middleweight do-everything bikes... opinions appreciated

Message

High_Side · Tue Jun 21, 2005 11:16 am

They are a budget bike, very heavy on the BUDGET. Any of the other bikes you mention would be far better in the handling department, but it's hard to deny the price difference....

#12 Unread post by **ZooTech** » Tue Jun 21, 2005 1:21 pm

The "modernized" NightHawk 750 was a HUGE step backward for the NightHawk 700SC of yesteryear....but it is still a nice ride. However, mint or not, I'm not sure $4,000 is fair considering the age. For just $2,000 more you can pick from a whole host of brand new bikes that will fit her needs. The low mileage of that NightHawk is actually a concern, as opposed to a good selling point. With that much sitting around (neglect) the carbs can become clogged, tires dry rot, and the engine gaskets can shrink and crack causing leaks.

V4underme · Tue Jun 21, 2005 3:15 pm

I understand the bike was made to keep costs down, but when you say budget does that mean inferior or just "old tech"?

How is the 90's version of the bike a huge step backwards?

I'm honestly curious, not trying to be a pita.

From her standpoint, the most important thing is the fit and the ride, she doesn't care much if it's air or water cooled, carb'd or injected, etc. When the brakes are squeezed, the bike stops. When you crack the throttle, the bike goes. From all accounts I have read (personal and professional reviews) the bike has quite good acceleration (she doesn't care if a new, 7,000 dollar bike can go almost a whole second faster in a 1/4 mile). Dyno chart had a stock bike at 68 hp. Considering it weighs 463 lb. dry, that ain't too shabby. Reviewers from some magazines use words like nimble, agile, easy and light to describe the handling.

I guess what I'm trying to convey is that she's more concerned with the practical application and normal use of the bike as opposed to what makes it work. More concerned with if her feet touch the floor and if she can pick it up if she drops it. So, with that in mind, is there any reason why the CB750, dated though it may be, would be a bad choice?

btw, the asking price was 4k, ain't no way we're paying that. I proposed an almost even trade, her '02 VLX for the 'hawk, seeing as how they book at almost the same value. If the cash dif is close, we may just do it unless someone has a good reason not to, like they are known for falling apart, the engine has a nasty quirk, trannys drop out at a certain mileage, etc....

#14 Unread post by **ZooTech** » Tue Jun 21, 2005 4:10 pm

The 90's NightHawk was a step backward for a number of reasons. The '84-'86 NightHawk had a digital display which showed you what gear you were in, it had a handle-bar mounted choke, it had a shaft drive instead of chain, the suspension was more sophisticated and had more setup options, it had a 6-speed tranny vs. the new 5-speed, and it had two rotors up front with twin-piston calipers whereas the newer version only uses one rotor.

The 90's NightHawk was NOT A BAD BIKE by any means...and it is still a Honda after all. It's just a disappointment from the standpoint of an '84 700SC owner looking to buy the latest model of his beloved bike.

Just be sure to check over all the gaskets and rubber and make sure the thing is oil-tight. I think the wife will enjoy the bike.

V4underme · Tue Jun 21, 2005 5:47 pm

Thanks for the response. Some of what you mention is a bit subjective. Personally I prefer the analog gauges. Shaft is good, but eats power. All the high tech sporties are still chain. I'd take the shaft, though, 'cause I hate cleaning up chain lube. I'd love a 6 speed, too. Oh well. Brakes...er... well, Honda seems to do that for some reason. The 3rd gen Magna I sold had the same set-up, a dual rotor in the front would have been nice. This '98 she's looking at has the choke on the handlebar. She fired it up and the salesman had to point it out as she was hunting down low on the left side.

All in all your words describing the CB as your beloved are the most persuasive. Thanks.