Awesome, last of the Rebels!
(Not everyone here counts the new models wink wink nudge nudge)
(Not everyone here counts the new models wink wink nudge nudge)
See, that's the thing Honda missed: for those of us that have been around for a bit, when someone says "Honda Rebel" we think of the one that has been around for over thirty years, not a CB or CBR 300/500. Just like when someone says "Shadow" I think of the various cruiser models produced under that name badge since 1983, not a CB or CBR. Why they didn't just stick to the CB & CBR heritage and instead plagiarize the model with a completely different bike's name plate is beyond me...it's like taking a Camaro and changing a few cosmetic bits to call it a Chevette.Hahaha. Yeah. New ones are a bit different. Fuel injected etc. they are nice. But I really do like the old school look.
No, as I've explained before in other threads relating the issue, the CMX250 engine hailed from the predecessor CM250 which hailed from the CM185 & 200 TwinStar. It was the exact same design evolving with each incarnation (and technically the engine remained the same when it went from CM250 to CMX250, rather the styling evolved away from the disco-cruiser era instead).Didn't Honda get the old engine from a Nighthawk?
They didn't. The CB250 Nighthawk debuted in 1991, several years after the Gen-1 Rebel was nixed. The predecessor nameless CB250 motors were considerably different in design. This could be a parallel issue, however it's not uncommon to resurrect a motor in another line, the single year production 1988 Shadow's engine resurfaced in the 1989-98 PC-800. The major difference being the Rebel eventually returned to the line-up while the 800 Shadow did not.So why was it okay to take that engine from another bike,
Because instead of evolving the design they took an engine from a completely different line with a completely different design (CB) and called it something it wasn't (CM). Like I said, they took a Camaro and called it a Chevette. Had they just called it something else, anything else other than what it ISN'T, and there would be no issue. For those that fail to see this logic I can pose a parallel question: why didn't they call it a Magna?but when they do in now, it is terrible, and a travesty?
Please show me where I or anyone else bashed the updated model.I feel that bashing the updated model in no way invites our new model riding brethren into the fold.
New blood was never a problem in the three decades that the 250 was available or the two decades that Rebel forums were on the web.We need new blood to keep the hobby viable.
As mentioned the web owners opened a separate board.I seriously feel that a Rebel 300/500 section should be opened up on the forum. This is the "Honda Rebel Forum", not the "CMX250/450" forum.
I've shared that very sentiment numerous times.I want to learn about them. And perhaps someday get one, either as a younger siblings to my girl, or as an upgrade!
The plagiarized name is a pretty hot topic for some, it's definitely one that I have a hard time getting over. Then again most things that don't pass basic logic tend to have the same effect, and public schooling certainly isn't helping that issue.Wow. I didn’t mean to start an argument here. Just like the old style better.
Heh, my junk edit was up for three days before it finally got corrected. I rest my case.P.S. I made some changes to the Nighthawk wiki page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_Nighthawk_250