Originally Posted by supershaft
What other point is there? Low CG? Now we know that low CG isn't good on a bike. Centralized CG is. Are there any others?
Porsche? They were air cooled in a completely different way. Low CG in a car (or hack) IS a good thing!
I'm not so certain low CoG is bad
for motorcycles, central CoG may be better yes but mainly in race applications. The inherent benefits are not going to be significant on road applications. Is the pursuit of centralizing CoG on road applications really a good business decision to drop your top selling line?
Mind your heritage, it's your past and your future.
Many have argued against the BMW boxer as being an archaic design. Many have said the Porsche configuration is too tail-happy in nature. BMW addressed these issues through continual refinement and improvement of the motor producing class competitive performance. Porsche addressed this with better technology to counteract what some enthusiasts consider a poor design. Porsche didn't abandon what worked for them, neither should BMW.
The motor is literally the soul of the bike or car. You change that you risk a lot. A Porsche isn't a "real" Porsche unless it runs a boxer. A Mazda RX isn't a RX without a rotary. BMW learned that when they tried to walk away from the boxer motor.
The motor is an emotive factor in purchasing. Otherwise we'd all be on 600 cc I4s, arguably the best bang for the buck out there, for manufacturer and consumer. Peopel are looking for more than just CoG. There's an appeal to the motor, that's why people by HD, Ducati, Honda VTEC, Mazda rotaries etc. - there;s an appeal in the motor. There's appeal in the boxer. Otherwise it wouldn't sell the way it does. There's no arguing that.