Speedzilla Forums banner

1 - 17 of 17 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
651 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
...I really liked this bike

1984 -1986 Honda CB700SC Nighthawk S

Me and a buddy bought our first bikes, his the CB700, me a '75 Triumph Tiger 750, (this was not that long ago mind you). Although my machine was more lusted after, his never broke down, was fun to ride, and you never had to do any maintenance on it. It looked kinda silly, but it's grown on me...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,805 Posts
There are always a few nice examples here in MN

1984 Honda Nighthawk 700s - $1250 (North Mankato)

Date: 2010-08-01, 3:02PM CDT
Reply to: [email protected] [Errors when replying to ads?]



Looking to sell the Honda Nighthawk CB 700SC, I am the third owner and purchased it 2 years ago with 18k on it and it now has 28XXX. The bike runs great and I have not a lick of trouble, it is a shaft drive inline 4. I replaced all the fuses and it has a new back tire as of 6/15 and front tire is 1 year old and new battery and K&N Air filter. 1250.00 obo. I also have Coretech Saddle bags and the Honda shop Manual with it also.




  • Location: North Mankato
  • it's NOT ok to contact this poster with services or other commercial interests
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,868 Posts
Hydro valves can/should be used more often considering modern design/analysis techniques which result in lighter and stronger parts ; perhaps not for hyper-sport applications but surely for 90% of the other bikes available . Mmm ... perhaps maintenance profit is the reason . No , couldn't be !:rolleyes:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
568 Posts
Pretty much any twin or single streetbike could get away with hydraulic from a performance standpoint, but yeah cost and complexity I suppose.

Really you'd think all cruisers would have it, but maybe that would make the already ludicruously tall motor even taller?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
983 Posts
I wrote an article about the 700SC



“I beat you. You didn’t know I was racing you, but I beat you” Dave Hall, a co-worker, said to me. Dave, as a matter of fact, told anyone within earshot that would listen. “These bikes are more closely matched than you think.”

“Whatever” was my blistering rebuttal. What a squid. I refused to play into this testosterone saturated banter. I’m not into the mine is bigger than yours crap. I’m mature. I’m a professional.

OK, first off he’s right. I didn’t know we were racing.

Cheater. I remember him blowing by me while I was doing 40mph down a back road. I remember thinking “What’s his deal?” There’s no way I would have tried to beat him in a drag race on public roads. How immature.

Besides, I decided there was no way I could have caught him. I may have considered trying for a brief moment.

Stupid, right? The reason this all burns me is because he tells everyone we work with that my shiny red Ducati Monster 696 isn’t all it looks to be. He also lets anyone who’ll listen know that his 25 year old Honda CB700 SC Nighthawk is every bit the snarling beast my Monster is.

Right. Whatever. I’ll show you, Dave.

So I did a little research. Numbers don’t lie and neither does the internet. (ahem) But seriously, you can’t mess with 25 years of motorcycle progress…right? I mean, we’re talking the difference between the cassette tape and the MP3, the Atari 2600 and the Playstation 3, Transformers the cartoon and Transformers the Movie…er…the new movie, not the cartoon movie…you know what I mean.

Anyway, to start, both bikes are standards, the Monster being a little more where’s-that-next-corner hunched than the ride-it-like-a-Stingray Nighthawk. The Monster is more aggressive, but you’d expect that from 25 years of progress. What I found on paper wasn’t expected.

The 696 has, well, 696cc’s. The Nighthawk 700 S actually has…huh…696cc’s. Why not 750? Back in the time of zebra stripes and shoulder pads, Harley Davidson actually succeeded in having legislation passed that levied heavy taxes on any motorcycle imported over 700cc’s. Hmmm…The Nighthawk S sold in Europe at the same time was a 750! Guess Harley-Davidson saw the Japanese writing all over their big, heavy, archaic, chromed wall (No, Cletus, I don’t much care for Harley’s...and no, I won’t move out of the country).

OK, so the displacement is the same. Big deal. Surely my modern Ducati dominates this comparison in horsepower. Um…nope. The Monster deals 80 crank horsepower @ 9000rpm. The antiquated Honda? 80 crank horsepower @ 10,000 rpm.

Sunuva…

Air cooled? Check. Steel frame? Check. Wait. The wheelbase is about an inch different. Ha! “That old tank probably handles like a …um…old tank!” I sneered, going over my hand written stats. “You’d be surprised at how well it handles with those 16” wheels” Dave said cheerfully.

“Yeah?! OK! The Duc weighs 359lbs dry, and she rips (…and by rips I mean meanders) through the quarter mile in 11.23 seconds at 111mph!” Breathe, wheeze, snort.

“Your Nighthawk weighs in at 469 lbs dry, and crawls through the quarter in a time measured best by a sundial! (12.35 @ 107.46mph) You and your damned AHRMA queen! Did I mention how mature I am!?”

I actually came upon a couple realizations here. One was that these two bikes are indeed closer in performance than I would have guessed. It looks like (deep breath) Dave was right. Seriously, there’s little doubt that the Monster is the better performer here, but not by the margins you’d expect from two motorcycles separated by two and a half decades. Hell, it isn’t a stretch to argue that the CB is more advanced in some ways. It’s shaft driven, air and oil cooled, goes 147mph, and doesn’t push your tenders into your lower spine the way the new Monster’s gas tank does (though, this only seems to be a problem with males).

The other thing I realized is that I’m sort of comparing apples to oranges. While their stats are similar, they are at near opposite ends of the performance spectrum for their intended pilot. While the Monster 696 slots in as Ducati’s entry level (don’t say girl’s!) bike, the CB 700SC was near the pinnacle of the performance bikes in Honda’s line-up for 1984, surpassed only by the VF’s of the time. This isn’t so much an excuse as it is a fantastic realization that in 2034, Honda’s entry level motorcycle will probably perform about as well as a 155hp Ducati Streetfighter! The nicest people will be haulin’ ass!

I like my Monster, I really do. I’m not embarrassed by its stats. It’s done exactly what it advertised it would. It’s allowed me to enter Ducati’s family without breaking my fragile bank, and by allowing me to grin a stupid grin while still riding within my fragile limits. It gets more attention than a gun toting, bikini clad Sarah Palin (Photoshop is great id’nit, Cletus?) and I could honestly just sit with a beer and look at its beautiful lines for hours. The bike, not Sarah and her M-16.

Honestly, Dave has eye candy of his own. The Nighthawk he’s owned for about 3 years is cherry. Clean, Baby. You can hear hair bands rockin’ in your brain while looking over its angled, muscular lines. Its twin aftermarket pipes snarl. It’s Black and Red and Badass. I could sit with a Guiness and stare at his bike too (looking isn’t cheating, Sweetie).
25 years proves that tough lines on a motorcycle are timeless. 25 years hasn’t changed the tingle that creeps up the back of your neck when you hear the shriek of a 4 cylinder, or the roar of a twin at speed. Old bike, new bike, borrowed bike, blue bike…they’re all cool, man.

Mine is just a little cooler than Dave’s. What do you say to that, Dave?

“I paid $1600 for mine.”

#@$%&!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,748 Posts
Pretty much any twin or single streetbike could get away with hydraulic from a performance standpoint, but yeah cost and complexity I suppose.

Really you'd think all cruisers would have it, but maybe that would make the already ludicruously tall motor even taller?
Mazda ran a tiny set in the end of the rocker arms, they don't add any height to the valvetrain, you could also substitute a set where shim and buckets live...
 

·
I'll fix it.
Joined
·
2,249 Posts
you could also substitute a set where shim and buckets live...
not really as most of the bucket is hollow and full of valvesprings. theres less than 3mm of metal between the valve tip and cam.

there are designs with the HVA in the rocker tip, some on rollers that ride on cams and actuate pushrods (no tall heads there, but even lower RPM limits), and some are even built into rocker pivots, changing the pivot height to maintain proper clearance.
 
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
Top