Old Vs New comparison

[JB1290]

  I was curious about a comparison between the older NH VS. the newer ones. I have yet to ride any of the newer ones and have plenty of experience on the 83 and 84 650SC's.

 Now, I know the 750's obviously are running more power and are chain drive rather than shaft but, what is the handling and ride quality like on the newer NH's?  Are we talking apples and oranges here? I'm curious because I am still on the lookout for a newer NH to buy if the right deal comes along.  I need to find someone that will let me take a newer 750 for a ride. 

 If anyone has experience with both new and old, I'd like to hear your thoughts, observations or opinions between the 2 models.

[gammer]

Now, I know the 750's obviously are running more power and are chain drive rather than shaft but, what is the handling and ride quality like on the newer NH's?  Are we talking apples and oranges here?

On the contrary. The Nighthawk S actually has more power then the late model 750's. The late model 750's is a tamer version of the NH S.
Now if you were comparing it to the pre-NH S 750's then you might have a point...but I'm not sure about that.

As far as handling, I think they are the same.

Apparently the dual disc front brakes on the NH S stop better then the single disc on the late model 750.

[JB1290]

Thats wild...I would have figured the 750 would have been substantially more powerful than the 700.

 I agree with you about the braking on the later models. Honda kinda went backwards on that one. I also never understood why a 2000 model Honda would have a rear drum brake. Unless Honda just didn't feel the model wasn't worthy of some new technology.

[gammer]

Thats wild...I would have figured the 750 would have been substantially more powerful than the 700.

From what I've read (I have no first hand experience) is that the late model 750 has tamer cams and is jetted leaner.

Don't forget the 700 S is bored out to have 750 cylinders and pistons. But its stroke is a tad shorter (then the Canadian 750 S).
The best way to describe the 700 S, is that "it breathes like a 750"...I read that in a magazine article.

[gammer]

The claimed HP on the late model 750 is 73 HP as noted here:
http://www.bikez.com/motorcycles/honda_cb_750_seven-fifty_1995.php

The claimed HP on the 700 S is 80 HP noted here:
http://www.bikez.com/motorcycles/honda_cb_700_sc_nighthawk_s_1984.php

I can't find an exact claimed HP on the Canadian 750 S, but its cousin (in Europe) the CBX750F shared the same engine and it has a claimed HP of 91:
http://www.bikez.com/motorcycles/honda_cbx_750_f_1984.php

That CBX750F is chain drive, so I speculate that the Cdn 750 S probably doesn't have 91 HP.

[hppants]

FWIW - Loki and I ran together through 4 gears (around 90 mph).  Absolutely dead even.

I've also ran aside N5TBU (another newer 750) - same result.

Maybe my bike is tired - kind of like it's rider. 

[Bad Boy]

The claimed hp is at the crankshaft.  Both the US 700 and the Canadian 750 Nighthawk S had 80 hp.  The difference is the US 700 has a 1000 rpm higher redline.  It could rev higher because of its shorter stroke, same bore.  The later 750 had a much lower redline which limited maximum power.

Compaired with the later CB750SC the 700 S handles quicker due to the smaller 16" front wheel, the same front end as the Interceptor.  The 700 S also has the following upgrades: shaft drive, long travel anti-dive forks with air adjust, damping adjust on rear shock, dual disc front brakes, fuel/gear indicator gauges, 6 speed transmission vs 5, fairing, adjustable handle bars.

[gammer]

FWIW - Loki and I ran together through 4 gears (around 90 mph).  Absolutely dead even.

I've also ran aside N5TBU (another newer 750) - same result.

I agree...not much difference.

I ran beside a 700s a few summers back and we were dead even too.

[gammer]

The claimed hp is at the crankshaft.  Both the US 700 and the Canadian 750 Nighthawk S had 80 hp.  The difference is the US 700 has a 1000 rpm higher redline.  It could rev higher because of its shorter stroke, same bore.

This would make sense. Both bikes "breathed" the same and both produced max HP at a RPM point that they both could reach - 10,000 RPM.

I'm guessing that CBX750f over in Europe must have been tuned a bit different. Maybe different cams or something? I'd love to see its micro fiche to compare part numbers.

[flynrider]

   The 91-03 Nighthawk was built mostly out of parts from existing Honda models.  At the time, Honda made the CBX750 which was a faired sport/tourer sold in Asia and Europe.   They took the engine off the CBX750 and tamed it down with different carbs and cams.  The result was the Nighthawk 750.   This tamed down engine was also used on the Euro version of the Nighthawk, the CBSevenFifty. 

  I've seen dyno charts for both the S and the last generation Nighthawk.  Not a huge difference. At the rear wheel, you can expect around 68-70 hp for the newer ones and 73-75 hp for the S models.  Power charts are very similar in slope, but the old S model gets the horsepower edge due to its higher redline.

[Wahrsuul]

Quoted from Cycle 1990:

"The tuning tactics give the 750 big jumps in torque and horsepower throughout the rev range compared to the Nighthawk S' 696cc mill--until the two achieve parity at the 750's 8500-rpm redline. The 750 posts whopping 12 and 14 horsepower gains at 6000 and 7000 rpm, and makes the same power at its peak--62.6--as the 700 at the same rpm. The 750 might actually have the potential to make the same 67.7-peak as the 700, but the rev limiter cuts in at 9000 rpm; the 700 revved to 10,750."

[gammer]

To be honest I think the proof in is the pudding...in that experience and real world tests speak for itself.
As HPPants said, he had his 700s beside two newer 750's and they were even. I'd think the 700 might pull ahead of the 750 in long distance, due to the fact it can rev higher and it has a 6th gear. But like HP said...1st through 4th was even.
Thats the type of stuff that holds more weight to it then anything.

[DesignFlaw06]

I owned both the 650SC and the newer 750.

I think the real comparison is dependent on how you ride. But here are my thoughts.

Honestly, I felt like the 750 had been "cheapened up" quite a bit. I don't mean any disrespect to anyone who owns one currently, but jumping from one to another, that was my intial reaction. I'm a big fan of low maintenance shaft drive. Some will complain about the power loss with shaft, I don't buy it. It's a Nighthawk for crying out loud. To the average Nighthawk owner, power is not the selling factor.

Take a look at the instrumentation. Fuel gauge, separate turn signal indicators, gear indicator, clock. These are things that stand out. Sixth gear was also a bonus. As others have mentioned, dual disc brakes on the front gave the 650 plenty of stopping power. You would think they would want that additional stopping power for a bigger bike, but no. All of these things were a big plus for the 650SC (and 700S for that matter).

But where the 750 was a better bike IMO was size and comfort. I'm a big guy, so comfort is a huge deal for me. The 750 wasn't as nimble, but I could ride it much longer than the 650 for 2 reasons. 1) My leg position didn't have my knees up to my ears and b) I literally could ride it longer because of the increased fuel capacity. My wife enjoyed riding on the 750 much more than the 650.

Plus there's the piece of mind that newer for the most part means less headaches (I said for the most part). I don't have or want the need to tinker with my vehicles. I want them to run and run well.

If I had to choose again, I'd probably stick with the 750. But there wasn't a time I rode it where I didn't miss a lot of 650 features.

[gammer]

When I tell folks that my power doesn't start until around 4500 RPM they look surprised. Most folks who drive torquey bikes shift by that point. But thats the nature of the NH S beast. You gotta rev 'em to go.

[LOKi]

To be honest I think the proof in is the pudding...in that experience and real world tests speak for itself.
As HPPants said, he had his 700s beside two newer 750's and they were even. I'd think the 700 might pull ahead of the 750 in long distance, due to the fact it can rev higher and it has a 6th gear. But like HP said...1st through 4th was even.
Thats the type of stuff that holds more weight to it then anything.

Gear ratios are different though. Even though HP can rev higher he shifts before me. And really, if your running up to top speed your not going to be in 6th and I'm not going to be in 5th. I can get her up to almost 110 in 4th and I really don't feel safe going any faster than that.

So on one hand you have a newer 750 with slightly less HP than the 700s. Is this HP measured at the rear wheel, or at the shaft (part that turns the sprocket or shaft). If it's at the shaft then there are two power transfers on a shaft and only one on a chain. Add in the additional years of the 700s and the performance evens out.

[gammer]

Gear ratios are different though. Even though HP can rev higher he shifts before me.

But is that because his bike is tapped out in that gear? or (no offense HP) because he wanted to shift because the revs were getting up to high for his comfort zone?
For example, I've never paid attention to my max speed when I'm in 2nd gear. But I know under hard acceleration, I can easily get to 65 MPH in 2nd...and quick...maybe not as quick as a CB1000 or a CB919...but quick enough for me.

And really, if your running up to top speed your not going to be in 6th and I'm not going to be in 5th. I can get her up to almost 110 in 4th and I really don't feel safe going any faster than that.

I agree. My hard acceleration comes in the first 4 gears. There is some acceleration in 5th. 6th is to maintain low RPM's.

[Bad Boy]

When I want to really go like in passing a string of cars my 700S is WOT 8k-10k rpm the whole way.  That is where the S shines, triple digits before I get to the second car.

[hppants]

All technicals aside - screwing it down next to another bike of similar power on a wide open road is addictive. 

[gammer]

All technicals aside - screwing it down next to another bike of similar power on a wide open road is addictive. 

I agree! 

[noahrexion]

Really old I know but I've got to chime in here now that I own a 91' NH750 and an 86' 700S.  

Have had back to back to back tests of the two bikes and my bud and I ride them together.  The 750 hangs until about 7k and that is it.  The 750 does not pull from the 700 in any test unless its idle to 5k and even then, it may be 1/2 bike.  Rider weight is within 10lbs of one another.  

The 750 is still heavier, just a touch though.  The 700 pulls away from the 750 above 3rd gear quite substantially: the top end power, gearing, weight, small windscreen/fairing (and maybe even that badass looks) all help with this.  Both bikes are running top notch. 

[gammer]

Really old I know but I've got to chime in here now that I own a 91' NH750 and an 86' 700S. 

Have had back to back to back tests of the two bikes and my bud and I ride them together.  The 750 hangs until about 7k and that is it.  The 750 does not pull from the 700 in any test unless its idle to 5k and even then, it may be 1/2 bike.  Rider weight is within 10lbs of one another. 

The 750 is still heavier, just a touch though.  The 700 pulls away from the 750 above 3rd gear quite substantially: the top end power, gearing, weight, small windscreen/fairing (and maybe even that badass looks) all help with this.  Both bikes are running top notch. 

Interesting 

Any mods on either bike?

[jeff]

Ive had both. 86 RWB SC, 91, and a currently 98. I am 6' 2" and ride 2 up alot. There is no comparison as far as comfort (room for 2) the newer ones win. I feel it is a better ride solo or 2 up also. Probably because of wheelbase.

Yeah when wacked full throttle drag race side by side they are probably close. but the better torque in the newer ones is what I like. Less shifting, less revving it up to get going. Lets face it Im not racing anybody just having fun.

My buddy has a really nice 84 right now. The other day we switched for the first time. He got on it a little from time to time and when we stopped he said there was a huge difference between the 2 bikes. He said mine seemed much more "refined" exact word he used. He said imediately it feels faster, more comfortable, and more stable at speed. He even feels the brakes where better. He had never rode a new one before and his  bike is probably one of the nicest 84 you will ever find.

It had been a while since I rode the 700, mine was mint also. I loved the look of that bike. When I rode my buddies I immediatly thought it felt slow, and twitchy. I was not hammering the throttle, just rolling into it nicely. Definitly feels older. Like a 84 Camaro vs. 2000 Camaro.

That 86 RWB 700 I had was sharp as hell though, thinking of painting  my 1998 like that.

[NH750Kitch]

The 80's inline four NH's are clearly more advanced machines (six speed, shaft drive, multi disc brakes, etc).

It is my understanding that the late model 750 was deliberately designed to be a bit retro with a budget in mind and that's what I like about them.

I've always felt that the later 750 (although very refined) has much more in common with the 70's CB's than her more recent NH predecessors.

Either way, I love 'em all