How does the R1200CL compare to K1200LT

[damenke]

How does the R1200CL compare to K1200LT. I'm thinking about going from a K1200LT to a R1200CL. I almost always ride by myself on short trips and think the K1200LT is just to big & heavy. I have never been on a R1200CL and was wanting some input from riders who know.

Thanks,

[BillyOmaha]

How does the R1200CL compare to K1200LT. I'm thinking about going from a K1200LT to a R1200CL. I almost always ride by myself on short trips and think the K1200LT is just to big & heavy. I have never been on a R1200CL and was wanting some input from riders who know.

Thanks,Howdy Doug,

I've ridden on a CL and studied them closely before I bought the LT. I've also followed, then passed ;) them, on several rides.

Performance characteristics aside, the creature comforts are pretty much identical, so you won't give up anything there.

Styling is, well, obvious. I don't mind saying that I find the retro look is pretty cool.

Performance is very different. The R1200CL is "Harley'ish" in that the torque is good, but hp is low. The lean angle is much less than the LT. If you're into getting leaned way over in the twisties, you would miss the LT.

From what I've seen of them in high speed (a freeway curve to another freeway) posted at 55, at 85 the back-end would "waggle" a bit. The LT would pass and was rock solid at 100+.

If cruising is your thing, I'm sure you'll be very happy with the CL.

Good luck with whatever you decide.

.

[mjordans2000]

I would agree with Bill. The CL is very unique in it's styling, that I do like. It is very different in power and handling characteristics. The sound is also very different, and I am a fan of opposed twins, but I'm not sure I find the CL's sound all that pleasing. You really need to take a test ride before heading down that road. I'm sure I could learn to love a CL but it would never replace my LT.

[nplenzick]

I owned one for two years and really enjoyed it right up to the time I test rode an LT. One of the great things on the CLC that I miss on the LT is the lighting, really superb. When you put those high beams on it was like the sun coming up. Also the ease of maintenance was another, valve adjustment a snap. But outside of those two things the LT fits my riding style much better then the CLC, far better handling, performance, better radio, and much better MPGs ( I average 51 on the LT versus 42 on the CLC). Also for those who think the LT is tippy you would be shocked on how tippy the CLC is.
I guess you need to test ride one, if you don't like it I would recommend a test ride on one of the other C's out there like the Montauk (sp?).

[RideIt]

How does the R1200CL compare to K1200LT. I'm thinking about going from a K1200LT to a R1200CL. I almost always ride by myself on short trips and think the K1200LT is just to big & heavy. I have never been on a R1200CL and was wanting some input from riders who know.

Thanks,
These two bikes are as different as night and day. I had CLC for a while, enjoyed the bike but my wife did not like to ride on the back so back to the LT. If you are interested in this style bike, I would strongly suggest that you check out the Harley Ultra Classic, because you will not give up any creature comforts but with the lower center of gravity you will feel much more comfortable. Good Luck in your decision, a person really needs a number of different bikes for different rides :)
Leon
05 Blue LT

[bassj]

I had a LT put 43,000 miles on it then a CLC for one year did 17,000 miles. Never did like it the performance can not hold a candle to the LT also the vibration from the twin was bad and I could only do 135 miles per tank which is a real pain. I would never buy a Boxer again. I also ride solo all the time. If you have the urge for a cruiser buy a real one. Also realize BMW does not make them any more.

[BsquareWI]

Having a CL (I just lurk here primarily reading Stereo/iPod integration since we have the same radio) and having only ridden an LT as a loaner I can say the LT, for the most part, blows the CL away. The CL does have its quirky charms however.

- Handling the LT is better in almost every aspect with exception of maybe parking lot (sub 10mph) speeds. The CL is still very tippy and very heavy, but a tad bit easier, maybe due to the shorter wheel base. I also appreicate the fact I can actually see what the front wheel is doing. I felt the LT had a tad of low-speed front wheel 'wobble'.
- The CL does have what feels like a rear end 'wobble' at speed and it can be disconcerning, that may just be a by-product of not having the suspension adjusted correctly, but I'm to lazy to adjust it everytime I go 1up vs. 2up. That's where the R1200RT's ESA would be nice.
- No adjustable sheild and some find the "W" shield annoying (I think it's cool, it makes the bike look like Batman's bike)
- Speed is not what it does well. It does OK, but don't expect a passing gear to throw you back like the LT's 4 can. The 6th gear will let it loaf along at 75mph at 3k RPM.
- Gas mileage and tank size, frankly, suck. I get mid 30's MPG and refill at 130-140 miles. Not gassed for the long haul, that's for sure.
- CL has the same annoying noises that an LT does, squeaky breaks, rear rotor rattle, plus the addition of a louder air-cooled engine with valve tick.
- If you are taller (34" inseam) the boxer engine will limit you ability to stretch and you'd probably hit the knee pads. This bike was built for a 5'9" - 6' person.
- Very limited run of these things and are now discontinued. That means very limited aftermarket support and add-ons.
- The "cruiser" vibration and sound feel forced on the C's. I read that BMW purposefully put the engine "off balance" to create a cruiser shake. Coming from a V-Twin, the Boxer is much smoother than a V-Twin but no where near an LT or even an RT's smooth boxer. It will smooth out at higher RPMs, however.
- The Chrome on the C's from BMW is crap compared to US chrome. Due to environmental restrictions their German chrome is much weaker and will pit easily.
- PTTR, if you've never been on a boxer engine, don't set the cruise and try to take your hands of the grips, the bike will DIVE for the right ditch. BMW will not acknowledge the problem.

however:
- A CL can be found for a song right now. Silver '03's seem to be the most readily avaiable and can be found under 9k.
- Maintenence without the tuperware would possibly be cheaper and easier, but you still can't go it 100% alone because of the ABS3 breaks, like the LT.
- While it doesn't "speak to the soul" like some say a Harley V-Twin does (I don't get that, but whatever) it does have a look unlike anything else on the road. Everyone breaks their neck to get a look. No offense, but an LT is what people EXPECT a BMW to look like (LT or RT anyway) the CL is definately unique.
- You get something that has a Cruiser design while still keeping the BMW niceties such as ABS Breaks, Telever and all the farkles.


If its not the 'cruiser' look you are exclusively looking for, you may want to look at the R1200RT. Now that's a bike that would be fun to ride solo. I'd like to look at one, but the wife would probably not approve of the passenger ero's.

[PhotoBiker]

Personally, I didn't care for the CL at all, that's why I ride the LT. If it's just the size, look real close at the RT. That bike is fun to ride....

[midwilshire]

If it's just the size, look real close at the RT. That bike is fun to ride....I think the RT is the absolute best bike ever built for all-around riding. I just sold mine to move to the LT, but I rode the RT every day for three years in Los Angeles traffic and on minor trips. If you want the amenities of the LT with the handling of tennis shoes, try out the RT. The 2004 model would be my choice.

[rglassma]

I rode my LT for about 8 months and then just for the heck of it, I took a test drive on the CL. I hated it !!! The vibration, handling, stability, power and just about everything else didn't hold a candle to the LT.

I honestly don't understand why BMW made that bike.. The RT is great and worlds better but it doesn't hold a candle to the LT for long distance. I can't see the CL as a long distance machine without a great deal of fatigue.

Just my $.02..

[hschisler]

Not much to contribute to your decision, but a couple of comments:

When I was looking to buy my first bike last summer (ended up with an '05 LT) I took a long look at the CL. It was a low-miles trade-in (11 miles on it!); the owner had dropped it twice and was afraid to get back on it, and it was in the shop for cosmetic repairs. I wish, I wish, I WISH I had taken the dealer's suggestion of taking it out for a test ride because I've never been on one and now may not have the chance to do so again. I like the LT but have always wondered what the CL would have been like... :(

I love the looks of the CL, by the way.

[simoncharles]

Lots of info here www.chromeheads.org

[JK75RT]

I own both. I like both for their own reasons. If I had to own only one I would keep the LT. The LT is the better long range tour bike. What I like about the CLC is the more relaxed leg position, lower straddle height, easy run around bike, more unique look, easier servicing.

What I like about the LT is better motor, better rider wind and weather adjustments, more passenger room, better handling, more cargo space, longer fuel range, and better gizmos like GPS and multi CD.

[jrlakin]

When I was first thinking of buying a BWW, I was riding a Harley Ultra Classic (still have it actually) and I test rode both the CLC and the LT. I rode the CLC first, and frankly was very unimpressed. I thought my Ultra was a much better ride in every respect, plus it was paid for. I then rode the LT, and it was like night and day. I now own an LT. I don't think it is really a contest. jrlakin

[dmatson]

When I took the LT in for some warranty work they gave me a CLC to ride home. I did not like it at all, sloppy handling, slow, sounds like a riding mower, and I thought it was just ugly.

[Florian]

and I thought it was just ugly.

No kidding....horrible looking bike... :( :eek:



F

[meese]

At least it had a fairing. I got an F650 loaner bike. 120 miles on that sure made me glad to get my LT back.

The dealer in Wales let me have my pick of their demo fleet, so I got to try out several of the new bikes for a day or so each. :D

[early1]

How does the R1200CL compare to K1200LT. I'm thinking about going from a K1200LT to a R1200CL. I almost always ride by myself on short trips and think the K1200LT is just to big & heavy. I have never been on a R1200CL and was wanting some input from riders who know.

Thanks,
It's not that the 500 is a bad car (or the CLC a bad bike) it's just that the others are great.

[SMGray]

I had a 2003 CL before I bought my '05 LT. There is NO comparison between these two bikes. I was really disapointed with the power of the CL from day one and realized that the purchase was a big mistake. I came off of a '02 Moto Guzzi California and they are noted for having a nice combination of torque and horses. The CL was painfully short on both counts.

I bought it because I liked the styling but styling doesn't cut it when you need power and its not there.

Likes about CL: low seating position, good looks (to me), and great lighting.

Likes about LT: lots of torque, smooth operation, very comfortable, great two-up riding at high speeds, and much more.

In fact, I don't even know why they put cruise control on the CL. If you set it you can't touch the right grip because it is constantly rotating big time to keep it at speed if you hit any incline at all.

Buy the LT.

Just my thoughts.

[BCVBeck]

Rode an Artic Blue R1200C Montauk for about a year or so before trading up to an LT. (FWIW: Montauk ='s CL minus fairings & hard luggage) Everyone has pretty much hit the nail on the head. BMW's cruiser line ALWAYS gets the looks, etc. I wanted/needed the extra power and passenger ammenities that the LT brings to the table. Also, LOVE the 6.2 gal vs 4.5 gallon gas tank of the LT.

Bruce

[motorman587]

I thought BMW quit making CLCs??? But when you go to the BMWNA web site they still have it there.

[mistral]

I have both bikes in my garage. The Lt is like firing up an indy car to me and the CL is like an MG. I am 6'5" and I am a little cramped on the CL, but I also had to lower the pegs on the LT. It seems BMW does make bikes for tall guys. My Honda VTX was more roomy. I actually love to run through the gears on the CL. I think it has more storage than the LT. The LT is better for the long haul. I don't get that the CL is ugly that some feel, to each his own.

[hoodoodrum]

CL = slow and wallowy, like a water buffalo
LT = faster and top heavy, but is sure footed like an american bison

DON'T MAKE A DECISION UNTIL YOU RIDE EM BOTH on Interstates, Two Lane State Highways, and Local Roads

My 2¢

[Southpaw]

The dealers are still proud of the few remaining CL's they have in stock. They still want in excess of $16K for them. I test rode a CL and and LT. Ended up buying a 2005 LT for less than a new CL.
Southpaw