BMW Luxury Touring Community banner

1 - 13 of 13 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
62 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I just bought a new 2006 LT (price was right). I have a cabin 150 miles away and I need to take car most of the time, so I had to leave my bike at home. Now I will have one at both. I’m putting the CLC up cabin as the roads are great, but typical 55 MPH. I can’t drive the new one (or old) until end of March or April.

The question I have is slow speed ride vs the two. CLC is only about 90 lbs less than the LT and the LT feel like it has a lower center of gravity. I look at the LT when I bought the CLC, but the seat was to high then.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
697 Posts
The COG is definitely lower on the CLC....Sandy has an R1200C which is the same height frame...and it's ideal for women for that very reason....much lower than the K12.......
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
197 Posts
CLC is lower

I owned both, reason I use the past is that I sold the LT, in order to keep my K1200S and buy a "new" CLC. Could not afford to keep both (LT and S) bikes.......

The center of gravity on the CLC is a lot lower than the LT, the CLC is a lot easier on slow speed, parking lot turns, the CLC is a lot easier on your arms and shoulders when twisties come to play, you can toss and bring back the CLC a lot easier, althought without the same clearance as the LT. I always thought the LT was top heavy and became even more top heavy with a passenger, the CLC is in the contrary it becomes easier and more stable with a passenger back there........

This off course comes in no way as me saying it is a better machine over the LT no no..... just my observations from 4 months of ownership concerning center of gravity and slow speed handling.

As I mentioned above, I sold the LT bought an S, wife started to complain because she was not riding with me anymore, so in order to be able to keep two bikes I needed something a little less expensive, brand new CLC (2004) with full warranty from purchase day was the best bet. It actually ended up costing less than the Kawasaki Nomad 1600 which is one I was considering.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
650 Posts
By my signature you'll see I had a CLC. I did not like the two wheeled car(LT) and I wanted a cruiser. Rode her and loved her until I made a big mistake. I demoed an '05LTC and knew the next bike was to be the LT. I put 36,000 in 21 mos. on her(CLC).
As for slow speed handling, that was addressed in the '05 LT with a change in the front rake(I think it is). The CLC did sit a little lower but I am 6'3" and neither was a problem. I think the handling at slow speed is about the same. I was no less comfortable except knowing I had 850 lbs. to deal with.
The CLC was a law abiding ride, while I can't say the same for "Ophelia". The handling above walking speed is no comparison. The power, no comparison.
After 32,500 miles in 16 mos. I can not think of anything on the CLC I want back vs what I have on the LT.
 

·
Premium Member
2011 R1200RT
Joined
·
8,175 Posts
Jburwell said:
is the speedometer right on the LT, I know it not on the CLC
The speedo is 10 % optimistic on the LT. There is a fix for the 99-04, and another for the 05 and up. Both documented on this site.:thumb:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
62 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
zippy_gg said:
The speedo is 10 % optimistic on the LT. There is a fix for the 99-04, and another for the 05 and up. Both documented on this site.:thumb:
OK, which thread (for the 2006). Will it work on the CLC too? "Chromeheads" grip about this, but I have not seen a fix.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
650 Posts
You'll find the '05 and up are off 3 mph, not a %. There is a fix, if you want to go to the trouble or do as I do and ride at the next line up from the speed you want(i.e. 60 + 1 line). Very to the GPS speed.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
650 Posts
You'll find the '05 and up are off 3 mph, not a %. There is a fix, if you want to go to the trouble or do as I do and ride at the next line up from the speed you want(i.e. 60 + 1 line). Very close to the GPS speed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
717 Posts
I suspect the exaggerated speedo readout is across the BMW line, as all the CL owners complain it reads 10% fast, just as my CL did.

I don't notice that its as bad on my LT, but haven't done any actual tests. I do have access to a portable radar gun, Hmmm... maybe in the spring I'll get around to it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
577 Posts
clc vs. LT

Had a CLC and it was a joy to ride. The fork mounted faring made the front heavy. The wider front tire improved the slow speed handling. The speedo was off by 10% at every road side (your speed is, test) same with LT. CLC had a vibration issue that got better with each 6K service. The 04 with twin sparks fixed the vibration, lower CG then LT improved stability at stopping.

Just my opinion. Put 24K on 03 and 4K on 04.

LT is the bike I lusted after when I purchased the CLC, there was a better deal on the CLC and the Lights Lit up the night.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
62 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
bblalock said:
You'll find the '05 and up are off 3 mph, not a %. There is a fix, if you want to go to the trouble or do as I do and ride at the next line up from the speed you want(i.e. 60 + 1 line). Very close to the GPS speed.
That what I do for the CLC, I was told the LT is not as far off and I'm putting on the GPS.

I just have to remember to slow down when I get in the car because that one works right.
 
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
Top