Nighthawk vs. the new CB

[Bheezy27403_imp]

Properly set up carbs are magnificent. I still can't understand everybody that bashes carbs. Get them done right and if you actually ride your motorcycle (more than once a month or two) you will have many many beautiful miles hassle free. If they need some adjusting (once every 5 years or so if that) just take them apart, clean them and reassemble. Easy and therapeutic. No laptop needed, just hands.

[the Ferret]

I never had an issue with carbs and the fueling on a good set of carbs is creamy from just off idle all the way thru. That said I have no issues with FI bikes either. A smooth throttle hand and not letting the throttle go back to the stops when shifting makes it nearly as smooth as a well set up carbed bike.

[Bheezy27403_imp]

Indeed. Fortunately Honda has produced a moto that the FI is pretty dang seamless (except for when using engine braking when the ECU adjusts fueling right before low rpm). Hopefully I'll never need that laptop.

[the Ferret]

I really liked my 750 Nighthawk and rode it all year round. The picture below was taken on my annual New Years Day ride ( notice fingers indicating 1-1 or jan 1st) which is a tradition with my brother and I. Usually possible in southern Ohio. I never had any carb troubles in the cold, but it is nice not having to thumb a choke lever. Even with a faulty rear brake on my CB 1100, the big CB s brakes are far superior to the Nighthawks. Power is a lot better as well as handling although I had my handling straightened out on the Nighthawk with a Superbrace and Progressive shocks. I wish the big CB had hydraulic valves though.

I really liked my 750 Nighthawk, but the CB1100 is really the superior machine in nearly all aspects.

[url=http://smg.photobucket.com/user/theferret111/media/Jan1-2009_zpsc7c581f0.jpg.html]

Which 750 Nighthawk did you ride again?

I had the '84 Nighthawk CB750SC (blue/black). Great looking bike for its time. Yes, I miss the hydraulic valves and a few other knick knacks. However, I believe there was an engineering design flaw in the intake air box. Every time a significant side gust caught my ride at freeway speeds, the carbs lost oxygen and very quickly freeway speed dropped. This was very scary given there was traffic cruising behind me. Just as scary was when the air returned to the box and the revs took off and sometimes resulted in an unplanned wheelie. Also, if the bike got too hot, the hydraulic clutch would fail and needed to cool down for about 30 minutes. This was rare, but happens in muggy hot summer days in parked traffic. I kinda miss the shaft drive.

Which 750 Nighthawk did you ride again?

I had the '84 Nighthawk CB750SC (blue/black). Great looking bike for its time. Yes, I miss the hydraulic valves and a few other knick knacks. However, I believe there was an engineering design flaw in the intake air box. Every time a significant side gust caught my ride at freeway speeds, the carbs lost oxygen and very quickly freeway speed dropped. This was very scary given there was traffic cruising behind me. Just as scary was when the air returned to the box and the revs took off and sometimes resulted in an unplanned wheelie. Also, if the bike got too hot, the hydraulic clutch would fail and needed to cool down for about 30 minutes. This was rare, but happens in muggy hot summer days in parked traffic. I kinda miss the shaft drive.
GO I had a 2000 750 Nighthawk (chain drive)

There were some really nice things about it. No epa stuff, hydraulic valves, single disc front that was easy to bleed, rear drum, low seat height, was easy to put a clear windshield and soft bags on.

To me Honda could make just a great commuter/leisure bike by going with an Ptwin in about 800 cc, shaft drive, air cooled, hydraulic valves, about a 5 1/2 to 6 gallon fuel tank, 75 or 80 rear wheel ponies, 60 ft lbs of torque, Fi, ABS, self cancelling T/S's, 31" or less seat height, under 450 pounds, 65 -70 mpg on 87 octane,make the oil filter as easy to get to as on the CB1100. Easy to get to air cleaner, easy to get to the spark plugs,

Not sure how I could resist something like that

[VLJ_imp]

mickey, there is no way Honda will coax 80 rwhp from a Euro 5-compliant, air-cooled Parallel Twin. As conservative as Honda is with the power they build into all their streetbikes—merely look at our CB1100, an air-cooled, 11400cc I4 that produces only 88 rwhp—such a motor would likely offer only 50-ish rwhp, like the Moto Guzzi V7, or even the liguid-cooled, 900cc Street Twin. How much power do Honda's current 700-800cc Vertical Twins make, and aren't they all liquid cooled? Nowhere near 80 at the wheel, I'm sure. Same thing, regarding your desired 60-ft-lbs of torque. Not going to happen. Our CB1100 only produces 66 at the wheel. Lastly, shaft drive and hydraulic valves on a cheap, modern commuter? Again, never going to happen now, and certainly not at a sub-450-lb wet weight, especially with a 5 1/2 to 6-gallon tank.

Since you want air cooling and shaft drive with 75-80 rwhp from a Twin, probably the closest you're going to get in a new bike is with the soon-to-be-released Moto Guzzi V85TT. It's an L-Twin, not a Vertical Twin, but it checks off most of your other boxes, including a 5 1/2-gallon tank, which almost nothing else offers these days, other than a select few touring and ADV bikes. No way the new Guzzi (or anything else meeting your description) comes in at under 450 lbs wet, however. They're listing it at 457, dry.

If you'd be willing to give up shaft drive and hydraulic valves, which are no longer offered as a combo these days in anything but the lamest cruisers, you could also look at the 72-rwhp SV650, the new KTM Parallel Twin family of 790 Duke/Adventure/Adventure R (seats will be too tall, and they're fairly pricey, plus you generally favor Japanese builds over Euro builds), or BMW's F800 siblings (ditto, although you do get belt drive instead of chain drive). I would also include the Yamaha MT-07, except I know you really don't like those, or the Z650, but the small Kawi puts you nowhere near 75-80 rwhp.

Probably your only bets are the new Guzzi, maybe one of the new KTM 790s, the BMW, the Tenere 700, or something much older, like a GS 850G, but even the old Suzuki was a hundred pounds over your 450-lb limit. The biggest sticking points in your list will be shaft drive and hydraulic valves mated to 80 rwhp, coming in at under 450 lbs, in any sort of non-cruiser Twin. Such an animal almost doesn't exist these days. I suspect it may never have existed.

[the Ferret]

All the numbers, in fact everything about the new V85 Guzzi, resonates with me. Problem is, it's a Moto Guzzi and I won't own another Italian bike. Quirky, questionable reliability, non existent dealer network.

Honda could do those same numbers if they wanted to.

"Such an animal almost doesn't exist these days. I suspect it may never have existed."

in 1984 the 700cc Honda Nighthawk S (I-4) had 80 hp (not much torque though only around 45 ft lbs), shaft drive, air cooled, hydraulic valves, 6 speed trans, 466 pounds (dry), dual discs front, a small fairing , 31.1 inch seat height,4.2 gal tank (which is also kinda small)

Do that again Honda only a little better!

I figure in 35 years Honda could at least match those numbers with a modern fi twin. if Guzzi can, Honda can.

https://www.motorcycleclassics.com/class...ighthawk-s

heck I have been riding a CB500X for fun lately (belongs to a nephew that left it in my garage) with 45 HP in a 500 and it's a lot of fun but needs MORE oomph and a shaft rear end. The 750X is a mild little P twin that puts out nearly 60 HP doesn't it? Honda used to make a little air cooled shaft drive V twin (VT 500) 55 hp and shaft drive .

Had an 81 850G very nice bike, but like you said a bit heavy and shim over bucket if I recall.

Will probably never see the bike I proposed I imagine, but it is possible for Honda to make it. They just won't.

[Bheezy27403_imp]

is that the Guzzi with one shock on the right side of the bike?

[the Ferret]

is that the Guzzi with one shock on the right side of the bike?

Maybe..not sure about the single side shock, it's their new 850 cc Adventure bike. One model in a slate grey and one multicolred white/yellow and some other colors.

[PAULIBIKER_imp]

Had a couple nighthawks over the years and enjoyed them all.

The Honda 919 is my favorite standard. Less weight than the nighthawk and more power than the CB1100.

The simplicity of the CB1100 is its best feature.

[VLJ_imp]

mickey, even that old Nighthawk you mentioned severely missed the boat, according to your desired specs. First off, it was an I4, not a Twin. Had it been a Twin, it would not have come close to 80 rwhp. Secondly, the fuel tank wasn't nearly as large as you want. Also, that bike was still over 500 lbs on the road. Lastly, that bike did not have to comply with Euro 5 emissions standards, which will add weight and complexity while sapping hp and torque.

I can't think of any Honda that ever nailed your specs. The PCH weighed too much, and wasn't powerful enough. The Hawk GTs and Ascots and whatsuch weren't shaft drive, with hydraulic valves. The cruisers that did have shaft drive and hydraulic valves either weighed way too much, or made far too little power, or both.

I really want to come up with a bike that has ever met your criteria. I was thinking about it while driving around today, and my guess is it will have to be an old BMW of some sort, and even there I doubt we'll hit the 80 rwhp number. Otherwise, a modern, air-cooled R1200R comes fairly close. They certainly don't hit the sub-450-lb weight criteria, but they were close, at least dry. They also didn't have hydraulic valves, but you seem handy enough that you could knock out a valve adjustment on one of those things before you even made it through the live version of Dazed and Confused.