A '62 had less power than mine, especially since I had a modified engine with 
dual single-throat Webers on it.  It would probably top 100, but I wasn't about 
to find out with the front end being so light.  Most I did in it was 95 
(steady), on that trip, with that bad Pirelli on the back, down in Miami.
I had a 1776 engine in it (over size pistons and cylinders), balanced and cc'd, 
and compression set at 8.7 instead of 7.9 factory.  I ran about 96 octane 
leaded in it for awhile, although I didn't need to.
I believe '62 was still a 1300 engine, and a single port at that.  They didn't 
have a lot of horsepower but single ports had more torque.  Makes them great 
for use in a mud boat instead of the larger dual port 1600s.
You could probably only cruise at about 60 max, while I could cruise at better 
than 80 and did, when traffic was going that fast - which they did in Fla.
 
Stanley




________________________________
From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, September 28, 2009 1:09:40 PM
Subject: [Nighthawk Lovers] Re: 4's Rule

It was central Pa. to Miami.  It may have been a little shorter. We did about 
12-hrs a day.  I think it was a 62' Bug.  The year was 1968.

Sep 28, 2009 12:54:25 PM, [email protected] wrote:

If I am not mistaken their first car had a 450 engine in it.  Dealer 
in Arkansas told me the engine lasted around 10,000 miles; but the overhaul was 
only $100!!
>May as well get a Beetle.  Engines lasted lots longer and so did the car.
>That Beetle trip - where was it from, that it took 48hours?  I made 1,000 
>miles in my Beetle in about 20, with a stop to rest of about 2 hrs., and 
>another 30 minute stop to change a lousy Pirelli out-of-round tire from the 
>front to the back (it was brand new...).
> 
>Stanley
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________
From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
>To: [email protected]
>Sent: Sunday, September 27, 2009 8:40:05 PM
>Subject: [Nighthawk Lovers] 4's Rule
>
>I rode to Florida when I was 4  in a VW Beetle
>
>It was about 48 hrs r/t
> 
>The 4's have that nice hum.  I was in that nook behind the back seat
>
>Here's my Dad's 4-cylinder  Gyro
>(a propeller,VW engine & aluminum frame) 
>
>Honda did the CB 1000 - 6-cylinder
>
>I was surprised when I saw a HONDA funny car!
>
>I did my driver's test in a pumpkin colored Honda cvcc.
>
>I could have done donut's where they wanted you to do a 3-pt turn.
>
>Honda had a 600cc 2-cylinder little car
>
>Again,
>
>Honda's Rule
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Sep 27, 2009 05:20:27 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>
>I AGREE IT'S ALL ABOUT THE 4. Thats why if I ever get out of the poor house an 
>get to build a chopper it will be a Honda 4 not a v-twin. But I can really see 
>the NH styling in the 2010. Ride safe Steven
>>
>>--- On Sun, 9/27/09, Kyle Munz <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>From: Kyle Munz <[email protected]>
>>>Subject: [Nighthawk Lovers] Re: 2010 Honda
>>>To: [email protected]
>>>Date: Sunday, September 27, 2009, 1:41 PM
>>>
>>>
>>>I actually kinda like the styling on that. I'm just not a big v-twin kinda 
>>>guy. Put the NH engine in it and Honda would be on to something there...
>>>
>>>-Kyle 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 9:02 AM, NytWing <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Looks like a BMW....
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>On Sep 27, 5:18 am, Angela Kennedy <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> Here's a little eye-candy for you Nighthawk Lovers. They don't call it a
>>>>> Nighthawk but all I got to say it's a standard none the less and IT'S 
>>>>> ABOUT
>>>>> TIME! Enjoy!
>>>>> *First-Look.aspx*http://www.motorcycle-usa.com/624/4501/Motorcycle-Article/2010-Honda-...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>
>
>>
>


      
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Nighthawk Motorcycle Lovers!" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/nighthawk_lovers?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to