VinnyR11 Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 They look nice. Just wondering what they weigh, hp rating, price and how much heat they will give off in 100 degree temps. In Alberta you're talking 100 degrees Kelvin right? Link to comment
onmyrt Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 They look nice. Just wondering what they weigh, hp rating, price and how much heat they will give off in 100 degree temps. I haven't read any specifics about the weight, but they claim that the HP is 160. I think they look marvelous, and hope that they sell well. The placement of the lights up underneath the front fairing looks interesting. Probably LED's. I wonder if they serve as running lights as well as signals. And I'm anxious to hear that 6 cylinder motor. Link to comment
Firefight911 Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 They look nice. Just wondering what they weigh, hp rating, price and how much heat they will give off in 100 degree temps. At 703 lbs. (K 1600 GT without panniers) and 767 lbs. (K 1600 GTL with panniers and topcase) the new touring bikes are in the lower range of the segment. Engine output 118 kW (160 bhp) at 7,750rpm and maximum torque 175 Nm (129 Lb. ft.) at 5,250 rpm. Link to comment
onmyrt Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 Here is another link from Intermot. Link to comment
Mike Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 They look nice. Just wondering what they weigh, hp rating, price and how much heat they will give off in 100 degree temps. At 703 lbs. (K 1600 GT without panniers) and 767 lbs. (K 1600 GTL with panniers and topcase) the new touring bikes are in the lower range of the segment. Really? Those seem like pretty heavy motos to me. The published wet weight of my R1200ST--admittedly a much less luxurious bike than these--is 505 lbs. I have been contemplated moving back up to a bike that is more heavily weighted (pun intended) toward the touring side of the sport/touring equation, but it's a little hard for me to wrap my brain around the idea of buying a bike that's 200 - 250 lbs. heavier than my ST. Link to comment
tallman Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 Honda ST1300 Wet: 319kg, 702lbs ABS +6kg +13lbs 715 or so, w/a lot less HP. ST Maximum Power: 87kW 115hp 8,000rpm Maximum Torque: 117Nm 85fp 6,500rpm Transmission: 5-speed, hydraulic wet clutch. So, it is relative. C 14 curb weight @ 690 pounds Honda GoldWing curbwight over 800 pounds. Now, I agree, 500 pounds is nicer most of the time. Link to comment
markgoodrich Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 They look nice. Just wondering what they weigh, hp rating, price and how much heat they will give off in 100 degree temps. At 703 lbs. (K 1600 GT without panniers) and 767 lbs. (K 1600 GTL with panniers and topcase) the new touring bikes are in the lower range of the segment. Engine output 118 kW (160 bhp) at 7,750rpm and maximum torque 175 Nm (129 Lb. ft.) at 5,250 rpm. Well, just barely, Phil...at the low weight range. My old GL1800 was allegedly about 800 dry. It was great for two up touring, and even fun, at a relatively sedate pace, in squiggly roads, but add 340 pounds of passengers and their riding gear, and then load up the cases with two weeks' worth of stuff, and suddenly we were pushing 1300+ pounds of motorcycle around. Not a problem under sail, but a bear in stop and go traffic or parking lots. However, the real killer with the GL was heat, due to being so well-protected behind the fairings. Not an issue in some climates, but it was the main reason we switched to the RT. This thing will be a handful two up loaded, just like the Goldwing. Best get to work on the leg strengthing.... I really like the 1600's lines, I love the technology, and I'm happy to see the fairings seem to be similar in size to the current crop of BMWs. What I don't like is the tacked-on appearance of the top case, but then I don't like it on the RT or the Kurrent Ks either. The low, thin-looking rider seat on the LT model looks like it might be a bit problematic, and as usual, BMW has too much rear rise in the pillion seat. Otherwise, I think the bike looks great. Another big plus, of course, is that none of the photos show any final drives on fire. What I don't quite understand is the multi-mode deal, rain, sport, etc. What's it change? Fuel mapping? The bikes also come with ESA and optional traction control...almost sounds like the WSBK electronics. Like you, I love the red. Now, let's see what the new ST1200 looks like.... Link to comment
AZKomet Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 Hmmmmm. Not so bad looking after all. I hereby declare it the HUMPBACK though!!!!!! Link to comment
Jazzy Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 Old LT was around 778 pounds. This is 767 pounds. Only shed 11 pounds with the newer tech? Add gas and it's over 800? Riders and gear 1200 pounds? It'll be a handful and probably a lot of heat off that exposed engine as mentioned when summer comes around and gridlock traffic. Still beats the latest Gold Wing (airbag model is close to 900 pounds) by maybe 100 pounds. Wonder how much damage is done to it as it looks like they removed the LT bumpers in case of a fall over. Least the Gold Wing could be uprighted without a lot of fanfare or extra help due to the crashbars. This? The RT is looking pretty good still and this looks a bit like it copied the RT side fairings. Not as revolutionary as I had hoped compared to their sportbike which seems to sell well among the squidly crowd. jazzy- Link to comment
Heck Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 Phil- You ordered yours yet?? It is a nice looking bike.... Link to comment
Silver Surfer/AKAButters Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 I want one, loaded. Any pricing info available? Link to comment
TEWKS Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 I do like what I see so far with this new model. Make mine dark maroon with black wheels Not sure if it's cool to quote yourself but damn they listened, almost! Pat Link to comment
Firefight911 Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 Phil- You ordered yours yet?? It is a nice looking bike.... You need to get up on current events! NO! As for your second comment, yes, it is very nice! Link to comment
CoarsegoldKid Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 It is a nice looking bike.... no coffee holders or USB port Aside from two extra cylinders how is this different from the K1300 motor. I hope they didn't just add two more. Link to comment
BerndM Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 Watching the lengthy 21 minute video, I found it virtually impossible to differentiate this K1600GT from my similarly colored R1200RT, EXCEPT from the rear. The dual muffs and sound are very different. Is it worth paying big bucks for a shiny new 1600 when most everybody will mistake it for an RT? I think not. There's nothing special at all about the looks to make it stand out from what we already have. Just my 2 cents worth(less). Link to comment
Chris H Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 Over 220 BMW press images here.... Link to comment
Mike Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 Watching the lengthy 21 minute video, I found it virtually impossible to differentiate this K1600GT from my similarly colored R1200RT, EXCEPT from the rear. The dual muffs and sound are very different. Is it worth paying big bucks for a shiny new 1600 when most everybody will mistake it for an RT? I think not. There's nothing special at all about the looks to make it stand out from what we already have. Just my 2 cents worth(less). Personally, the point for me isn't whether it looks sufficiently different from the RT, a great bike, but whether the overall package--power, handling, technology--are better suited to my desires. I personally think that it's a good thing that BMW is adopting a recognizably distinct design theme across its product line, but the question for me isn't whether it looks different. Link to comment
beemerman2k Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 I like this bike! Until now, I wasn't a believer at all. I wondered why BMW would waste its time building such a bike, although I agreed that the K1200LT needed to be replaced. This bike, however, is a sweet machine indeed! I can't wait to actually see one! (Would I buy one? If I wanted a big touring bike, no question. For my money, though, the K1300S or the R1200GS would be more to my liking). Link to comment
Lmar Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 Poster: VinnyR11 Subject: Re: New BMW K1600GT and K160GTL Announcement Originally Posted By: Lmar They look nice. Just wondering what they weigh, hp rating, price and how much heat they will give off in 100 degree temps. In Alberta you're talking 100 degrees Kelvin right? smile Its at least a 100 degrees Kelvin, I haven't done the actual conversion! Link to comment
Lmar Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 In response to: Poster: Mike Subject: Re: New BMW K1600GT and K160GTL Announcement Originally Posted By: 1bmwfan Originally Posted By: Lmar They look nice. Just wondering what they weigh, hp rating, price and how much heat they will give off in 100 degree temps. At 703 lbs. (K 1600 GT without panniers) and 767 lbs. (K 1600 GTL with panniers and topcase) the new touring bikes are in the lower range of the segment. Really? Those seem like pretty heavy motos to me. The published wet weight of my R1200ST--admittedly a much less luxurious bike than these--is 505 lbs. I have been contemplated moving back up to a bike that is more heavily weighted (pun intended) toward the touring side of the sport/touring equation, but it's a little hard for me to wrap my brain around the idea of buying a bike that's 200 - 250 lbs. heavier than my ST. That's one thing among many things that I like about the Rt. Its light and nimble. My 2003 GL was heavy. I found the weight and heat it threw to be a PITA. Link to comment
fourteenfour Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 low seat option is 29.5 which isn't bad at all. Link to comment
SageRider Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 Is it worth paying big bucks for a shiny new 1600 when most everybody will mistake it for an RT? Personally, I wouldn't be buying a bike based on how it appears to "everybody". I figure if "everybody" doesn't like it, they can get their own bike... Link to comment
Lmar Posted October 6, 2010 Share Posted October 6, 2010 In response to: Poster: CommuterChris Subject: Re: New BMW K1600GT and K160GTL Announcement low seat option is 29.5 which isn't bad at all. Does the seat look like the OEM RT Seat? For me that was the worst seat of any bike I have ever owned. Link to comment
beemerman2k Posted October 6, 2010 Share Posted October 6, 2010 I like this bike! I wondered if all that luggage could be removed to enable riding that big powerhouse of a motorcycle as a naked* bike: Me likey! *OK, not really naked with that huge fairing, but close enough! Link to comment
bayoubengal Posted October 6, 2010 Share Posted October 6, 2010 I like it. Count me in. GTL. Just a matter of time... Link to comment
rad Posted October 6, 2010 Share Posted October 6, 2010 Way too big Way too heavy Way too ugly I would never own one Oh wait, I said that about the RT not too many years ago and I own one now Link to comment
Effjay Posted October 6, 2010 Share Posted October 6, 2010 Likewise having viewed the 21 min video and specs (thanks, Phil), I like it very much! Having "family" genes like an RT or KGT is natural IMO. Don't most enthusiasts recognize contemporary BMW sedans? Similar rationale. A K1600GTL could well be in my future depending on $$. My RT is paid for and the 1600 series with higher part content and assembly labor will certainly be more spendy. Link to comment
markgoodrich Posted October 6, 2010 Share Posted October 6, 2010 Dammit. I only have 56,000 miles on the RT. Let's see, when does it come out? Divide 44,000 by number of months and maybe I can talk myself into it. Link to comment
Pletch Posted October 6, 2010 Share Posted October 6, 2010 Oh this is bad...very very bad!!! I was firm in my resolution to to like the new 6'er, but now that the actual model pics are out and I see the two up ride on it, (adequate ground clearance, better seating over the RT) I am being drawn to the dark side. And to sweetent he pot, more HP and torque at lower levels, perfect for the tight twisties in the mountains. I will absolutely be watching for dealer shows so I can get a look. Oh this is going to cost me...$$$ and Honey do's! Link to comment
Pletch Posted October 6, 2010 Share Posted October 6, 2010 Any word on price yet? How about aval date? Link to comment
johnlt Posted October 6, 2010 Share Posted October 6, 2010 Nice work Tom. Thanks for the comparison. Link to comment
markgoodrich Posted October 6, 2010 Share Posted October 6, 2010 Has anyone compared wheelbases and rake and trail between the new bike, the RT, and the K12-1300s? Link to comment
TEWKS Posted October 6, 2010 Share Posted October 6, 2010 Sounds and video Oh man, the rt should be nervous, very nervous! Sounds sweet & looks beautiful! Pat Link to comment
Mike Posted October 6, 2010 Share Posted October 6, 2010 Those of you who are FaceBook users may wish to join my cause, Mike Needs a New BMW K1600GT. Link to comment
ScottT Posted October 6, 2010 Share Posted October 6, 2010 You own a RT and think it's ugly? I don't get that. The K1600 profile looks like it was lifted right from the R1200RT. It's gorgeous bike and a leap beyond the K1200 and K1300GT slab-sided looks. You even get to see beautiful motor, something very rare these days. It does not look to big to me. The front profile is less wide than the RT. Yes it is heavy and we don't know some of the specs yet. Like the gas tank... MPG. From the looks it looks like BMW has hit a home run with these bikes. Link to comment
Firefight911 Posted October 6, 2010 Share Posted October 6, 2010 Yes it is heavy and we don't know some of the specs yet. Like the gas tank... MPG. From the looks it looks like BMW has hit a home run with these bikes. All the specs are known! As previously posted in this thread - LINKY to Specs Link to comment
Firefight911 Posted October 6, 2010 Share Posted October 6, 2010 Some interesting comparison numbers - Fuel consumption - 100km @ 90km/h 13GT = 5.0 l 16GT = 4.5 l 100km @ 120km/h 13GT = 5.9 l 16GT = 5.7 l Fuel Tank size 13GT = 24 l 16GT = 24 l Wheelbase 13GT = 1572 mm 16GT = 1618 mm Steering Head Angle 13GT = 60.6 degrees 16GT = 62.2 degrees Alternator Output 13GT = 945w 16GT = 580w (no, not a typo!) Interesting stuff! Better gas mileage, slower steering, less electrical reserve for Gerbing type additions. Link to comment
johnlt Posted October 6, 2010 Share Posted October 6, 2010 With HIDs and LEDs for lighting, possibly they believe a lower capacty alternator is justified. Link to comment
marcopolo Posted October 6, 2010 Share Posted October 6, 2010 I also noticed the alternator output and was surprised. My R12RT has a 720W alternator if I recall. Wonder why this 6-cyl with that much more power has noticeably less alt output. Link to comment
Paul Mihalka Posted October 6, 2010 Share Posted October 6, 2010 I also noticed the alternator output and was surprised. My R12RT has a 720W alternator if I recall. Wonder why this 6-cyl with that much more power has noticeably less alt output. Weight, size, $$$. Good point that with LED and HID you need less power. Link to comment
AZKomet Posted October 6, 2010 Share Posted October 6, 2010 Sounds and video Oh man, the rt should be nervous, very nervous! Sounds sweet & looks beautiful! Pat +1 i will be all over that in 2 years once the bugs are worked out. By then BMW will make it a K1800GT... and then 2 more years for tweaking it......then another and another...looks like I won't get one after all. Link to comment
99Roadster Posted October 7, 2010 Share Posted October 7, 2010 To expand on what Phil started the figures for the R1200RT and K1600GTL were added for comparison. Fuel consumption 100km @ 90km/h 13GT = 5.0 l 16GT = 4.5 l 12RT = 3.6 l 100km @ 120km/h 13GT = 5.9 l 16GT = 5.7 l 12RT = 4.8 l Fuel Tank size 13GT = 24 l 16GT = 24 l 16GTL = 26.5 l 12RT = 27/25-usable Wheelbase 13GT = 1572 mm 16GT = 1618 mm 12RT = 1484 mm Steering Head Angle 13GT = 60.6 degrees 16GT = 62.2 degrees 12RT = 63.4 degrees Alternator Output 13GT = 945w 16GT = 580w 12RT = 720w Length 16GT = 2324 mm 16GTL = 2489 mm 12RT = 2230 mm Width 16GT = 1000/980 (with, w/o mirrors) 12RT = 906/800 (with, w/o mirrors) Weight 16GT = 319 kg (90% fuel, w/o pannier) 16GTL = 348 kg (90% fuel, w/pannier, topcase) 12RT = 259 kg (DIN unladen in road trim) Max Weight 16GT = 540 kg 16GTL = 560 kg 12RT = 495 kg Wheels Front 16GT = 3.50 x 17 in 12RT = 3.50 x 17 in Rear 16GT = 6.00 x 17 in 12RT = 5.00 x 17 in Tires Front 16GT = 120/70 12RT = 120/70 Rear 16GT = 190/55 12RT = 180/55 Link to comment
Dave_C Posted October 7, 2010 Share Posted October 7, 2010 I thought the rt was going to be too big, before i rode it. Now i love it! That K-GTL looks pretty cool. Link to comment
tallman Posted October 7, 2010 Share Posted October 7, 2010 The original GT, still the best looking beemer ever, is hardly slab sided. All others are mere imitations, wannabees. Link to comment
Mike Posted October 7, 2010 Share Posted October 7, 2010 To expand on what Phil started the figures for the R1200RT and K1600GTL were added for comparison. While the new K16's really light my fire, the comparison of specs with the RT really illustrate what a great design it is: comparatively light, more efficient, and, almost certainly, more responsive, an extremely capable tourer. Link to comment
Rich06FJR1300 Posted October 7, 2010 Share Posted October 7, 2010 yes, liked the looks but the deal killer is those darn power brakes! Link to comment
AZKomet Posted October 7, 2010 Share Posted October 7, 2010 I agree with that fore sure........... Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.