• Welcome, Guest! We hope you enjoy the excellent technical knowledge, event information and discussions that the BMW MOA forum provides. Some forum content will be hidden from you if you remain logged out. If you want to view all content, please click the 'Log in' button above and enter your BMW MOA username and password.

    If you are not an MOA member, why not take the time to join the club, so you can enjoy posting on the forum, the BMW Owners News magazine, and all of the discounts and benefits the BMW MOA offers?

Engineering benefits of 6 cylinders?

I'm a lot more interested in seeing the new MOTUS than an overly complex 6 cyl "wonderbike" S version that is likely to be a maintenance nightmare once it gets some mileage. Electronics are the bane of German quality in everything else and these new bikes aren't likely to be any different.
The power of the MOTUS is alleged to be similar, I'd expect it will be a good bit lighter, it won't have a gear FD to leave you stranded somewhere (though you'll get stuck with chain maintenance, ugh..) Hydraulic lifters promise little need for incessant valve checks, etc etc. Has outlets, luggage and other basic sport touring stuff. Some ?? around the first use of direct injection on a bike and the ability to get really good maps- but hey, my boxer has the jerkies on throttle off already so its not like BMWs are perfect at fueling either.

Simple is good to some of us- it is the prime reason I own a boxer but I would like more punch (get my fix from a K1200RS I also ride at present)
Be interesting to see if a new US maker can deliver a well executed bike at a sane price. The MOTUS concept is a "road less travled" for sure compared to others brands but I believe it will have appeal if done well and priced right.

I like straight 6's in cars - got a turbo'ed Lexus SC with one and an AMG Mercedes but I'll take my bikes a bit simpler (unless someone has an old 6 cylinder Honda 250 racebike they want to send my way....)

I still find it hard to believe BMW will walk away from 4 cyl bikes for the long term. There is a huge gap between the boxer, even the watercooled one (which will no doubt still spin up as slowly as any other large twin and have the narrower powerband that goes with the design) and that 6.

If I end up with either, I might never get much more than 2500 miles from another rear tire for the rest of my life, however. THAT is a potential problem, but a good one....On that subject, I am surprised at the rather long tire life for some low mile rated tires used on a friends BMW 535 i. The reason is apparently the ridiculously slow, zero torque shifting done by the car's (IMO, annoyingly programmed) auto tranny. You can eat a sandwich while it shifts, almost....Not a way I want to stretch tires on a bike.
 
I'm happy with my boxer. At least at this time. I don't know about next year.
Few engines will ever have that history. It's been a long time.
But for me 2 cylinders is enough.
I never much thought I needed to get into the Honda 4's. Tho' I do know about how smooth they are.
I just always thought 4 cylinders was too much.
It's part of the reason why I'm not a K bike aficionado.
I don't think bigger is better. I don't think I need more power.
dc
 
Bit ironic that all the talk in the BMW car world is superceding inline sixes with twin-turbo fours. Especially big news in USA market, where BMW hasn't offered a four since the mid/late 1990s.

BTW, any inline 6 BMW car I ever owned was NOT a torque monster. Depends on how you tune it of course, and today's tech is light years beyond 1980s tech, but those cars needed revs to do anything. Nothing "inherent" as regards inline 6 and torque in my experience, that is.

Still, the 1600 is quite the update on the LT.
 
Back
Top