1988 Honda VTR250 Interceptor
- Engine: 250cc liquid-cooled DOHC 90-degree V-twin, 60mm x 44.2 bore and stroke, 11:1 compression ratio, 25.9hp @ 12,500rpm, 12.8ft/lb @ 9,500rpm
- Carburetion: Two 32mm Keihin CV
- Transmission: 6-speed, chain final drive
- Electrics: 12v, electronic CDI ignition
Here is a real cutie, a little 250cc liquid-cooled 90-degree V-twin, with two overhead camshafts, 4 valves per cylinder, a 6-speed transmission, and according to a Cycle magazine dyno test, 26 horses at 12,500rpm being sent to the rear wheel.
It’s a small bike, with a modest weight of 367 pounds with a full tank of gas. Thirty years ago the average American male weighed 180 pounds, half that of the VTR. Torque maxed out at 12.8ft/lb at 9,500rpm, and one magazine made a 14.83-second pass in the quarter-mile — with no mention of the rider’s weight.
The Japanese had all sorts of size limits for its own domestic market, as well as restricted driving licenses for the young. So their small-bike market was big, and since they were making these “tiddlers” why not see what the rest of the world thinks of this quarter-liter machine, which had been selling in Japan since 1983. Europe got the earlier model, the VT250 with just a headlight fairing. The full-faired version seemed appropriate for Canada and the U.S., where the spaces were large.
What was Japan doing, peddling a 250 in a country where a sporty bike needed size, like Honda’s VF1000R? The Honda folk in Japan had obviously looked at the modest American success of Kawasaki’s 250 Ninja, introduced in 1986, and decided it was worth a go. For that matter, Yamaha had showed up with a sporty 250 single in 1987. No word from the folks at American Honda as to how they felt about the project, though rumor had it they were not overly happy.
Interceptor no more
The first year it came out, it was called the VTR250 Interceptor, but the insurance companies were having a hard time with the go-fast name, so it was dropped in 1989. This also happened with the VFR750 Interceptor. And the VF1000F Interceptor. Ah, the power of a word!
It was quite a good sporty bike — for riders well-under 6-feet and 200 pounds. Cramped was a consistent word in American tests. The seat was 30-inches off the ground, but rather narrow, allowing those with shorter legs to easily touch down. Wheelbase was not quite 54 inches, and the turning radius was less than nine feet, a great plus for beginner riders. The fairing was very sporty, not the bulky touring type, and the clip-on handlebars were an easy reach from the saddle. As was the instrument panel with a speedometer going up to 115mph, and a tachometer running to 14,000rpm. The tach was a little more honest than the speedo, as the engine could easily rev to 13,500, while a genuine top speed is hard to find. The white-collared fellow in the office could calculate that with the gear ratio of the sixth speed running at 13,500rpm, top speed would be 110mph — while a more realistic figure would be 90mph or so.
Honda VTR250 frame and suspension
The diamond-style frame was steel, the upper part being two rectangular arms angling down about 25 degrees going past the fuel tank and the air cleaner and then to the pivot for the box-section swingarm. A few small pieces went backwards to support the rear fender and seat. A pair of downtubes angled from the steering head down to the front of the engine, which served as a stressed member of the chassis. The Showa front forks had 35mm tubes which centered on the axle, a sporty 26.1-degree rake, and almost 4 inches of trail. They were air-adjustable, but unfortunately lacked a cross-over tube, so they had to be pumped separately. Travel was a shade over 5 inches. At the back was a single Pro-Link shock with adjustable spring preload and almost 4 inches of travel.

The three-spoke cast wheels were quite a sight, loudly painted in blue for the ’88 year. A rod-actuated drum brake was mounted to the 17-inch rear wheel, while the front 16-incher …Â what was at the front? It looked like a big ventilated drum. That was Honda’s inboard disc system, a single-disc arrangement first seen on the 1982 VT250F. While some people said it was designed to improve brake performance and feel, others maintain it was merely a styling touch. It was well-ventilated with a twin-piston caliper using floating mounts. It worked, but by 1990 the VTR250 had a 17-inch front wheel with a conventional disc brake.
And the powerplant? The 90-degree V-twin engine was almost a perfect 250cc, with an oversquare bore of 60mm and a stroke of 44.2mm. When an engine can rev to 13,500rpm, oversquare is good. Two chain-driven overhead camshafts sit on each cylinder, operating the four valves in each head. A convenient aspect for the home-mechanic was that valves were adjusted with the help of a screw driver, though getting access required some work. Needless to say, bits and pieces were quite small, as opposed to the VTR’s big brother, the VT1100 Shadow, which came with a single overhead camshaft and only three valves per cylinder.

Fuel was kept in a 3.4 gallon tank, passed through a pair of 32mm constant-vacuum Keihin carburetors, and into a combustion chamber where it was compressed 11 times over, then fired by a transistorized electronic ignition. Straight-cut gears ran the power back to a wet clutch assembly, operated by a hydraulic mechanism. And then a constant-mesh transmission with half a dozen gears, having a ratio of 23.17 in first to 8.78 in high. A #530 chain ran out to the rear wheel on the Interceptor, changed to a lighter #438 in 1989.
Turn the key, push the button, put her in gear, let out the clutch, and away you went. The perfect primary balance gave a smooth ride, with a gentle noise at low rpm, cruising around town at six to eight thousand revs. However, get out on your favorite back road, up the throttle, and there would be some genuine caterwauling at 13,000rpm. The good suspension kept the tires where they were supposed to be, and nothing scraped in the corners. Good fun, especially for the riders who were light of weight and small of frame.

Price? A mildly pricey $3,000, $400 more than Kawasaki’s 250 Ninja. But worth it, as the Honda had better suspension, and a better look. MC