No I didn't remove R-RT's and K-LT's from the survey data.iowabeakster wrote:Did you remove the K-LT's and R-RT's from the data too?
I don't see how a milage analysis of used bikes on ebay has much to say about mechanical integrity of product anyway... kind of a non sequitur. Unless, it is to point out that there may be a reason so many BMW riders are selling their bikes once they hit a milage point.
You say that BMW replaced known crappy parts on your car out of warranty. Why not for their bikes?
Do a search on ADVrider for the spline failures on the GS's...
Do a search on BMWST for the spline failures on the RT's...
It's a pretty well documented and much to common failure for a drive-line component. Then incredible part is the number of people who had this happen with less than 20K miles.
I agree the data is poor. It was readily available and no one is offering an alternative. Talk about a non-sequitor though! You are suggesting that BMW owners are dumping their aging bikes because they aren't reliable but owners of Hondas, Kawasakis, Moto Guzzis, Ducatis, and Yamahas with 62,000 miles on the clock refuse to sell them becuase they are so much more reliable. If you believe that why do you have a BMW? You paid more for a motorcycle that is less reliable and now that you have realized your mistake you are hanging onto the motorcycle and complaining it may break instead of selling it and getting what you believe is a superior bike that is actually cheaper. Your argument would be more convincing if you acted on your convictions.
Why would BMW fix the car but not the bike? You can't sell a car with a reputation for serious parts failure at 60,000 miles. You can sell a lot of motorcycles even with a reputation for serious failures at 60,000 miles because no one expects a motorcycle to last that long. That is why BMW fixes the car but not the bike.
According to KBB the current expected accumulated average mileage of a 2003 non-touring bike with more than 750cc's is 24,200 miles. Why build a heavy, low-performance bike that will last 100,000 miles when the average purchaser rides less than 4,000 miles a year? Most manufacturers realized that was a stupid idea years ago. One maker went its own way and builds bikes today that are heavier, engineered differently than all the rest and last longer than the competition. Care to guess which one?

