Is the Boxer a Lug-er or a Rev-er?

[Michael B]

I have an 2011 RT with 32K on the clock. I try not to lug the engine and only occasionally get into the true upper revs. My engine seems to run well under any condition and seems happiest between 3,000-4,200, plus a little.

 

But, I've always wondered if my Boxer was a lug-er or a rev-er. I've heard both arguments. So what do you guys who really know your engines think? Just wondering.

[roger 04 rt]

If you leave the mixture stock most will say the engine likes its RPMs.

 

For those who've shifted the O2 sensor 6% rich with an LC-1 or AF-XIED, they'll tell you the Boxer will pull tremendously from 2000 RPM and up.

RB

[eddd]

Crank it up. The motor comes alive when it is in the upper rpm range.

[Bologna]

Mine likes to be at that rpm range all day!

[Matts_12GS]

I have an 2011 RT with 32K on the clock. I try not to lug the engine and only occasionally get into the true upper revs. My engine seems to run well under any condition and seems happiest between 3,000-4,200, plus a little.

 

But, I've always wondered if my Boxer was a lug-er or a rev-er. I've heard both arguments. So what do you guys who really know your engines think? Just wondering.

 

Max torque on the first 1200s was about 5600 RPM. Move the gears around to keep it there and you can do wondrous things on these bikes in the twisty bits.

[dirtrider]

Afternoon Michael

 

With plain shell bearings, long rods, large pistons, no real aggressive cams, & a large clutch diameter they definitely aren't designed to be revvers.

 

On the other hand, with the relatively light flywheel weight, moderately aggressive camshaft profile, & larger single plate Throttle Bodies they are not designed to be real luggers either.

 

So that puts them in a unique middle ground that fits well with performance touring. 3k-5.5k is probably their strong suit.

 

As Roger mentioned they will pull good at a bit lower RPM's with good (re richer) fueling.

 

 

[Dave_in_TX]

I have an 2011 RT with 32K on the clock. I try not to lug the engine and only occasionally get into the true upper revs. My engine seems to run well under any condition and seems happiest between 3,000-4,200, plus a little.

 

But, I've always wondered if my Boxer was a lug-er or a rev-er. I've heard both arguments. So what do you guys who really know your engines think? Just wondering.

 

Compared to what? Using a big V-twin cruiser engine for comparison would make the boxer a revver. Compared to most four cylinder engines, the boxer is a lugger.

[tallman]

4200 makes a good upshift point

 

Since relatively few people have added aftermarket

devices to alter fuel mapm the bike loves to run in the upper end.

For those that have, the added ability to pull from lower rpms must be nice.

 

3000?

barely alive at that range, IMO.

 

Take it out and bounce off the rev limiter a few times and report back.

I'll bet that 5000-7000 can be more fun that 2000-3000

any day.

Best wishes.

 

Disclaimer:

Although I ride the last version of the flying brick that

will pull in any gear from low rpms, I rode boxers for over 37 years and rode almost every model at one time or another through work.

[pmurphy]

At what speed?

 

The target optimal RPM moves up as speed increases. It is not just a function of RPM, but also one of load/torque.

 

That said, I would say that these engines, prefer to operate between 3500 and 5500 rpm, depending upon the load that is applied.

[Firenailer]

3500-5500 is the happy zone, keep the revs up!

[Bud]

I know the R 1100 bikes I've owned: 97 RT, 95 GS, 99 R, 99 RT and another (current) 99 RT seemed to like 80 MPH the best!

 

We both seemed to be happy there. :thumb

 

RPM's varied depending on model.

 

 

 

 

[roger 04 rt]

When BMW wasn't constrained by the EPA, they fueled the R1100s with a Coding Plug that delivered an AFR of about 14:1, which is about 5% richer than the EPA version.

 

At 14:1, the Boxer engine is really sweet from about 2000/2200 rpm and up. Smoother too in the mid range. An added benefit is that you naturally shift earlier and as a result get a bit better gas mileage below 60/70 mph. For example, on my R1150RT I am naturally in 6th gear now between 2700 and 3000 RPM--not lugging a bit, engine happy as a clam.

RB

[rapz]

I've always thought that we have two bikes; the one that lives the quiet life below 4K RPMs and the bad boy that lives above 4K RPMs. Both, imho, are great bikes.

[John in VA]

I've always thought that we have two bikes; the one that lives the quiet life below 4K RPMs and the bad boy that lives above 4K RPMs. Both, imho, are great bikes.

 

Yes, interesting theory. Around the city daily under 35mph and in no hurry, life below 4k is comfortable, no strain, no lugging. Then the weekend comes and she stretches her legs, living in 5-7k very happily, and wow is it fun. It's just a great motor.

[fastlarry]

plain shell bearings, long rods and large pistons are not inconsistent with a high revving engine. A longish stroke is, e.g. Harley air cooled v-twins. The latest Ducati v-twins are high revving engines and have plain shell bearings. The Panigale engine is way over-square with very large pistons.

[Over]

So I'm fairly new to bikes (passed test in 2011) and now that my RT is worn in some (1500miles), I'm experimenting with best gears for riding on the small country roads of the UK.

 

Initially I'd use 3rd and let it grunt around, but the guy who is helping me get an advanced test, says to play around with 2nd, and I've had it up to 5.5 on the dial and it sure changes the ride!

 

So I'd say its both!

 

My ST1300 was smooth, and responsive, but this is a whole lot more fun, especially note twisty turney roads!

[tallman]

Try shifting at 5500 for some fun...