BMW RT 1982 VS 1994 ... what would you choose?

[vteec]

Hi
I am considering an airhead RT (R100) and was wondering if the differences that were implemented example, twin shock to monoshock etc. would be so significant as to sway you from one to the other.
in my country I can register and pay cheaper annual road tax if a bike is 30 years old or more, so I have that incentive to go for a 1982 bike over a 1994 bike for example but if at the same time the 1994 model is a much better and reliable bike I would go for that.

my understanding is that all have the nikasil liners please?

thank you.

 

[Voyager]

I had a 1988 R80RT (a Mono) and a friend had a 1981 R100RT (Twin Shock).

Both bikes were good tourers but the thing that really annoyed me about the later 'RT' was the rear valance/light unit/carrier - its ABS plastic and won't take much load. I have seen a couple (including mine) where the plastic has broken under the seat owing to the weight on the carrier or (more likely) through someone trying to move the bike by lifting the back by the carrier.

The earlier bike has a steel back end which is much stronger.

If the earlier bike is in good condition and the motor is OK I would go for that.

Bob.

 

[Posh Pete]

Nikasil liners were introduced after 1981 iirc. If the bike has been cared for (regular oil changes mainly) , the bores should be almost perfect regardless of mileage.

 

[Kenny]

Later bike had better brakes and handling...and IMHO is a better all round bike. Both will have nikasil barrels
Purely down to personal choice, both are good in airhead world.......we could argue this one all day - lol
Both versions are getting old now...so have a good look at the overall condition/electrics/condition of frame/oil weeps etc etc.
Show us a pic when you get the one

 

[Beemerboff]

#1 on Kenny's post, try to get a ride on them and see which you prefer.

 

[B Murr]

I'd have previously said the later bike has better screen. However last year I test rode a 1200RT and no amount of faffing about with the screen left me with a perfect setting.

 

[Ogmios]

Both are good.
Personally i'd get whichever was in better condition, regardless of age.
You could get a neglected '94 Bike you'd have to soon spend money on / or a 'refreshed' '82 that's already had the money spent on it.
If both were of a comparable standard ....
oooh - i really dont know!
However,
throw in a well set up 1980 R80/7 with Brembo brake conversion and electronic ignition - and you could keep the newer ones - i'd have THAT!

 

[solidstate100]

Having owned both, I would tend to prefer the later bike - Better brakes and mono suspension are the primary reasons, but irrespective of that I would tend to buy on condition first - both bikes will do you OK!

 

[tuftywhite]

Whichever you get, get a good one, unless it's a project.

I had a 1983 RT and I never really bonded with it. It always felt a bit like a rattly shed. I think it was the particular bike, not the type of bike.

 

[airhead_eire]

I have an '82 twin shock R100/7 and a paralever '91 GS. The '91 bike is by far the better handling bike.
I love the R100/7 but it does feel "older" than the paralever mono shock models.