jdi%ingres@ingres.UUCP (04/27/86)
In article <5624@sri-spam.ARPA> ehrhart@sri-spam.ARPA (Tim Ehrhart) writes: >I am in the market for a new bike (presently own a 1982 Honda FT500 >Ascot) and have narrowed my choices down to the Honda Nighthawks. >Can anyone out there provide me with their experiences or opinions >about these two bikes ? > >I am attrracted to these bikes for their low maintainance items like >shaft-drive, hydraulic valve adjusters, and hydrualic clutch while >still providing high performance (72hp for the 650 & 80hp for the >700S) and what I consider quite adequate handling. > Well, I have about 900 miles on my 86 700SC, and I couldn't be happier. When I was shopping (February) my choices were small (among new bikes, that is). Either you get a sexy, expensive, easily damaged cafe racer, or you get a macho, uncomfortable, low-performance cruiser. Or, you take the route I did, which is to buy 'the bike in the middle, which handles great, preforms great, is comfortable, etc, etc, but has ZERO looks'. This bike is not pretty. If you don't care about that -- you'll love it. The accelleration is pretty amazing, considering it's shaft drive. Pulling back at anything above 5000 (11,500 redline) produces (as Nissan would say) awesome acceleration. Note, however, that I haven't ridden any 'V-max' style road crushers. I have a tough time going faster than about 70 down city streets anyway. :-) Handling is quick but very predictable. Fork is a big 39mm with brace, and damps well (don't use any air though, unless you like that 'compression damping highway jolting' feeling). Rear suspension is equally good. Bike is very comfortable, but I haven't done any long tours, so I can't tell you about that. Also, the fairing they give you looks nice but doesn't do a lot. Highway handling is good but not great (suspect 'Progressive Springs' and nitrogen charged rear would fix that. Anyway, with the way I drive (fun increases in linear proportion to acceleration ability) I don't get much more than 30-35mpg, but then if you want to drive it like you would a car you're supposed to get 40-45. Also, it's got one of those stupid evaporative canisters stuck way down near the centerstand, which doesn't help any. (Wow, officer, it must have been jarred lose by something :-) -- John
Unknown@hplabs.UUCP (04/28/86)
This message is empty.
alanj%orca@orca.UUCP (04/29/86)
>I am in the market for a new bike (presently own a 1982 Honda FT500 >Ascot) and have narrowed my choices down to the Honda Nighthawks. >Can anyone out there provide me with their experiences or opinions >about these two bikes ? I also am a happy Nighthawk owner. I picked up a new '85 650 for $2345 back in March. 1985 was the last year for the 650's, and they knocked quite a bit off the price to clear them out, so you might have to move fast. One dealer also has a few '84 650's for $2245. I'm not an particularly experienced rider -- about a year on my CM540E. The 450 was fast enought for me, but a bit rough and too light, and too small for my body -- my legs cramped up after about 1/2 hour of riding. I was looking for (1) four cylinders and (2) a quieter engine, and (3) a tad more mass. I think the 700S is rather ugly, the low maintenance and looks sold me on the 650. The ride and handling have kept me sold. (I have a friend that thinks the 700S is the prettiest bike out there. No accounting for taste!) I can't speak for the acceleration, I'm still 20 miles short of the 600 miles you're absolutely-not-supposed-to-exceed-5000-rpm-before. (The oil gets changed this weekend). In general: Yes, go grab one! -Alan Jeddeloh tektronix!orca!alanj Question for Portland area readers: I'm not too impressed with Beaverton Honda's service department. Any recommendations? -AJ