BMW Luxury Touring Community banner

1 - 20 of 45 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
49 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I Did A search and couldn't find a simple answer... Not using right words I guess..

What I'm after is on a GoldWing (1800) vs a K1200LT.. which will out pull the other (quicker to get up to speed)...we not really racing per say.. but you know what I mean...basically a quick jaunt to the 70- 80mph limit

If bikes started out, Rolling go.., will the 07 K1200 LT out pull a pack of goldwings to hwy speeds? Just curious

Wanting to know some of the obvious hypothetical answers from some with experience in this area..
Thanks in advance..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
114 Posts
Not your answer but my 99LT cant catch my 99 C10, but it does a lot better than I thought it was considering that my C10 is up bout 10% in torque from stock as shown on dyno.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
423 Posts
"There is no substitute for cubic inches." No idea what the real answer is, but with 50% more cc's than an LT, I seriously doubt there is any contest.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,746 Posts
I believe the catch phrase is 'There's no replacement for displacement'.

Not sure the LT would out launch a Wing but if the rule was you had to keep the revs between 7 and 8000 rpm it probably would :kaboom:

Loren

smahon said:
"There is no substitute for cubic inches." No idea what the real answer is, but with 50% more cc's than an LT, I seriously doubt there is any contest.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,481 Posts
I've ridden both. The LT cannot keep with an 1800 Gold Wing from a start to 70 mph. However, once you hit the twisties and keep the rpm's up on the LT, it's a different story. The LT handles better (especially with upgraded shocks) and has more clearance for cornering.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
876 Posts
Both bikes have totally different engines in respect to power delivery. the K1200 makes power right up to around 8000 rpm, wheras the GW engine produces peak horsepower around 5500 rpm (from memory). So in essence it means the BMW engine can (and is) capable of operating as a sports engine with quite a wide power band and no tapering off at high revs, where the GW will be braethless if the rider waits too long between gear changes. But make no mistake, the GW can haul arse (ass for you guys in the US), but the Beemer can be made to operate with a sporty feel, especially given the suspension and brakes as part of the package. Depends on what you want and what suits your riding style. In a straight line it comes down to power to weight ratio Hp/Lb (or Kw/Kg) Oh, and don't let anyone tell you about the torque they develop, as torque isn't what flings you up the road, it's the HP, you just have to know where it all happens and be able to utilise it. Check out both bike's power curves to see the differences. Hope this helps.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,345 Posts
The Wing is a tractor. The LT is a roadster............... :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
999 Posts
Oh said:
disagree torque is what "flings" you down the road, horsepower overcomes wind resistance - doubling your speed requires four times the horsepower - watch youtube topgear video about Bugatti Veryon where "Captain Slow" explains about the key that limits it's horsepower to 270 for a top speed of around 300 kph, the other 730 horsepower is for the range of 300 to top speed of 407 kph

www.youtube.com/watch?v=jk1t6S737Cs
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,285 Posts
In a quarter mile drag race their performance is almost identical.

0 to 60?, yeah, the Wing will win every time. It's engine makes more torque low in the power band than the LT's does at maximum output. It's an excellent engine. The only penalty for the extra 600cc's is you get to visit the gas station a lot more frequently than on the LT.

Once the road starts to curve there is absolutely no comparison, the LT is by far the better performer and in the hands of a capable rider can keep up with most sport bikes, (if the straights aren't too long) :D The main reason it is so much better in the curves is that the brakes are sublime, it has quite a bit more cornering clearance AND it is "flickable" - even at 800 lbs!
The Gold Wing is a full sized couch, the LT is more of a "Love seat". :dance:

They are BOTH very outdated, (don't forget the current iteration LT was designed 15 years ago) but even though they are antiques are hard to beat for two up riding in comfort.
 

·
Ego equitare, timo ego sum
Joined
·
9,871 Posts
I've owned both bikes at the same time, 2002 LT & 2008 GL1800.
The GL has more low end torque, and leaves the line & accelerates faster than the LT.

jm2cw
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,571 Posts
RonKMiller said:
They are BOTH very outdated, (don't forget the current iteration LT was designed 15 years ago)...
Dude, you're calling my girl old... :eek:

She still runs like a pre-teen! :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,745 Posts
I agree with Brian..........."the older the violin........etc..."

As far as the rest of it goes........get the LT into the twisties and it will out perform the Wings..........some wings have been modified to really work well in the canyons but if the suspension on the LT has been upgraded; well, there ya' are............ :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
576 Posts
Since one had a wet clutch, and the other has a dry clutch that doesn't seem to like much abuse...why bother? They're both faster than the cages, by a margin!

I know when I treated my LT's clutch like the wet clutch on my VTX, it took it's happy time slowly matching down to the 3000rpm the motor was currently running at. (This was accelerating from the side of the road on an interstate.) My thought was: Not sure it that's right or not...but I'll not try it again...just in case.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
676 Posts
Had a GL1800 have an LT, If the GL is faster off the line....It just means you rocket to bordom faster..Ho hum..Zzzzz Faster or slower, the LT is just Fun, fun, fun!!!!!! :rotf:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
876 Posts
gary45 said:
disagree torque is what "flings" you down the road,

I suggest anyone who is interested in understanding the difference between torque nad horsepower and their relevance to performance Google the subject, there are plenty of credible articles available to help clarrify. Physics - laws which can be tested but not broken.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
59 Posts
K100Dennis said:
gary45 said:
disagree torque is what "flings" you down the road,

I suggest anyone who is interested in understanding the difference between torque nad horsepower and their relevance to performance Google the subject, there are plenty of credible articles available to help clarrify. Physics - laws which can be tested but not broken.
Although the members on this forum seem to have better than average intelligence (which is not saying much nowadays), most people still get confused about torque vs HP. That's because the accurate explanations are difficult to understand, and the simplistic explanations are wrong.

Here's the simplistic explanation I use to keep it straight in my head:

Torque is what we feel as change in momentum. That sensation of being pulled.

Horsepower is what we experience as top speed. That sensation of the countryside flying past our facemask as a blur.

In the end, because torque and HP are related (HP is a function of torque), what matters is not the total figures, but the power curve of the engine. And what power characteristics you prefer. If you enjoy having your arms yanked out of their sockets from a standing start, get a V-twin. If you enjoy smooth and progressively quicker acceleration at speed, opt for a 4-cyl. The Gold Wing is actually somewhere between the two.

ape
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
198 Posts
There are two fundamentals of engine design here:

The GL1800 vs the K1200 (and in fairness use the '05 and later 116 HP) the GL is quicker off the line. As I recall, MCN published a nearly full issue comparison article in '05 when the 116 HP version of the LT was released between the GL and the LT. My recollection is that 0 to 60 mph, the GL was quicker.

But, the GL1800 is a two valve engine, while the K1200LT is a four valve. At higher RPMs and further up the torque curve the breathing efficiency of the 4 valve head begins to dominate the physics of the situation and I'd imagine that a 60 to 80 MPH roll on acceleration would go to the LT because of breathing efficiency. Also, its entirely possible, though I don't know for a fact, that the K1200LTs absolute top speed could be a bit higher than the GL. Where the torque curves peak, what the absolute torque is, combined with aerodynamics would determine which has the higher absolute top speed.

JD
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,393 Posts
which ever puts the biggest smile on your face. GW might have low-end pull, but I will always remember staying with the guy on the Ducati thru the twisties (after he had almost run me off a quarter mile back). W said (in the intercom) 'I think you surprised him how well this runs!' Gawrsh I LOVE this bike!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,743 Posts
wing (2011):
0-60 4.4
1/4 mile 12.78 (other sources say 5.4 and 14.1)

LT (2005):
0-60 4.85
1/4 mile 12.76


Most people can't blink twice in .45 seconds, .02 seconds on a 1/4 mile is rounding error.

In other words, they are pretty much identical for both
 
1 - 20 of 45 Posts
Top