/2 Years to Avoid

[Slash2]

I happen to be in the market for a nice /2 and there are quite a few currently up for sale. I seem to recall a thread many months ago providing some information on the subtle variations from year to year. I'm hoping someone can either link that thread or reiterate some of the points. I remember that there were several years mid 60's where BMW was using a slightly different material in the heads and that these were best avoided when possible.

That said, is there a year that stands out above the rest? Simple logic might assume the 69 would benefit from being the final revision, but we all know that newer doesn't necessarily mean better.

Any input would be helpful!

[schrader7032]

You're essentially right...the later the better. There were frame upgrades over time, so later will include more gusseting for strength. Search Duane's site for "butterheads" which describes the issue with the wrong metallurgy or finishing.

http://w6rec.com/duane/bmw/index.htm

[nebseyer]

My December 1966 built R60/2 is definitely a butterhead. The spark plug on the left cylinder head almost popped out on me while on the carpool lane doing 70 mph on the 405 around Torrance, CA. I almost did not make it to the shoulder. I replaced them with LK heads and it now rides like a dream. More power and no more worries about the spark plug insert coming lose.

[Slash2]

I had the heads off my '64 R60/2 sent out to Randy Long a few years back to be rebuilt before ever hearing the term butterhead. He didn't get real specific but I recall him mentioning that my heads looked great before he even set to work on them. They had 35k on them at the time and had never been rebuilt. According to Duane, my heads fall well within the range of the butterheads but never seemed to manifest any issues. I'm wondering if this was as comprehensive as he suggests or if I'm missing something.

Two of the available bikes are a 67 and a 69. Both Earles bikes. Both /2's. I'm somewhat on the fence about picking up another /2 or holding out until the right R69 or R69s shows up. It would be an understatement to say that I love the ride of the /2, that said, I've never had the pleasure of riding the R69 or R69s. Any thoughts?

[schrader7032]

I've only ridden an R60/2 for a short time, when I switched with a buddy while he rode my R69S. I don't recall any significant differences. However, on another ride we were on, I was leading and he remarked later that he could keep up with me during the ride...that he could use a few extra horses to do that. It could have been his riding style, but there is a big difference in horsepower between the stock /2 and the sports model R69S. The R69 would also be down on horsepower.

[miller6997]

Just FWIW, I've owned two 1967 R69S models. The first one I rode over 100,000 miles and the second one (which I still have) is just under 80,000 miles. No butterhead symptoms on either bike.

[Slash2]

I appreciate all the input fellas. The 69 sounds like a safer bet. This forum has been a great resource.

While the S model has higher horse power, the longevity of the lower compression 69 is interesting. That said, they seem increasingly difficult to find in original condition. It seems that original paint /2's are a dime a dozen but every 69 I come across has been repainted and restored.

I'm not looking for a perfect original, patina is fine by me. A low mileage original or even mechanical restoration would be satisfactory as well but they just don't seem to come up in the usual places much anymore. If anyone has or knows of such a bike, I'd be very interested.

Cheers!

[stagewex]

That's cuz were all out riding our original non-restored 1969's. Darn durable machines.
Funny thing is I was originally looking for a 1973 LWB r75/5 which was the last year of the /5's. This r60/2 US came up and my heart fell out of my chest when the seller opened the garage and I saw her the first time. He had bought a Harley and had only ridden the poor BMW 300 miles in 2 years of ownership. So in a way I felt I was rescuing her.
I just bought a 1995 K75 (again, last year of the original "Flying Brick" K bikes) to help ease the riding load on the r60. Picked it up today from a major going over and service at MAX. Going forward I'll be doing remedial service.

Mine is a US Model so has the telescopic forks which carried through to the /5's and beyond. Smoother ride in my opinion.
There is a 1968 earles for sale on this site. I know nothing of it but seems to be unrestored and the price is very decent if not interestingly low. Mileage is not listed. Check it out.

[Slash2]

Stagewex,

Your bikes both look beautiful, although I'm partial to the R60US. The flying bricks have always interested me.. As someone who seems to enjoy the ride of the US front end, have you ridden an Earles machine? I haven't had the opportunity to ride a US bike and have heard unfavorable reviews in the past. Mostly that they felt like, "all the Japanese bikes of the 70's." As someone who owns one and enjoys the ride, I'm interested in your feedback.

I have checked out the listing for the 68 R60/2. She sounds great mechanically but there are a few questions about the originality of the paint and stripes. The tank looks a bit "off" and the stripes on the rear fender simply stop at the bottom as opposed to following the lower curve of the fender. I agree with you as to the interest of the price, and perhaps the paint is the reason for this, but small issues like these tend to send off warnings. Unduly as they probably are. If she were closer to me I'd go have a look in person, but then I'd just be settling... and still wanting the R69(s).

[miller6997]

I know this is not /2-relevant, but I really covet your K75. I had a K11LT that was the smoothest bike I've ever owned, and the triple is even silkier.