Just throwing out the question, other than tradition what are the compelling reason(s) for BMW to keep the boxer engine? The advantages BMW always touted were its cylinders were both out in the airstream for efficient cooling and the inherent primary balance of the opposed cylinders. It's now going fully liquid cooled and with modern counterbalancing it's not necessary to have opposed cylinders for smooth running. And with the crankshaft up so high it doesn't provide a particularly low COG. It's more expensive to manufacture than in-line motors. It does offer a longitudinal crank for shaft drive but so can a parallel twin or in-line triple.
-
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?
-
Beginning April 1st, and running through April 30th, there is a new 2024 BMW MOA Election discussion area within The Club section of the forum. Within this forum area is also a sticky post that provides the ground rules for participating in the Election forum area. Also, the candidates statements are provided. Please read before joining the conversation, because the rules are very specific to maintain civility.
The Election forum is here: Election Forum
Why boxer engine now that it's liquid cooled?
- Thread starter milo
- Start date
elementist
Member
I just bought one, I love it, but I think the 1250 r/rs market would shrink a lot if they made shaft drive naked/sport touring off the 1000.
And that probably shoots them in the foot as they'll have too many overlapping purpose inline 4 1000s as they went adventure with the xr already, and have the 1000r naked. I wonder which naked bike sells better.
It's a shame the f900 went adventure instead of sport touring with the belt drive in my opinion, it's why I ended up with the 1250RS, which to your point had little to do with the motor itself being a boxer and more to do with the overall package.
The GS and RT I think it's more about heritage with the paralever and boxer setup. It doesn't have all its original advantages anymore, but the package is really good and the drawbacks are ones people have been ready to accept for a long time.
And that probably shoots them in the foot as they'll have too many overlapping purpose inline 4 1000s as they went adventure with the xr already, and have the 1000r naked. I wonder which naked bike sells better.
It's a shame the f900 went adventure instead of sport touring with the belt drive in my opinion, it's why I ended up with the 1250RS, which to your point had little to do with the motor itself being a boxer and more to do with the overall package.
The GS and RT I think it's more about heritage with the paralever and boxer setup. It doesn't have all its original advantages anymore, but the package is really good and the drawbacks are ones people have been ready to accept for a long time.
chadhargis
Member
I've never owned or ridden a LC boxer, so I don't have a lot to say about those engines.
But the boxer engine appeals to be for a few reasons, none of which are "cooling".
1) Looks - I love seeing the motor and the boxer has always been a conversation piece as it's on prominent display.
2) Ease of Maintenance - Having owned parallel twins, V-twins, and inline 4 engines, I can tell you that none of them are easier to maintain than a boxer. Valve adjustments are a breeze. Spark plug changes are quick and easy. The only downside is when you have to do a clutch...that's quite a job.
3) Feel - The feel of a boxer is unique. Just like Harley guys who love the "potato potato" cadence of their bikes, I love the way a boxer feels. The way it torques the bike when you rev it. It adds character. It's not just another bike, it is unique in that only Moto Guzzi and Ural have similar configurations. And Moto Guzzi is really a v-twin...so in essence only Ural offers a boxer besides BMW....which is a copy of a BMW.
4) Heritage - Yeah...it's cool that BMW has been buiding boxers since 1923.
5) Sound - Yes...I like the agricultural sound of the boxer. I also own a Subaru WRX...so boxers are sort of my thing.
6) Ties to Aircraft - Many reciprocating aircraft engines are boxer designs. That dovetails right into BMW's roots and the logo.
Having owned the latest cutting edge technology in motorcycling, I find it too sterile and "perfect". It's the imperfection of the boxer that draws me to it. The character. The way it makes me feel when I ride. I am fully aware that an inline 4 is a superior engine configuration. They are cheaper to build, more powerful, and are probably more reliable too. But there is just something missing when I ride one of the new ballistic cruise missile bikes. They just don't seem to have much personality.
But the boxer engine appeals to be for a few reasons, none of which are "cooling".
1) Looks - I love seeing the motor and the boxer has always been a conversation piece as it's on prominent display.
2) Ease of Maintenance - Having owned parallel twins, V-twins, and inline 4 engines, I can tell you that none of them are easier to maintain than a boxer. Valve adjustments are a breeze. Spark plug changes are quick and easy. The only downside is when you have to do a clutch...that's quite a job.
3) Feel - The feel of a boxer is unique. Just like Harley guys who love the "potato potato" cadence of their bikes, I love the way a boxer feels. The way it torques the bike when you rev it. It adds character. It's not just another bike, it is unique in that only Moto Guzzi and Ural have similar configurations. And Moto Guzzi is really a v-twin...so in essence only Ural offers a boxer besides BMW....which is a copy of a BMW.
4) Heritage - Yeah...it's cool that BMW has been buiding boxers since 1923.
5) Sound - Yes...I like the agricultural sound of the boxer. I also own a Subaru WRX...so boxers are sort of my thing.
6) Ties to Aircraft - Many reciprocating aircraft engines are boxer designs. That dovetails right into BMW's roots and the logo.
Having owned the latest cutting edge technology in motorcycling, I find it too sterile and "perfect". It's the imperfection of the boxer that draws me to it. The character. The way it makes me feel when I ride. I am fully aware that an inline 4 is a superior engine configuration. They are cheaper to build, more powerful, and are probably more reliable too. But there is just something missing when I ride one of the new ballistic cruise missile bikes. They just don't seem to have much personality.
kbasa
Well-known member
Boxers still carry their weight fairly low in the chassis, roughly aligned with the axles. The opposed twin requires smaller counterbalancers, meaning less weight. Serviceability is still terrific, with valve adjustments far easier to manage than trying to get between frame spars. The packaging makes it easy to direct power and the inclusion of a wet clutch and removing the bell housing for a dry clutch has made the motor far shorter. This allows a far longer swingarm and improved chassis controls. The boxer motor makes it easier to add telelever, which is stupendous.
But, for me, the water boxer is far different than any of the preceding boxer motors BMW has made. They were grumbly when pushed, revved lethargically, and typically made poor power, despite what BMW fans said. Oilheads were "fast for a BMW", but not all that powerful or terribly enthusiastic about their mission. I have a hexhead. It's more power, but it's also in the "I'll do it if I have to" camp of performance.
The water boxer is completely different. It loves to rev. It's not grumbly about it. It makes more power over a broader range than its predecessors. It's a modern engine.
But let's be clear about why BMW keeps a boxer around - it's heritage, just Porsche's boxer 6 or BMW's inline 6 for their cars. It's their unique value proposition during a sale. It's their identity. I've been riding BMW for 45 years and while I had a couple K bikes, I went back to boxers because I like them.
So, IMHO, BMW keeps boxers because they are their heritage and identity. They learned in 1985 that if you take away boxers, people will stop buying BMWs, to some degree.
So, that's why. It's a wonderful power plant that's been refined to a fare thee well and it represents a hundred years of BMW motorcycling, showing a direct line from the GS in my garage all the way back to the R23.
It's more than just an engineering exercise. They have to sell product and boxers are their identity.
But, for me, the water boxer is far different than any of the preceding boxer motors BMW has made. They were grumbly when pushed, revved lethargically, and typically made poor power, despite what BMW fans said. Oilheads were "fast for a BMW", but not all that powerful or terribly enthusiastic about their mission. I have a hexhead. It's more power, but it's also in the "I'll do it if I have to" camp of performance.
The water boxer is completely different. It loves to rev. It's not grumbly about it. It makes more power over a broader range than its predecessors. It's a modern engine.
But let's be clear about why BMW keeps a boxer around - it's heritage, just Porsche's boxer 6 or BMW's inline 6 for their cars. It's their unique value proposition during a sale. It's their identity. I've been riding BMW for 45 years and while I had a couple K bikes, I went back to boxers because I like them.
So, IMHO, BMW keeps boxers because they are their heritage and identity. They learned in 1985 that if you take away boxers, people will stop buying BMWs, to some degree.
So, that's why. It's a wonderful power plant that's been refined to a fare thee well and it represents a hundred years of BMW motorcycling, showing a direct line from the GS in my garage all the way back to the R23.
It's more than just an engineering exercise. They have to sell product and boxers are their identity.
kbasa
Well-known member
I had a 916 Ducati and it was OK, but the front cylinder was kind of a pain in the butt. But yeah.
I think boxers are the BMW brand identity for a lot of riders.
Indeed but Ducati utilizes a transverse V-twin, I was referring to a longitudinal V-twin like Moto Guzzi uses, Honda's GL 500/650, etc,. with the crankshaft front to back, cylinder heads out to each side.
The LC boxer no longer has the clutch at the rear of the engine. It's now in the front, multi-plate, and "wet" as well. Makes it far easier to service than its predecessors. The downside is, it's the alternator in the rear now, and unfortunately, there are still some failures reported in the earliest years, and it's very expensive to replace.
I would also respectfully disagree with your reasoning that there is no appeal to the boxer engine due to its ability for cooling (if I read that right).
Whether air cooled or water cooled, naked or covered, with or without farings that direct air over the exposed heads and radiator(s) equally, a boxer on a motorcycle has always cooled itself better than an inline engine, and better than v-twin or inline engines oriented front to back. Adding additional water cooling to the BMW boxer has allowed the engine to run even cooler, increase horsepower, and meet emissions standards better than their predecessors.
Pretty simple reason, actually.
BMW tried disposing of the boxer twin once before and it didn't go well. Those who ignore history are bound to repeat it.
pglaves
#13338
Those who ignore history are bound to repeat it.
Indeed
For example, the 1983 through 1985 K100 bikes had a fuel strip and both amber and red fuel lights. The strips were horrible and the amber lights often stayed on even with a full tank of gas. Many owners just put tape over the amber light and ignored the red one which might or might not come on when the tanks was almost full or empty.
For the 1986 and later K100, K75, and K1100 bikes BMW used a float arm system which was actually useful and reliable.
But then later those designers all retired or otherwise left their specific jobs and the new folks thought fuel strips would be a keen idea. So we got multiple failures, eventual 12 year warranties to stop the threatened litigation, and the beat goes on.
stevenrankin
Active member
Fort nine
I happened to listen to the YouTube guy, Fort nine? Explaining the differences between engine configurations, advantages and disadvantages. LOL, he thinks the BMW boxer engine is stupid. Just goes to show there are a lot of different opinions out there. St.
I happened to listen to the YouTube guy, Fort nine? Explaining the differences between engine configurations, advantages and disadvantages. LOL, he thinks the BMW boxer engine is stupid. Just goes to show there are a lot of different opinions out there. St.
mikegalbicka
Back in the saddle again
That is just really hard for me to comprehend. Makes my head hurt just to try so I quit.
etiennelau
Member
My ICE cage is a 2001 Subaru Forester. My 2010 R1200RT are both boxers no need to say more.
I think so. After a Chevy Suburban broadsided me from the right my R1100GS's complete right cylinder (with header still attached) was laying in the road 75' away. My right leg wasn't injured at all and I believe that was because the Suburban's bumper impacted the right cylinder and pannier driving my bike sideways but tearing both off.
stevenrankin
Active member
Crash Test
My second accident was an off angle broadside by a car. While my leg was broken, it was not removed in part because of the cylinder and saddle bags. Not the ideal safety feature but hey, I am happy. St.
My second accident was an off angle broadside by a car. While my leg was broken, it was not removed in part because of the cylinder and saddle bags. Not the ideal safety feature but hey, I am happy. St.
jammess
Jammess
"But, for me, the water boxer is far different than any of the preceding boxer motors BMW has made. They were grumbly when pushed, revved lethargically, and typically made poor power, despite what BMW fans said. Oilheads were "fast for a BMW", but not all that powerful or terribly enthusiastic about their mission. I have a hexhead. It's more power, but it's also in the "I'll do it if I have to" camp of performance."
Hi Kbasa. In your previous thread I pretty much agree with you except for the above paragraph quote. Output power requirements are very opinion driven but what could possibly be bad or wanton about an 1100 series BMW with a power output of 90HP? Seems to me that 90 horse on a motorcycle like an R1100RS that weighs just over 500 pounds is most adequate and performs adequately in all respects.
Other than this I pretty much agree with you assessments. Well, I still prefer a dry clutch air cooled motorcycle if nothing else for simplicity sake. Like the old proverb says..."Keep it simple stupid".
Oh, and you can keep your hydraulic clutches as well.
Hi Kbasa
. In your previous thread I pretty much agree with you except for the above paragraph quote. Output power requirements are very opinion driven but what could possibly be bad or wanton about an 1100 series BMW with a power output of 90HP? Seems to me that 90 horse on a motorcycle like an R1100RS that weighs just over 500 pounds is most adequate and performs adequately in all respects. Other than this I pretty much agree with you assessments. Well, I still prefer a dry clutch air cooled motorcycle if nothing else for simplicity sake. Like the old proverb says..."Keep it simple stupid".
Oh, and you can keep your hydraulic clutches as well.
