July 30, 2008 at 10:35 am #58665
I know it wasn’t a big seller but a lot of folks have or had one. I can’t seem to find some great owner photos on the web. Please post ’em here!
I still have a burning desire to get a R1200CLC for two-up cruising.July 30, 2008 at 10:35 am #60743
A CLC? My overwhelming impression is “no power” but besides that they seem pretty well made. My bog gripe with the R1200C isn’t actually the looks or the performance, it’s the lousy chrome they used. A year or two in the wrong environment, and they look terrible.July 30, 2008 at 10:35 am #60744
[QUOTE=AntonLargiader »]A CLC? My overwhelming impression is “no power” but besides that they seem pretty well made. My bog gripe with the R1200C isn’t actually the looks or the performance, it’s the lousy chrome they used. A year or two in the wrong environment, and they look terrible.[/QUOTE]
How does the power compare to say a R100RT, once considered a very good two-up bike? The chrome is a very real issue. But, over time the chrome bits can me stripped and painted to look less flashy. As you can see I have it bad.July 30, 2008 at 10:35 am #60745
You’d have to look up the power and weight, but also don’t ignore the fact that expectations are higher. 250cc bikes used to be considered acceptable for 2-up touring, while on modern highways that would be downright dangerous.
I’m not saying that the CLC isn’t OK for 2-up (far from it) just that comparisons with the days of yore might not tell the whole tale. As far as I’m concerned, an R100 is still fine for 2-up touring, by a good margin.
There are certainly plenty of people who like the CLC, and a bunch of them are bound to tour 2-up on them. I assume you’re familiar with the [url]www.chromeheads.org[/url] site.July 30, 2008 at 10:35 am #60746
I have had a CLC for a little over a year and a half. It is a very misunderstood bike. I bought it with no intention of keeping it (bought cheap) based on the bad reviews and the bashing it was given by almost everyone. I rode it for a while and it grew on me. It is low horsepower but high torque. The torque is more than the R1100RT and it peaks at around 3,200 RPMs (which is exactly the engine speed you get at interstate speeds in 6th). It is a heavy bike (wind doesn’t blow it around) and is challenging at very low speeds until you get used to it. My bike has over 34,000 miles on it and the only thing that has happened to it is a burned out headlight bulb. No problem with the chrome at all. I think that was resolved long before the CLC was introduced in 2003.
The CLC is a good bike for traveling with heated grips, heated seats, electronic cruise, AM/FM/CD/Weather Band radio, floorboards, bags, low seat, top case with good weather protection, fuel mileage from the mid to upper 40s and plenty of power for 2 up riding.
The MOA ON had an article on the cruisers in the June (I think) edition and my bike is the brown CLC in the corner of the page.
We Chromeheads will have out 3rd annual 3C at the Breaks Rally in a couple of weeks [URL=”http://www.chromeheads.org/discus/messages/8/347536.html?1192796775″]http://www.chromeheads.org/discus/messages/8/347536.html?1192796775[/URL]July 30, 2008 at 10:35 am #60752
I bought a CL the first model year. I loved that bike. It was comfortable and had lots of luggage space. It could keep up on the highway until it was time to pass. That was when its lack of power revealed itself.
I kept it for a year then got a K1200GT.
The CL is a good cruiser. Almost every bike in the BMW line-up during the years the CL/CLC were in production was faster, much faster, boxers included.July 30, 2008 at 10:35 am #60755
I had a new 2004 CLC last year. Rode 12K+ miles and was quite satisfied. Traded it in on a new RT1200 this spring as I found L.D. riding more to my liking. I miss it but woulkd not give up my RT. The CLC was a bit awkward at low speed and didn’t have the “snappy response” the RT has. Wish I could’ve afforded both…………..July 30, 2008 at 10:35 am #60903
I traded in my K1200LT on an 03CLC April 07 and havn’t regreted it. I like the way it sets and feels. My 03 does have chrome issues but I can live with it. Last year I took a 4100mile trip and enjoyed it very much. I havn’t missed the LT at all.
Bellville,TXJuly 30, 2008 at 10:35 am #60906
There was a very cool Airhead cruiser on eBay a few days ago. Rather than make a chopper-style bike, this was more like a prewar-style cow glide with a flat twin.
BMW definitely goes their own way on stuff, but they got the cruiser idea from others and I think they could have done something really neat in this direction:
[url]http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=330278048942[/url]July 30, 2008 at 10:35 am #60908
[QUOTE=AntonLargiader »]There was a very cool Airhead cruiser on eBay a few days ago. Rather than make a chopper-style bike, this was more like a prewar-style cow glide with a flat twin.[/QUOTE]
That’s where they went wrong. It woulda been soooo cool!July 30, 2008 at 10:35 am #60963
[QUOTE=MarkF]…I still have a burning desire to get a R1200CLC for two-up cruising.[/QUOTE]
The CLC is a better ride than the CL. I had a 2000 and after a few months hated it. It had the bags, wide/high bars, big cushy two-up seat but lousy suspension. It had such a short suspension travel in the rear that the wife and I were constantly bottoming out on very small bumps. Our spines couldn’t take the beating. Chrome was pitting on the wheels and I sold it at a huge loss! I just wanted to get rid of it. Like I said, the CLC has slightly longer travel in the rear. BMW should be ashamed that they ever built the CL.July 30, 2008 at 10:35 am #61051
New member here who has a 2004 R1200C, built in Oct 2003, and purchased new in January 2006.
The modifications include BMW running lights in front, an instrument cluster that includes a tach, clock and air temperature gage plus the factory speedo and lights, engine guard, leather saddle bags, and a Rick Mayer seat.
The picture is taken at my home in Santa Fe,NM at 7,990 feet elevation. The bike is still peppy at that altitude.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.