CB1100 as pleasant and competent but uninspiring. They nearly all give it demerits for lacking the type of power one would expect from a modern 1100cc I4 built by Honda. So, clearly, many people feel it doesn’t have enough power, never mind more than enough, and that’s the reason I and many others haven’t pulled the trigger on the big CB.
More than enough power to pass any vehicle without downshifting since it has good torque. As I mentioned before, if they gave it more horsepower they would have to strengthen the frame and put in stiffer suspension. At that point the bike would cost as much as a sport bike and it wasn’t made to be a sports bike. Also consider that with strict emission regulations an air cooled engine has to be mildly tuned.
Sounds like a CB1100 is not the bike for you. You might want a BMW r1200r might suit you since it has more re power and is goid for twsties and long di distsnce
Already had an R1200R. I swapped it for my Street Triple R. I do like the new R1200R better.
Lol, that’s funny I swapped my street triple r for the R1200r:)
If you ride a Street Triple R, these bikes are targeted at riders a whole world away from you. They really are for riders who want to tool around at a leisurely pace. The HP number isn’t exciting but I’ll bet the torque curve is long and flat, and the mileage is very good for a larger displacement engine.
Pie in the sky, but I wish motorcycling would get themselves away from expressing engine “size”. I wish there were a way to express an engine’s capability. For instance, if a 600cc sport bike engine can burn more fuel in an hour than a Triumph’s 1200cc in the same time, are they really the same “displacement”? If a smaller engine moves more fuel and air with a turbo, is it still the same “size”?
Example: a Lycoming IO540 is 540 cu./in and makes “only” 250-260hp, but it typically moves a 3,000 airplane at 160+mph for hours on end burning a little more fuel than a Chevy Suburban does at 70mph.
“I wish there were a way to express an engine’s capability.”
That is exactly what HP and torque figures express. Those metrics combined with displacement can tell us a lot about an engine’s state of tune and capabilities.
They do, but as you can see by the discussion, there are people who are clearly disappointed that 1200cc’s have resulted in a HP number that is lower then they think they need, completely disregarding the engine’s intended character and performance envelope.
Haha. Well, I am one of those people, but it isn’t because I don’t understand the engine’s capabilities or what Triumph’s marketing/engineering team wanted it to be. I’m disappointed because I wanted it to be something else. I think most people logging such complaints here share my perspective while perhaps only a relative few incredulously hold onto to some Xhp/liter standard as if it is an undeniable law of physics or something.
Displacement actually has very little to do with horsepower. A given displacement can make a lot of horsepower or relatively very little depending on what the engineers intended purpose for that motor is.
I think engine displacement is used almost entirely for marketing purposes. Triumph could have easily created a much smaller engine with the same power and acceleration, just look at the 675 which surpasses it. It seems counter-intuitive but, the people who like to ride slow and use very little power are not interested in small engines. They would not buy a 500 that has the same performance as a 1200 because 1200 is a “man’s bike”. This works well for the manufacturer because they can price a bike according to its engine capacity. A 1200 will typically cost much more than a 500 with the exact same performance.
I’ve not ridden the CB1100 but have been on some “spirited” rides with someone who owns one. At no time have I noticed it being left behind. Sure, in comparison to some hyper mounts out there it would lose ground flying down long straight roads but that’s to be expected. I saw that the CB was tested by CW doing about a 12 sec. 1/4 mile @ about 110 mph (0-60 in about 3.3 sec.). A trait of the motor is instant pull almost anywhere in the rev band. Compare those numbers to other bikes you have ridden or can ride and you’ll have an idea of what to expect.
You ride a Guzzi. Of course you didn’t leave it behind!
oooooh burn lol
I didn’t know MC Daily took requests and Larry David called he wants you to stop using his copyrighted made up slang.