1959 R60 questions

tricyclerob · Post by **tricyclerob** » Wed Mar 05, 2008 6:41 pm

As the proud owner of a '59 R69, I like where this is headed. rj

comet · Post by **comet** » Wed Mar 05, 2008 8:22 pm

I sold my first BMW a R51/3 when drafted in 1963 then bought a new R69S when discharged in 1965. Since then I have owned about 65 pre 1970 BMWs. I own 8 right now. In all these years I have never, NEVER heard anyone say that the R69S was inferior to the R69. If anything the R69 had a few problems that were corrected in the S model. Sticky valves was one of them..................Comet

EuroIron · Post by **EuroIron** » Thu Mar 06, 2008 10:03 am

I wasn't aware that the exhaust valve problem was ever "cured" on any of the pre-70 bikes

best I can tell to actually cure it, so they can deal with anything your throttle hand can dish out, takes a bit of heliarc welding, stainless or nimonic 80 valves, and ampco rowe 45 guides

The R69 is much more pleasant to ride in my opinion

and it surely is much rarer

Allan.Atherton · Post by **Allan.Atherton** » Fri Mar 07, 2008 4:21 pm

I wasn't aware that the exhaust valve problem was ever "cured" on any of the pre-70 bikes...
What problem is that? Maybe the R69S was exempt.
I am on my third R69US or S, and in those 50K miles, there was no exhaust valve problem.
The butterheaded bikes had exhaust valve seat and other problems, but the R69S is not included among the butterheads.

jeff dean · Post by **jeff dean** » Fri Mar 07, 2008 5:00 pm

I wasn't aware that the exhaust valve problem was ever "cured" on any of the pre-70 bikes...
What problem is that? Maybe the R69S was exempt.
I am on my third R69US or S, and in those 50K miles, there was no exhaust valve problem.
The butterheaded bikes had exhaust valve seat and other problems, but the R69S is not included among the butterheads.

Unless I am wrong, none of the pre-1970 motorcycles have had valve problems with unleaded gas. Certainly, none of my four R60/2s have.

Inasmuch as I will be picking up a Tim Stafford restored R69S in about three weeks, I am glad to hear they also have good valves and valve seats.

comet · Post by **comet** » Fri Mar 07, 2008 8:09 pm

The early (post 1955) BMW twins had a habit of building up carbon on the valve stem below the head. This eventually would prevent the valve from seating properly. Mechanics would counter bore the guide a bit to releve this condition. I always felt that the /2 and S series eliminated this problem as I have never experianced it with a /2 twin. The rotating valves were also an improvement. Jeff; what the hell is a butterhead???.........Comet

Allan.Atherton · Post by **Allan.Atherton** » Fri Mar 07, 2008 8:46 pm

... Jeff; what the hell is a butterhead???
Evolution of the Term “Butterhead”

1
Slash 2 Yahoogroup Msg # 9889
From: Pierre Michaud
Date: Sun Feb 3, 2002 4:11 pm
Subject: Re: [slash2] Valve Problems
Duane,
In the Slash 2 Heads section of your webpage you mention:
"If I had heads from a 64-67 R50/R60 I would try to get newer or older ones. Those years can't be fixed because the metal is butter. The R69S heads are workable".
Do you mean by that, that the R69S did not have the head problem?

2
Slash 2 Yahoogroup Msg # 9924
From: "Duane & Linda Ausherman"
Date: Tue Feb 5, 2002 2:35 pm
Subject: Reliability, you asked for my opinion
You asked for opinions and here is mine. Don't personalize this by feeling that your machine has been attacked. Best model, R69S with the harmonic balancer. Years to be avoided, 64 thru 67 for sure, all models. This is especially true of the R50/2 and R60/2. The "S" was a lot better, but the heads were still not as good as before and after the LK came out. Don't get the idea that 1963 had great heads. I don't know how to exactly determine the advent of the "butter" metal in them. I was there and couldn't figure it out at that time. It may have started as early as 62.

3
Slash 2 Yahoogroup Msg # 9930
From: "Duane & Linda Ausherman"
Date: Tue Feb 5, 2002 5:48 pm
Subject: Re: [slash2] Best Model
The R69S with butter heads still held up better than the R50/R60 series by a long way. Because of a better design and therefore better cooling, the typical faults just didn't show up in as few miles. The inserts came out and they still tended to lose threads off of the exhaust. The rocker stands didn't sink nearly as badly causing the valves to close up so much or as fast. The LK heads were just better in about every way. We noticed it in the R60/2 first, because it was the one that failed so quickly. I never knew when they changed the metallurgy. In fact I don't really know for sure that they did. I have been told that it was reformulated by knowledgeable people,that is all.

4
Slash 2 Yahoogroup Msg #9951
From: "allanatherton"
Date: Wed Feb 6, 2002 3:04 pm
Subject: Butterheads
Now there's a new term for some of us! And its because BMW wanted a cheaper, healthier and more environmentally-friendly way to clean the molds.
Bulletin #244 dated 7 Apr 67 says the material of the heads was previously changed to avoid the use of chloric gas required to clean the equipment that handled the former "hydronalium" alloy. It does not say when that change was made.
The bulletin goes on to confess that "it has been found that the new alloy does fully equal the hitherto used alloy concerning its resistance to heat", and that the headbolt sleeves were sinking into the heads, reducing valve clearance.
It goes on to say that R50 from 644184 and R60 from 1812245 will get age-hardened cylinder heads with different headbolt sleeves. . It says the R69S will get the same changes..."though the situation on this model is more favorable".

5
Slash 2 Yahoogroup Msg #9953
From: "Duane & Linda Ausherman"
Date: Wed Feb 6, 2002 3:58 pm
Subject: Re: [slash2] Butterheads
Allan,
Thanks, I like the term butterheads. BMW had nothing to do with the change. BMW bought heads from a contractor. That contractor had the billets cast by a foundry. The government made the smelting industry change some methods for cleaner air or some such thing. It was a couple of years before BMW saw the problem and then more to figure out what happened to a previously good design.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

EuroIron · Post by **EuroIron** » Sat Mar 08, 2008 12:21 pm

acceptable or not

it is absolutely certain that welding and shaping a vane in that exhaust port will drastically improve any of the boxer heads from prewar on up

if by fixed on the 56 and up, you mean slight change in the valve and guide material...... my opinion is, at best, that is merely a band-aid

they do build up carbon on the exhaust valve stems

and I'm also just as certain that there is no good reason not to use more affordable modern guide/valve choices that are higher grade than OEM

the intakes also have much room for improvement

that butter head stuff doesn't concern me in the least

nice to have the better castings but the original stuff works just fine and seems to be quite durable to me

and many others I've talked to that have flogged old BMW's for many many miles without LH heads

blaktopbalay · Post by **blaktopbalay** » Sat Mar 08, 2008 4:07 pm

it is absolutely certain that welding and shaping a vane in that exhaust port will drastically improve any of the boxer heads from prewar on up

-you got a picture of this? Aside from creating a slight increase in backpressure and port restriction, this is supposed to help reduce the carbon buildup?

the intakes also have much room for improvement

-feel free to elaborate...

EuroIron · Post by **EuroIron** » Sat Mar 08, 2008 5:24 pm

yeah I have pix

it protects the guide and actually improves flow

doesn't take much

on the intake side

well they are very industrial for starters

plenty of room for improvement