Nighthawk values

[Gene]

 Since the pandemic, many motorcycle/automotive prices have gone up. However, from my myopic view, not Nighthawks.

I bought my 85 650 for 1895 USD a year ago, and it was a runner and in good shape with 13.5 on the speedo.
Did I just get lucky?

[mollusc]

Nighthawks never really seem to change in value, except for pristine examples of the 1986 700S which I've seen up around US$5k in the past couple of years.
You shouldn't get into Nighthawks with the expectation that you're going to make money, and also understand that you're going to be spending less on upkeep and parts than for many other bikes too.

[Gene]

Mullusc, I don't plan on selling my bike.

I just don't get why these bikes don't go for more. In several ways, they are still ahead of their time. For example, ALL 4-stroke bikes should have hydraulically-actuated valves. There are many other examples of adsvanced features for these fine bikes. and of course, what about the legendary Honda reliablilty?

[mollusc]

I wasn't referring to you specifically -- rather, I meant "one."

[Pete in PA]

Since I bought mine last fall I've been monitoring the market myself. For me specifically it's the 91-03 NH's.
Last Oct. mine was on FB for $2500. I bought it for $1900. Now this spring I'm seeing a lot of $3000 to well one crazy $8500.

Dont know if this is just seasonal or an upswing. I want to get another one in a different color but I won't touch $3000 for it no matter how perfect or low mileage.

Then you have BAT which represents the VERY highest any bike will ever go. I swear some base their asking price on it. Not reality-based.

[mollusc]

I think part of the stability and low price of the Nighthawk range is that they're not seen as anything all that special by many people.  They are utility bikes that were produced for a long time and have few problems.  Good starter bikes is what they would probably be called.  But too many starts want a ridiculous Ninja or CBR or some Harley monster.  Nighthawks sit there in between all of those things, doing their job and doing it well, without much fuss.

[Bob H]

I just don't get why these bikes don't go for more. In several ways, they are still ahead of their time. For example, ALL 4-stroke bikes should have hydraulically-actuated valves.

That is a great feature for me - I don't need a crazy stupid-fast motorcycle.
The reason most "modern" motorcycles don't have hydraulic adjusted valves is the fact that performance is less than the "shim and bucket" valves.

The 84-86 Nighthawk "S" also had hydraulic valve adjustment, but the cam timing and tuning for higher RPM power resulted in good performance. You had to wring it's neck to get that high RPM performance.

Articles on the 1991-2003 Nighthawk 750 mention that it was tuned for more midrange power, and a rev-limiter at 9,000.

I have read old articles (back when the Nighthawk 750 was still on the showroom floor) that described performance as "dull" and "boring". MCN mentions that here (same engine in the European 750)



Here are some quotes from a 1996 article from Rider magazine, saying the acceleration lacks inspiration (and that is a quarter century old comment)



Same article talks about lazy acceleration



They mention a VFR as much more powerful. I used to ride a 1986 VFR 750 that was amazing. No hydraulic adjusted valves on that one.

That article concludes saying it is not on cutting edge of power (even back then) but for street legal speeds it is enough for me. I have sold motorcycles that always tempted me to ride faster than I should on public roads.

[Larry Fine]

It is also 100 pounds lighter than the '82-83 CB750SC was. It has plenty of acceleration, in my opinion. I also find it to handle well with the rebuilt fork and a Hagon shock/spring set.

I made my '96 onto a sport-tourer before I got my '01 ST1100. Still rides and handles great.

[mollusc]

The CB750 has the option of changing sprockets if you want to tweak the power band a bit.  On the 700S, the cam timing can be altered to bring the power band down to a more usable level.

I think the main reason for manufacturers getting rid of hydraulic lifters is that they're more expensive than shims and buckets.  Sales of new motorcycles have been tapering off in the US for a number of years, so any cost saving measures add to the margin of viability.

[Bob H]

It is also 100 pounds lighter than the '82-83 CB750SC was. It has plenty of acceleration, in my opinion.

I agree. I had 2 older Honda 750's and they were heavier.

The 91-2003 NH 750 is perfect for me because I get the acceleration needed to satisfy my motorcycle urge, without letting the devil on my shoulder get too crazy.
I have had much faster bikes where you look down and you are going over 100 on a public road without meaning to speed.

The journalists are always pushing the performance of this compared to that.
Adjusting valves and changing shims is a pain, but in order "to compete" you don't make motorcycles with hydraulic adjusting valves.

Your bike looks awesome, like a time capsule. Reminds me of a Vetter fairing on a bike I was riding in the 1970's.

[Larry Fine]

Your bike looks awesome, like a time capsule. Reminds me of a Vetter fairing on a bike I was riding in the 1970's.

Thanx! The fairing is a Vetter WJ5, and the luggage is K&G Engineering, all from the early 80's.

I got everything, mounts and all, for $50 and five hours of driving, from an '83 CB750 Custom.