Preferred Commando model (2017)

worntorn · Jan 25, 2017

Fast Eddie said:
Was the SS loaded with luggage...?

You had me doubting my memory so back on the scales for both bikes. Fuel drained from both bikes but otherwise ready to ride.

Ss weighs 194 lbs on the front, 210 on the rear, 404 total.

MK 3 Interstate is 205 on front, 243 on rear, 448 total. Difference is 44 lbs, more than I remembered.
Then I realized that since the previous weigh-in the stock SS primary was replaced with lightweight Bob Newby race items, saved about 6 or 7 pounds.
The MK3 is as it was earlier.
I think the lightest early Commandos were about ten-fifteen pounds heavier than the SS, by the book.
So add an e- start to a 750 and a few pounds of metal in critical areas, and you are there.
The few pounds of metal in critical areas is well worth having, IMHO. So is the estart when you stall out on a traffic laden bridge.

Glen

baldy · Jan 25, 2017

I have a 1970, 1972 combat, and MK3 interstate. Each has it's own issues. MK3 had soft cam, weak starter. Combat too much too list. 1970 has horrible center/kick stands, slippy clutch plates. Many more issues can be compared and discussed.

This being stated, when you have the bike sorted out the MK3 interstate (peashooters, K&N filter) is a wonderful blend of smoothness and power. The combat on the other hand is lighter, better handling with a little more go. The key is the variety of upgrades. It is clear Norton got a little better each year and you can easily put the better years parts on your bike and make it your preferred Commando model.

Torontonian · Jan 25, 2017

Can't say. MK 111 Interstate from here on in... (age and injuries ) , but my best years were on a 70.

Rohan · Jan 25, 2017

Fast Eddie said:
The 1974 MK2A is seen by many as the best (in my hypothesis) because it contained the culmination of many years mods, had the extra oomph of being an 850, but was not 'burdened' by the strangulation and extra weight of the MK3.

Why would you go for a Mk 2A, rather than a Mk2 ??
The Mk 2A HAD the beancaps and plastic airbox, so it WAS as strangled as the MK3. !

The Mk 1 and Mk2 850 had the peashooters and ham can airbox, and was as lively as an 850 can get, stock.
(There is only very slight cosmetic differences between the Mk 1 and Mk 2 850 models)

That big loping torquey 850 engine (828cc really) was a strong an engine as the British motorcycle
industry ever turned out. (pre modern era).

peter12 · Jan 26, 2017

In a way it was a fairly relevant questions as it is rare to find an 'as original machine' now, especially in a condition where it is likely to stay that way.
There are so many updates available now, and sources of good quality oem parts that you should be able to iron out issues in all the models.
We are spoilt now, I did my first rebuild in about 1983 and you didn't have a clue what you were buying. One of my purchases was a plastic cam shaft!!
Electric start as we get older is a big issue, can cope with but not so keen on the gear change on the left.
Then again it is possible, with money to convert all models to electric.

Robert_Norton · Jan 26, 2017

Rohan said:
Why would you go for a Mk 2A, rather than a Mk2 ??
The Mk 2A HAD the beancaps and plastic airbox, so it WAS as strangled as the MK3. !

The Mk 1 and Mk2 850 had the peashooters and ham can airbox, and was as lively as an 850 can get, stock.
(There is only very slight cosmetic differences between the Mk 1 and Mk 2 850 models)

Most 1973 850's had RH4 heads, whereas most '74 850's were fitted with the superior RH10 head. Most MK III were fitted with the RH4 head, so the Mk 2A may not have been quite as "strangled."

All else being equal, the superior RH10 head is the best reason to buy a '74 850 over a '73 850.

Mk 2A have a superior kickstarter to Mk 1 850 and many if not all Mk2 850's.

The Mk 2A lost the toolkit space in the sidecover, had a different battery tray and battery holder (a bracket instead of a strap?), and a different battery (smaller?) as I think it sits in the same direction as the MK III.

Mk 2A have a different chainguard to allow for the dual inspection holes for the rear brake shoes. Not sure all Mk 2 850's have the dual inspection holes for the rear brake. I think the feature was introduced after Mk 1 850.

John Players were fitted with a higher output alternator, with dual zener diodes, as were MK III. I have a nagging recollection that the Mk 2A's may also have had the high output alternator, but I am unsure. Perhaps someone else will provide clarification regarding this.

.

L.A.B. · Jan 26, 2017

Robert_Norton said:
(There is only very slight cosmetic differences between the Mk 1 and Mk 2 850 models)

A bit more than "slight cosmetic" according to the Mk2/2A supplement.

Robert_Norton said:
The Mk 2A lost the toolkit space in the sidecover, had a different battery tray and battery holder (a bracket instead of a strap?),

A single strap (Mk2A) instead of two straps and retaining a bar (Mk2).

Robert_Norton said:
and a different battery (smaller?) as I think it sits in the same direction as the MK III.

The battery was the same (10AH) for Mk2 and 2A. The Mk3 battery fits in the same across the frame space and that was a bigger (13/14AH) battery.

Robert_Norton said:
Mk 2A have a different chainguard to allow for the dual inspection holes for the rear brake shoes. Not sure all Mk 2 850's have the dual inspection holes for the rear brake. I think the feature was introduced after Mk 1 850.

The brake plate with inspection holes and cutaway chainguard were fitted to both types from Jan.'74 according to the 2/2A parts supplement.

Robert_Norton said:
I have a nagging recollection that the Mk 2A's may also have had the high output alternator, but I am unsure. Perhaps someone else will provide clarification regarding this.

Not as far as I'm aware, the same rotor and stator (RM21) are listed for both 2 and 2A. The JPN had two headlamps so required the higher output RM23 alternator which along with the additional Zener diode only appear on the JPN parts list.

Fast Eddie · Jan 26, 2017

worntorn said:
Fast Eddie said:

Was the SS loaded with luggage...?

Click to expand...

You had me doubting my memory so back on the scales for both bikes. Fuel drained from both bikes but otherwise ready to ride.

Ss weighs 194 lbs on the front, 210 on the rear, 404 total.

MK 3 Interstate is 205 on front, 243 on rear, 448 total. Difference is 44 lbs, more than I remembered.
Then I realized that since the previous weigh-in the stock SS primary was replaced with lightweight Bob Newby race items, saved about 6 or 7 pounds.
The MK3 is as it was earlier.
I think the lightest early Commandos were about ten-fifteen pounds heavier than the SS, by the book.
So add an e- start to a 750 and a few pounds of metal in critical areas, and you are there.
The few pounds of metal in critical areas is well worth having, IMHO. So is the estart when you stall out on a traffic laden bridge.

Glen

Good on yer for weighing them both properly Glen, that's interesting. Personally I thought the difference would be bigger. 40lbs ish is a lot to a hot rodder or cafe racer of course, but in reality, its not going to make a huge difference to performance.

It would be nice to know the actual effect, and cause, of the 'strangulation'. The airbox and black caps both have their accusers and defenders, but one or both has to be having an effect IF there really is a performance difference.

Fast Eddie · Jan 26, 2017

Robert_Norton said:
Rohan said:

Why would you go for a Mk 2A, rather than a Mk2 ??
The Mk 2A HAD the beancaps and plastic airbox, so it WAS as strangled as the MK3. !

The Mk 1 and Mk2 850 had the peashooters and ham can airbox, and was as lively as an 850 can get, stock.
(There is only very slight cosmetic differences between the Mk 1 and Mk 2 850 models)

Click to expand...

Most 1973 850's had RH4 heads, whereas most '74 850's were fitted with the superior RH10 head. Most MK III were fitted with the RH4 head, so the Mk 2A may not have been quite as "strangled."

All else being equal, the superior RH10 head is the best reason to buy a '74 850 over a '73 850.

So 'folk law' is vindicated this time then, a MK2A fitted with peashooters and less restrictive airbox is the winner..!

L.A.B. · Jan 26, 2017

Fast Eddie said:
So 'folk law' is vindicated this time then, a MK2A fitted with peashooters and less restrictive airbox is the winner..!

Why not Mk2 (that had those parts to begin with)? :?

kommando · Jan 26, 2017

MK2 or MK2A converted to MK2 silencers, not sure if the black box is performance sapping compared to ham can, my MK2A with peashooters but black box without snorkels needs 260 mains instead of the 230 mains with the blackcaps and revs to 7000 easily enough in the lower gears. Not going to remove and change to ham can to try as I may never get the black box back in

Fast Eddie · Jan 26, 2017

L.A.B. said:
Fast Eddie said:

So 'folk law' is vindicated this time then, a MK2A fitted with peashooters and less restrictive airbox is the winner..!

Click to expand...

Why not Mk2 (that had those parts to begin with)? :?

As I read Robert Nortons post, cos of the RH10 head...

L.A.B. · Jan 26, 2017

Fast Eddie said:
L.A.B. said:

Fast Eddie said:

So 'folk law' is vindicated this time then, a MK2A fitted with peashooters and less restrictive airbox is the winner..!

Click to expand...

Why not Mk2 (that had those parts to begin with)? :?

Click to expand...

As I read Robert Nortons post, cos of the RH10 head...

He said "most '74 850s" not specifically Mk2A.

Fast Eddie · Jan 26, 2017

L.A.B. said:
He said "most '74 850s" not specifically Mk2A.

I'll bow down to your far superior knowledge about such matters LAB, but realistically, "most 74 850s" is surely gonna catch more MK2As than any other?

As to exactly when RH10 heads arrived and left the scene and which VIN numbers had them and which did not, I have not the faintest idea (although you might). All I mean is that the latest pre MK3 850s, fitted with RH10 heads, would appear to be the best package. And that the model most likely to be prevalent within that catchment, is the MK2A.

And that is presumably therefore why MK2As have the reputation of being the sought after one. But I'm open to counter theories of course...

worntorn · Jan 26, 2017

Re: Preferred Commando modeel

Isn't desireability is generally directly proportionate to dollars paid? I would stress that a model that is more desireable isn't necessarily in any way superior to less desireable models. A good example would be the Vincent Black Shadow at $120,000 vs Vincent Rapide at $60,000. Same bike, same parts book, just some black paint and a name.

With Commandos a bit of logic actually gets applied. The market is paying more for the MK3 but it does have a lot of changes from earlier models. Truth is most probably aren't aware of or interested in the strengthened items or refined items, it's the e-start they want.
Now that good estarts are available for the earlier bikes, it will be interesting to see if prices change.

Glen

L.A.B. · Jan 26, 2017

Fast Eddie said:
I'll bow down to your far superior knowledge about such matters LAB, but realistically, "most 74 850s" is surely gonna catch more MK2As than any other?

The Mk2A wasn't a 'later' model than the Mk2 or built in any significantly greater numbers than the Mk2 as far as I'm aware.

Mk2s and Mk2As were produced concurrently (from 307311) but the variants were originally intended for different world markets, the Mk2s mainly going to North America and the 'low noise emission' Mk2As to Europe, although some Mk2A were later sold in the US, the number of Mk2s and Mk2As are probably not much different.

Fast Eddie said:
As to exactly when RH10 heads arrived and left the scene and which VIN numbers had them and which did not, I have not the faintest idea (although you might).

That's basically impossible to tell but there's only one cylinder head listed in the 2/2A supplement (065507).

Fast Eddie said:
All I mean is that the latest pre MK3 850s, fitted with RH10 heads, would appear to be the best package. And that the model most likely to be prevalent within that catchment, is the MK2A.

And that is presumably therefore why MK2As have the reputation of being the sought after one. But I'm open to counter theories of course...

It applies equally to the Mk2 and Mk2A, the difference being the Mk2 already had the peashooters and perforated metal airbox. Most 2As will probably have been fitted with peashooters and the black plastic airbox has often been discarded by now which adds to the difficulty in model identification.

Some, or all, Mk2 peashooters had restricted outlets which probably stifled performance a little, but I doubt many of those original peashooters are still in use.

B+Bogus · Jan 26, 2017

kommando said:
MK2 or MK2A converted to MK2 silencers, not sure if the black box is performance sapping compared to ham can, my MK2A with peashooters but black box without snorkels needs 260 mains instead of the 230 mains with the blackcaps and revs to 7000 easily enough in the lower gears. Not going to remove and change to ham can to try as I may never get the black box back in

Same here - of the two items, the silencers must be the main culprit.
The second MkIIA I built is 100% factory spec apart from a Pazon ignition and up-rated front master cylinder, and the performance difference is very noticeable.
It's actually a very civilised ride and I prefer it for just cruising around on, but the pea-shooters are far superior on the open road.

Swapping the silencers is straightforward enough; just need the correct brackets, but changing to a ham-can air filter will need a new battery carrier, LH side panel and a Dzus fastener.

I've been told - again- that I need to sell it. I'll happily swap out the silencers and re-jet it :mrgreen:

grandpaul · Jan 26, 2017

Glen said:
You had me doubting my memory so back on the scales for both bikes...
Ss weighs 194 lbs on the front, 210 on the rear, 404 total.

Shouldn't you also measure weight at the kickstand?

Or else how are you accurately weighing all of the pressure points? It would be slightly off to weigh only the back and front while balancing it with your hand(s)...

worntorn · Jan 26, 2017

grandpaul said:
Glen said:

You had me doubting my memory so back on the scales for both bikes...
Ss weighs 194 lbs on the front, 210 on the rear, 404 total.

Click to expand...

Shouldn't you also measure weight at the kickstand?

Or else how are you accurately weighing all of the pressure points? It would be slightly off to weigh only the back and front while balancing it with your hand(s)...

It might be a little off but I doubt it's much. Same method for both bikes, weighed each twice and got the same results.
The two pressure points are the wheels, when the stand is up, where else is weight felt?
Reading the scale when the bike is in the neutral position( no weight on hands) is easy.
I weighed my Special this way when building it, then decided to purchase a hanging scale to get a really accurate result.
The hanging scale number was 2 lbs less than the bathroom scale method, not enough difference to matter. Measuring with the hanging scale involves using slings which could do damage to finishes. So I've gone back to the bathroom scale and double ramp method ( keeps bike level)
The bathroom scale I'm using is a high quality one, made in Germany.
I could go to the trouble and risk of weighing both Nortons with the hanging scale and slings, but the results will be the same+- a couple of pounds.

Glen

B+Bogus · Jan 26, 2017

worntorn said:
grandpaul said:

Glen said:

You had me doubting my memory so back on the scales for both bikes...
Ss weighs 194 lbs on the front, 210 on the rear, 404 total.

Click to expand...

Shouldn't you also measure weight at the kickstand?

Or else how are you accurately weighing all of the pressure points? It would be slightly off to weigh only the back and front while balancing it with your hand(s)...

Click to expand...

It might be a little off but I doubt it's much. Same method for both bikes, weighed each twice and got the same results.
The two pressure points are the wheels, when the stand is up, where else is weight felt?
Reading the scale when the bike is in the neutral position( no weight on hands) is easy.
I weighed my Special this way when building it, then decided to purchase a hanging scale to get a really accurate result.
The hanging scale number was 2 lbs less than the bathroom scale method, not enough difference to matter. Measuring with the hanging scale involves using slings which could do damage to finishes. So I've gone back to the bathroom scale and double ramp method ( keeps bike level)
The bathroom scale I'm using is a high quality one, made in Germany.
I could go to the trouble and risk of weighing both Nortons with the hanging scale and slings, but the results will be the same+- a couple of pounds.

Glen

This method is considered good enough for weighing aircraft, so should be just fine for Nortons
I was amazed at how heavy a featherbed frame is compared to the Commando, but perhaps the word 'feather' had misled me a little...

Preferred Commando model (2017)

worntorn

baldy

Torontonian

Rohan

peter12

Robert_Norton

L.A.B.

Moderator

Fast Eddie

Fast Eddie

L.A.B.

Moderator

kommando

Fast Eddie

L.A.B.

Moderator

Fast Eddie

worntorn

L.A.B.

Moderator

B+Bogus

grandpaul

worntorn

B+Bogus

Similar threads