BMW Luxury Touring Community banner

1 - 12 of 12 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
51 Posts
What I keep waiting for is a review that makes at least some kind of comparison to the performance of the bike's immediate predecessor, the K1200/1300GT. Everything in the Motorcyclist article is reassuring and very welcome good news, but how are the 1600's attributes (e.g., ergonomics, roll-on power, center of gravity and flickability, airflow management and wind roar decibel levels) necessarily better than those of my K1200GT?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
86 Posts
RoadSurfer said:
What I keep waiting for is a review that makes at least some kind of comparison to the performance of the bike's immediate predecessor, the K1200/1300GT. Everything in the Motorcyclist article is reassuring and very welcome good news, but how are the 1600's attributes (e.g., ergonomics, roll-on power, center of gravity and flickability, airflow management and wind roar decibel levels) necessarily better than those of my K1200GT?
This should address a few of your questions. Kevin Ash Review
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
634 Posts
sounds like the Goldwing will still smoke the bmw off the line..

"I do suspect though the Honda has more initial thrust, as its torque peak is a lot lower than the BMW’s, 4,000rpm compared with 5,250rpm, and it’s only 6lb.ft (8.1Nm, 0.83kgm) less. The 1832cc, six-cylinder Wing has a much lower maximum power at 117bhp (119PS, 87.3kW) which also points to greater low rev torque, and reading my old reviews I did comment on the ‘irresistible twist’ from idle upwards"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
51 Posts
This should address a few of your questions. Kevin Ash Review
The Kevin Ash article contains a lot of comparison between the K1600GT and the K1600GTL, but I have been able to find only one passage that offers any comparison to the predecessor K12/1300GT, buffgunner: "the K1600GTL has a lower torque/kg ratio than the discontinued K1300GT for a substantial section of the lower rev range. It also builds more slowly."

Did I miss something?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
86 Posts
RoadSurfer said:
The Kevin Ash article contains a lot of comparison between the K1600GT and the K1600GTL, but I have been able to find only one passage that offers any comparison to the predecessor K12/1300GT, buffgunner: "the K1600GTL has a lower torque/kg ratio than the discontinued K1300GT for a substantial section of the lower rev range. It also builds more slowly."

Did I miss something?
My bad - No you didn't. I should have included this link: http://ashonbikes.com/content/bmw-k1600gt-torque-comparison
 

·
IBR# 366
Joined
·
16,554 Posts
johnT said:
sounds like the Goldwing will still smoke the bmw off the line…
Maybe, maybe not. Then again, the 'Wing is probably geared lower to handle the extra weight, which also accounts for its much worse fuel mileage . . .

Honestly, I'm not too worried about pulling stumps off the line. There is so much more to riding than that, and for me, BMW's combination of comfort, power, and exceptional handling makes for a pretty stunning overall package that is noticeable throughout every ride I take. :bmw:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
51 Posts
According to that second Kevin Ash review suggested by buffgunner, here are the differences between the 1300 and the 1600 in terms of torque and roll-on power:

Compared to the K1300GT, “the 1600GT has 6 per cent more torque per kilogramme at 2,500rpm (at the rear wheel) but 3 per cent less at 3,500rpm, a typical rpm figure when overtaking. This already suggests it's going to feel less muscular than the K1300GT as the speed builds at this level, while the GTL never beats the 1300 in this range....”

Moreover, “the K1300GT has 5.5 per cent more wheel torque per kg available at the back wheel than the K1600GT at 100kph (62mph), and 10.7 per cent more than the GTL. So despite the engine specs, the [K1300]GT is the faster top gear accelerator at these speeds.”

“On top of this, further factors need to be taken into account. One is the 1600’’s larger frontal area, which means more drag to overcome, and as the speed builds this becomes very significant because drag increases with the square of speed. The second is the nature of the power delivery: the K1300GT has quite an aggressive throttle response compared with the six-cylinder bike’’s sophisticated, smoother response which softens the initial acceleration.”
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
368 Posts
meese said:
Maybe, maybe not. Then again, the 'Wing is probably geared lower to handle the extra weight, which also accounts for its much worse fuel mileage . . .

Honestly, I'm not too worried about pulling stumps off the line. There is so much more to riding than that, and for me, BMW's combination of comfort, power, and exceptional handling makes for a pretty stunning overall package that is noticeable throughout every ride I take. :bmw:
Agree, it's always easy to argue for or against engine/machine traits/performance.
but the last link in BuffGunners post reviews SOME of the the dynamics that contribute
to that all important "FEEL" BUT, I have to say when it comes to suspension performance
and how that directly affects rider comfort, the BMW touring bikes are unriveled.


The low end torque of the Wings boxer 6 is intoxicating, smoothe and requires
less operator effort and attention to the gear and shifting. The trade-off is
weight, fuel economy, less HP and lower power to weight ratio. The new BMW6
is a different animal, more power delivered through a much wider rpm range
is more fuel efficient, higher power to weight ratio, but requires more rider
input/shifting to maximize it's performance. Americans have always loved
low revving long haul super-slab eating motors...that's why the V-twinn is
the hands down favorite and biggest selling configuration in the US market.

The arguments over engine configurations/power and performace will continue,
but meanwhile the high rpm engines will take over due to weight, fuel economy,
and emissions requirements. Bottom line is even the R1200RT boxer twin smokes
the Goldwing by over 1/2 second in the quarter mile due to it's lightness and much
higher power to weight ratio....But the Goldwing is still smoother more powerful
and requires less operator effort. It can haul two people and gear over the speed
limit all day without using 5th gear if you don't want too...but you'll only get 30MPG
and it weighs over 950 pounds. My preference has become the lighter weight,
better handling and more comfortable suspension.

Sometimes I ponder why Americans desire 6 gears in their touring bikes
but don't seem to really like all the shifting. Europeans seem to embrace
shifting, while enjoying and utilizing the full power band and engine characteristics
of their machines...No doubt their roads and preference for ligher higher
performing machines also contribute to the diffence between what is built
and sold in Europe/the rest of the world and the North American market.

The old cleche' couldn't apply more..."different strokes for different folks"
I like 'em all.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
260 Posts
I agree with you 100%. I :dance: came from riding sport bikes to cruser to touring. My 2006 lt takes a little effort of clutch and throttle to get it going and a little while to get use to. The Gtl I have ordered will be the same way and I am find with that. Thats just it being a BMW.
 

·
IBR# 366
Joined
·
16,554 Posts
RoadSurfer said:
"The K1300GT has quite an aggressive throttle response compared with the six-cylinder bike’s sophisticated, smoother response which softens the initial acceleration.”
And there's the gist of it: guys like Ash prefer that sport-bike mad rush of power that builds at high rpms, whereas most day-to-day riders will get more use out of a strong low-end grunt. That's why a heavy 'Wing "feels" faster off the line, but an inline 4 will easily pull away as speeds increase.

I'm not against dropping a gear to overtake in a swift manner. In fact, while having a higher top gear ratio reduces top-gear roll-on, it also means the bike is more relaxed at cruising speed and increases fuel mileage.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
112 Posts
RoadSurfer said:
The second is the nature of the power delivery: the K1300GT has quite an aggressive throttle response compared with the six-cylinder bike’’s sophisticated, smoother response which softens the initial acceleration.”
Another mag reviewer has characterized this "soft" response as a product of feeding all 6 cylinders through a single throttle body and long intake runners. Output takes a beat to reflect throttle input.
 
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
Top