The New And Improved Unofficial R65 Forum V2
General Category => Chit-Chat => Topic started by: jamestnewsonr65 on March 23, 2017, 06:18:26 AM
-
After having owned the R65 for a few years now, I was hooked from the start and have just added a new to me 1984 r80.
I've not ridden an R80 before and wondered what the main differences are, if any.
To those that may have an r80 also, is there anything to be aware of which may be different than the r65?
This new bike will stay standard as a summer cruiser, as opposed to the r65 which was custom.
-
I've not ridden an R80 before and wondered what the main differences are, if any.
You will feel the added torque and size. Mine was an 1982 R80RT. You'll feel the size especially at low sppeds, in traffic and parking lots, just not as easy to ride in those situations. You will like the added power without changing gears.
The R80 was the thirstiest of all my Beemers. The first trip I took was to Texas (1400 miles) to see my folks and the dar n thing wouldn't make better than 35mpg. When I got there I did a full tune up and check the jets against the book to see if everything was stock and it was. It ran great, economical it was NOT.
I used that bike to ride the CAL1000, a 24 hour endurance run. I had Luftmiester side tanks and an extra 4 gallon tank on the rear, 11 gallons total.
It's a good thing I did as that R80's mpg's would drop into the mid to high 20's at speed. That was pushing a Hannigan fairing and running 85-95 mph. It got so bad that it would starve for fuel if I didn't have BOTH petcocks on. One petcock would not feel that thirsty SOB ;D
-
Maybe I need to buy shares in a gas company!!
-
Maybe I need to buy shares in a gas company!!
As they say, YMMV
The R80's are generally known for low mileage , mine might have been at the low end of the stick. My r90/6 would consistently return mid 40's and ridden easily you could reach the low 50's. My R65 would always return 50+. If i'm not mistaken Barry's R45 actually makes gas when ridden conservatively.......... ::)
-
My R65 would always return 50+. If i'm not mistaken Barry's R45 actually makes gas when ridden conservatively.......... ::)
Well almost. The year round long term average is 69 MPG imp (57.5 US)
In the summer the average is 72 MPG imp (60 MPG US)
You do hear a lot of reports that R80's are thirsty If I had to guess I'd say the issue with poor MPG is not carb jetting but something to do with the tuned air intake system and I'm sure there were service bulletins about the snorkels.
Edit: Here it is attached.
-
If I had to guess I'd say the issue with poor MPG is not carb jetting but something to do with the tuned air intake system and I'm sure there were service bulletins about the snorkels.
Thanks Barry. Wish I had had that info 20 years ago. 11 gallons to go less than 300 miles was pitiful. Many cars would have taken me farther with less............ but not with as much fun attached LOL
-
The R80 was the thirstiest of all my Beemers. The first trip I took was to Texas (1400 miles) to see my folks and the dar n thing wouldn't make better than 35mpg.
There must have been something wrong with your R80 Wilcom.
On of the amusing/annoying things of touring recently with my wife, me on my 84 R65 and her on her 79 R65 fitted with a 87 R80 engine is that at any speeds above 70mph she gets slightly better mileage that I do. Below 70mph the fuel consumption is near identical.
-
Good choice of bikes in the stable James. I started with the R80 and had to buy an R65 to get my Airhead fix whilst I restore the R80.
These airheads seem to get under your skin!
-
There must have been something wrong with your R80 Wilcom.
You're right Tony, and it came from BMW like that.
Barry had the 1984 service bulletin for the dealers to make changes to all bikes in stock and what changes to make to customers that came in complaining about poor mileage.
-
Next time I have to swap motors (fingers crossed: never) I'm going to consider slipping an R80 into my chassis. Since it's the mono shock and the same frame as the R80, may as well get the bigger pots too.
-
There must have been something wrong with your R80 Wilcom.
You're right Tony, and it came from BMW like that.
Barry had the 1984 service bulletin for the dealers to make changes to all bikes in stock and what changes to make to customers that came in complaining about poor mileage.
IIRC it was something fairly bizarre like putting a new top on the aircleaner with different sized intake "horns". Or am I thinking of something else?
BTW, wife's R65/80 runs a clam-shell aircleaner, and R65 exhaust pipes with R80 sized pipe welded to the ends.
-
IIRC it was something fairly bizarre like putting a new top on the aircleaner with different sized intake "horns". Or am I thinking of something else?
Exactly, the bulletin is attached to Barry's post above. With the clam shell you eliminated some of the issue, could be with the smaller exhaust you you compensated for the changed jetting.
Something was wrong..... imagine a single tank tap not supplying enough fuel for my R80 to run at 90MPH. I think it was the Nevada1100 and not the Cal1000 that I noticed the issue.
I remember chasing a Honda Hurricane 1000 back to the finish line at Beatty , Nevada around 4:30AM.
I kept him in sight for the last 90 miles and was hoping he would catch a red light as we entered town and I could zip by him..... it was not to be and I got back from the 1100 miles 2nd by about 5 seconds........ oh what fun to be young enough again to pull off some of that Sh&%
-
That sounds a bit like the cure to eliminate the flat spot on those R65's that suffer with it. Fitting the smaller R45 air filter box top with the smaller snorkels was supposed to improve matters.
I read that in an 80's copy of the Journal.
-
Wilcom
The other thought that occurs is that the R80 engine that went into the R65 in 1987 was brand new out of an accident write off. I suspect that by 1987 the problem would have been well sorted.
-
I suspect that by 1987 the problem would have been well sorted.
Good point Tony, Mine was a 1982 R80, Barry's bulletin was 1984...... You new kids always get the good stuff :-[
-
Good point Tony, Mine was a 1982 R80, Barry's bulletin was 1984...... You new kids always get the good stuff :-[
That would do it!
And I must say that at least this group is mercifully free of the fools that infest some other BMW forums. In another nameless forum I was accused of being a liar because:
"The R65 engine is much smaller than other boxers and has a special frame and "proper" boxer engines will not fit in the R65 frame"
I showed the idiot in question a photo of an R65 frame (1979 edition) when it was an R65 and then a current photo with a Paralever rear end, K100 front end, R100 engine and dressed in R100RS fairing and the same idiot then modified his position to:
"Well the 1979 model had the same frame as "real" boxers, but with short forks and swing arm."
I tried to politely correct his errors and asked him how come "standard" gearboxes bolt up to the "small" R65 engine and how he would explain that the R89ST frame and R65 frame are identical (and except for some minor brackets the same as early R80G/S frames - he said he would get back to me with "the facts", but he never did.
On this and other mythological topics (another of my favourites is the structural superiority of R90 engines over R100s) reign supreme.
I quit that forum after another discussion started that centred on the origin of gearboxes during the 80s/90s peak demand for BMWs. Apparently demand was beyond what the BMW factory could meet so another company (a well known German gearbox manufacturer) was sub-contracted to assemble and test gearboxes. The idiot discussion was whether BMW assembled gearboxes were superior to the contract assembly ones. (For what it is worth, and for very practical reasons I think the reverse would actually be true, not that I want to start a fight here!). Anyway I eventually made the comment:-
"So what you are saying is that my Romanians are better than your Romanians." .
They just didn't get it.
What's next I wondered, Bosch diode plates are better than Werle ones? I don't know if those depths were ever plumbed cause I pulled the pin. In fact this is now the only BMW forum I subscribe to, although in view of my recent R1150GSA purchase I am considering a temporary re connection to get service and exchange data.
I sincerely hope that in this forum we can continue to all remain friends and from time to time disagree without it turning into a slanging match = the true strength of this group.
-
"So what you are saying is that my Romanians are better than your Romanians." .
Excellent observation and funny tah boot ! ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
And, the R80 engine is also the smoothest Airhead engine BMW ever produced. I've long lusted after a 1985-'87 standard R80 with the monoshock rear suspension, and the later, cast tubeless wheels. Maybe someday...(https://bmwr65.org/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi146.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fr261%2Fsteve2371%2Fscooter%2520pics%2FBMW_R80_1985_p_842_webl.jpg&hash=f50b85659557a7bad4d91035b4f58fdc761834eb)
(https://bmwr65.org/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi146.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fr261%2Fsteve2371%2Fscooter%2520pics%2FR8020Mono201985.jpg&hash=a0c7bd2e1f040b42324eb1cd774520133ebe7e51)
-
And, the R80 engine is also the smoothest, vibration
Of all my Airheads the R80 was by far the smoothest by airhead standards............. You could pull up to 80 mph and set there and cruise mile after mile just humm'n along.