Combat Motor
- Thread starter mrelmo
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2005
- Messages
- 18,978
hehehahahoHo off to the funny farm inquiry. There is a distinction between Combat spec engine and variations and the factory issued 1972 Combat with black barrel, disc brake, low rear breather hose, shaved head so narrow head cylinder seam. 10 CR 2S cam that can lift front if it survives getting on big ports>cam into the red zone. No oil filter nor signals were standard but often added later. There is published range of serial numbers to search here or google to see if that agrees or not. Some think worse model others think its Cream of Commandos.
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2005
- Messages
- 18,978
Re: Needing Air
uGH excitable rohan I merely state that real Combat Bomb had low down dirty breahter baffle not that other models do not or that it makes a full Combat, its just one annoying feature of a real 72 Combat Bomb, whose only real weakness was fualty manufacture of several vitals that is easy corrected. Main trouble is they feel like any ole Commando unless you rev the snot out of them so eagerly till valves float or fuel straves or worse... After the Bomb scare who knows what happened to them at factory refrub or beyond. Also before Combats were sold there were Combat spec offerings and upgrades, If serial #s in range and the features I listed its a real Combat warts and all though could stil be numbers outside this range sold by Norton same as short run of real Combats but why would they after the Bomb hit. The financial and public trust loss was definitely point of no return of Nortons for general public consumption and last year of best bike award. I ride alot with my buddy Wes 71 and ridden it too and there is no practical power band differences in real life zooming around to scary levels to me trying to follow Wes in a mood.
uGH excitable rohan I merely state that real Combat Bomb had low down dirty breahter baffle not that other models do not or that it makes a full Combat, its just one annoying feature of a real 72 Combat Bomb, whose only real weakness was fualty manufacture of several vitals that is easy corrected. Main trouble is they feel like any ole Commando unless you rev the snot out of them so eagerly till valves float or fuel straves or worse... After the Bomb scare who knows what happened to them at factory refrub or beyond. Also before Combats were sold there were Combat spec offerings and upgrades, If serial #s in range and the features I listed its a real Combat warts and all though could stil be numbers outside this range sold by Norton same as short run of real Combats but why would they after the Bomb hit. The financial and public trust loss was definitely point of no return of Nortons for general public consumption and last year of best bike award. I ride alot with my buddy Wes 71 and ridden it too and there is no practical power band differences in real life zooming around to scary levels to me trying to follow Wes in a mood.
- Joined
- May 7, 2005
- Messages
- 7,609
If you use Google to do a search on Commando Combat this site due to it popularity gets lots of returns at the top, so we have this site being seen as a good source of accurate information, however the reality is with Hobot's wrong posting on attributing the 72 rear breather and lack of sump filter only to combats and not to all 72's there is now a permanent record of disinformation on this site.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Disinformation? No. Incomplete information? Yes.
I reread hobot's statement and do not consider it deliberately misleading as 1972 Combats did have that feature. He simply fails to mention that ALL 1972 engines (including the ordinary ones) had it. A Combat headed engine without that feature cannot be a 1972 therefore cannot be a factory manufactured Combat engine.
Perhaps await the original poster's update data to help provide him/her with clarification - photos will help enormously.
Ta.
I reread hobot's statement and do not consider it deliberately misleading as 1972 Combats did have that feature. He simply fails to mention that ALL 1972 engines (including the ordinary ones) had it. A Combat headed engine without that feature cannot be a 1972 therefore cannot be a factory manufactured Combat engine.
Perhaps await the original poster's update data to help provide him/her with clarification - photos will help enormously.
Ta.
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2004
- Messages
- 21,090
hobot said:
As all 750 Commandos would be expected to have, from '200000' (approx. Oct. '71, before Combat production had begun) to '230976' (October '1973, long after Combat production ceased). :roll:
needing said:
I don't agree. Anyone who read hobot's reply of: "There is a distinction between Combat spec engine and variations and the factory issued 1972 Combat with black barrel, disc brake, low rear breather hose,....etc....etc." in answer to the question "How can you identify a Combat motor" would be led to believe that ONLY Combats had the rear breather-so I my opinion-as it's worded, it is Edit: misinformation.
needing said:
In which case what's the point of mentioning it?
A
Anonymous
Guest
Just a thought. Were the pistons commonly known as 'Combat pistons' (the ones with the non-joined 'commas') only ever used in Combat engines? I'd really hate to misquote that one as a surefire way to identify an original Combat!
Ta.
Ta.
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2005
- Messages
- 18,978
uGH now I am just posting to rub the naysayers raw. Norton issued a Combat model with the features I listed and a ughly history to read that did not concern merely having a low breather baffle, tiny oil sump plug or disc brake mounted, So duh there are other models that share some the features but they are merely Combat spec to one degree or more. The main feature of a authentic Combat Bomb was it blew up before 2nd oil change and severely hit Norton fame and finances so if the others versions can not clam same history then they are not fully Combat Spec, just wanta bes. If ya don't have to feather snicks to 2nd d/t the hesitation of tire spin then might not be up to ful Combat spec. In the heyday era of the 750 triple smoke which factory issued Commando model got this review?
“The Norton Commando is still the lightest and best handling of the ‘Superbikes,’ and with the exception of not enough traction for really first class drag racing-type starts, would quite probably be the quickest, as well.”
– Cycle World, May 1972
“The Norton Commando is still the lightest and best handling of the ‘Superbikes,’ and with the exception of not enough traction for really first class drag racing-type starts, would quite probably be the quickest, as well.”
– Cycle World, May 1972
- Joined
- May 28, 2003
- Messages
- 2,591
mrelmo said:
SO much misinformation and popularized folklore.
To intelligently discuss this subject you need to understand.........two=2 issues
first
COMBAT CASES 72 & 73 200000 and up til the END of 750
second
COMBAT TUNE = altered head as described. 2S cam (marked SS)
first combat tune I worked on was
There are plenty of 72 NON combat tune, combat case engines... including all 73
Dave
202206
204434
*Edited by the moderator as dynodave subsequently discovered the number to be 202005.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2005
- Messages
- 349
Dave,
Thanks for posting that. I just had an "internet expert" accost me at our monthly European bike night, and tell me my 1972 Combat was not a Combat. His reason why? I did not have the large breather hose coming from the bottom of the cases. The dolt couldn't see that I had relocated it to the back of the timing case. Never mind that I had this engine down to the crank, rebuilt it with superblends, fresh Combat cam, changed out the cam bushes for the later style. The head is marked "C" and, on and on. Didn't make a bit of difference because it didn't have the "big hose" coming up the back. A friend of mine has a later edition 73 750 with the "big hose" up the back. Standard '73 750 tune. If it were parked next to mine, this expert would say that one is a gen-u-wine Combat and mine is not.
don
BTW, I have just acquired another '72 Combat, so I can hardly wait to show that to him! NOT!
Thanks for posting that. I just had an "internet expert" accost me at our monthly European bike night, and tell me my 1972 Combat was not a Combat. His reason why? I did not have the large breather hose coming from the bottom of the cases. The dolt couldn't see that I had relocated it to the back of the timing case. Never mind that I had this engine down to the crank, rebuilt it with superblends, fresh Combat cam, changed out the cam bushes for the later style. The head is marked "C" and, on and on. Didn't make a bit of difference because it didn't have the "big hose" coming up the back. A friend of mine has a later edition 73 750 with the "big hose" up the back. Standard '73 750 tune. If it were parked next to mine, this expert would say that one is a gen-u-wine Combat and mine is not.
don
BTW, I have just acquired another '72 Combat, so I can hardly wait to show that to him! NOT!
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2009
- Messages
- 11,588
Brithit said:
Why would you move the breather to the timing case?
And why does the "later edition 73 750" have a ""big hose" up the back."?
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2004
- Messages
- 2,667
It's probably a Combat head. C means Combat.
Easy to tell. Spacing of fins between head and barrel is smaller than fin spacing on barrel due to shaved head.
Could be a 72 registered as 73.
Could be a Combat head on a 73.
72's have the smaller tail light. Correct 73's have the larger tail light.
Easy to tell. Spacing of fins between head and barrel is smaller than fin spacing on barrel due to shaved head.
Could be a 72 registered as 73.
Could be a Combat head on a 73.
72's have the smaller tail light. Correct 73's have the larger tail light.
Just for reference my 230615 built March 1973 has the rear breather, 32mm Amals, and no sump screen drain plug.
I have a picture from the day I rode it home showing the silver cylinder barrel.
Not a Combat but more than plenty of power for a (then) 19 year old's first big bike.
I have a picture from the day I rode it home showing the silver cylinder barrel.
Not a Combat but more than plenty of power for a (then) 19 year old's first big bike.
- Status
Similar threads
