Might be good to mention that the old interceptor had a 360 deg crank as per the other English twins where the modern one has a 270 deg crank. I think approximately 200 interceptor engines where left on a dock when RE went bust. These were snapped up by the Rickman brothers who then went on to produce the Rickman Interceptor.
Not really. I'd say that the old bike is unusual looking. I think the new ones look great. What other new bike even comes close?? They're all either space age or hipster design. Even Harley's look shit nowadays.
The engine on the old one looks very nice and massive, the old bike had quite a few interesting features that no other bikes had. I think Royal Enfield did a pretty good job with the design of the new 650. It's a tad surprising they didn't get a few more horsepower out of it though (fuel injection, multi valve head, ohc etc...)
@@motorcyclecafe It's only for people below 24 years old here, anyone over goes straight to unrestricted. Idea is that young folk with not fully developed brains don't get themselves killed on high power bikes. I don't think it's really a problem, but you could argue if it's really necessary. It does mean manufacturers are inclined to make bikes for this lighter, smaller class though, instead of focusing on heavy models. Remember how 250's used to be a big deal, and got a lot of effort put into them? Same deal right? It's why the Continental GT was ever conceived, or those crazy small 4 cylinder sportbikes from japan.
It's amazing just how much better the 1965 model looks. It has a nice light, clean look. You can see right through the bike in several places. And it is not covered in black paint. The new one looks fat and heavy, you can't really see through it anywhere. And almost everything that should be bright aluminum or chrome is painted black. The 1965 engine is a much better design. It could use some refinement, but the OHV pushrod 2 valve design is definitely the way to go. I have a 2007 Royal Enfield iron barrel Bullet 500, in red and chrome. It is a wonderful bike, it does not leak oil, and usually starts on the first or second kick, if you know how. It has points ignition, and I've replaced the stock carburetor with an Amal Concentric MK1, which works a lot better.
Thats very impressive sir .Just the effort rquired to clean up and enhance the photos with stategic subtle shadows and clean backgrounds is fantastic .The amount of detailed stats throughout is equally outstanding .Clearly you have a passion for creating quality videos . I'm looking forward to checking out your Burt Munro doc vids and all of your video library as soon as I can .Your channel looks to be a hidden gem ,although just a quick look at some of your video view counts tells a different story .,Holy Moly man you have cracked the code , hard work seems to pay off .Cheers for now Good sir
i like the look of the old enfield engine better, and the style, not saying the new bikes are bad as i have never ridden one but they conjure the same feeling as the new BSA, least enfield have renamed the new models unlike Goldstar which bears no resemblance to the real BSA
I think BSA have done a great job with the new Goldstar. I covered it in my 'El Cheapo Bike' video. If the original BSA were still in business, no doubt the engine would have been similar to this new one. To me it looks like a nice evolution of the original bike.
If you have to Kick the sh1t out of it you should check your settings!! Nice comparison thanks! Never would have guessed the old one would be lighter? It has a HUGE lump of an engine when seen in the "flesh"
I'm not so sure the bike available here in Aussie has the same amount of horsepower and we don't have an a2 license. Anyway it doesn't really matter it's still a nice bike either way.
@@motorcyclecafe It does have 47hp in Aus. Our LAMS requirements are similar to the A2 in the UK. I got my Restricted bike licence last year, and own a Conti GT 650. They are a fun first bike
@@motorcyclecafe @rickrandom6734 I know the OG was only a 250, but there are a lot of differences between them and I think it would be interesting to see how it began and where it led to...
Love how you put this video together. Do you shoot ,script and edit all on your own ? Side note I saw you contacted my channel asking why there are 50 vids listed but only 25 or so showing .I think they included all of my shorts in the total number .I would have answered you in the email you sent but for some reason I couldn't find it when I went back to reference it ..I don't know what the heck I did but I must apologize for not replying properly.
All good buddy. Yer I do everything myself, fix up dud photos to High defintion to make them pop etc..., it takes a long time many hours just for a few minutes of video. The Burt Munro docos although maybe not my best ones took literally thousands of hours i researched Burt over a number of years. Im even friends with Burts son on fb. I guess some in NZ are not to happy with my findings but every single thing in both docos is absolute fact. Which is why i wanted to produce the docos. I struck gold when i found this old video a guy filmed off his tv of Burts bike still in america 1 year after his death. NZ claim they have the record breaking bike but in fact they only have the engine and Burts test frame.
The weight of the new bike is my only real problem with the 650. It reminds me of the Suzuki GT750 which had a really heavy frame, but great engine. A frame kit for the RE would be awesome.
The bike itself is pretty light but it's not so much how much a bike weighs which is important, it depends on how high the weight is. I do think the new 650 is a tad top heavy.
i looked at r. e. back in the early 60's, but i thought bonneville would have a little edge on the top end, and were substantially lighter.. fast neutral was no compensation. brit bikes were slow to realize the saving that comes from integrating the engine into the frame. that list began and ended with vincent. just remembered, panther, too. but they were granddad bikes. i remember looking at a 250 honda, and wondering, 'why doesn't every parallel twin do this?'
For what benefit? I rode a 650 Bonnie around throughout the 70’s and it never had any handling problems, it was as light as most trail bikes today are and the only bike of the time that held the road better was a Norton with a Featherbed frame, either 650SS, or an Atlas. I’ve never seen a Royal Enfield 750, but if they were that hard to satrt every time, I wouldn't have wanted one. I once bought an 850 Commando from a mate. It was in perfect condition, but it could be a real PITA (pain in the arse) to start, most unlike the Bonnies I was used to. After several months of being delayed for work because the damn thing wouldn't start and had flooded (with me sweating like a boxer in the sauna after kicking it for half an hour) I sold it and bought a 750 Bonnie. I don’t see any reason for making the engine part of the frame, unless you want to go racing. The Vincent was (like the Panther) engineered to do all manner of things and that was nice, but they COST and that was the ONLY reason they went out of business. There are all kinds of things that could have been done with all kinds of bikes, but the question must be asked; Are they necessary?
What’s sad too me the manufacturers of the so called new and improved Enfield seems too have missed the return mark. I see the Enfield manufacturer have shortened the front fender to save a few bucks. Too me this takes away from the true image of the bike. If I wanted a scrambler this type of fender would fit the bike. But chrome back on the bike, such as the two fenders. Stop this stupid idea of painting what’s called fenders and the ridiculous use of some kind of mud flap attached to the rear fender. How much more would chroming the two fenders and making them both full fenders to stop all the road debris from hitting the riders back and the front of the engine. Come on folks, clean up your all new Enfield and bring back the chrome plus polish up the engine cases as back in the day. Those swept exhaust systems suck. Bring the head pipe straight out along the bikes frame and keep the muffler straight along the rear axle. This swept idea is ugly as sin and cheating the looks of a great bike. I’ve been riding bikes for over 55 years, designed a few. Bring back the 60s look with today’s technology is what’s needed.
I have had my Triumph Tr-6 with a hard tail and magneto for 40. I commuted on her for 20 years. Reliable and dependable transportation.
Might be good to mention that the old interceptor had a 360 deg crank as per the other English twins where the modern one has a 270 deg crank. I think approximately 200 interceptor engines where left on a dock when RE went bust. These were snapped up by the Rickman brothers who then went on to produce the Rickman Interceptor.
My oh my the old one is significantly better looking and more stylish. ❤
Not really. I'd say that the old bike is unusual looking. I think the new ones look great. What other new bike even comes close?? They're all either space age or hipster design. Even Harley's look shit nowadays.
The engine on the old one looks very nice and massive, the old bike had quite a few interesting features that no other bikes had. I think Royal Enfield did a pretty good job with the design of the new 650. It's a tad surprising they didn't get a few more horsepower out of it though (fuel injection, multi valve head, ohc etc...)
@@motorcyclecafe It's because they wanted it to fit A2 licenses, which limit power to 48hp. The W800 does this too.
@@jaide1312 laws like that are just stupid, typical government. You have just as much chance dying on a scooter as any other bike. Oh well.
@@motorcyclecafe It's only for people below 24 years old here, anyone over goes straight to unrestricted. Idea is that young folk with not fully developed brains don't get themselves killed on high power bikes.
I don't think it's really a problem, but you could argue if it's really necessary. It does mean manufacturers are inclined to make bikes for this lighter, smaller class though, instead of focusing on heavy models.
Remember how 250's used to be a big deal, and got a lot of effort put into them? Same deal right? It's why the Continental GT was ever conceived, or those crazy small 4 cylinder sportbikes from japan.
It's amazing just how much better the 1965 model looks. It has a nice light, clean look. You can see right through the bike in several places. And it is not covered in black paint. The new one looks fat and heavy, you can't really see through it anywhere. And almost everything that should be bright aluminum or chrome is painted black. The 1965 engine is a much better design. It could use some refinement, but the OHV pushrod 2 valve design is definitely the way to go. I have a 2007 Royal Enfield iron barrel Bullet 500, in red and chrome. It is a wonderful bike, it does not leak oil, and usually starts on the first or second kick, if you know how. It has points ignition, and I've replaced the stock carburetor with an Amal Concentric MK1, which works a lot better.
I have thought about buying a Royal Enfield numerous times the last few years as yet I haven't taken the plunge.
Thats very impressive sir .Just the effort rquired to clean up and enhance the photos with stategic subtle shadows and clean backgrounds is fantastic .The amount of detailed stats throughout is equally outstanding .Clearly you have a passion for creating quality videos .
I'm looking forward to checking out your Burt Munro doc vids and all of your video library as soon as I can .Your channel looks to be a hidden gem ,although just a quick look at some of your video view counts tells a different story .,Holy Moly man you have cracked the code , hard work seems to pay off .Cheers for now Good sir
I think they are both great looking bikes in their own right! 🇬🇧
I agree!
i like the look of the old enfield engine better, and the style, not saying the new bikes are bad as i have never ridden one but they conjure the same feeling as the new BSA, least enfield have renamed the new models unlike Goldstar which bears no resemblance to the real BSA
I think BSA have done a great job with the new Goldstar. I covered it in my 'El Cheapo Bike' video. If the original BSA were still in business, no doubt the engine would have been similar to this new one. To me it looks like a nice evolution of the original bike.
If you have to Kick the sh1t out of it you should check your settings!! Nice comparison thanks! Never would have guessed the old one would be lighter? It has a HUGE lump of an engine when seen in the "flesh"
Those old bikes had to be tuned pretty regular, but you are right a good one would only take a couple of kicks. I put that in just for a bit of fun.
They never start first kick with an audience watching.
Mine starts first kick most times but it has a BB ignition and that's the difference.
only reason they only make 47BHP is so it can be ridden on an A2
I'm not so sure the bike available here in Aussie has the same amount of horsepower and we don't have an a2 license. Anyway it doesn't really matter it's still a nice bike either way.
@@motorcyclecafe It does have 47hp in Aus. Our LAMS requirements are similar to the A2 in the UK. I got my Restricted bike licence last year, and own a Conti GT 650. They are a fun first bike
@@Legotruck82 good bike for any rider no matter how experienced you are
it would be interesting to see a comparison of the new Continental GT vs the old version.... thanks for the interesting comparison!
Old one was 250 cc single cylinder. New is basically same bike as Interceptor 650 with different handle bar and seat.
you're welcome buddy, thanks for watching. The original continental was much smaller in capacity.
@@motorcyclecafe @rickrandom6734 I know the OG was only a 250, but there are a lot of differences between them and I think it would be interesting to see how it began and where it led to...
After all these years,all most nothing has changed on these 2 bikes. That tells me, if it works, leave it alone.
So true, why manufacturers change things every single year is beyond me. Its either a good bike or its not. Great comment.
Both bikes are a mirror image of the other.
Love how you put this video together. Do you shoot ,script and edit all on your own ?
Side note I saw you contacted my channel asking why there are 50 vids listed but only 25 or so showing .I think they included all of my shorts in the total number .I would have answered you in the email you sent but for some reason I couldn't find it when I went back to reference it ..I don't know what the heck I did but I must apologize for not replying properly.
All good buddy. Yer I do everything myself, fix up dud photos to High defintion to make them pop etc..., it takes a long time many hours just for a few minutes of video. The Burt Munro docos although maybe not my best ones took literally thousands of hours i researched Burt over a number of years. Im even friends with Burts son on fb. I guess some in NZ are not to happy with my findings but every single thing in both docos is absolute fact. Which is why i wanted to produce the docos. I struck gold when i found this old video a guy filmed off his tv of Burts bike still in america 1 year after his death. NZ claim they have the record breaking bike but in fact they only have the engine and Burts test frame.
good video sir simply great
Thank you mate, much appreciated comment!
Enfield love new and Old ❤❤❤❤❤❤
The new 650 RE is a new clasdic that everyone will say i should have bought one 😊
The weight of the new bike is my only real problem with the 650. It reminds me of the Suzuki GT750 which had a really heavy frame, but great engine. A frame kit for the RE would be awesome.
The bike itself is pretty light but it's not so much how much a bike weighs which is important, it depends on how high the weight is. I do think the new 650 is a tad top heavy.
gt750 was actually a fast bike, porky or not. it was a great engine, and ahead of its time with watercooling..
@@alfred-vz8ti water cooling was nothing new. Scott motorcycles were using it before 1910. But you are right the GT750 was a very good motorcycle.
The frame is Harris performance designed that would take some beating, loosing the stock exhaust saves plenty of weight.
What are the switches on the side panels in the old one?
Just a fastener to hold the side cover in place.
i looked at r. e. back in the early 60's, but i thought bonneville would have a little edge on the top end, and were substantially lighter.. fast neutral was no compensation.
brit bikes were slow to realize the saving that comes from integrating the engine into the frame. that list began and ended with vincent. just remembered, panther, too. but they were granddad bikes.
i remember looking at a 250 honda, and wondering, 'why doesn't every parallel twin do this?'
I love the old Panthers but then again, I am a grandad. But you're right I doubt they would have appealed to me in my younger days.
For what benefit? I rode a 650 Bonnie around throughout the 70’s and it never had any handling problems, it was as light as most trail bikes today are and the only bike of the time that held the road better was a Norton with a Featherbed frame, either 650SS, or an Atlas. I’ve never seen a Royal Enfield 750, but if they were that hard to satrt every time, I wouldn't have wanted one. I once bought an 850 Commando from a mate. It was in perfect condition, but it could be a real PITA (pain in the arse) to start, most unlike the Bonnies I was used to. After several months of being delayed for work because the damn thing wouldn't start and had flooded (with me sweating like a boxer in the sauna after kicking it for half an hour) I sold it and bought a 750 Bonnie. I don’t see any reason for making the engine part of the frame, unless you want to go racing. The Vincent was (like the Panther) engineered to do all manner of things and that was nice, but they COST and that was the ONLY reason they went out of business. There are all kinds of things that could have been done with all kinds of bikes, but the question must be asked; Are they necessary?
Nice film
thanks buddy
What’s sad too me the manufacturers of the so called new and improved Enfield seems too have missed the return mark. I see the Enfield manufacturer have shortened the front fender to save a few bucks. Too me this takes away from the true image of the bike. If I wanted a scrambler this type of fender would fit the bike. But chrome back on the bike, such as the two fenders. Stop this stupid idea of painting what’s called fenders and the ridiculous use of some kind of mud flap attached to the rear fender. How much more would chroming the two fenders and making them both full fenders to stop all the road debris from hitting the riders back and the front of the engine. Come on folks, clean up your all new Enfield and bring back the chrome plus polish up the engine cases as back in the day. Those swept exhaust systems suck. Bring the head pipe straight out along the bikes frame and keep the muffler straight along the rear axle. This swept idea is ugly as sin and cheating the looks of a great bike. I’ve been riding bikes for over 55 years, designed a few. Bring back the 60s look with today’s technology is what’s needed.
My new Interceptor leaks oil from the banjo bolt. Must be a throw back....
😉