What was wrong with the Criusers?

I love the BMW Phoenix and Montauk.

What would you have done to them if you were an engineer at BMW to make them more acceptable to the Cruiser crowd?

How could they evolved to make them compete with the HDs & VTXs?

Is there any chance that BMW will again pick up a cruiser line.

They under powered them. The other BMWs of the time had lots more power.

You would have to take the pipes off so they sounded right

Ohlins shocks and pipes with more "authority" for starters.

The Four P's - Power, Pipes, Phatand Profile

They were underpowered.
They sounded like a BMW not a crusier.
They had the lines and style but somehow they did not look Pretty hot and tempting.
and for the time they needed a big fat rear tire profile.

I took a demo on one. I owned a K11RS at the time. I had previously owned a H-D FLH (fat loud heavy).
The R12C tried to straddle the fence between a BMW (a definitive sport-tourer) and a cruiser (long on looks and "feel", short on power and handling). It ended up being neither fish nor fowl- it did not have real BMW handling nor power, nor did it have the classic cruiser sound or look to it.
i seriously doubt that BMW could have made the break necessary from their own history to make that bike competitive in that particular arena.

Much like the V-Rod is not seen as a "Harley" in its own market, the R1200C was not seen as a "BMW" in its own market.

Harley has learned over the decades that anything that doesn't fit the HD mold doesn't sell. That is probably THE main reason HDs are still the bikes they are, heavy, low slung, under-powered, but shiny and make the desired noise. Its simply what sells in the USA.

BMW tried, but in the respects others mentioned missed the "cruiser" mark by a long shot. Even a HD made more torque, but the R1200C had the HP, if you spun it. Perhaps if BMW had really been different and made a cruiser with comfort and smooth, useable real power it might have done better. But since it was down alomst 20hp compared to other Oilheads it simply didn't fit.

Love my '98 C

Classic and elegant styiling, powerful looks and superb handling are all descriptive terms for the entire C family. Put on a set of ZTech pipes and it sounds great, too. BMW stopped selling them because they stopped marketing them. In 98 or 99, they were the top selling model in the US.

Lots of cruiser enthusiasts over at chromeheads.org. But we are definitely the afterthought of the BMW crowd.

Good thing you all make me feel so welcome here!

This is an apples vs oranges discussion. The R1200C models aren't like BMWs and they aren't like other cruisers? So what. They are low hp for the market, that's a fact; even BMWs product line proves this. They aren't like HD, because they're shaft drive. They aren't watercooled. It's more about what they aren't that is a positive thing, for me. They kick butt when riding with those other cruisers and I can keep up with lots of sport bikes around our mountain roads. I like this comment I received from a two-up on an ST1100 after a group ride one day, "We thought we'd stay in the rear with you, 'cause you'd go slow, but you really hauled ***!" Geez, I was only slow to leave the parking lot because I was still putting on my riding gear.

There is Nothing Wrong with the Cruiser.

I've owned Hondas to Harleys Airheads and K bikes. Still have my 73 R75/5 toaster. The best and ONLY comment I ever got on a motorcycle was on my 2002 R1200c. They noted: "Now there is a bike that when they designed it they didn't look at any other motorcycle". This is why I own two. The other being a sidecar rig.
Under-power? How fast and how often are you riding over 100? In your rush hour? HA!
Comfort? I did the iron butt's SS1000 on a stock bike. 35 bikes out me the last, I was 5th back in under 16.5 hours. Dream ride.
As they say, to each their own... I agree...
But above all it's not another cookie cutter clone. Nothing else looks rides or handles like it and if you keep calling yourself an individual, it's certainly the right place to start.

I looked at a couple CLC's. I actually didn't mind the look other than the "leather" bags. I really liked the driving position and height. What did turn me off was the low power. Once I found out about that issue I never looked at them again. I was looking to move up in power from a K75RT and the CLC just didn't cut it. Damn STUPID decision on the part of BMW to detune the engine. I hope whoever made that decision is now selling scooters in Greenland.

Most everybody hit it on the head with the lack of power. They could have been more successful if they sounded better and had more oomph, they didn't and faded away.....Why they were de-tuned like that only BMW knows, but an RT engine would have been very nice...

bobs98 said:

Classic and elegant styiling, powerful looks and superb handling are all descriptive terms for the entire C family. Put on a set of ZTech pipes and it sounds great, too. BMW stopped selling them because they stopped marketing them. In 98 or 99, they were the top selling model in the US.

Lots of cruiser enthusiasts over at chromeheads.org. But we are definitely the afterthought of the BMW crowd.

Good thing you all make me feel so welcome here!

Click to expand...

"superb handling"? well, maybe compared to another cruiser, but not even close to other BMWs. and certainly not compared to the more sporting models.

remember- the question of this thread was "what was WRONG with the Cruisers?".. not "What do you love about your C model?"

Only thing wrong with the cruiser is that I didn't buy mine sooner.

To each his own. First time I laid my eyes on a BMW cruiser all I could think was wow, that is one ugly motorcycle.

I read the reviews and threads like this one and didn't consider even looking at a C or CLC. I ran across a brown 2003 CLC about this time last year at a really good price. I bought it with the intent of selling it for a profit in the spring. When I rode it the first time, I didn't like it. I then made the mistake of riding it for a few weeks and got used to it. The horsepower is down considerably from the RT of the same year but the torque is within a couple. In real life, you brag about horsepower but use torque. I now wonder if anyone bashing the Cs have ever ridden on at all or more than around the block. I plan on keeping mine for a long time.

Most BMW riders think the CLCs are ugly (as I did) but I have gotten more positive comments on it than I ever received on the three other BMWs I have had over the last 11 or 12 years. I find riding my CLC to be very different from other BMWs but not in a bad way. If I'm going to ride on a twisty mountain road, I ride my R80RT. But if I want to cruise down the interstate on a cold or windy day, it sure is hard to beat a CLC. Size does count when the wind is blowing hard.

After 25 years without riding a bike, I returned four years ago after purchasing a beautiful Canyon Red 1998 R1200C. This is my first BMW so I have no others to compare it against. That being said, I have no complaints whatsoever with this bike.....especially in regards to handling and available power. It handles beautifully in the twisties and peg scraping is common.

If I had any complaints at all it would be about gas mileage. The best I get is no more than 45mpg. With the lower HP compared to an R1200RT for example, I'd like to see 50+mpg. Otherwise, that twin boxer just goes and goes all day long.

to answer the original question: NOTHING!

some points made:

under powered? the R1100RT had 72lb/ft of torque in the mid-range at ~640 lbs the C had 71lb/ft at ~595lbs with bags & windscreen. hmmmm, that tells me the RT must have been under powered as well yet I don't see or hear of too many folks asking what was wrong with them. Wonder if there is just an out of control obsession with mega-powered bikes in this day and age where no one wants to learn how to shift in order to pass safely or maybe it's just about bragging rights--beats me what the power craze is all about. I am perfectly happy with the cruiser's power just the way it is. My take on useful power: torque = real world legal speeds in the mid range of the RPM band -- high horse power = "go to jail" illegal speeds at the top of RPM range.

Handling? I can't ell you how many times I've had sport and sporttouring riders tell me they had no idea a cruiser could even come close to keeping up with them in the twisties, yet I do it on a regular basis.

fuel mileage bad? I average about 47mpg and have made one simple mod to the tank so my tank range is around 200 miles. That is plenty if you drive sensibly and stop to rest for the sake of safety and enjoyment of the trip.

comfort? I have ridden 1600-mile, 4-day trips on the stock seat with no problem; and 2200-mile, 5-day trips on custom seats again in total comfort. I have noticed that a very large percentage of owners of other BMWs switch to custom seats as soon as they purchase their bikes but seem to think the cruiser should have had a comfortable seat from the factory--can you say "double standard"?

Sound? Why does everyone think a cruiser has to be noisy to be a cruiser or to be any good? And next question; since when did BMW cave in to following the crowd? They should have stuck with the cruiser and all of it's differences just to be different like they used to always do. I don't think the cruiser in and of itself is the reason it didn't sell. I think it was poor marketing strategy on the part of BMW. Just because everyone else began making a mega-horse power cruiser should have simply opened the door for them to market the R1200 as the best mid-sized cruiser money could buy. That was true when they were still making them and is still true today almost 4 years after they quit making them. And funny ting is, the R1200C still out-performs most of the mega cruisers out there when you get to pure enjoyment of the ride, especially when it comes to comfort and handling.

dependability? I put 71K on my '99 in 4.5 years without a single problem until my bro-in-law totaled it. I have now put 46K on my '00; again without a single problem 3.25 years. Carrying that just a bit further, I regularly put 50% more miles on my cruiser than I do my RT year after year while avgeraging 28K/yr. (combined); wonder why?

Styling? (purely subjective of course) For me; the R1200C is at the top of fine looking BMWs right along side the R1100RT, R100RS and R90S. Here's a quick little story about styling and just how subjective it really is. Not long after I bought my '99 R1200C, I was parked in front of our local Wally World. When I came out of the store, I noticed a man standing behind it and obviously looking it over pretty good. As I approached, I commented, "strange lookin' critter ain't she." He turned to me and then looked back at the bike; then in a very slow southern drawl, said, "no sir, I do believe that has to be the prettiest bike I have ever seen." Well of course I just had to visit with this very observant man for a while longer. Come to find out, he was a retired moto-cop who had driven and loved his HD authority bikes for 25 years, yet he thinks the R1200C is the "prettiest bike" he had ever seen.

edit: Park a BMW cruiser at almost any rally sight and watch the crowds gather and rave about how cool it is or how beautiful, and get ready to field questions about handling, dependability, comfort, etc. This is especially true if you park in a crowd of Harleys. I said "almost" because the only place (group) that does not seem to embrace the R1200C is BMW people. I just don't get that, it is afterall a BMW through and through but is treated like a bastard step-child at nearly every BMW gathering I have been to.

Now, I fully realize the thread did not ask what I love about my cruiser, but I figured my single word response of NOTHING! probably needed some clarification as to why I think that. I figure that is only fair since most everyone else is telling why they think something was wrong with it.

edit after a bit of reflection: I suppose there would be a couple of things I considered "wrong" with the cruiser. They should have never put plastic turn signals and tail light housing on them and the chrome spoked wheels should have had a higher quality chrome job. I suspect European environmental regulations had something to do with the poor quality of the chrome though.

OHScot said:

To each his own. First time I laid my eyes on a BMW cruiser all I could think was wow, that is one ugly motorcycle.

Click to expand...

Most motorcycles are an acquired taste.

I still think it's ugly, that wasn't part of the question. But when I'm sitting on it I don't look at that much of it.

I know what's gone wrong with my cruiser, but as far as what's wrong with the whole BMW cruiser line, I guess the owners will let you know when and if we figure it out.

As far as "superb handling" or not when compared to other bikes and not just cruisers, I guess it depends on the rider. A lot of us run with mixed crowds. I can keep up with my friend who used to own a dealership and rides a Ducati, so he's no riding slouch. I tend to overrun other cruiser riders.

You see, no one told me my BMW wouldn't handle like, well, a BMW, so I tend to ride it like that.