• 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

Conceptual Reliability

B

BUBBAZANETTI

Guest
Just some random thoughts here.

if someone were to ask you, "what is the most reliable BMW" how would you reply?

i think about this having recently transitioned from Oilhead to Airhead, there are some marked differences. i knew this well because i'd come to an Oilhead from an Airehad, but i was young, naive and basically never touched anything on it. i received it crusty, kept it crusty and left it crusty. now that i'm actually digging into some of the major mechanical systems, i've come to realize why they have a good reputation as a tinkerers bike.

the Oilhead just ran, the same way, every day, every push of the starter.

the Airhead seems to idle differently if there's a few clouds in the sky or if you sit further back on the seat.

i appreciate the simplicity, but one has to have a much more intricate "feel" for their particular machine, something i'm slowly acquiring.
 
I was quite close to posting a similar thread; but about Honda/Nissan/etc cars. They have a reputation as being bulet-proof million mile cars, but every one I'm familiar with has 80k or less on them, and they're crapping out. Whereas, everyone I know who has an older domestic vehicle has at least 160k on them. My brothers truck had 225k on it when he bought it.

But, I guess the "reliability" of the machine reflects on the owner. Their attention to detail, or just their willingness to "tinker."

People who like to maintain old vehicles buy old vehicles. People who don't, buy new ones and jump from year to year to the newer one. Which, in my opinion, the maintenance of an older machine is a drop in the ocean compared the the boatloads of money it takes to buy new, eat the depreciation, and do it all over again.

I'd say the airhead engine, or whole bike, is quite reliable. You can rely on it if you do even the most basic maintenance to it. But, people don't want to maintain. They don't want to think about oils and valves and seals.. maybe that's why some new cars are coming out without dipsticks.

/rambling
 
I'd agree there. The airhead may not run as consistently as a computer controlled new bike, but it's not a bad design; just an odd one.

The fundamental truth about airheads is that the ones we hear anecdotes about going hundreds of thousands of miles are usually well maintained one-owner bikes. The ones we buy used with less than 3,000 miles a year on them if you average it out, and/or multiple owners; are Pandora's boxes on wheels. You never know what you're going to find in there.
 
Last edited:
I never owned a totally reliable bike. If I endorsed one it would break. That said,
my 87 K75S ain't bad, needed shift fork & drum at about 90K. Just normal stuff
before and since and it's got 180+ on it now.
 
Reliability and BMW are seldom used in the same sentence.

Think of it this way: BMWs are LOTS closer to Ferraris than they are Camrys. This assuming the common assumptions regarding those two cars and maybe referring a bit to the days of 6-carbs on the Ferrari.

Defining reliability is tough in any event. The Airheads, for example, require lots of work but you can do it. The newer bikes don't require as much, but when they do it isn't simple. Which is more "reliable," then?

"Reliable" IMHO for sure doesn't mean "never have to do anything." NOTHING's reliable if you don't follow the manufacturer's service schedule and only when you do you're going to get as close to bulletproof as you'll ever get.

"Reliable" and "cheap to run" are not the same thing, then, as following the prescribed maintenance schedule isn't necessarily cheap.
 
108625 said:
I'd agree there. The airhead may not run as consistently as a computer controlled new bike, but it's not a bad design; just an odd one.

The fundamental truth about airheads is that the ones we hear anecdotes about going hundreds of thousands of miles are usually well maintained one-owner bikes. The ones we buy used with less than 3,000 miles a year on them if you average it out, and/or multiple owners; are Pandora's boxes on wheels. You never know what you're going to find in there.
Click to expand...

I recently saw an ad where a potential buyer was advertising for a used airhead. He did not care how many miles it had, nor what the cosmetics were like; he did care about the maintenance and was seeking a bike with service records. It seems he was an experienced airhead guy based on the above. This is in line with your thinking ,and something I agree with.

I bought a used airhead about four years ago. I knew the history and the owner. There were some records but not a lot. Not a lot of miles either. I purchased the bike and rode it for one year with little required maintenance, then things went south. Let's just say, I spent a lot of money and did a fair amount of work. The bike is now well sorted. Next time? I'll go for the one owner bike, with records, or failing that, the two or three owner bike...with service records.
 
Most reliable?

Oh yeah. Most reliable BMW? The one that is well maintained and "looked after", regardless of type or model, although some of the latest Beemer's seem to have "issues" and are expensive to repair. I have owned K's, oilheads, and airhead bikes, and find all reliable with regular maintenance. The airheads are the easiest for an owner to work on. Labor cost at a shop is high, plus one for the airheads. The K's and oilheads are not as easy but not bad either compared to some. My most reliable bike was a K75S I owned, but my "94 RSL is not far behind.
 
lkchris said:
Think of it this way: BMWs are LOTS closer to Ferraris than they are Camrys. This assuming the common assumptions regarding those two cars and maybe referring a bit to the days of 6-carbs on the Ferrari.
Click to expand...

i think i'd equate an airhead to something like a Volvo P1800

what is the "Camry of Motorcycles"???

it seems, by their nature; high revving machines built for performance and modest weight, that car like reliability will never be the norm.

is the Goldwing the Camry of Motorcycles?
 
This sounds like a chautauqua I read, maybe 30 years ago. The discussion was about Quality, but it sounded pretty similar to this...
 
I would reply "K75".

Legendary reliability can also be found in the Toyota Camry, but the winner is, in my humble opinion,

Honda 1.6L VTEC engine​
 
In order of reliability in the BMW's I have had since 76 it would be
91 K75RT
78 R100/6
76R75/6
04 1150RT

I've only had one real failure in the airheads and that was a carb diaphragm but they did require regular maintenance in that the valves had to be adjusted regularly and the charging system, especially on the 75/6 lacked real ability to maintain a battery.

The K75 just ran and ran. It did have problems once the gas was replaced with gasahol as part of the clean air movement. Once the alcohol gas mixture started being all I could get, the rubber parts inside the tank started to degrade. I had to replace the pump vibration dampener and hoses every year and also lost 2 fuel pumps because of the rubber bits degrading.
 
108625 said:
we hear anecdotes about going hundreds of thousands of miles are usually well maintained one-owner bikes
Click to expand...

..and not only that, but they're old enough to have gone that far. Their age is their opportunity to pack on the miles. Thus, it seems that they may be more reliable than a new bike which hasn't had the time to rack up the miles.
 
Reliability is running without failures between routinely scheduled maintenance activities.

My airheads met that criteria, my Honda met that criteria, my Norton and Triumph did not.

I recently took the cylinders off of Diann's R60/7 for a rebore, aproximately 220,000 miles. At that point as I was looking into the engine I realized that I'd never had the crank or camshaft out of the bike.

Couldn't say that about the Norton or Triumph at 15,000 miles.

I presume every BMW model is capable of almost complete reliability, just like all the Japanese machines.

Regards, Rod.
 
Rod Sheridan said:
Reliability is running without failures between routinely scheduled maintenance activities.

My airheads met that criteria, my Honda met that criteria, my Norton and Triumph did not.

I recently took the cylinders off of Diann's R60/7 for a rebore, aproximately 220,000 miles. At that point as I was looking into the engine I realized that I'd never had the crank or camshaft out of the bike.

Couldn't say that about the Norton or Triumph at 15,000 miles.

I presume every BMW model is capable of almost complete reliability, just like all the Japanese machines.

Regards, Rod.
Click to expand...

unfortunately, it's very rare the engine internals that make a (modern) bike unreliable. while never leaving me stranded, my R1100S did have a number of final drive issues. airheads seem to be prone to charging system weakness. when i think reliability, rarely do i think crankshafts, con-rods or cams, unless there was a design flaw, but they seem rarer and rarer from the early 80s onward.
 
crazydrummerdude said:
I was quite close to posting a similar thread; but about Honda/Nissan/etc cars. They have a reputation as being bulet-proof million mile cars, but every one I'm familiar with has 80k or less on them, and they're crapping out.
Click to expand...

Really? I bought an '83 Accord with 90K on it in '89 and drove it for 8 years, finally letting it go at about 240K when the head-gasket failed. Otherwise it was still a great car and never stranded me anywhere.
I replaced the Accord with a '91 Integra that had 109K on it but seemed like it was only 6 months old instead of 6 years. 5 Years later at 245K I bought another car and gave the Acura to a friend who desperately needed some wheels. it still ran like the proverbial clock.
Back in college I knew a guy who had an '83 Civic that he finally sold with 400K miles on it...and the car still looked and ran great. He just needed a change after having it for so long.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

rocinante
Ignorant Newbie Wants BMW Buying Advice
2 3 4
Replies
72
Views
6K
globalrider
globalrider
K
Update for reliability?
Replies
6
Views
2K
ktmdon
K
C
2004 K1200GT - Ahhh, the clutch
Replies
4
Views
1K
ts888
ts888
S
ABS pressure modulator.
Replies
0
Views
540
sdfarmkid
S
E
whatta u think its worth?
2
Replies
21
Views
3K
eastbay
E
Back
Top