Topic: K0 questions sandcast v. diecast

[GroovieGhoulie]

In looking at K0s out there I have some questions:

I really want a K0 when I get a 750.  Are there any mechanical differences in the die-cast and sandcast aside from the casting technique?

The die-cast are more common but I see them for sale less.  What is the price difference between a sandcast K0 and a diecast K0 all else between the bikes being equal?

How much of a nightmare are the carbs to sync really?

I want the K0 because someone said that they had the most "hairy" personalities of the 750s and were more oriented towards the sporting character than the later models, which kept getting increasingly refined at the cost of power and more weight.  It was the K0 which set the world on fire and while later models may be smoother or easier to ride, I want the unrefined, flawed original.

Any advice for a K0 wannabe?

[Gordon]

The die-cast are more common but I see them for sale less.  What is the price difference between a sandcast K0 and a diecast K0 all else between the bikes being equal?

Chances are the reason you see more "sandcast" K0's for sale than regular ones is that most of them aren't actually sandcast models.  Either because the seller is purposely trying to deceive the buyer, or the seller doesn't have a clue what it means, but sees that bikes labeled as "sandcast" bring a much higher price. 

My advice is if you're not in this strictly for collecting purposes but you've got your mind set on a K0, a regular old die cast one will do.  Also, check the engine number on any bike claiming to be a sandcast.

[GroovieGhoulie]

Oh, I want a K0 I can ride semi-regularly and not feel guilty about it.  A sandcast is nice, but I'd feel nervous every time I took it out.

Plus, I'm not incredibly hung up (just a little bit hung up) on the details like the correct gasket colors and things like that.  I want a bike I can ride, not a museum piece.

[Jonesy]

According to most price guides for vintage bikes, the sandcast bikes are listed at double the price of a diecast.

The carbs are not a nightmare as long as you have patience, I personally found syncing a KO a bit easier than a later one (don't ask me why...), but they need more frequent check-ups on the sync.

[Bob Wessner]

I really want a K0 when I get a 750.  Are there any mechanical differences in the die-cast and sandcast aside from the casting technique?

Basically, there are no other real mechanical differences between the sand cast and the die cast. Technically, the last sand cast was ser #7415 or something like that. The earlier sand cast and later die cast K0's share many common parts hence you see eBay auctions for sand cast parts that probably never saw a sand cast engine case or frame. Are they lying, yes/no. Honda made many incremental changes to various parts as the production run continued, you would have to be a real CB750 historian to know which ones were made where at what serial numbers. There are several good books out there on these. One I have is Mark Haycock's "Honda CB750: The Complete Story." I have a K0, built in Dec. '69 and I have to admit that when I first took the carbs apart for cleaning, I felt like I was doing brain surgery. However, I came to appreciate how simple and straightforward they are compared to later carbs that incorporated all sorts of accelerator pumps and emission control changes. They may need more attention, that is to the syncing because of the four separate cables, but they are rather easy to work on.. now that I've had them on and off so many times. 

I'm not sure I would characterize them as the best model either. Yes, they are the earliest, if that's important, but you have to remember Honda went to school on them also. The later models incorporated their lessons and mechanically I would assume improvements.

[GroovieGhoulie]

Sure honda made the later one better, I would HOPE they did!  LOL However, someone here said it right, "I'm paying more for the things they didn't get right and changed later." Or something to that effect.

Part of it though is that it's the K0 that made everyone go WOW, not later versions, better as they may be in their own ways.  I want to feel exactly what the magazine testers and the public felt when they first swung their leg over that beastly machine.

[Bob Wessner]

I want to feel exactly what the magazine testers and the public felt when they first swung their leg over that beastly machine.

I doubt that particular feeling differed whether it was sand cast vs. die cast. The latter will save you a ton of $$, but if you must have a sand cast, grab your check book. 

[6adan]

Go for the diecast if you just want a rider.I have a 1970 JDM I bought new and am still riding and I still like it. Dannie

[GroovieGhoulie]

I want to feel exactly what the magazine testers and the public felt when they first swung their leg over that beastly machine.

I doubt that particular feeling differed whether it was sand cast vs. die cast. The latter will save you a ton of $$, but if you must have a sand cast, grab your check book. 

You are correct, a die cast is fine for a driver, and that is what I intend to get, but the reason quoted above is why I want a K0 versus a K1 or later.

[toycollector10]

What was the question again? I own a  November 69 K0 frame number 12300. All I know about this bike I learned on eBay. The differences are:

1.   Cut front guard
2.   Concave hydraulic reservoir
3.   Butterfly wingnut on throttle cable
4.   24 inch chain guard
5.   Un-finned oil filter housing
6.   Un-stamped pipes as against the HM300 pipes that came later. Upper right hand doesn't have an indent for brake travel.
      Fewer baffles in the exhaust. Made for a meatier and louder sound. Free'r flow and more horsepower and noise.
7.   The headder flange has 11 instead of 13 fins
8.   Plasic instead of glass on the tacho and speedo. Tacho red-lines at 8500 rpm versus 8000 on later models
9.   K0 and Sandcast weigh 218 kg. K1 went to 235. Slower, quieter, heavier
10. Ducktail seat on the first 70,000 bikes (I think)
11. Some esoteric stuff about left versus right hand mounted horn
12. Sandcast and K0 don't have 'Turn' above the indicator switch
13. Sandcast has a cast metal gas tank filler on top as against a pressed steel, also has a screw that holds the vent in place as against
      a rivet. Sandcast and K0 have a wider tank, different profile.
14. Mirrors on a Sandcast and K0 are 104 MM diameter versus 114 MM diamete on K1 onwards

I'm sure I've missed a lot more, but are the above worth $10,000 US. Maybe, if your favourite ride is a Learjet. I'm a working man so I don't really give a sh*t because the man in the street doesn't care at all. A K0 looks nice, rides nice. Had a ride today on a 2005 Suzuki 600 and really wanted to own it but the thing about a 36 year old K0 is that it is what it is, early technology that took the world by storm. Doesn't handle as well as a 2006 bike, "spaghetti framed piece of sh*t that doesn't handle and doesn't brake" as someone once got in my face.

What was the question again?  If you want an early nice ride go for a diecast K0, $3500-5000 will cut it versus $10-20,000 for a Sandcast. You can't tell the difference at 60 MPH.

[6pkrunner]

...... I want to feel exactly what the magazine testers and the public felt when they first swung their leg over that beastly machine.

-while aesthetically the bike will appear as in 1969/1970, remember there was notihing on the planet like this bike then. So it was the ultra high water mark for hyper performance and technological breakthroughs. Living with the British twins and the Harley twin and the 450DOHC was all there was to compare to. So the superlatives fell short for them.

Today there are tons of bikes that are at least 50% faster top end and 30-40% quicker in acceleration than the veritable old lady. So the entire "Gee Whiz" factor will be gone. Unless you were raised with those bikes. I was and a neglected CB750 on the road will turn my head moreso than a Hayabusa, CBR1000RR, or YZF-R1 ever could hope to. If you are in that space, you're in for a treat. And watch the looks you get from the pedestrians.

[GroovieGhoulie]

...... I want to feel exactly what the magazine testers and the public felt when they first swung their leg over that beastly machine.

-while aesthetically the bike will appear as in 1969/1970, remember there was notihing on the planet like this bike then. So it was the ultra high water mark for hyper performance and technological breakthroughs. Living with the British twins and the Harley twin and the 450DOHC was all there was to compare to. So the superlatives fell short for them.

Today there are tons of bikes that are at least 50% faster top end and 30-40% quicker in acceleration than the veritable old lady. So the entire "Gee Whiz" factor will be gone. Unless you were raised with those bikes. I was and a neglected CB750 on the road will turn my head moreso than a Hayabusa, CBR1000RR, or YZF-R1 ever could hope to. If you are in that space, you're in for a treat. And watch the looks you get from the pedestrians.

I agree there are faster bikes now so the WOW factor would not really be there.  However, while I'm a youngin', the only bikes I've ever ridden have been vintage Jap and Brit bikes.  The newest I've ever ridden is my '76 400F, so I think there will be some WOW factor, for me at least, and that's all that matters. 

I'm in the military where everything is a macho alpha-male contest and unless you have a Harley or a super-fast crotchrocket, you ain't sh*t.  I've had so many people give me sh*t for having an old bike, or a small bike or whatever (some people call it a "Fonzie bike") but I don't care.  I had a guy with an 883 Sportster give me a hard time until I carefully reminded him that my bike, with less than half the displacement of his, put out nearly the same power and weighed much less.  Most of the Harley riders are actually nice after the obligatory ribbing for having a Jap bike (especially a "measly" 400), but the crotchrocket riders are usually brutal.  The exception is one of my soldiers who used to have a CB500F and in fact gave me the engine.  He now rides a Hayabusa, but never once gave me a hard time.

"spaghetti framed piece of sh*t that doesn't handle and doesn't brake" as someone once got in my face.

Toycollector, I've GOT to hear the backstory on this one if it's cool! 

[SteveD CB500F]

Toycollector - I put your list in the "What is a Sandcast?" FAQ:  http://www.sohc4.us/forums/index.php?topic=2894.msg37985#msg37985

Hope you don't mind.

[Magpie]

GroovieGhoulie,
 If you can afford it go for the sandcast! Get what you want. Why, because it was the one that started it all. I went from a '68 Triumph Bonneville 650 which was a great bike and "fast" to a brand new 1969 CB750 and it was FAST back then. How did it feel? I only had it for a short time, 5 weeks, before a girl blew a stop sign and I t-boned her but whata 5 weeks. English bike riders would sneer until I rolled the throttle on and left them behind, hot rodders either wouldn't race or had to race you, it would stop people in their tracks to stare at it. I had a BMW car driver ask me to pull over so he could get a good look at it, he couldn't believe there were 4 cylinders, 4 pipes, 4 carbs. It would foul plugs, have to be in second gear in the city, on the highway it was crazy compared to what was out there at the time. The 750s that followed are still great, I have a '71 CB750 I bought new but it didn't have the same effect. They weren't/aren't as "raw" as the '69. I'm sure there's others on this forum that had a '69 new, they will remember too. There's something about owning the start of something big. Grab a piece of history. Obviously I'm still excited about the bike and if I could afford a good one I'd go for it. I have a '69 frame and a bunch of correct parts, but not the engine and side panels.
I'm working on building a diecast '69 but it's not the same - no way. Go for it.
Kinda lot longer than I intended to post!
Cliff.

[eldar]

Well groovie, the K0 is the HEAVIESt of the 750s. Even the "fat" K8 is lighter. If you really wanted the performance of the early 750, do a K1 not a K0. If you really want the best of the 750, do a f or f2. On 77 they started doing emission crap because of the EPA. Yet these bikes can be just as powerful with a bit of work. you will actually have less performance on the K0, from my understanding, than you would with anything from K1 - K6. K7 - 8 has the best motor mechanically speaking. The only real benefit from a K0 is the vintage factor.
Remember, the F2 blew the magazines away also.....7 years AFTER the K0. Supposedly, the K0 had a hotter cam but I doubt it was that much different.

[Magpie]

It's my understanding that the K0 is faster than the following bikes for sometime. The following were de-tuned somewhat.
Maybe my memory is clouded by age but the K0 was faster than my K1.
Cliff.

[GroovieGhoulie]

Ever spec sheet I've seen indicates that the K0 was lighter than the later ones.  toycollector above mentioned 218 kilos versus 235 kilos.  That's nearly 40 pounds.

ETA: I know the Fs were faster and more powerful, but I can't get over the styling.  I much prefer the K styling and the K0 in particular; vented sidecovers, fat tank, etc.

[martini]

Hey Ghoulie,

I got a diecast K0 last year for $5000 cdn. Its a restored bike, not everything is original but the guy who put it together knew what he was doing and it looks and runs awesome. I went with a diecast for two reasons: first, I wanted a rider and not a museum peice. As you know the sandcast are rare birds and do belong in museums. I wouldn't feel right riding a sandcast the way I ride my diecast. The second reason was, of course, cost. I paid 1/4 the price for my diecast as I would a sandcast. The diecast attracts plenty of attention and very much has the wow factor. It is only a handful of people that have even heard of a sandcast or could spot the difference between the two. If you want a rider and don't want to break the bank I say go with a diecast.

[cbjunkie]

 
wow! did you really just say that?

If you really want the best of the 750, do a f or f2.

lo, how the mighty have fallen... 

[eldar]

Well on our very own beloved site, the K0 is listed at 517.3 pound curb weight and the K1 is 479 pound dry. Now once you add oil and gas, that weight will go up but the K1 will in no ways be almost 40 pounds heavier when it starts at 38 pounds less. A full load of oil and gas is not 80 pounds.

As for fat tanks, The K8 has the largest tank and it is only a half gallon larger. Really it is no fatter, just different lines. It is more streamlined and not so round and bulbous. The f does have a rather blocky tank but the f2 and 3 get more streamlined as well.

You must of course get what you want cause if you dont, you will not be quite as happy. Remember though that there are less parts for whichever k0 you get. Not like I should talk, there are almost no parts for the K7 - 8!  Just remember to check your primary chain often as that was a real weak link on the K0.

Just so you know, I have nothing against the K0.  I can however give terry from OZ some good crap as my K8 is lighter than his f2!!!!

[6pkrunner]

It's my understanding that the K0 is faster than the following bikes for sometime. The following were de-tuned somewhat.
Maybe my memory is clouded by age but the K0 was faster than my K1.
Cliff.

Air box intake area, pipes and baffles, and slight cam revisions made the series slightly slower with each model until the K2 or so. Then they pretty much remained the same. Honda's goal was to make the most refined bike and steered away from the original superbike direction, that got faster with each revision.

[martini]

Lets face it, you're not buying this bike for speed.

[dusterdude]

Lets face it, you're not buying this bike for speed.

why not,mine is much faster than my panhead.

[martini]

Everything is relative I guess.

[6pkrunner]

We're related? From Adam and Eve or closer?