R60/2 or R60/7?

[rclbaker]

Not really about oilheads but your wisdom is much appreciated.

What are the pros and cons of having an R60/2 or an R60/7?

 

My wishes: just riding for fun on sundays, short holidays with the wife, simple maintenance and sufficiently reliable

 

Thanks!

[Anton Largiader]

I'm not such a /2 fan. They were the end of the old Boxer line, and these days they're overpriced. Heavy and slow, and not as good looking as the earlier bikes. But if you're into magnetos, built-up cranks, 6V electrics and kick starting, this would be the latest and greatest (except for the higher-maintenance R69S).

 

The R60/7 is also slow, but with a better chassis it doesn't feel as heavy as it is (the /2 feels heavier than it is). Still has slide carbs, brakes are possibly worse than the /2, but the forks are better. This bike at least has enough electricity to power a heated jacket AND the headlight, but you want to be careful running both together.

 

Something you really like about R60s? The R75 is such a better motor.

[snod]

The /2 will require more maintence work than the /7 (or /5, or/6). Decent /2's are getting really expensive. As stated above you will either need to deal with 6 volt or convert to 12 on any /2. If you keep it long term the /2 has to have the bottom end disasembled and cleaned every few years due to the slinger type oil system. The /2 is gaining in value, I have an R60/6 sitting in storage and it isn't gaining ANY value yet, the /2's just keep getting more and more expensive. I want an R50-60/2 just because I love the look of the earls forks. They look so cool with a Steib sidecar attached! If you really want a up and coming collector look for a R75/5 (preferably a long wheel base one). The toaster tank is great looking, you can pick up a restorable one for a pretty decent price, and the 750 is a much better ride than the 600.

[Paul Mihalka]

Rxx/2 are collector's items. Rxx/7 are usable bikes with complete mechanical parts availability. Price of /7 and somewhat newer airheads is more determined by condition than model year or engine size. If you want a really usable bike in that category, look for a R100 or 1980/83 R80. Main reason that they come with dual disk front brakes. With that they are perfectly capable bikes in today's riding conditions, even on interstates.

[Missouri Bob]

I had a 1974 R60/6, and 15 years later, I bought a 1966 R60. Although the /6 did not have much power, and relatively weak brakes, it did not prepare me for the 1966 experience. Sure, the earles fork bikes look good, but that's about it. Mine was VERY slow. It vibrated at highway speeds, and had absolutely dangerous brakes.

 

Buy the newer bike. Technology is a good thing.

 

Bob

[Tony_K]

Excellent advice and info already given so this is just fluff from me.

 

As a /2 owner I can say they are what they are. It's a totally different motoring experience. Around town is how I would put it. They are freaking expensive to get rolling around town too. They look cool though.

 

So if you want a toy to tinker with (a lot) a /2 is sorta fun.

[tallman]

Fred Tausch rode his R60/5 over 600,000 miles

http://www.yankeebeemers.org/picweek/pw050220.htm

[Paul Mihalka]

Some times reading about these extreme high mileage old generation bikes, I'm afraid they are like my great-grandfather's ax, that is still in the family in perfect condition. It only had the head replaced three times and the handle five times.

[szurszewski]

My introduction to BMWs was a 78 R60/7. I didn't know anything about BMWs when I bought the bike and was just looking for something with more power and comfort than what I had ('80 Yamaha 400) so I could do a bit of touring.

 

While it may be slower and less desirable than the 750-1000cc BMWS, I have always felt the bike was more than adequate for all the riding I did. That riding included daily commuting in WA, Colorado (though I must admit not all winter), and SE Alaska, lots of short trips in the Pacific Northwest, and a few trips between WA and AK.

 

Have you had a chance to ride either of the models you're considering? There's a lot to be said for personal and not necessarily logical sentiment when choosing a moto....

[rclbaker]

Thanks a lot for the information. I like the looks of the R60/2 so much more...

 

Anton: Why is a R75/x a better bike? As far as I know the 60/7 has the reputation of being the smoothest boxer ever, even better than R50 or R60 (pre 1969).

For more power and commuting I also have, like you, an R1100RS.

Another reason is that the R60/7 is a rather cheap model to get (no image compared with the pre 1969 models).

 

Next Saturday I have an opportunity to ride a very good looking R60/7, with all maintenance records. I fear the front brake (one disk); I probably have to negotiate about a second (expensive) disk.

[snod]

Anton: Why is a R75/x a better bike? As far as I know the 60/7 has the reputation of being the smoothest boxer ever, even better than R50 or R60 (pre 1969).

 

I think the biggest diferrence is horsepower. Somebody chime in if I am wrong, but the /5/6 750 was a 40-42hp engine, and the 600 was about 30hp. The R60/6 that I have ridden a bit is very anemic. On two lane roads you have to downshift and time your passing. Two-up going uphill can make get you below the posted limit in many cases. I don't disagree that 500cc is all it takes to make a competent motorcycle, but 750's sure are more fun to ride. The R75/6 that I put many miles on was as smooth as my R60/6 at the 750's "sweet spot", right about 4200rpm I think. (may have been 4700, it was a long time ago) The 750 and 600 have the exact same running gear, and the weight is nearly identical. You give up nothing and pick up 20 or 25% more horsepower. Don't fear the front brake on the /7. It works really well. If you feel the need it isn't hard to upgrade to dual, just a little expensive, as noted. Shop for used parts and it shouldn't be too bad. On an older bike consider upgrading the brake lines to SS, the originals are getting old and brittle, and it will improve barking a little. Watch out for rusted mufflers, very common on AirHeads that sit. Look at the bottom of the muffler. If the tires are over 5 years old, I wouldn't ride at highway speeds very much until you get new ones. If you keep the /7 well, you shouldn't loose too much on it. The /5/6/7 60's have stayed pretty flat in value for the last 10 years or so.

[Paul Mihalka]

Airhead horsepower (I maybe off by a couple): R50/5: 32, R60/5-6: 42, R75/5-6-7: 50, R90/6: 60, R90S 67.

 

/2 horsepower: R50: 26, R60: 30, R69/R69S : 38/42.

[snod]

Airhead horsepower (I maybe off by a couple): R50/5: 32, R60/5-6: 42, R75/5-6-7: 50, R90/6: 60, R90S 67.

 

/2 horsepower: R50: 26, R60: 30, R69/R69S : 38/42.

 

Thanks Paul!

 

Did the R60/7 get any extra ponies?

[RPG]

Rob, I had a similar decision to make about 10 years ago. Was deciding between a R69S and a '73 R75/5 LWB Toaster. Bought the toaster and haven't regretted it once. The R75 motor is very torquey and the bike is a blast to ride. Tach/speedo combo looks great from the riders seat.

 

Mine has 165k and only the upper end has been rebuilt. Don't think you could get that kind of mileage on a /2 without a few slinger services.

 

The brakes are definitely 70's vintage but the suspension works very, very well.

 

One thing I can tell you. Of all the people I know who got an R60 or R50, most wished they had an R75.

 

RPG

[Paul Mihalka]

"Did the R60/7 get any extra ponies?" Nope.

[SinNH]

I know I'm sidestepping your question , but going back to an airhead ( I had 6 -330k), from a R1100 or any newer bike , I'd take a look at the /6's, the first series with somewhat real brakes, handling and adequate power, and a dream to work on.

R90/6 in black , IMHO, one of the best looking Beemers ever.

 

my 2.2 cents

Steve

[bmwson]

I'm having my dad's 1961 R60/2 restored by Tom High at Rennsport Mottorad. It still runs ok but its time for restoration.

[Big D]

I recently bought a naked 1978 100/7 to keep my 2002 1150RT company. It is alot of fun to drive but I have to be very aware of the brakes having become accustomed to the ABS on the 1150. I love the way it looks, is fun to work on and gets down the road in a timely manner but the major miles goes on the 1150.

D

[Paul Mihalka]

Anybody looking for a very competitive fairly up-to-date BMW airhead, should find a 1993 to 1995 R100R. Skip the first year, 1992, because it had a single disk up front. '93/'95 had dual disks up front with double piston Brembos and Paralever rear suspension. They are light, good handling, good performing every day bikes with very easy maintenance and no high frequency defects like rear drives or clutch splines.

 

This is a loaded example:

 

http://www.armornetworks.com/gallery/bmw

[notacop]

I've had my 80/7 since 1983. My first BMW. It's a lot nicer now that I put an R100R (92) engine it it.

The 800 was smooth and pleasant but after 115K it had valve resession and it was cheaper to buy a wreck and do the swap.

The lightened flywheel is mobetta!

I've had a Ural sidecar on it for about 20 years.

After making the move to the 2000RTP, I would NOT spend the money on museum pieces for nostalgia. Excelcior! never buy retro!

I do have a 1915 Ford Model T that needs restroration though!

[Martyn]

After riding an oil-head at work all day, or one of my own, any Airhead is a little dated BUT ride them in the knowledge of their limitations, & braking is probably the most noticeable, & they are still a delighful & practical means of transport. I still love 'em.

[rclbaker]

Just to let you know that I bought the R60/7. Known history, s-fairing, rides very well.

THis one should become the ideal bike for 2-up touring in Western Europe (no highways).

 

Thanks for all input.