| Model year | 1982 |
| Year of manufacture | 1982 |
| First year of ownership | 2007 |
| Most recent year of ownership | 2009 |
| Acceleration marks | 7 / 10 |
| Roll-on Performance marks | 6 / 10 |
| Handling marks | 7 / 10 |
| Braking marks | 7 / 10 |
| Reliability marks | 10 / 10 |
| Comfort marks | 7 / 10 |
| Running Costs (higher is cheaper) | 10 / 10 |
| Overall marks (average of all marks) |
7.7 / 10
|
| Distance when acquired | 15000 miles |
| Most recent distance | 17000 miles |
Summary:
Reliable as death and taxes
Faults:
Wire to the taillight was worn, and burned out a couple fuses till I found it. Fixed with a piece of electrical tape.
General Comments:
Reliable bike, easy to ride, simple/cheap to maintain, and being an older standard bike makes it kind of unique. Perfect bike for what I need and what I can afford.
Would you buy another motorcycle from this manufacturer? Yes
Review Date: 9th January, 2009
| Model year | 1982 |
| Year of manufacture | 1982 |
| First year of ownership | 2006 |
| Most recent year of ownership | 2008 |
| Acceleration marks | 8 / 10 |
| Roll-on Performance marks | 8 / 10 |
| Handling marks | 7 / 10 |
| Braking marks | 7 / 10 |
| Reliability marks | 5 / 10 |
| Comfort marks | 6 / 10 |
| Running Costs (higher is cheaper) | 5 / 10 |
| Overall marks (average of all marks) |
6.6 / 10
|
| Distance when acquired | 10000 miles |
| Most recent distance | 16000 miles |
| Previous motorcycle | Honda CM400T |
Summary:
Research before you buy, stay away from one year models
Faults:
The clutch cable froze up, requiring replacement.
The battery was naturally toast.
The fuel tank had a leak caused by hidden rust.
The exhaust pipes were starting to rust and eventually broke.
Even though the seat was perfect when I started riding it, all the seams split within a month.
The carburetors were full of crap.
The tires both needed replacing.
The O-rings on the chain had dry rotted and fallen off.
General Comments:
I did a little horse trading with a guy for this bike. He originally wanted $850 for it. It seemed like a good deal considering the positive outcome of the Internet research I did on it. At first glance it had fairly low miles and was in good condition. I have learned my lesson though about buying a one year model that old.
Once I got it running it ran good. I was reasonably impressed with its power.
It was a constant struggle to keep it road worthy. As soon as I fixed one thing something else would break.
The parts were a little hard to find. When I did find the parts they were expensive.
I rode the bike for 2 and a half seasons working on it all the way. I eventually gave it to a friend who let someone ride it and trashed the forks. Thankfully no one was hurt, but I believe this demon bike has ridden its last mile.
Would you buy another motorcycle from this manufacturer? Yes
Review Date: 23rd December, 2008
Those repairs sound typical of a 20+ year old bike. I'm surprised there weren't more problems.
| Model year | 1982 |
| Year of manufacture | 1982 |
| First year of ownership | 2006 |
| Most recent year of ownership | 2007 |
| Acceleration marks | 7 / 10 |
| Roll-on Performance marks | 7 / 10 |
| Handling marks | 7 / 10 |
| Braking marks | 7 / 10 |
| Reliability marks | 10 / 10 |
| Comfort marks | 8 / 10 |
| Running Costs (higher is cheaper) | 10 / 10 |
| Overall marks (average of all marks) |
8.0 / 10
|
| Distance when acquired | 15000 miles |
| Most recent distance | 17000 miles |
Summary:
Fun, reliable, inexpensive ride!
Faults:
There is some seepage of oil, which is pretty common. Nothing of concern really.
The seat is starting to split in a couple areas, but it is approximately 25 years old.
General Comments:
The bike runs like a champ. Always starts with no problem. It doesn't really like the cold weather, but then neither do I.
The bike's pretty quick; plenty fast for me anyway.
It's my first bike, and it is ideal for what I need.
Would you buy another motorcycle from this manufacturer? Yes
Review Date: 29th August, 2007
| Year of manufacture | 1982 |
| First year of ownership | 1999 |
| Most recent year of ownership | 2006 |
| Acceleration marks | 6 / 10 |
| Roll-on Performance marks | 7 / 10 |
| Handling marks | 6 / 10 |
| Braking marks | 4 / 10 |
| Reliability marks | 5 / 10 |
| Comfort marks | 8 / 10 |
| Running Costs (higher is cheaper) | 3 / 10 |
| Overall marks (average of all marks) |
5.6 / 10
|
| Distance when acquired | 19000 miles |
| Most recent distance | 22500 miles |
Summary:
A unique looking and practical bike that just got old
Faults:
The thing leaked oil from day 1, and luckily the dealer was nice enough to repair it for free even though it was 17 years old at the time. Then the timing chain broke.
Then the fuel petcock failed and would leak on my clothes.
The piston rings wore out, and it started to blow blue smoke and run poorly.
The carbs need an overhaul.
This bike has an air-cooled engine, and as such, needs to keep moving for the engine to be happy.
General Comments:
Overall, a fun standard motorcycle. It is heavy, but it was pretty quick and fun. Not super maneuverable though.
I really miss this type of motorcycle. It seems like many times your only choice on newer motorcycles is a cruiser, or a sport-bike. This Nighthawk fit right in between. It is comfortable and sporty, and the riding position is superb, especially compared to the tankhumpers on the sport-bikes.
This is actually the CB650SC Nighthawk. It has the 4 tailpipes that when polished look amazing. It gets pretty decent mileage considering it's age, and still gets a few looks because it has such a unique look. Unfortunately the Nighthawks after this one didn't have as much personality.
Would you buy another motorcycle from this manufacturer? Don't Know
Review Date: 16th November, 2006