VF750FD - What to look for?

Got the chance of a 1984 Honda VF750FD Interceptor at a reasonable price -
What do I need to look out for on this bike?

Less than 10k miles on the clock, classic insurance qualified (apparently),
good condition for the year, but seller recommends a service and tune before
proper use.

No service history.

Offered at £650 ono

Opinions?

 

Dave said...

A quick way out of buying it.

They're shit, trust me on this.

 

Furry muff!

What about as a first 'big' bike though? I'm new to the game, and don't want
to spend megaquids on something I'm bound to chuck at the landscape sooner
or later.

 

Dave said...

If you look around you can find a fair few bikes under a grand that
won't throw their camshafts at the scenery for a pastime, which is what
the VF750 was famous for. £650 for a 1984 VF is not cheap, no price is
cheap enough for one of those abominations. Steer well clear unless you
have a second bike to ride, and lots of money put aside for frequent top
end rebuilds.

An early Bandit 600S will be as fast, as comfortable and handle as well
as a VF750F, but will hold itself together for years. Parts are
plentiful and cheap and the whole bike feels a lot bigger than it
actually is. 600 Bandits are a good introduction to full size biking at
reasonable cost. You can find reasonably good Bandits from upwards of
850 quid if you search around. Failing that, look at GSX750Fs and
GXS600Fs, they're essentially a detuned GSXR/GSF engine in a fully
enclosed body. Not the prettiest bike to look at and I wouldn't buy one
for that reason, but worth a mention cos they're very cheap and
reliable.

 

****.

 

Pip said...

I was, I bought two of them in succession.

 

Dave said...

From my limited experience, I would add a ZZR600 to that list. Still nippy,
but also very forgiving. Just don't expect to be able to load it up with a
pillion and/or lots of luggage unless you like hearing the centre stand
ground out...

 

I've still got one. Well, an FA - with proven camshafts, at least.
You're still a ****, though - dissing my ride. ****.

 

Lozzo presented the following explanation :

Agreed - The early ones gave Honda a bad reputation. Honda over
engineered the later ones to recover that reputation, resulting in a
very reliable machine.

 

Okay, I'm convinced.

Thanks for all the input chaps. I'll keep looking.

 

Dave said...

..

<snip>
Failing that, look at GSX750Fs and
GXS600Fs, they're essentially a detuned GSXR/GSF engine in a fully
enclosed body. Not the prettiest bike to look at and I wouldn't buy one
for that reason, but worth a mention cos they're very cheap and
reliable.

Seconded.

Couple of years ago I bought a GSX750F off a bloke on here for £700 and
after a year of solid fun and reliability offed it privately for £600.

They do exactly what it says on the tin.

Honda VF750F? I remember them coming out, and then the reports of soft
cams within weeks.

 

Yes but they called it the later one the VFR750 and it differs from the VF
in every aspect. The VFR was a totally new bike with millions of dollars
thrown at development to restore the buying public's faith following the
disaster that *was* the entire VF range (400cc,500cc,750cc,1000cc).

 

Freddy Kruger said...

There was nothing wrong with the 400s and 500s.

 

Sir is obviously forgetting the name on the tank.

 

mb said...

I had a VF400F before I bought both VF750s, it's still going strong 20
years on. I know of a couple that are still being despatched in London
and a few mates have owned 500s that gave no problems. Almost every
VF750 I ever knew was terminally ill within a couple of years.

My second one got through 16 sets of cams before Honda UK cut their
losses and gave me a VFR750K in a straight swop. That VFR was the press
fleet bike that I'd taken away brand new and used every time mine went
back. It became known as *my* bike by the HUK workshop staff about a
year before I legally took possession of it. In 18 months I'd been the
only person to ride it.

The final set of cams lasted the time it took me to ride from HUK at
Power Road in Chiswick to near the Ace Cafe site in Park Royal, a
distance of about 5 miles. After that incident HUK fork-lifted the
entire bike into a skip and sent me the VFR's V5.

 

I thought they all suffered the same problems (i.e. cams made of cheese with
very poor lubing to the top end resulting in dead cams & cam-chains chains
after ~10k miles). How did the the 400s & 500s differ from the 750 & thou?

 

thou?

****, I said "cam chains chains". Why the fek would I do that? Ah fuggit,
where's my beer again?

 

Run away.

 

The 500s ran their cranks. Regularly, frequently and expensively.

*Two* bikes on the press launch (South Africa, 1984) blew up through
crank failure, which should have been a warning.

The 400s - well, nobody ever bought them, so who knows?

 

In general configuration, not a lot. In reliability, massively.

The 750's top end problems are now the stuff of legend.

The 500s had occasional top end failure, but their real weakness was the
bottom end.

The 1000s were, by and large, solid, especially the gear cam drive
VF1000R, but even the chain drive F and F2 were pretty good. A friend
has done more than 100,000 miles on a VF1000F with only one major
rebuild.

Unfortunately, the 1000s were tarred (unfairly) with the same brush as
the 750s.

The 500 is actually a lovely bike to ride, and the later F2 model had a
beefed-up bottom end. If I was looking at an early Honda V4, it'd be a
toss-up between a 500F2 and a 1000F2 Bol d'Or.