BMW Luxury Touring Community banner

1 - 20 of 28 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,481 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
I'm currently considering purchasing a new K1200LT but have a question. I notice the K engine in the GT has much more power than the one in the LT. Does anyone know if there is any future plan from BMW to put the GT engine into the LT? I would hate to buy the current LT only to find the engine is getting an upgrade in the near future. Thanks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,905 Posts
All there are at this point in time are rumors and speculations. And if there is a new LT in the works, it's not going to be released until '09. I say buy a bike NOW, and ride it like ya stole it!!!


Morley said:
Heck, I think they should take the one from the K1200S and put in the LT...Mmmmmm 167HP in an LT....
But not enough torque to pull an 850-pound bike. They'd have to rework it, for sure. But I don't mind the 152 ponies that pull my GT. And with more luggage capacity than the current LT to boot. :p But the LT is in an entirely different category all together. It never made me mad during the 45K that I rode one. A fabulous machine.
 

·
Bouncer
Joined
·
9,315 Posts
messenger13 said:
But not enough torque to pull an 850-pound bike.
Not enough torque?

2006 K1200LT (flying brick): 98 hp (73.1 kW) @ 6750 rpm and 115 Nm torque (84.8 ft. lbs) @ 4750 rpm

2007 K1200GT (K40 slant4): 152 hp (113.3 kW) @ 9500 rpm and 130 Nm torque (95.9 ft. lbs) @ 7750 rpm

The GT has 15 more Nm torque than the current LT and 54 more HP.
 

·
Just ridin'
Joined
·
5,297 Posts
pickerbiker said:
I'm currently considering purchasing a new K1200LT but have a question. I notice the K engine in the GT has much more power than the one in the LT. Does anyone know if there is any future plan from BMW to put the GT engine into the LT? I would hate to buy the current LT only to find the engine is getting an upgrade in the near future. Thanks.
Have you ridden the current LT?

I keep hearing how outdated, long in the tooth, ho-hum and other similar remarks about it. While I love my GT, the LT, exactly as it is right now, remains the best overall luxury touring motorcycle on the road. The other brands can't come close to the overall package of suspension (ride and handling), fuel efficiency and comfort. While the styling of the LT looks a little dated, it is still as attractive as anything on the road. If you wait even a year on a new model you will miss another riding season on an LT.

The LT is very special to me and if I were touring two-up it would still be the only choice for me. The LT never lacked for performance and more importantly - never lacked competence in any situation.
 

·
Bouncer
Joined
·
9,315 Posts
eljeffe said:
Not enough torque?

2006 K1200LT (flying brick): 98 hp (73.1 kW) @ 6750 rpm and 115 Nm torque (84.8 ft. lbs) @ 4750 rpm

2007 K1200GT (K40 slant4): 152 hp (113.3 kW) @ 9500 rpm and 130 Nm torque (95.9 ft. lbs) @ 7750 rpm

The GT has 15 more Nm torque than the current LT and 54 more HP.
BTW, this is for the guy in the peanut gallery who said I didn't take in low-end torque and how the new motor doesn't cut it.

K1200GT Torque and HP graph


K1200LT Torque and HP Graph


It's pretty easy to see that the new K40 engine beats the flying brick in terms of torque across the entire RPM range.

Sources:
motorbikes.be - comparison data
motorcycle.com - K1200LT dyno graph
www.ibike.com.hk - K1200GT dyno graph
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
460 Posts
randy said:
The LT is very special to me and if I were touring two-up it would still be the only choice for me.
:D I only ride solo, and I love my LT.

randy said:
The LT never lacked for performance and more importantly - never lacked competence in any situation.
Well, I discovered two ill-suited situations: fire road (in the Jemez Springs area - boy was that a stupid thing to try :eek:) and extended pot-holed gravel roads (can handle it, but it wasn't fun like it would have been on a GS :bmw: )
 

·
IBR# 366
Joined
·
16,544 Posts
2006 K1200LT (flying brick): 98 hp (73.1 kW) @ 6750 rpm and 115 Nm torque (84.8 ft. lbs) @ 4750 rpm

2007 K1200GT (K40 slant4): 152 hp (113.3 kW) @ 9500 rpm and 130 Nm torque (95.9 ft. lbs) @ 7750 rpm

2007 K1200S (K40 slant4): 167 hp (124.6 kW) @ 10250 rpm and 130 Nm torque (95.9 ft. lbs) @ 8250 rpm

Sure the GT and S both have more max torque than the LT, but those engines are designed to make power at much higher rpms. On a bike as heavy as the LT you want grunt across the rev range more than peak rpm power. So I'd say BMW will likely drop the peak hp down to 130 or so, while maintaining a broad, flat torque curve (without absurdly large displacements or unnecessary cylinders as other manufacturers do).

But whatever BMW is going to do, I just hope they do it soon.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,900 Posts
randy said:
While the styling of the LT looks a little dated, it is still as attractive as anything on the road.
I never really thought of the LT's appearance as dated. True it has had the same basic design since '99, but back then it was ahead of its time for looks, sloping crves, sleek areodynamic fairings... I look at the GW and it looks like something out of the '70's. Who designs those things for Honda anyway?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,905 Posts
LT dated?

After buying the GT, I began to think that the LT's design was somewhat dated. But after studying many photos I've taken with my GT setting next to many LTs...I think the LT's design is holding up really well against the test of time. Good job BMW!
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,836 Posts
Real Wheel vs Crank

eljeffe said:
BTW, this is for the guy in the peanut gallery who said I didn't take in low-end torque and how the new motor doesn't cut it.

K1200GT Torque and HP graph


K1200LT Torque and HP Graph


It's pretty easy to see that the new K40 engine beats the flying brick in terms of torque across the entire RPM range.

Sources:
motorbikes.be - comparison data
motorcycle.com - K1200LT dyno graph
www.ibike.com.hk - K1200GT dyno graph
No doubt the GT 's numbers are impressive .The GT has a nice flat torque curve with ample supply at the low rpms. But look at the peak numbers again.
The LT'S numbers appear to be measured at the rear wheel, While the GT's numbers are measured at the crank.With that in mind you can subtract about 17- 20 peak HP at the RW . Torque will drop when measured at the rear wheel. Just Peanuts.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,424 Posts
Well said Randy. :thumb: I'm riding 2000 and I don't plan on changing anytime soon. I'm one of those that drive a car 'til the wheels fall off and I guess the LT will be that way. Would I love to have a second bike, GSA, for running the fire roads in North Jawja? Yepprs. But for everything else I do, the LT is just fine. Including watching Messenger13's rapidly fading taillights. ;) :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,165 Posts
Not the difference you think Jeff! The GT is certainly impressive, and after riding one I feel that a little re-tuning of that engine could make a very credible new LT powerplant. but the torque difference is far less than the graphs would appear to show. Notice that the graphs for the GT are KW for power, and NM for torque, where the graphs for the LT are HP and Pound/Feet. You can tell because the power/torque graphs MUST cross at 5250 RPM. Multiply the torque numbers on the GT graph by 0.737 to get Pound/Feet.

The 5250 crossing point for the GT are at about 118 NM (87 Pound/Feet) and 63 KW (84 HP).

The LT graphs also are definitely rear wheel, where the GT seems to be crank output.

Kinda comparing apples to oranges with the posted graphs.

eljeffe said:
BTW, this is for the guy in the peanut gallery who said I didn't take in low-end torque and how the new motor doesn't cut it.

K1200GT Torque and HP graph


K1200LT Torque and HP Graph


It's pretty easy to see that the new K40 engine beats the flying brick in terms of torque across the entire RPM range.

Sources:
motorbikes.be - comparison data
motorcycle.com - K1200LT dyno graph
www.ibike.com.hk - K1200GT dyno graph
 

·
Bouncer
Joined
·
9,315 Posts
David,

Still, the new slant4 engine has much more torque than the flying brick regardless. The statement that the engine doesn't produce the torque necessary for a 850 pound touring motorcycle seems ridiculous to me.

2006 K1200LT (flying brick): 98 hp (73.1 kW) @ 6750 rpm and 115 Nm torque (84.8 ft. lbs) @ 4750 rpm

2007 K1200GT (K40 slant4): 152 hp (113.3 kW) @ 9500 rpm and 130 Nm torque (95.9 ft. lbs) @ 7750 rpm
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,165 Posts
eljeffe said:
David,

Still, the new slant4 engine has much more torque than the flying brick regardless. The statement that the engine doesn't produce the torque necessary for a 850 pound touring motorcycle seems ridiculous to me.

2006 K1200LT (flying brick): 98 hp (73.1 kW) @ 6750 rpm and 115 Nm torque (84.8 ft. lbs) @ 4750 rpm

2007 K1200GT (K40 slant4): 152 hp (113.3 kW) @ 9500 rpm and 130 Nm torque (95.9 ft. lbs) @ 7750 rpm
I agree that the engine is credible for an LT, but the low RPM torque will need to be increased a little by tuning, likely dropping the peak HP.

I would like to see what the torque comparisons between the two engines are at 2500-3500 RPM, where it really counts getting a big heavy tourer up and going. I would imagine the older engine may have higher torque there.

When talking about the hopefully new LT, the peak torque/HP mean little to nothing. Who cares if it has higher torque at 9500 RPM? I want to know what it is at normal TOURING riding RPM levels. Let's try to get some USEFUL information for the subject at hand. Throwing out completely mismatched graphs is certainly not very helpful.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
607 Posts
pickerbiker said:
I'm currently considering purchasing a new K1200LT but have a question. I notice the K engine in the GT has much more power than the one in the LT. Does anyone know if there is any future plan from BMW to put the GT engine into the LT? I would hate to buy the current LT only to find the engine is getting an upgrade in the near future. Thanks.
Test ride the bike. If you feel you need more power and/or torque, find something else or wait and hope. I've ridden V-twin torque monster machines and a Hayabusa equipped with a nitrous oxide system (talk about overkill!) I've found my '02 LT to have more than adequate power for comfortable solo or two-up riding (and Telle is not known for packing light on trips.) The power curve is smooth and predictable (unlike the Hayabusa when you hit the "happy button") and the handling is more than I ever expected from a large bike. I bought the LT for long distance two up touring, not for burnouts at the local watering hole or racing through the twisties.
I have the ablility to tweak more power out of just about any engine (even been known to squeeze a few extra ponies from a Briggs & Stratton) but haven't felt the need to do so in the LT.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,905 Posts
I think if someone was to throw the current GT's powerplant into an LT and let Jeff ride it, he would then (and only then) see the light. ;) :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
323 Posts
messenger13 said:
I think if someone was to throw the current GT's powerplant into an LT and let Jeff ride it, he would then (and only then) see the light. ;) :)
Is there any chance that GT of yours will be making a hard right in a left turn on the Cabot Trail any time soon?? With some other expendable rider on it of course in a parachute and wet suit.

Do you get kickbacks from BMW for your shameless GT promotionssssss. If not you're missing something.

While I'm at it, adding luggage space does not a tourer make.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,180 Posts
dshealey said:
I would like to see what the torque comparisons between the two engines are at 2500-3500 RPM, where it really counts getting a big heavy tourer up and going. I would imagine the older engine may have higher torque there.
When talking about the hopefully new LT, the peak torque/HP mean little to nothing. Who cares if it has higher torque at 9500 RPM? I want to know what it is at normal TOURING riding RPM levels. .
David,

Don't you think a modified (lower) first gear for the LT would be the ticket? My 06 LT will red lines at 8k doing 65mph in first! I would not mind one bit shifting in half the time to get out of the hole quicker. Riding two up on a NC upward road incline to bust into or out from traffic can be hair raising at times.

I believe it would also be less wear on the clutch, less drag. The engine performs beautifully outside of first. My brothers GW effortlessly moves when popping the clutch in first, although you shift around 12-20 mph.

Anyway, just a thought I had.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,165 Posts
SmokinJoe said:
David,

Don't you think a modified (lower) first gear for the LT would be the ticket? ----------------------------------------
Yes, I thought that many times. I was thinking of swapping out the final drive gears for a set from a R1150 GS to lower the overall ratio considerably. There is a ratio available that would have raised the output ratio nearly 10%. I was also thinking it would make the LT more responsive in 5th gear, with a little drop in fuel mileage.
 
1 - 20 of 28 Posts
Top