Preferred Commando model (2017)

Status
Not open for further replies.
L.A.B. said:
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.

I guess it all comes down to the head really then, and by your reckoning MK2 and MK2A should have the same head, so as you allude to, it all really only depends on the spec, in terms of exhaust and intake, that the bike is in now.

You have actually reminded me that I was told similar by someone before, but they said the MK2As were for the US!
 
The weight info is pretty interesting to me. For interest to anyone who cares, I weighed my MK 3 on the NASCAR scale at NHIS (New Hampshire International Raceway. This is the old Louden track that is mostly NASCAR now though there is still a nice road course. At any rate my Roadster came in at 475lb with about 2 gal. in the three gallon tank which comes out to around 462 dry. A bit more than what wartorn claimed but in the ballpark none the less. Interesting enough, my 1997 Speed Triple, weighed on the same scale also comes in at 475 lb with just a gallon gone. That tank is about 5 gal so dry weight is about 450. And that seems just about right when I'm getting either of them out and into the garage.
 
My MK3 has alloy rims and a Madass brake. Those items are about 6 lbs off stock weight with rims, rotor and caliper combined.
So that puts my MK3 , if it were still in completely stock form, at 454 without fuel, 8 lbs off Biscuit's number. That's reasonable for the difference scale to scale.

Since I used the same scale for both the 650SS and the MK3, the 44 lb difference should be quite accurate, however one would need to add a few pounds to each bike to get stock numbers.

In any case, the 542 lb MK3 number that has been sometimes quoted is an "alternative fact."
 
Fast Eddie said:
You have actually reminded me that I was told similar by someone before, but they said the MK2As were for the US!

It has been mentioned here before that seemingly some large batches of Mk2A had been sent to the USA and to Australia - and maybe other markets ?

Reading between the lines here, some of us were wondering if that was because sales of the Euro model into Euro weren't quite as large as expected, and they then dispatched them into other markets where the euro spec wasn't actually required ??

Yes, a lot of Commando authors don't seem to glock that the Mk2 and Mk2A were being manufactured at the same time, and were not successive models.
 
.


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


It was Rohan that said "There is only very slight cosmetic differences between the Mk 1 and Mk 2 850 models," which was what prompted me to reply. The difference between the heads, the RH4 and RH10, is the most important distinction, in my opinion, between the various pre Mk III 850 engines, followed by the differences in air boxes and then mufflers.



L.A.B. said:
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.


Which model of pre Mk III 850, if any, has the battery installed in parallel with the backbone of the frame? And you state the Mk3 battery fits in the same across the frame space. The same as the Mk 2A?




L.A.B. said:
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.


If this is true, it would seem to imply that the superior kickstarter arm fitted to the Mk 2A was merely a design change to allow for the increased width of the bean can mufflers, and wasn't fitted to most Mk 2 models because they had the pea-shooters. I refer to it as "superior" because it increases the distance between the RH muffler and the kickstarter arm.


I've always been under the impression that the Mk 2A came along later in '74 than the Mk 2 models. Would have to see some early production Mk 2A photos to change my mind on that. Maybe some Mk 2A owners will chip in with their VIN numbers to establish some firm info.


There are no photos and no mention of the Mk 2A in the '74 sales brochure, which I assume was printed months ahead of the onset of 1974.



As a side note, if you look at the JPN shown in the '74 sales brochure, it's fitted with a chain guard that lacks the cut away for the 2nd brake inspection plug (standard on Mk 2A models, and according to L.A.B., per the Mk 1/Mk 2A parts supplement, standard on Mk 2 models). It also appears to not have down tube brackets to hold the fairing, and if you look real close at the photo, it appears there's some type of bracket (an alternative mounting bracket for the fairing?) in use that's mounted to the top and outside of the left Z plate. The foot brake lever appears to be slightly different than the style that made it into production, being smooth on top, and maybe rolled a little larger. And the left side lacks the distinctive Z plate fitted with the 2nd Zener diode. So that bike was probably just a Mk 1 gussied up as a JPN for the brochure photo shoot, and not a bike that was ever sold as a JPN.



.
 
Vin 3104XX is a MK2a Nov 73 build, so early enough to say it was concurrent with MK2. As the Blackbox and Blackcaps were std on all MK3's at some point late in MK2/2a production it would have made sense to go 100% MK2a to reduce the number of surplus parts.
 
1971 SS gets my vote for favorite Commando also.
 

Attachments

  • Preferred Commando model (2017)
    n189-norton-commando-750ss.webp
    55.1 KB · Views: 626
Great pic !
That centrestand dangling down like that though looks a little - precarious ?
 
Yeah, at least he is dressed for going down. It seems $400 in leathers is worth less than a $10 new tension centerstand spring.
 
Robert_Norton said:
Which model of pre Mk III 850, if any, has the battery installed in parallel with the backbone of the frame?

Mk1 and Mk2. https://andover-norton.co.uk/en/shop-de ... y-06-1651-
https://issuu.com/sealycycleservice/doc ... 50_06-5034
Group 31, "Battery tray all models - 062557"


Robert_Norton said:
And you state the Mk3 battery fits in the same across the frame space. The same as the Mk 2A?

Yes. For instance, the rubber battery tray (link, below) is the same part for both Mk2A and Mk3. The Mk3 battery is taller but the same length and width so it fits in the same space.
https://andover-norton.co.uk/en/shop-de ... ttery-tray


Robert_Norton said:
L.A.B. said:
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.


If this is true, it would seem to imply that the superior kickstarter arm fitted to the Mk 2A was merely a design change to allow for the increased width of the bean can mufflers, and wasn't fitted to most Mk 2 models because they had the pea-shooters.

Correct, the Mk1A and 2A had the "Mk3 style" kickstart lever (although without the spring and ball detent so it has a different part number) in order to clear the wider bean cans. The Mk2s continued with the original shape lever as detailed in the 2/2A supplement.



Robert_Norton said:
I've always been under the impression that the Mk 2A came along later in '74 than the Mk 2 models.

It's understandable for anyone living in the USA to have that impression, as Mk2As didn't arrive there until later in the year, however, there's plenty of evidence that Mk2s and Mk2As were produced concurrently, for instance, the 2/2A supplement (from 307311). Also, the Mk2A specification wasn't entirely 'new', as the 2A was an upgrade of the Mk1A just as the Mk2 was an upgrade of the Mk1.

Also, compare the French and US versions of the '74 brochure.

http://www.classicbike.biz/Norton/Broch ... ochure.pdf
http://www.etmoteur.fr/norton_catalogue_commando.htm

And....
Motorcycle Mechanics, January 1974 issue (a UK publication, reprinted in Norton Commando Gold Portfolio)
"Norton introduce the uprated mk 2A Commando"
Preferred Commando model (2017)





Robert_Norton said:
There are no photos and no mention of the Mk 2A in the '74 sales brochure, which I assume was printed months ahead of the onset of 1974.

Yes, it probably was printed several months in advance, so the 2A obviously doesn't feature in the US brochure because it wasn't a US model at that time (see French brochure).


Robert_Norton said:
As a side note, if you look at the JPN shown in the '74 sales brochure, it's fitted with a chain guard that lacks the cut away for the 2nd brake inspection plug (standard on Mk 2A models, and according to L.A.B., per the Mk 1/Mk 2A parts supplement, standard on Mk 2 models).

The cutaway chain guard was introduced for both the Mk2 and 2A in January '74 (that's what's stated in the 2/2A supplement) and you already said yourself that brochures were printed months in advance so logically, the cutaway chainguard would not be in the '74 brochure.

The "Eddie Lawson 0.7 mile" Commando was serial 317998 and that is clearly a Mk2, evidence that Mk2s were still in production well into '74.

http://www.bonhams.com/auctions/19679/lot/275/
Preferred Commando model (2017)
 
Last edited:
If i had to choose between my tuned 750 that I love and my mk3 i would choose my Mk3. Thats this Week. Mk3 is more comfortable and much easier on my screwed up back. Luckily i dont have to choose as i need both commandos that i own, for different road types. Next week as i am powering through the mountain twisties on my 750 then that bike wins. This week my mk3 wins as i am cruising down the freeway at 80, or pottering along at 45 down the coast highway.

I hate working on my mk3 compared to the 750. Especially the primary.

Cheers

Jerry
 
I agree with Piero and elephantrider on the SS being the easiest on the eye, but the tiny tank is a pain. I had a MkIII Interstate that I should have kept; stock, working e-starter, big tank.

And as an owner of two machines with (trouble-free) RH 4 heads, one of which I replaced the guides in 30+ years ago, I have to ask, do they all crack at some point or have others done guide replacement for RH4s with no issues?
 
And as an owner of two machines with (trouble-free) RH 4 heads, one of which I replaced the guides in 30+ years ago, I have to ask, do they all crack at some point or have others done guide replacement for RH4s with no issues?
I've rebuilt two RH4s with zero issues.
 
I've rebuilt two RH4s with zero issues.
Makes me wonder if there were a certain run of heads that were crack-prone, or was it just a random thing? If the former were true, it would be a handy piece of knowledge.
 
Makes me wonder if there were a certain run of heads that were crack-prone, or was it just a random thing? If the former were true, it would be a handy piece of knowledge.

Mick Hemmings told me once that he hadn't seen an RH4 that wasn't porous. My own is still usable and only leaks a little and has a few bits of fin missing, but I don't use it any more for obvious reasons. I just read back through this thread and was mortified to see that I hadn't previously posted on it! I couldn't believe that I hadn't posted how fantastic my MKI 850, at a measured 190kg with a half a tank of juice, (which I'm more prepared to believe now) is so much lighter than those lardy, emasculated MKIIIs! I must be getting old. And those crappy gear linkages are not in the same league as their right hand gearchange cousins. That puts it comfortably lighter than the podgy red headed cousins ( I can't bring myself to call them brothers or sisters ), although mine has alloy rims, a belt drive and Maney alloy barrels.

The only thing that makes up for the light weight of my bike is the ballast carefully fitted, in a very attractive fashion, around my waist. Definitely not a performance enhancement. Really, the attraction of the MKIII lies in its electric leg and the left hand change, for people who never understood that gear changes belong on the right, and who lacked the skills to adapt. And, who were attracted by the pretty array of lights in the dashboard, just like their Honda had.

As for saying that after all these years, all the bean cans, or Anal Discharge Silencers, as we called them in the day, and the plastic airboxes have been replaced, is just proof that they were crap. Comparing like with like, The MK1s and 2s are a much more pure motorcycle than the MKIII or the MKIIa.
 
Mick Hemmings told me once that he hadn't seen an RH4 that wasn't porous. My own is still usable and only leaks a little and has a few bits of fin missing, but I don't use it any more for obvious reasons. I just read back through this thread and was mortified to see that I hadn't previously posted on it! I couldn't believe that I hadn't posted how fantastic my MKI 850, at a measured 190kg with a half a tank of juice, (which I'm more prepared to believe now) is so much lighter than those lardy, emasculated MKIIIs! I must be getting old. And those crappy gear linkages are not in the same league as their right hand gearchange cousins. That puts it comfortably lighter than the podgy red headed cousins ( I can't bring myself to call them brothers or sisters ), although mine has alloy rims, a belt drive and Maney alloy barrels.

The only thing that makes up for the light weight of my bike is the ballast carefully fitted, in a very attractive fashion, around my waist. Definitely not a performance enhancement. Really, the attraction of the MKIII lies in its electric leg and the left hand change, for people who never understood that gear changes belong on the right, and who lacked the skills to adapt. And, who were attracted by the pretty array of lights in the dashboard, just like their Honda had.

As for saying that after all these years, all the bean cans, or Anal Discharge Silencers, as we called them in the day, and the plastic airboxes have been replaced, is just proof that they were crap. Comparing like with like, The MK1s and 2s are a much more pure motorcycle than the MKIII or the MKIIa.
Wow, what a weird post. Not only comparing your own modified "fantastic" MK1 to stock MK2A's and MK3's but loaded with what amounts to just an opinion about those 850's and the stupid inept people that ride them. Hope you're joking. -Pete
 
I'm pretty sure he was joking. We all know the ballast isn't fitted in an attractive fashion. Everything else is pretty well spot on! :eek:
 
Wow, what a weird post. Not only comparing your own modified "fantastic" MK1 to stock MK2A's and MK3's but loaded with what amounts to just an opinion about those 850's and the stupid inept people that ride them. Hope you're joking. -Pete

You draw a very long bow when it comes to my intentions. "Just an opinion" derived from lots of experience on the road, riding these things, not sitting on my lounge chair quoting ill conceived passages from existing articles, by journalists who get their facts wrong and quote the endless crap written by somebody who stole it from a previous article by an even more incompetent journalist from a previously published article!

Stupid and inept? Not my words or intent.

Was I joking? I was laughing the whole time I was typing it. Doesn't mean I don't believe it. My 42 year long dislike of MKIIIs is well known amongst the inhabitants of this forum and I make no apologies for it. I presume that the question "Preferred Commando model?" actually requires that you answer the question, giving reasons for your answer, in your own words, with your own opinions rather than somebody else's opinion, based on articles written by the aforementioned plagiarists.

As I have proved, to myself, and anybody else who has actually listened to my advice that what I say is correct, in that accepted wisdom may be accepted, but it may not be necessarily wise, or indeed, correct.

Any questions?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top