72 Norton Commando

Easiest way to tell a Combat is look at the cylinder fins. (At least for me). Y’all are correct about the 71/72 brake. There were both in 72. My mistake on that.

 

From my memories of my brother's Commando I think that the area on the crankcases around the stud mounts for the cylinders is beefier. I remember him using Combat ones after having the standard ones crack in that area.

 

For a guy that has so many projects underway, it seems you have a lot of time on your hands, based on the length of these replies. Time better spent installing countershaft sprockets and working on the V4 bike that you are proposing to "spank" Harry and Eboz.

 

The Combat was the only 750 Norton I owned, I had 6 850s, so I didn't have much to compare it to, but there was a difference in the cylinder, it was painted black from the factory and I think the fins were closer. I know the Combat had more compression, different cams and larger carbs. I never had to tear the engine down but I remember that the Superblend bearings were the way to go if you split the cases.

The problem with the brake was that in an effort to make riders feel "safer" with the new disc setup , the factory used a large diameter piston in the master cylinder so you had no leverage with the lever. I used a master off a Honda with single disc from that same era and had an awesome brake. Good enough to race with using the stock caliper and win races in CCS Formula Twins in the late '80s. I only changed the caliper when I couldn't get race pads from Ferodo any longer.

 

I think we got most of the original question answered, but let me offer my 2 cents worth, FWIW--
(1) people ask a lot for vintage bikes, you see Commandos asking prices of $10,000 + but nobody reports the actual selling prices, and for me a reasonable '72 price for a typical garage bike not turned into a restoration trailer queen might be at or under $5K for an exceptionally nice original one that needs some work to run reliably--but that doesn't consider recovering the price of an expensive rebuild, current owner's dreams of great value, or the like.

Several things about '72's--
(2) a one year only unsuccessful redo of the oil scavenge in the crankcase, a simple drilled hole in the crankcase in the front (the wrong place to try to scavenge oil, because the crank slings the oil to the back), as opposed to the mesh covered cage in the rear with the cast depression to collect oil, where the rotation of the crank throws the oil, the arrangement these engines had all other years. This results in sumping problems after fast running, which I and many others have experienced. Many people modify these to move the drilled hole to the rear of the crankcase to solve the problem --but that doesn't supply a screened entry for the scavenge side, though, but still a solution that is better than stock.

(3) breather at the rear of the crankcase, where the crank naturally slings oil. This indirectly solves at least some of the sumping problem by using the breather as a second scavenge system (if it vents to the oil tank first, then out) by using the crank as a sort of paddle wheel oil pump pushing oil out the breather, but if you change the scavenge, you can change the breather to the post-72 position up behind the cylinder, which is much better.

(4) Yes on the Superblends, but most of these had them changed right away, and certainly by now you would think it had them.

(5) Mine had a disc brake, I thought all true 72's did, but what do I know?

(6) '72 only Combat hi compression head and cams and bigger carbs encouraged high revs, which did not help longevity one little bit. One problem is the 750's had insubstantial flange connection to the cylinder, and no cylinder through bolts--instead, a connection at the bottom to the crankcase, and another at the top to the head, unlike the 850 design of the next year, which was much more robust. This let the cylinder sort of rock back and forth at hi revs. I bought my '72 with a fairly standard problem, the cylinder broken off at the flange, which busted a lot of other parts too. Its hard to keep the revs down, because these engines loved to rev, and were real fun to ride when spun up, but beware...

(7) My 72 Combat had a fiberglass tank, which is an endless source of problems with modern gas, no matter what folks say about tank "sealers".

Anyway, after fixing all this, I sold it and kept my 73 850. The bigger engine is not nearly as much fun, but it just runs, runs, runs, perhaps the most reliable everyday rider English bike of all, and fairly powerful and torquey by English bike standards. As I said, FWIW. Me personally, I would pass on a 72, and get a 73 or 74 850--for my money the best Commando of all. Still a kickstart engine, though.

For your brother-in-law's girlfriend's dad, I think the answer is, whatever you think you can get for it, maybe $3500 for a quick sale of a runner that maybe needs work, maybe $5000 if you want to wait a bit, and ask $10,000 if you really don't want to sell it.

 

Good info. Thanks for the substantive info.

Cheers,

Dave

 

Sooooo ... after all these big words and who knows most.... who bought it .....?

 

No one- still waiting on my dumbass brother-in-law to get pics and more info.

 

Hey Pawpaw....are you going to "Riding Into History" this weekend down at world golf HQ?......put that thing on a trailer or in your truckbed.

Unfortunately I'll be working. I was working last year too now that I think about it. Something is wrong with this picture.

 

I was waiting to see a Price and a Photo...

 

No- we’ve got big problems with hydraulic lines on a bunch of E-2’a over here so I’m stuck at work for the next 2+ weeks straight. As to the bike, my hands are tied until bro-in-law gets motivated. Sorry guys! I’ll update ASAP