Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 16

Thread: R65 82 vs a 84

  1. #1
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    13

    R65 82 vs a 84

    What are the real differences between the model years 1982 vs. 1984 of the R65? Were there any improvements between those years? All you old salts please chime in... 82 30K 84 21K miles

  2. #2
    rabid reader dbrick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Santa Cruz CA
    Posts
    1,856
    I don't know of any differences in these small-frame bikes, 'tho I'm sure there are some.

    I'd buy by condition, not age or mileage.
    David Brick
    Santa Cruz CA
    2007 R1200R

  3. #3
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by tinkertoy View Post
    What are the real differences between the model years 1982 vs. 1984 of the R65? Were there any improvements between those years? All you old salts please chime in... 82 30K 84 21K miles
    Not sure of the differences, but would like the Red Headed Stepchild of the roundel in my garage. Looking for an LS though. There are two R675 for sale near me, let me know if you would like any info. on them.
    Happy New Years
    Cheers
    Will

  4. #4
    Happily Bent dieselyoda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Winnipeg, MB, Canada
    Posts
    698

    Where is near you?

    Quote Originally Posted by libwwv View Post
    Not sure of the differences, but would like the Red Headed Stepchild of the roundel in my garage. Looking for an LS though. There are two R675 for sale near me, let me know if you would like any info. on them.
    Happy New Years
    Cheers
    Will
    I have a friend with a '79 R65 with the bikini fairing and Snowflake rims. Small frame, small displacement, he rockets past my K75S, K1100RS and my R1100RT from a squat. Loose him in the hills but burns me in the twisty.

    I would be quite interested in finding a keeper that needs some TLC.
    1997 R1100RT (Restored Basket Case) , 1981 KZ 440 LTD (Restored Basket Case)
    1986 K75S(the beutch), 1993 K1100RS (blown engine), 1997 Chev Short Box (4x4 with an LT1)
    "You can easily judge the character of a man by how he treats those who can do nothing for him."

  5. #5
    #13338 PGlaves's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    "Big Bend" TX
    Posts
    9,427
    As far as I know there are no practical differences between the '82 and '84 models. The 79-80 models had the points in a can and round air filter. Later models had the electronic ignition and flat air filter but the break was between '80 and '81.
    Paul Glaves - "Big Bend", Texas U.S.A
    "The greatest challenge to any thinker is stating the problem in a way that will allow a solution." - Bertrand Russell
    http://web.bigbend.net/~glaves/

  6. #6
    rabid reader dbrick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Santa Cruz CA
    Posts
    1,856
    Also, R65 models up to 1980 had ATE brakes, and 1981-on had Brembo.
    David Brick
    Santa Cruz CA
    2007 R1200R

  7. #7
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by dieselyoda View Post
    I have a friend with a '79 R65 with the bikini fairing and Snowflake rims. Small frame, small displacement, he rockets past my K75S, K1100RS and my R1100RT from a squat. Loose him in the hills but burns me in the twisty.

    I would be quite interested in finding a keeper that needs some TLC.
    I'm located near Indy. Check Craigslist, they're listed on it. One is $2,400, and the other is $1,900?? Both with 30,000 miles.
    let me know if you're interested, possibly take a third party look after the holidays.
    Cheers
    Will

  8. #8
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by PGlaves View Post
    As far as I know there are no practical differences between the '82 and '84 models. The 79-80 models had the points in a can and round air filter. Later models had the electronic ignition and flat air filter but the break was between '80 and '81.
    Thank you for your your insight. Would like to have a RHSC of the bunch, in LS clothing.
    Thanks again
    Will

  9. #9
    Registered User lkchris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Albuquerque, NM
    Posts
    5,104
    Somewhere in the early 1980s the "shift kit" for the transmission was relevant.

    Certainly the '84 will have the upgraded parts.

    In any event the answer for BMW models is always newer is better.
    Kent Christensen
    21482
    '12 R1200RT, '02 R1100S, '84 R80G/S

  10. #10
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Marion,Ar.
    Posts
    5,173
    Kent, has a point. But, I look it at it a little different. I tend to view BMW's as the best bike available their given year. Yes, for those with money, they can afford to get a new bike every year and have the best available. Good for them. I don't have the resources for that. I study bikes and make my buys on a history of the type of bike with their positives and negatives looking back. And on bikes I really want to own or are a complete steal. Like the previous poster stated '82/'84 pretty much the same. You evaluate on price, condition, accessories value and so on. From what I know about R65s, they were kinda strange in that they used a lot of the components from the larger series of twins. Do to that thay were fairly expensive. You could buy a plain R80 for just a little than price of a R65. Looks like it's a tossup on the bikes your lookin at. Good luck on your decision.

  11. #11
    Registered User lkchris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Albuquerque, NM
    Posts
    5,104
    My point was that an '84 is better than an '82 simply because there could have been running updates. I was staying on topic and not recommending the obvious 2015 R1200RT.

    Off topic, I always feel a twinge of nostalgia over something lost when thinking of the early R65s, as IMHO they were the last BMW boxer twins suitable for shorter individuals. A "lowered chassis" is a compromise to avoid IMHO, although apparently the new watercooled RTs are basically lower than previous versions without special chassis components offered as options.
    Kent Christensen
    21482
    '12 R1200RT, '02 R1100S, '84 R80G/S

  12. #12
    #13338 PGlaves's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    "Big Bend" TX
    Posts
    9,427
    Quote Originally Posted by lkchris View Post
    My point was that an '84 is better than an '82 simply because there could have been running updates. I was staying on topic and not recommending the obvious 2015 R1200RT.

    Off topic, I always feel a twinge of nostalgia over something lost when thinking of the early R65s, as IMHO they were the last BMW boxer twins suitable for shorter individuals. A "lowered chassis" is a compromise to avoid IMHO, although apparently the new watercooled RTs are basically lower than previous versions without special chassis components offered as options.
    Well, to be contrarian the later-is-better rule of thumb is not always true. The 1977 models were arguably among the very best and the 1978 models were vastly inferior - arguably the worst year ever.
    Paul Glaves - "Big Bend", Texas U.S.A
    "The greatest challenge to any thinker is stating the problem in a way that will allow a solution." - Bertrand Russell
    http://web.bigbend.net/~glaves/

  13. #13
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Marion,Ar.
    Posts
    5,173
    Paul, I consider you to be a expert on BMW's. Why are the '78 models so bad? I'm just trying to learn. Thanks much in advance.

  14. #14
    #13338 PGlaves's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    "Big Bend" TX
    Posts
    9,427
    Quote Originally Posted by barryg View Post
    Paul, I consider you to be a expert on BMW's. Why are the '78 models so bad? I'm just trying to learn. Thanks much in advance.
    Well, 1978 was a year in which there were new air quality regulations. In some hope of meeting them BMW made two critical changes to the engines. One was the elimination of the "squish band", some turbulance inducing machining and shaping on the pistons. Second was a three degree alteration in the timing.

    I think but can't remember for certainty that they also reduced the compression ratio. The end result was the engines - to put it simply - ran poorly. They were difficult to tune and to keep in tune. They had a tendency to ping under load even with premium high octane fuel.
    Paul Glaves - "Big Bend", Texas U.S.A
    "The greatest challenge to any thinker is stating the problem in a way that will allow a solution." - Bertrand Russell
    http://web.bigbend.net/~glaves/

  15. #15
    Administrator 20774's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    San Antonio, TX
    Posts
    14,267
    My 9/77 build /7 has been a great bike. Possibly some of the changes mentioned didn't take place until 1/78 but I've never been able to verify that.
    Kurt -- Forum Administrator ---> Resources and Links Thread <---
    '78 R100/7 & '69 R69S & '52 R25/2
    mine-ineye-deatheah-pielayah-jooa-kalayus. oolah-minane-hay-meeriah-kal-oyus-algay-a-thaykin', buddy!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •