BMW K1200, K1300, and K1600 Forum banner

1 - 20 of 20 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
691 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
i noticed in the spec sheet the new GT has been de-tuned down to 153 HP from the 167 HP of the S. stupid move, in my opinion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
273 Posts
jdsmith1953 said:
i noticed in the spec sheet the new GT has been de-tuned down to 153 HP from the 167 HP of the S. stupid move, in my opinion.
normally this is associated with better power/torque in the mid-rev range. Nice move IMHO

/Michael
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
290 Posts
jdsmith1953 said:
i noticed in the spec sheet the new GT has been de-tuned down to 153 HP from the 167 HP of the S. stupid move, in my opinion.
It is anything but stupid. It makes extremely good sense.

The small drop in HP results from creating a much broader torque band, specifically better low-end torque. This is in keeping with the bike's stated character as a Tourer.

High peak horsepower always comes at the expense of low end torque. Touring bikes are not crotch rockets, or at least that is not their primary purpose. Improved "stump-pulling" low end torque is very much in keeping with the character of a tourer.

The amazing thing here, is that BMW was able to improve the low end so much, with only a ~8% (or so) loss in peak HP.

Bob.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
176 Posts
Horsepower means nothing on a touring or sport-touring bike, unless your definition of sport-touring is crossing the country doing one quarter-mile run after another. Torque means everything to the sport-tourer, it is what pulls you effortlessly up a hill when packing double and gives you a usable launch exiting a corner. Trimming 14hp from the "S" motor will be a good thing if it results in more mid-range torque.

A better question is what BMW plans to do about the general buzzines and unrefined feel that the S, and presumably the new GT, exhibit in comparison to the old K1200GT and to a lesser extent the FJR1300. All I-4 engines have an inherent buzz from their lack of perfect primary balance,a lack that can be helped but not cured with balance shafts. On the old K1200RS/GT this was eliminated via rubber-mounting. So the real question is what's the engine mounting system on the new GT? Rubber? Or solid? If the latter, then can we expect the new GT to exhibit at highway speeds the same lack of refinement, that feeling of "busy-ness" that has the rider constantly searching for a 7th gear, that the S already exhibits??

GTRider
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
433 Posts
GTRider said:
...A better question is what BMW plans to do about the general buzzines and unrefined feel that the S, and presumably the new GT, exhibit in comparison to the old K1200GT and to a lesser extent the FJR1300...
GTRider

In my opinion the S does not have "general buzziness" nor is it unrefined. It is not as smooth as the K12RS (with its rubber mounted engine), but is still quite smooth.

Ken
 

·
"Hey Y'all"
Joined
·
2,239 Posts
This is a test, this is only a test ...

GTRider said:
......... All I-4 engines have an inherent buzz from their lack of perfect primary balance ...........
Yes, this is true, but it seems as if BMW is the only manufacturer to actually use this "excuse". Now for the test...

Does anyone rememer the Honda add where the guy balances a nickle on it's side on a running engine? I want to say it was a 550 Four, but that was in the 70's and, even though I was there, I seem to have forgotten a lot of details. :think:

Trivia, while you're all hopefully trying to find a 30+ year old Honda TV add .... Did anyone else ever see the TV add where a Porsche Carerra takes off on a road course while a guy on a Yamaha is still putting on his gloves? They talk about the Porsche, show it sliding some turns, and then, as the Yamaha passes it in an overhead shot the commentator says, "Porsche makes the fastest production car on the planet. Want to know how fast it is? Ask the guy on the Yamaha." That was sooooo cool. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
691 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
the peak torque did not change, it moved down 500 rpm from 8250 to 7750 big zip. no significant improvement.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
144 Posts
buzziness

kencorsun said:
In my opinion the S does not have "general buzziness" nor is it unrefined. It is not as smooth as the K12RS (with its rubber mounted engine), but is still quite smooth.

Ken

I agree with Ken. The only buzziness felt is around the 6 and 7 mark on the tach, if you transition through it, no problem. Even in low gear twistie stuff, the buzz isn't felt much because you are constantly in and out of that rev range. I took a 4000 mi. trip on my S last summer and never was bothered by engine buzziness.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,774 Posts
Does anyone rememer the Honda add where the guy balances a nickle on it's side on a running engine? I want to say it was a 550 Four, but that was in the 70's and, even though I was there, I seem to have forgotten a lot of details.

The engine in question was the Honda 350cc 4-cylinder. One of the guys I rode with back in the '70s had one and it was the second smoothest bike I had ever ridden at that time. The first one was the TX500A Yamaha, a 500cc twin with double balance shafts and a 14,500 rpm redline.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
290 Posts
jdsmith1953 said:
the peak torque did not change, it moved down 500 rpm from 8250 to 7750 big zip. no significant improvement.
That was not the point. What they were REALLY after was to BROADEN the torque curve. In other words, to improve the torque at much lower RPM than just at the peak.

Tuning for maximum HP results in a motor that generates a LOT of torque at a narrow band of RPM, and relatively poor torque at lower RPM. This requires shifting more often to keep the motor at an RPM where useful torque can be generated for passing, hill climbing and so on. That may be great fun for a performance bike, but it is a pain in the ass for a tourer.

For a touring bike, absolute maximum torque is sacrificed, to result in a broader torque curve, with much better low end torque. If you look at the torque of the K1200S at (say) 3000 RPM, as compared to the K1200GT, I think you will see that the GT has bags more torque at this lower RPM, resulting less shifting being needed.


Bob.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
691 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
even two-up and loaded to the gills, above 40 MPH i rarely ran into a situation where i had to do much downshifting. the bike has plenty of torque as is, everyone craves more HP as evidenced by the manufacturer offering it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
395 Posts
As I was going to point out the S has significant torque from low RPMS on. I would suggest the detuning is in line with the mission of the bike and possibly to smooth it out some. Although I agree the S is smooth enough already for me .
The bike has heavier weight so maybe BMW wanted to add some TQ to the Basement of the rev range to get the barge Moving.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13 Posts
For a touring bike, absolute maximum torque is sacrificed, to result in a broader torque curve, with much better low end torque. If you look at the torque of the K1200S at (say) 3000 RPM, as compared to the K1200GT, I think you will see that the GT has bags more torque at this lower RPM, resulting less shifting being needed.


Bob.[/QUOTE]

Anyone who thinks that the K1200S doesn't have enough torque at low end has never ridden one. I can assure you that it does pull like a freight train even at low revs. I think that the weight of the GT is better served by lowering the top end HP ratings and adding some more on the bottom end. Come to think of it, maybe that's what you were saying.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,351 Posts
Seems to me a good trade.

I spent one day on a K1200LT on an Edelweiss tour (2-up with da wife).

It's 30 hp down on the RS.

But in normal "roll-ons" from 3,500 to 5,000 rpm (where I found myself most of the time), it subjectively felt that it pulled about as hard as an RS.

The 30 hp advantage of the RS at 9,000 rpm is academic most of the time when touring.
 

·
no power in the 'verse can stop me
Joined
·
1,126 Posts
One of my all time favorite commercials was for a Honda 900RR (I think it was).
The bike was running on a road and as it crests a rise in the road a fighter jet appears from behind. They go back and forth from jet to bike.

It was a work of art.
 

·
We're zoned for what ? cool !
Joined
·
186 Posts
Shook, what's up with that avatar?

Is that Calvin right after he has zipped up after peeing on Motor's S?
 

·
no power in the 'verse can stop me
Joined
·
1,126 Posts
ROB said:
Is that Calvin right after he has zipped up after peeing on Motor's S?
Right after MOTOR moderates a "safety" meeting. :motor
 

·
There's a pill for everything
Joined
·
829 Posts
Rob and Shook

Bite me and you both have old bones for motorcycles and I ain't talking about your dicks!!!!!!!!
 

·
We're zoned for what ? cool !
Joined
·
186 Posts
Motor, Motor, Motor

Well, you got us there, our bikes are older than dirt. But it's a good thing that you're not talking 'bout our dicks. I don't know about Shook, but it makes me nervous when you do that.
 

·
no power in the 'verse can stop me
Joined
·
1,126 Posts
ROB said:
Well, you got us there, our bikes are older than dirt. But it's a good thing that you're not talking 'bout our dicks. I don't know about Shook, but it makes me nervous when you do that.
Hey !! Just for the record........it makes Shook nervous too. :wtf

MOTOR's still a child in his 40's, :baby not a suave sophisticated guy in his 50's like us. That's OK, his time is coming :borg

tim :cool:
 
1 - 20 of 20 Posts
Top