What are the differences between these two? I have a chance to get one in my area for a decent price.Owner says it's a Combat. Are the differences in power from the 850 Commando's that noticeable? Also if you had to pick one would you take the Norton 750 or an oif Triumph 750? George
The Combat has a shaved head so more compression and a 2S cam. That's all.A good runner. The early motors need some modifications to be good to run but nothing you would not expect with an old bike. There all good.
norbsa 1960 TR6 1963 Super Rocket 1965 650 Star 1966 441 1968 Thunderbolt 1969 Twinkle 250 1972 Fastback 1974 Roadster 1970 S.S Way too many BSA's not named http://decentcycles.com
Re: Norton 750 Commando Combat vs 750 Commando#60689 04/25/084:27 am04/25/084:27 am
without starting a feud, having had many triumphs and one 850 commando, as far as an all around bike that can cover alot of miles, i much prefer the commando. faster, less vibration than triumph, top end seems to last longer on norton. the five speed on triumph is nice to have though.fwiw.
1948 indian chief 1937, 1939, 1962 norton es2 1950 triumph trw 1970 triumph bonneville 1975 norton commando 1972 bmw r75/5 various projects
The Combat motor likes ro rev, and they rev very freely. All the way to redline in any gear. If you ride 80 mph freeways it's just the ticket. Especially the Interstate with its big tank.
But the Combat motor is rather unhappy under 4000 rpm. Not a lot of low end torque. You find yourself in lower gears around town and that can be annoying. Norton marketed the Commando as a "High Speed" motorcycle, and a Combat 750 is just that.
The 850 has a much broader power band and gobs of low end torque. It's perfectly content plodding about at 45 mph in 4th gear while still offering great throttle response. They pull hard to 6000 rpm. IMO it's a better all-round ride than a Combat.
The standard 750 is a great compromise. Better at around town than a Combat and comparable performance to the 850.
norbsa you forgot the 2MM bigger carbs. if you realy want to have more torque change the 2s cam for a standard one and the twin 32MM carbs a single mikuni carb. with the higher compression of the combat it WILL make bottom end torque than
Darn, ol' Windy stole my post. I was just going to say the same thing, a standard cam and one mik make a great motor.
But to start an argument, if I had to walk in the dealer's and buy one of the two bikes listed, I would expect the oif Triumph to be the better bike and more reliable. But if I knew that the Norton had the upgrades, then there would be no question. Guess that's why I have two Nortons and only one triumph.
Rich (member ThreeMustGetBeers) "It's not always about going fast. Sometimes it's nice to slow down" (Wendy E.2016)
69 bonney 72 commando 75 commando interstate 06 Suzu..Suzu.. uh appliance couple of beesas a ducati and the Snake Bike
Re: Norton 750 Commando Combat vs 750 Commando#60695 04/27/0810:27 am04/27/0810:27 am
The original combat spec Commando was a grenade, they cost Nortons every penny of manufacturers margin in dealer rework, I recall "Cycle" put one on a dyno way back when and power actually decreased as engine speed increased between 4.5K and 5.5K RPM. Anything with more than maybe 5K original miles will have been blown up and fixed.
I will preface this by saying that Triumph is and will for whatever reason, be my first love. That being said, I own a 70 S model and drag-raced a Superblend Combat for the last 2 years. Either one of these will pull away from all the Triumphs I own. They have a unique sound, their own characteristics, handle very well and pull hard for what they are. IMHO
An OIF Triumph is a very good rider but if you can steal a Combat at a good $, buy it.
Norton vs Triumph these days depends who is on them, I rode 100 miles on backroads on Friday with a Mk3 850, the bloke on it is nobody's fool but coaxing him up to 60 MPH was an effort, my usual cruising speed is 65 to 70 MPH. People lack confidence in old machinery, I built my engine from scratch after a heart breaking failure of the original and if the bloody thing will not run reliably at continuous modest high speeds either Edward Turner was, or I am, a dickhead. Fairly sure that Turners reputation is safe with me, the TR6 ran 60/70 MPH all the way back except for a squirt up to 90 MPH, I do not make a habit of that but known good conrods and such instill confidence. The Commando I was with was certainly under utilised but it was a big soft thing in any case, the 750s are a different kettle of fish and I would love a '70 Fastback or S, then again at my mature age a nice '68 Mercury would be a better Norton ?
Geohon, GP has a pretty good guide there. I would say if it's a "runner/rider" and fairly original, I would try to get it between $4-5K. If it's a museum piece, different story. I am the last person to ask since I buy High and sell Low, over restore everything, always emotionally buy and never ask permission.
The particular one I'm looking at has had quite a few upgrades or modifications done that take care of some of the problems associated with the Combat.I know some guys in a norton club they know the bike say it's a good one.Asking price $5000
Re: Norton 750 Commando Combat vs 750 Commando#60706 04/29/084:25 am04/29/084:25 am