1984 HONDA NIGHTHAWK
Bertie Simmonds gets off quietly surprised!
I’m clearly not going to enjoy riding the Honda Nighthawk, right? It comes from an era that style couldn’t recall and is a class of bike that I don’t really care for. Now, the 1980s saw some very fine motorcycles produced; we could rattle off the likes of the Suzuki GSX-R range, a stable full of Kawasaki Gpzs (and GPXS), ZXRS, Yamaha RDS, FZS and a host of Hondas, but bikes of – well, bikes of this style just weren’t really my thing back in the day. It just seemed that they were neither fish nor fowl: I’m talking about motorcycles like Kawasaki’s Eliminator family, where fantastic engines would be saddled with a style and a chassis that just didn’t compute with me back then or now. In fact, take the ZL900 Eliminator: the motor was the sublime GPZ900R’S but the styling… well, it just doesn’t work, does it? I’m not some race-replica above everything fan, as I love a good quirky cruiser – preferably one with a characterful motor, like a Yamaha VMAX, but the Eliminator? No thanks. I can’t help but be reminded of the Kawasaki as I approach the Nighthawk. The first thing I’m noticing about the CB650SC is the natural patina it proudly displays. Nowt wrong with that: the patina includes some rust spots on the odd bolt and fastener, paint flaking off some of the engine finning and lacquer peeling off the forks. But let’s remember this is a 33-year-old motorcycle and other parts still look good: most noticeably the paintwork, decals and exhausts. It’s a Honda, then. Of course, we never really got the Nighthawk in the UK and this bike itself is an import from Pennsylvania in the USA, but the styling is very reminiscent of the Eliminator. It’s the similar sort of ‘lean-back’ styling and custom-esque 16in rear wheel and 19in front. The teardrop tank slopes back towards the seat and the slash-cut exhausts hint at performance that (surely) isn’t even there.
I mean, at least the big Kwak Eliminator had that lovely motor. This? Well, the DOHC 655cc motor at least was ‘new’ for 1983, replacing the older SOHC unit and apparently could muster between 60-70 horses, depending on which dyno or spec sheet you were prepared to believe. And talking about beliefs, it’s time to test mine… It’s not the biggest of bikes when you saddle up, but you can feel that it’s comfortable straight away. The ergonomics are half-way between sit-up-and-beg Seventies and cool cruiser. Fire-up the motor and there’s no real vibrations coming through the pegs or bars, but the engine does sound pleasantly rorty through those standard silencers. A quick dab of the light gear lever and we’re off. The first thing you realise is that unless you’re Jimmy Krankie-titchy, you’ll dominate the Nighthawk and that’s not a bad thing. You’re instantly at home and just seem to get a feel for how you can chuck the bike around in the urban environment. Like baby bear’s porridge the Nighthawk’s comfort and size seem ‘just right’: it’s compact, controllable and yet roomy. When you properly open the slightly laggy throttle the bark and snarl from the exhausts really is noticeable. This is getting nice. When you get used to the throttle (seems like a little bit of play) you’ll feel that twin-cam spin up nicely from 5000rpm and then take off at around 7500rpm. The motor also seems to fuel well (not often the case on older bikes) and apart from it telling you off if you’re pulling too high a gear, it’s responsive and pretty gutsy too. The dash is a lovely dollop of Eighties excellence. You’ve got clear idiot lights, a pair of clocks that wouldn’t look out of place in a hot-hatch of the era, an LCD fuel gauge and a very useful gear indicator (way ahead of its time) which shows sixth as an ‘overdrive’. Handling outside of town was as predictable and poised as it was in it. It’s clearly never going to be a road scalpel – that’s not the Nighthawk’s bag – but instead it turns in just as you want and expect it to, it’s light, it’s neutral it’s nimble enough and U-turns are a doddle. If there’s a bent feather in the Nighthawk’s plumage it’s the brakes. Yeah, they ain’t the best (they aren’t even mediocre, I’d say) and the TRAC (Torque Reactive Anti-dive Control) doesn’t seem to work at all. The twin-disc, twin-piston per
caliper set-up does more squeaking than actual braking, and while the discs themselves don’t look too bad, perhaps a good fettle would sort them? Instead, you’ll be adopting an almost cruiser-style of braking and you’ll rely on the responsive rear drum. By the time my couple of hours on the Nighthawk came to an end, I’d completely reversed my original analysis of the bike. Here is a mildly exciting middleweight, full of splendidly useful features (that gear indicator, shaft drive, centrestand) and an ease-of-use that Honda does oh-so well. I can see that this sort of machine would be quite a popular post-test first ‘big bike’ back in the day. So, at the end of the ride, I heaved my heavy form off the Nighthawk with a new-found respect for the middleweight machine. Sure, it’s not the besthandling, it doesn’t have a motor that spins up at the whiff of the throttle, nor do the brakes really rip into the Tarmac to arrest your forward momentum, but it’s a lovely bike to ride at a sedate pace and its happy Labrador character shines through. Now, has anyone out there got a Kawasaki ZL900 Eliminator I can borrow?