6-cylinder BMW Tourer?

[Josmas]

I came across this on webBikeWorld (http://www.webbikeworld.com/BMW-motorcycles/). This is the total context... no source listed and no details.

"NEW! Rumors claim BMW will release a 6-cylinder touring bike for the U.S. market with a 1900cc, 24-valve engine to compete with the GoldWing but the K1200LT will still be sold"

The LT competes with the GW now and I can't imagine why any company would market two full size touring models. At least they did call it a rumor.

[meese]

Heard that one before. Didn't believe it then, either.

[ATFLT]

BMWRA has had that the new LT will be 6 cylinders for some time on their web site. That was posted in March I believe and nothing more since.

[kdog]

Heard that one before. Didn't believe it then, either.

No, no, it's true! It also has two rear drives. If one fails, you just throw a switch and the other one takes over. How cool is that?

[eljeffe]

And it flies through the air at supersonic speeds and gives pretty good blowjobs as well.

[eljeffe]

The LT competes with the GW now and I can't imagine why any company would market two full size touring models. At least they did call it a rumor.

I think the reasonable disclaimer would be -- until the current supply exhausted or already manufactured LTs are given away or sent to the scrap heap (because they won't be worth a wooden nickel after a new model comes out)

[scottydawg]

They won't be making two different luxo touring bikes but the new one will have a 6 cyl. in it. I have been saying that for 2 years and am positive it's true.

[Tallyho]

There is little question it is true at this point and confirmed by a number of sources inside and outside the company. BMWRA does have some details but it's all still speculative. Some say it will be a 2009 10th anniversary model and other say it will come as a 2010 model. BMW has taken a very aggressive stance to hit all the other bike manufacturers right between the eyes with new, desirable design/cost conquest sales(in case you hadn't noticed) and the mega-touring segment will be no exception. Big touring bikes are cashcows sold to riders with a good measure of discretionary income. The new GT is clearly the speedy one-up touring option with the redesigned RT a respectable and formidable option as well for those that prefer the traditional engine. The new bike will probably be significantly higher in price than the current LT and I would suggest it will be aimed at current Goldwing and FLHT riders will more vigor than current members of the marque. Sure BMW is after new younger riders to add to their stable of dedicated riders but it does not make sense to abandon their core customers that continue to age and "may" look ahead to a more automated luxury beast like an 1850cc megatourer. On a side note, don't forget what Honda did with the GL. They trimmed it down, put chrome on all the exterior pieces, and turned a pretty good coin with the Valkyrie cruiser. This concept was not lost on BMW and I suspect the new beast engine will be seen in more than one model.

[Randy]

I think the reasonable disclaimer would be -- until the current supply exhausted or already manufactured LTs are given away or sent to the scrap heap (because they won't be worth a wooden nickel after a new model comes out)Have you tried to find a new LT?

Something is up.

[Woolly]

Have you tried to find a new LT?

Something is up.

Check out my previous post CLICKY (http://www.bmwlt.com/forums/showthread.php?t=24648)

[jrlakin]

I know where there is a new LT on the showroom floor. Woodson's Motorsports in Ft Wayne Indiana.

[motorman587]

On the showroom, a pretty blue one.

[Tallyho]

There were a couple on the floor at A&S for Dell and Doug's departure a few weeks back. I am always suspicious of dealers pushing the release date further away. 2011? They need to spark interest and sell what they have in inventory now. Sierra BMW in Reno had one LT and a waiting list for new RTs just last week when a friend of mine bought his RT there. I do agree BMW may be shrinking their LT inventory for a new release. Perhaps it will be sooner rather than later? There are still a lot of K75 and K100 bikes around. While the value of the LT may be diminished with the release of a mega-tourer, the LT is still a fine piece of machinery that will be around for quite a while. I may well trade to an 06 or 07 model for a few years while they work the bugs out of the new one.

[Randy]

I know where there is a new LT on the showroom floor. Woodson's Motorsports in Ft Wayne Indiana.There may be some on dealer's floors, but the US distribution pipeline is practically dry. It may be that we will see some '08 models of the current configuration, but the supply of new LTs through the distribution channel dried up considerably by the beginning of this summer.

[jackd]

If you remember that is what happened with the '04 LT.. lasted till the old style went dry...

[kdog]

Why would they put a six in it when the new K engine has 167HP? They're going to design a completely new engine for touring? I have my doubts about that.

Cheers,
-joel

[scottydawg]

Why would they put a six in it when the new K engine has 167HP? They're going to design a completely new engine for touring? I have my doubts about that.

Cheers,
-joel

HP doesn't always make the torque you need... and I will make a friendly $1 wager on the 6 banger :D.

[Josmas]

HP doesn't always make the torque you need... and I will make a friendly $1 wager on the 6 banger :D.

That's true, but the LT's 4 hauls my fat a$$ :D around just fine and I'm not sure I'm willing to give up MPG for a little more low end torque, My brothers GW is a PIG! He gets the shot off the line, but after that they're pretty comparable.

[kdog]

HP doesn't always make the torque you need... and I will make a friendly $1 wager on the 6 banger :D.

You're on. (shake)

BTW, chew on this. Take two engines with the same displacement, but different number of cylinders. Everything else being equal, guess which one has more torque? ;)

-joel

[robasay]

I think the reasonable disclaimer would be -- until the current supply exhausted or already manufactured LTs are given away or sent to the scrap heap (because they won't be worth a wooden nickel after a new model comes out)

Every year that Honda came out with a new GW the older ones did not drop to the bottom. I have seen 20 yr old Wings going for $3K to $5K. What is important is that BMW's new model eliminate all of the consistent problems that they will not or have not changed (Rear Drives, Seal failure, Slave Cylinder failure etc.) Besides all vehicles depreciate unless you buy it new and park it in a climate controlled garage for 20+ years and keep zero miles on it and have all the original paperwork.

[cws]

Besides all vehicles depreciate unless you buy it new and park it in a climate controlled garage for 20+ years and keep zero miles on it and have all the original paperwork.OH SHIT! Why didn't someone say so before??? Now I've gone and messed up its value.... :rotf:

[fas]

Why would they put a six in it when the new K engine has 167HP? They're going to design a completely new engine for touring? I have my doubts about that.

Cheers,
-joel


Why a ten cyclinder in the cars? Because they believe there is a premium layer on top. See what folks are paying for the new turbo three and it does NOT have a LSD? People lay down money and BMW picks it up.:think:

My GT now has over 7,000 miles and it has been flawless. I like seeing 44 MPG. Ten years ago few expected a 152 HP GT would arrive in 2006. Even fewer had the vision to predict such superb suspension and braking technology. The lower cg of the dry sump design really adds to the nimble feeling.
:dance:

With the performance of my GT engine, I personally believe the LT would benefit using this powerplant.

[dshealey]

You're on. (shake)

BTW, chew on this. Take two engines with the same displacement, but different number of cylinders. Everything else being equal, guess which one has more torque? ;)

-joel
I will join Scotty and add another dollar Joel.

Yes, two engines with the SAME displacement but with 4 or 6 cylinders will certainly produce higher torque at the same RPM in the 4 cylinder. However, we are not talking the same displacement here. Add 50% greater displacement with the 50% higher number of cylinders, and the torque will certainly be much higher. My bet has been on a 6 cyl version of the newer K engine for some time now. Not a huge engineering development to add cylinders to an already worked out basic design.

[kdog]

I will join Scotty and add another dollar Joel.

Yes, two engines with the SAME displacement but with 4 or 6 cylinders will certainly produce higher torque at the same RPM in the 4 cylinder. However, we are not talking the same displacement here. Add 50% greater displacement with the 50% higher number of cylinders, and the torque will certainly be much higher. My bet has been on a 6 cyl version of the newer K engine for some time now. Not a huge engineering development to add cylinders to an already worked out basic design.

But why? A six cylinder version of the GT engine would produce somewhere in the neighborhood of 250HP. Do you think BMW is really going to produce a touring bike with that kind of power? How fast do you think such a bike could go? 180 MPH? 200? And what about the rest of the bike? Would it be up to the challenge? The current LT frame certainly wouldn't be. It has a propensity to start wobbling around 130 MPH. It's probably no coincidence that's also about as fast as it will go. Producing a 900lb touring bike loading with luggage with a stiff enough frame to go 200 MPH would be a real challenge. And to what end? What's the incentive? I think it would be a huge liability.

So, I'll take your dollar bet as well, David. I'll be amazed (but pleasantly so) if you're right.

Cheers,
-joel

[andy]

But why? A six cylinder version of the GT engine would produce somewhere in the neighborhood of 250HP. Do you think BMW is really going to produce a touring bike with that kind of power?

I'll add another $ to that. My money also is on a inline six.

WHY? Simple. Two reasons:

-) There is nothing smoother than an inline 6.
-) If Honda has a 6 cyl version in their flagship, BMW has to have one. Simple marketing. Right or wrong.

Personally I don't believe it will be tuned to 250HP, but something along the lines of 170-180 Maybe even less. There my bet is on more torque, less HP. and the S M O O T H E S T engine you can imagine as a design goal.

[kdog]

-) There is nothing smoother than an inline 6.
Both V6 and horizontally opposed 6 cylinder engines are smoother configurations than inline. And of course, any 8 cylinder engine would be even smoother. ;)

-) If Honda has a 6 cyl version in their flagship, BMW has to have one. Simple marketing. Right or wrong.
Simple marketing says that you need to leapfrog your competition, not merely match it. Simply adding another 2 cylinders inline would produce an insanely wide engine. The result would be that BMW has simply caught up to Honda in number of cylinders, but the horizontal configuration of the Honda still makes better sense.

If BMW wants to do something really radical, why not create a V8 from the new K motor by adding another bank of 4 cylinders behind the other 4. Whahoo! Now THAT would be something. :D

All dreams. I'll take your dollar bet as well.

-joel

[K1200LTryder]

http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s12/K1200LTryder/HPIM0283.jpg

[Randy]

I will join Scotty and add another dollar Joel.

Yes, two engines with the SAME displacement but with 4 or 6 cylinders will certainly produce higher torque at the same RPM in the 4 cylinder. However, we are not talking the same displacement here. Add 50% greater displacement with the 50% higher number of cylinders, and the torque will certainly be much higher. My bet has been on a 6 cyl version of the newer K engine for some time now. Not a huge engineering development to add cylinders to an already worked out basic design.I agree that it would be relatively easy for them to add a cylinder on each side. I also believe that they could make the stroke equal the bore on the current 55-degree 1200 and end up with a 1550cc (35% more displacement) engine. It would be narrow, lightweight and could easily be tuned to produce 30-40% more torque at lower rpm and still maintain as much horsepower as the current GT.

I'll put my dollar on a ~1400cc 4-cylinder and a six-speed transmission. 100 lbs lighter and slightly improved fuel economy. I don't think BMW needs displacement or cylinders to match the GoldWing - performance, range and comfort would be the way to beat Honda.

[kdog]

Awesome bike, Cliff! Probably the nicest looking CBX I've seen. So what's your prognosis on using an engine like that for the next LT? There must be some reason the CBX was only made for a few years, right?

Cheers,
-joel

[dshealey]

But why? A six cylinder version of the GT engine would produce somewhere in the neighborhood of 250HP. Do you think BMW is really going to produce a touring bike with that kind of power? How fast do you think such a bike could go? 180 MPH? 200? And what about the rest of the bike? Would it be up to the challenge? The current LT frame certainly wouldn't be. It has a propensity to start wobbling around 130 MPH. It's probably no coincidence that's also about as fast as it will go. Producing a 900lb touring bike loading with luggage with a stiff enough frame to go 200 MPH would be a real challenge. And to what end? What's the incentive? I think it would be a huge liability.

So, I'll take your dollar bet as well, David. I'll be amazed (but pleasantly so) if you're right.

Cheers,
-joel

Well, to get much higher low RPM torque of course. They could easily tune it for 160 horsepower with a LOT of torque down low. Just adding cylinders and displacement does not mean the horsepower has to be higher at all. Just shift the torque curve WAY down by induction system and valve timing changes to produce the power peak much lower. Adding cylinders would make that a pretty easy task. The current GT engine produces high 80 ft. pounds of torque, but at a very high RPM, thus the horspower rating. Produce that same, or higher torque peak at 3-5,000 RPM, and the horsepower would not be any higher, maybe even lower.

[K1200LTryder]

Well Joel <KDOG>, I would not recommend a Six like the CBX has, although it is VERY smooth, it is also VERY high strung. You dont get much power out of the engine under 4500 RPM, and you can forget about torque on the lower end. Around town riding is a bear, I would rather ride the LT around town because of its mannerisms, even at a slow speed. I guess that is probably why my transition into the LT was so easy for me. (The CBX is very top heavy as well).

BUT , and a big BUT, a larger displacement along with proper fuel injection and cam profiles would no doubt make the Six more tractable for touring, and put the torque curve in the freight train realm, plus yield decent fuel economy.

The nicest part about the CBX engine IMHO, is when it does make power, IT REALLY MAKES POWER, plus it sounds like a Ferrari 365 Daytona ( my old boss had one, swore I stole his car when he heard me coming down the street). No other bike has been able to produce the smooth power of an inline 6 like honda did with the CBX, not Kawasaki, nor Benelli. BMW probably could do it, part of me hopes they do, part hopes they dont.

Honda discontinued the CBX because of EPA emission standards, no from lack of sales or interest. They had to detune them starting in 1981, and gave up in '82. They refused to put a catalytic converter on the bike, citing weight and heating problems, but the real reason was horsepower. Plain and simple marketing......you just dont produce a superbike for it to be mediocre...

Regards.
Cliff

[Tallyho]

Another point is that BMW automobiles have a long, storied, and successful history of inline six cylinder engines and still use the same basic designs in their current production models. It has been refined to perfection over the last 60 years. My sources(friends in the fatherland) say the 1850 is not an expanded variation of the K40, 55 degree slant engine but all new. It would not take 4-5 years to develop a six cylinder variant.

It never ceases to amaze me how focused some folks are on speed especially with a Grand Luxury Touring bike. Where in the US can you ride 130mph for any extended period? Who really has the redundant skills for that kind of power without endangering themselves, their pillion, and anyone else in their way? Certainly not the demographic to which it will be marketed. The current LT engine is detuned for torque as will the new one I suspect. Who knows maybe they have some rocket bike version under development as well. A K1850RS? The return of a true Rennsport? It would be quite cost effective for them to develop 2-3 different platforms for a new engine design like they have for the last two new introductions on the F800 and G650 respectively.

[Josmas]

I don't think BMW needs displacement or cylinders to match the GoldWing - performance, range and comfort would be the way to beat Honda.

+1

I don't want them to make the LT more like a GW...That's why I bought a BMW.

[dshealey]

Another point is that BMW automobiles have a long, storied, and successful history of inline six cylinder engines and still use the same basic designs in their current production models. It has been refined to perfection over the last 60 years. -------------------------------------------

I agree. That basic 6 they have been building for so many years is probably one of the most bulletproof engines ever, along with the Toyota 22-R series 4's. One of my best friends had a 525i, and at 260,000 miles a head bolt broke and blew the head gasket. The shop tore it down to replace rings etc. since they were into the engine anyway, and found the pistons, cylinders, and bearings still well within specified wear tolerance!

I was so impressed with that car I bought a '94 525i that had 117,000 miles on it, and I now am at 178,000 with no signs of any problem. I have replaced suspension components, and normal wear items such as water pump and hoses, but it still runs like a top. Still looks darned good for a 15 year old car with that mileage too.

[BlackBMW]

+1

I don't want them to make the LT more like a GW...That's why I bought a BMW.

Yeah but I would like to have more torque (grunt) from the line and at lower RPMs. That is the only thing the GW has on the LT...

[kriach]

Yeah but I would like to have more torque (grunt) from the line and at lower RPMs. That is the only thing the GW has on the LT...

Why do you need more torque from the engine? You can't have more torque and still have the horsepower at the top end and the high red line.

It seems to me that the LT requires more thought and effort from the rider than the GW does. The GW is capable of starting from a dead stop in top gear, albeit with a lot of clutch slipping. THe LT requires that you use proper technique to start out and that you choose the appropriate gear as needed. The GW is more like an automatic, select a gear and roll on the throttle and wait for the desired speed. I enjoy the "extra work" of the LT and I would not like to see them change it at all. If they go to a six cylinder engine with more torque then the red line will be lowered accordingly due to the increased mass of the moving parts. GW has a 5500 redline vs the 8000 of the LT.

Just my opinion.

Ken

[K1200LTryder]

....redline on the CBX is 9500.... :D


....8500 on my LT, are the newer LT's lower ?

[dshealey]

Why do you need more torque from the engine? You can't have more torque and still have the horsepower at the top end and the high red line. --------------------------------

Just my opinion.

Ken

They could add two cylinders and move the flatter part of the torque curve much lower down the RPM range by proper tuning, still have far more horsepower at the higher RPMs than the current LT has, and make it far more tractable in the lower range for better take off. The newer K engine is certainly capable of very high RPM, and adding two cylinders to that design would retain most of that, but tuned for a more "touring" oriented bike. Great take off torque, and still have really good high RPM performance.

No doubt BMW could build a 6 cyl engine to give the low end "grunt" the GW has, but still have much better high RPM performance, which BMW is good at with their cars.

[kmurphy165]

Why do you need more torque from the engine? You can't have more torque and still have the horsepower at the top end and the high red line.

Hi, Ken.

Well, in answer to your question, I've had some puckering moments trying to get rolling on the LT fully loaded at max GVW uphill from a traffic light wondering if the LT was going to accelerate, stall or burn up the weak clutch. IMO the best improvement on the current design would be either much better start off torque, higher capacity clutch or higher final drive ratio. Having said that, 1 up, I have no real problem with the start off ability of the LT. But 2 up and/or luggage, and it becomes an iffy proposition.

Karl

[tkramer]

I'll put my dollar on a ~1400cc 4-cylinder and a six-speed transmission. 100 lbs lighter and slightly improved fuel economy.

If it was going to be just a re-tune of the transverse 4-banger it would have been delivered by now. And don't say "they have to get rid of the current LTs in stock". That's been said on this forum for over two years now. What, BMW has a 3-year planned production schedule? No, something big and different is afoot and they have to keep making flying brick LTs until the new one is ready for prime time.

This ain't your grandpa's BMW with only one or two mix-n-match motor platforms. I predict 6-cylinders, 6-7 gears (not including reverse), electric adjustable suspension, traction control, throttle by wire, windshield wiper, hydraulic centerstand, dynamically adjustable fork rake. And yes, it'll probably still weigh, at least, 800 pounds.

I don't think BMW needs displacement or cylinders to match the GoldWing - performance, range and comfort would be the way to beat Honda.

Neither do I. That's why I bought the LT. The Increase in displacement and cylinder count is merely to win the specification pissing matches amongst the measurebators.

[bruce2000ltc]

Well Joel <KDOG>, I would not recommend a Six like the CBX has, although it is VERY smooth, it is also VERY high strung. You dont get much power out of the engine under 4500 RPM, and you can forget about torque on the lower end. Around town riding is a bear, I would rather ride the LT around town because of its mannerisms, even at a slow speed. I guess that is probably why my transition into the LT was so easy for me. (The CBX is very top heavy as well).

BUT , and a big BUT, a larger displacement along with proper fuel injection and cam profiles would no doubt make the Six more tractable for touring, and put the torque curve in the freight train realm, plus yield decent fuel economy.

The nicest part about the CBX engine IMHO, is when it does make power, IT REALLY MAKES POWER, plus it sounds like a Ferrari 365 Daytona ( my old boss had one, swore I stole his car when he heard me coming down the street). No other bike has been able to produce the smooth power of an inline 6 like honda did with the CBX, not Kawasaki, nor Benelli. BMW probably could do it, part of me hopes they do, part hopes they dont.

Honda discontinued the CBX because of EPA emission standards, no from lack of sales or interest. They had to detune them starting in 1981, and gave up in '82. They refused to put a catalytic converter on the bike, citing weight and heating problems, but the real reason was horsepower. Plain and simple marketing......you just dont produce a superbike for it to be mediocre...

Regards.
Cliff
Cliff,

You can make your ’81 CBX easier to maneuver at all speeds by changing the front 19” rim and tire to an 18”. ‘82 Goldwings had an 18” front Comstar wheel that looks exactly like the CBX 19” Comstar. Everything bolts right up to the 18” wheel and it will transform the handling of your CBX. Much easier to steer and it will fall into corners with ease.

I do, however, disagree with your history of the CBX. Honda discontinued the CBX because of poor sales. The 1981 CBX sold for more than a Goldwing Interstate and that coupled with the fact that most buyers feared the complexity of 24 valves, six carbs and the associated cost of maintenance lead to its doom in ‘82. Honda had so many unsold ’81 CBX’s that they gave literally hundreds of them to vocational schools. CBX enthusiasts know them as “school bikes” and parts and complete bikes started showing up for sale in the nineties.
The 1980 CBX was detuned from 103HP to 98HP because Europe had a voluntary 100HP limit (much like the voluntary 186MPH limit today). They did this with different cams and an awful spark advancer that was recalled and upgraded by Honda. The 1981 saw a return to 100HP but with different cams and ignition advance curve for more mid-range. The 1982 CBX saw only minor changes but marked the end of a fabulous machine.

Bruce Hodges

[K1200LTryder]

Thanks for the info Bruce. I've owned my CBX since 1992, and studied the bike a very long time before I finally found this one.

The Goldwing outsold the CBX because the "euro styled" CBX's were really not a great touring bike compared to the GW, and yes, the CBX was more money. Some were even used as police bikes. You can still find a "school" bike with little or no miles for a tidy sum...10-15 Grand.

I've not heard of the 18" front wheel conversion, but it has me thinking hard !

Will the brakes all swap over ???

[jayjacobson]

On the showroom, a pretty blue one.
I know where there is a new LT on the showroom floor. Woodson's Motorsports in Ft Wayne Indiana.
....And another purdy Blue one in Winnetka, Kalifornia.
And it flies through the air at supersonic speeds and gives pretty good blowjobs as well.
OK, I want two RIGHT NOW!

[jayjacobson]

I agree. That basic 6 they have been building for so many years is probably one of the most bulletproof engines ever, along with the Toyota 22-R series 4's. One of my best friends had a 525i, and at 260,000 miles a head bolt broke and blew the head gasket. The shop tore it down to replace rings etc. since they were into the engine anyway, and found the pistons, cylinders, and bearings still well within specified wear tolerance!

I was so impressed with that car I bought a '94 525i that had 117,000 miles on it, and I now am at 178,000 with no signs of any problem. I have replaced suspension components, and normal wear items such as water pump and hoses, but it still runs like a top. Still looks darned good for a 15 year old car with that mileage too.
Clean, Dave!

[bruce2000ltc]

Thanks for the info Bruce. I've owned my CBX since 1992, and studied the bike a very long time before I finally found this one.

The Goldwing outsold the CBX because the "euro styled" CBX's were really not a great touring bike compared to the GW, and yes, the CBX was more money. Some were even used as police bikes. You can still find a "school" bike with little or no miles for a tidy sum...10-15 Grand.

I've not heard of the 18" front wheel conversion, but it has me thinking hard !

Will the brakes all swap over ???
I found my '81 CBX new in 1986 after searching Honda dealers for weeks. I put 82,000 miles on it and keep it for 16 years. During that time I was an active member and a state director in the International CBX Owners Association.
Everything from your 19" CBX wheel will bolt-up and fit on the '82 Goldwing 18" wheel; brake disks, speedometer gear and the axle. No clearance problems with the front fender either just a larger gap between the tire and fender - only you will notice it.
I've worked on every year CBX and done everything from frame up restorations to big bore kits.
If I can ever be of help just let me know,

Bruce Hodges

[Tat_n_Telle]

And it flies through the air at supersonic speeds and gives pretty good blowjobs as well.


Is there really such a thing as a BAD blowjob????

[jayjacobson]

Is there really such a thing as a BAD blowjob????
Um, well, some were way better than others.....