Flying First Class

Model Comparison

Flying First Class

ALL PHOTOS BY DAVE SEARLE

BMW K1600GTL vs. Honda GL1800 Gold Wing

by Dave Searle

T

HE LAST TIME Honda’s Gold Wing faced an MCN comparison test, it was the defending champion in a rematch with the freshly revised 2005 BMW K1200LT (October 2004). The result: The BMW won a narrow victory. This time both machines have seen changes, the Wing’s relatively small but significant, and the BMW entirely new—the K1600GTL. Will we see the new K1600GTL score a decisive knock-out, or was something fundamental lost when the LT—a bike specifically designed to challenge the GL1800 on American roads—was discontinued in favor of a bike tailored to the world market?

Engines—Gold Wing 1st, K1600GTL 2nd When Gold Wing production shifted from Marysville, Ohio, to Japan last year, no 2010 GL1800s were produced, and many speculated that a major redesign was in the works for 2011. Clearly, this would not be the case, and the Wing’s motor is entirely unchanged. But perhaps the real question to ask is, “How could it be improved?” It was already the only six-cylinder motorcycle engine in production, and a paragon of power, long-life and dependability that had won over legions of touring riders. The Wing’s 180° opposed six has a particular advantage for a large tourer, a very low center of gravity that makes the bike’s resplendent size (909.5 lbs. wet) much more manageable than it has any right to be. Using a comparatively simple SOHC, twovalve layout that favors narrow cylinder heads for cornering clearance over sheer performance potential, it is neither highly tuned nor highly stressed. But its 1832cc displacement offers colossal torque virtually from idle, making the job of propelling the GL’s heft a surprisingly effortless proposition. Our dyno testing found a peak of 100.1 hp and 105.1 lb.-ft. of torque with the engine revlimited to 6500 rpm, which may not sound very impressive. But the broad spread of this power is what’s so remarkable. If ever there was a motorcycle engine that could be compared to 12

SEPTEMBER 2011

●

MOTORCYCLE CONSUMER NEWS

America’s legendary big-block V-8s, surely, this is it. Generating 90 lb.-ft. of torque @ 1500 rpm, take-off from a stop with the missus and a heavy load of luggage on board is as simple as letting out the clutch—no high-revving or clutch slip shenanigans required. And the motor’s massive torque nearly eliminates the need for shifting over a twisty road, so that a fistful of throttle is all that’s needed to send it rocketing between corners. Besides its sheer power, it has very sweet driveability thanks to a flawless fuel-injection system which doesn’t hunt, surge or hesitate. It may not have trendy “power modes,” but the Wing’s engine is very responsive, entertaining and a ton of fun to ride. The K1600GTL, as covered in our in-depth first impression in the July issue, is a brand-new 35° slant-block transverse inline six with a DOHC four-valve head fed from a single throttle body. Its peak power is much greater than the Wing’s, 131.4 hp with 110.3 lb.-ft. of torque and an 8400-rpm rev limiter. While its dyno numbers are not much less than the Wing’s at low and mid-range rpm, it’s geared taller and doesn’t have the GL’s low-rpm punch. It needs to be revved, and at higher rpm it makes a wonderful throaty and exotic wail completely unlike the Wing’s muted whoosh. You’ll find it hard to wear earplugs on the BMW. The BMW’s engine is remarkably compact for a straight six, but its crankcase still intrudes on foot room. By comparison, a rider’s boots actually fit under the valve covers on the Gold Wing. The BMW gets slightly better gas mileage; averaging 37.9 mpg to the Honda’s 37.0 mpg, probably the result of its lighter weight (down to 784.5 lbs. from the K1200LT’s 860.0 lbs.). In the Wing’s defense, its 9.8:1 compression ratio needs only regular fuel, while the K1600’s 12.2:1 requires premium. The K1600 utilizes a new “fly-by-wire” computer-controlled electronic throttle, called E-Gas, which allows multiple engine “modes”—different fuel/ignition maps which vary power output and throttle response. These can be selected on the fly and are labeled Rain, Road and Dynamic. Unlike some other manufacturer’s “rain” modes, the BMW’s doesn’t restrict peak power but clips 9 lbs. off peak torque and around 12 hp from the upper mid-range to flatten the power curve and soften throttle response to resist wheelspin in slippery conditions. Of course, most GTLs will also be sold with BMW’s optional Dynamic Traction Control, a gyro-based anti-wheelspin system, so a Rain engine mode, in addition, might be considered redundant. Nonetheless, Rain is a smooth and pleasant map. In the Road mode, which we favored for everyday riding, the engine makes its best overall power according to the dyno, and throttle response is still plenty smooth for fluid two-up riding. Dynamic, as the name implies, is the most responsive but seems unnecessarily sensitive to the slightest throttle movement, which hurts more than it helps. However, what’s odd is that despite the chosen mode, the motor has a distinct lag in initial response. The GL’s motor, on the other hand, instantly matches the rider’s throttle movements with more rpm. Snatchy on/off transitions, particularly at lower rpm, are another issue on the BMW. If the rider is not deliberately off or on the throttle, the bike can occasionally lurch back and forth through its noticeable driveline lash, upsetting the chassis and your passenger. This is something you can work to avoid as much as possible, but it simply isn’t an issue on the Gold Wing. With the big discrepancy in peak power, the BMW naturally has an advantage in top speed and quarter-mile performance: 134.3 mph top speed and 11.75 sec. @113.87 mph in the quarter vs. the Wing’s 125.5 mph top speed and 12.70 sec. @ 100.89 mph quarter. And while we’d normally award the “engine” category to the faster bike, in this class, pulling power, smoothness and driveability are the primary attributes, and we have to rate the Wing superior. And, despite its slower dragstrip numbers, over the

road, the Wing’s acceleration is so strong that we had to wonder if it wasn’t actually quicker to 60 mph than the K1600GTL, which typically needs more shifting to keep pace.

Clutch & Transmission—Gold Wing 1st, K1600GTL 2nd The Honda, with its torque-rich powerband, makes do with just five forward gears to the BMW’s six. We note “forward” because the Wing also has an electric reverse, which comes in very handy if you forget and berth it nose-first downhill. The older K1200LT also offered such a reverse, but the new K1600GTL doesn’t, perhaps as it’s 75.5 lbs. lighter than the LT. Alas, the Gold Wing has gained a few pounds with age (and accessories)—now 909.5 lbs. to its former 881.0 lbs. The transmissions are naturally geared for their respective missions, but we must rate the Honda’s ratios as better for stop-and-go riding. It really doesn’t mind how much weight it must move from a stop, while the BMW needs careful rpm and clutch modulation to achieve a prompt departure, which can be problematic because of its clutch design. Both bikes use multi-plate, oil-bath clutches with hydraulic actuation. The Honda’s clutch lever is broad, the disengagement effort required is not excessive, and we found it very easy to modulate for both smooth or fast starts and easy shifts. The BMW’s clutch lever, on the other hand, is as thin as a number-two pencil, which magnifies pressure on the fingers. But, hah, the Germans have attempted to outsmart the wily Japanese by including a variable pressureplate system that both acts as a slipper clutch during deceleration and also reduces lever effort. Similar clutches are offered on some Ducatis, but every one has demonstrated another less desirable characteristic: a loss of engagement range with increasing rpm, so they eventually behave like a light-switch in a drag-race type start (which is required for the best quarter-mile times). But unlike the Ducatis, the K1600’s clutch also generates an odd feedback sensation; the clutch lever constantly moving over a range of about 10mm depending on the throttle position—closer to the handlebar under acceleration and further away off throttle. Whatever the imagined advantages of the design, this throttle position and rpm-related funny business complicates control and makes smoothness more difficult to achieve, and smoothness is a big part of what makes two-up motorcycling enjoyable. For example, during performance testing, it was difficult to avoid stalling the BMW during hard launches, while controlling wheelspin was the Honda’s only issue! Neither machine has spectacular shift quality; the BMW being just slightly more clunky on average and needing longer throws at the foot lever than the Honda, but both are quite acceptable. Greater familiarity allowed us to refine our technique and improved shifting smoothness on both machines, but given the issues with the BMW’s gearing and more difficult clutch modulation, we’ll have to award this category to the Honda as well.

Suspension—Gold Wing 1st, K1600GTL 2nd Once again, in addition to its proprietary Duolever double-Aarm front suspension and Paralever shaft drive with preload and rebound adjustability, BMW provides the option of an extra helping of high tech to mesmerize the executive class traveler. Its ESA II, or Electronic Suspension Adjustment, allows on-the-fly changes to three preset levels of front and rear damping as well as rear preload and spring rate. Furthermore, the bike’s loading can be matched with three presets as well; solo, solo-with-luggage or two-up with luggage, giving nine possible variations. Although our first impressions of the K1600GT and GTL from their Georgia introduction, which took place on very smooth roads, suggested that all three suspension modes: Comfort, Normal and Sport, worked equally well, back in California it was a different story. Unfortunately, the Golden State’s roads leave a lot to be desired in terms of pavement quality. Here, only the Normal mode gave us an acceptable ride. On broken freeways and back roads, the Comfort mode lurched and pitched, and the Sport mode was much too firm for long-term comfort. And even at its best arrangement, the BMW’s suspension continued to feel slightly unsettled, as if the spring rates were okay but both the compression and rebound damping should have been firmer—or as if it had a lot more suspension travel to control. But in fact, their relative suspension travel is quite comparable; the BMW offering 4.9" front and 5.3" back vs. the Gold Wing’s 4.8" front and 4.1" back. By contrast, the Honda always felt plush and controlled with minimal pitching. Both machines have features that resist front end dive—helpful on such heavy motorcycles; the BMW via its unique Duolever and the Honda with a hydraulic anti-dive circuit in the front fork that restricts compression damping when braking. Benefitting from its lighter weight and advanced front end, the BMW produces less dive, although its feel is also more remote due to the amount of mechanical linkage between your handgrips and the tire’s contact patch. Revised damping and spring rates are part of the Gold Wing’s updates for 2012, and that’s probably overdue, as the large aftermarket in Gold Wing suspension upgrades would attest. The Wing’s latest suspension has virtually none of the bouncy quality of the BMW and remains reassuringly secure and planted on all types of pavement. Our passengers also reported the Honda’s back seat ride very comfortable, with only the very worst G-out type pavement heaves revealing suspension control issues. The BMW’s passenger, on the other hand, felt the ride was too bouncy even in the Normal setting, and begged for the Comfort option, which the pilot found compromised steering control too much. Unlike the Honda, domestic bliss and good handling were not mutually compatible on the BMW. As for tires, the Wing continues to offer a combination of 18" front and 16" rear wheels that wear 130/70R18 and 180/60R16 tires as opposed to the BMW’s more conventional 17" wheels Visit us at WWW.MCNEWS.COM

●

SEPTEMBER 2011

13

Model Comparison with 120/70ZR17 and 190/55/ZR17 tire sizes. Bridgestones were worn by both; Battlax BT021 on the BMW and specially formulated G704 models on the Wing. Either as a matter of its fatter front rubber or better damped and more conventional front suspension, the Honda gives the more reassuring front end bite.

Brakes—K1600GTL 1st, Gold Wing 2nd Fast, heavy motorcycles need big brakes. The BMW uses a trio of 320mm rotors with integral ABS as standard equipment. The front calipers are four-piston double-action units and the rear is a two-piston double-action type. As ABS cannot be turned off on BMW’s streetbikes, rider skill will have very little to do with the GTL’s stopping distances, and our testing gave a series of stops ranging from 122.4' to 131.7', which we’d rate “excellent” to “very good.” The GTL’s brakes are what the company calls, “partially integrated,” that is, the rear brake is completely independent of the fronts and the front lever will call up a balanced proportion of rear brake. In use, this means that, except for tight U-turns, your right foot can essentially do nothing until it’s time to hold the bike up at a stop. Forgive us, but this always takes some getting used to, and our habitual use of the rear pedal could occasionally be rudely reminded of its redundancy by a buzzing feedback at the pedal—not a problem, but just unusual. Overall, the BMW’s binders offer excellent stopping and a clear linear feel that inspires rider confidence. Our GL1800, on the other hand, was not equipped with ABS, which is an option. Thus, its stopping distances would reward a rider who can approach impending lockup without panic, and thanks to Mr. Coe, we obtained stops from 127.4' to 133.3', barely longer than the BMW but not nearly so easy to achieve. The Honda uses what the company refers to as Combined Braking, a combination of front-to-rear as well as rear-to-front braking. Three-piston floating calipers supply the stopping at both ends. The front brake lever uses the outer set of front pistons on either side together with the center rear piston for slowing, and the rear pedal uses the outer set of rear pads together with the inside pad at each front caliper, with a delay valve to allow the rears to take effect first. Although the GL’s front braking is strong and smooth, its rear brake has an issue. The rear pedal travel feels overly long and the power of the brake seems to double about midway through its stroke (perhaps the delay valve’s effect), which makes smooth stopping with only the rear pedal tricky. Also, floating calipers, like the Wing’s, rarely give the precise feel of fixed, double-action designs and don’t in this case. Over the road, the Gold Wing’s considerable inertial mass suggests caution, and its pilot will generally use some slowing before corners, while a BMW-riding observer typically finds it unnecessary to slow at all. That is not to say the Wing is less fun to ride or even that it’s even much slower, as its corner-to-corner acceleration is so potent, but the BMW easily wins for “braking.”

Handling—K1600GTL 1st, Gold Wing 2nd The Honda and BMW have very similar steering geometry numbers, the Honda with 29.15° of rake and 4.3" of trail and the BMW with 27.8° rake and the same 4.3" of trail. However, the 14

SEPTEMBER 2011

●

MOTORCYCLE CONSUMER NEWS

Duolever gives near vertical fork movement during front wheel travel, unlike a conventional telescopic fork, so its rake, trail and wheelbase figures don’t change as much during braking or cornering and the numbers aren’t directly comparable. The wheelbase numbers are also nearly equal, the GL1800 at 66.5" and the GTL at 66.1", although the Honda’s rear overhang is a couple inches greater and its unladen weight distribution is more rearbiased, with 44.1% on its front wheel. The BMW unladen, by comparison, carries 48.0% on its front wheel, and re-measuring weight distribution with their rear wheels elevated 10" allowed us to determine their respective CofG heights as well, which Jim Stanley kindly calculated for us. Even before we measured, it was clear the BMW had the higher CofG as the Honda was actually easier to lift upright from its sidestand, despite having handlebar grips 2.35" lower, which reduces leverage. The calculations reveal the Honda’s CofG height is 19.125" above the road, compared with the BMW’s 22.5". While a difference of less than 3.5" may seem small, at a walking pace, the Wing is easier to balance, despite its weight. This low-boy sensation carries over as speeds increase, too, when the Honda is easy to flick into turns at surprising lean angles, which allows it to hustle through twisty bits far faster than you might expect. But in the final tally, the biggest difference in handling remains their respective weights, which even a low CofG can’t erase. The BMW rider can shadow the Wing with ease over the same roads, and with positions reversed, can easily pull away— different riders, same result. The GTL is simply the much more nimble machine, and the “handling” category goes to BMW.

Ergonomics—Gold Wing 1st, K1600GTL 2nd While a slightly too hard seat, windshield buffeting or less than perfect handlebar bend might be excused on a short-range ride, rider/passenger comfort is what long-distance touring is all about. This year, the Wing has received updated upholstery making its seating even more plush. While the two bikes’ respective seat heights are nearly identical, the Wing’s pilot sinks into his, making the difference greater than the numbers would imply. The control placement is also very different; the Wing rider with his feet comfortably placed and the pegs relatively low for generous room. There’s no question; the Wing doesn’t have the cornering clearance of the BMW, but it has enough not to be handicapped either. The Wing’s handlebars are lower, the bend very comfortable and the resulting position is one that can be maintained almost indefinitely. The passenger, whose complementary comfort is the whole reason for the luxury tourer, is likewise coddled. The Wing’s trunk is equipped with a significant throne-like backrest while bolsters above its rear seat speakers and individual glove compartments create reassuring armrests and side-support. Plus, the rear seat has its own heat controller. Also, the distance from rider to passenger is not too tight, and the passenger pegs are mid-sized floorboards for a variety of positions. The BMW layout is very different. Its upholstery suggests Teutonic discipline, much firmer than the Barcalounger depth of the Gold Wing and without the Wing’s bucket-shaped butt-support. The GTL’s footpegs are more than 2" higher for maximum

cornering clearance, but they are also significantly further back as well, which makes the rider’s legs feel cramped. Its handlebars are also more than 2" higher, the rider’s arms more outstretched, the bend not as natural and the handgrips almost racebike hard. The BMW passenger finds the rear seat well-shaped and higher for a better view over the rider’s helmet, but much less enveloping, and the distance to the rider much closer, with their boots resting on footpegs instead of floorboards. The passenger backrest, attached to the removable rear trunk, is also not as secure, and rough roads cause it to bounce off the passenger’s back. The pillion rider described the BMW as “more exciting,” and needed to hug the rider in the twisty bits for security (one way to achieve closeness). Although the BMW’s demanding riding position can be forgiven when the road gets interesting, the long-term comfort difference between these two is noticeable in less than 100 miles, and will only get greater with distance. In perhaps the most critical category for a luxury tourer, the Honda retains the proverbial throne(s).

Riding Impression—Gold Wing 1st, K1600GTL 2nd The length, girth, height and weight of either of these land yachts will make you take a few deep breaths and say a little prayer before you mount up: “Please don’t let it capsize and force me to find out if I can actually pick it up!” After the first hour of riding solo over our favorite canyon roads, we missed the agility of lighter motorcycles. Yes, the BMW weighs less and its corner entry behavior is much more neutral but its higher CofG requires a greater effort at precision and it feels even heavier at low speeds when the wheels have lost their gyroscopic stability. Plus, the formidable distraction potential of their elaborate electronic displays and selection controls are another issue unique to the class, and we had to keep telling ourselves, “Keep your eyes on the road!” But, with a passenger on the back, the riding was very different. The handling of the heavier Honda was blissfully unaffected despite the platform’s more spacious accommodations. Two-up on the BMW, the pilot clearly noticed the difference—which wouldn’t have been so bad, but he was also frustrated not to be able to dial-in suspension settings that simultaneously smoothed the bumps, kept the passenger settled and also maintained a planted steering feel. What good is a happy passenger when you have a bike that runs wide on curves? But by the end of our first long day on the road, a strange thing had happened: We could all understand the appeal of a machine that made you feel relatively fresh, protected from the wind and rested after many hours in the saddle. And we all knew which bike we’d choose to take our own significant others for a long ride together—the Honda.

Instruments & Controls—Tie Both of these machines are equipped with enough in the way of information and audio entertainment sources to demand real restraint on the part of a rider, lest he or she become terminally distracted at the wrong moment. Our picks and pans: Big, easyto-read analog displays on the Honda vs. much harder to read clocks on the BMW that use tightly packed numerals inside rather than outside the speed markings. The clever Multi Controller on the BMW which allows hands-on-the-handlebars scrolling and selection of options vs. the Honda’s endless buttons, knobs and

switches which demand hands-off-the-bars manipulation. The easier-to-access fuel filler on the Honda vs. the hard-to-use opening in the BMW gastank, which has a cap that doesn’t swing out of the way enough to make easy entry for accordion-type vapor control fittings. The BMW’s clever swing-out chromed air scoops that do an excellent job of ventilating the cockpit on a hot day, which are more effective than the Wing’s windshield vent (which is still very helpful). The BMW’s full-ratio gear indication rather than the Gold Wing’s single “OD” dash notation for overdrive. The audio enhancements one can enjoy on either of these machines is very complete—everything from iPods to satellite radio and CD players, and should be enough that neither machine could be disqualified for a lack of adequate (and expensive) options. Although the Honda has two aerials to the BMW’s one, which may prove beneficial in certain circumstance, overall signal reception seemed equal. As for the sound systems, our pilots voted the front speaker sound quality superior on the BMW, but its lack of rear speakers didn’t carry the same election for our passengers. Rather than attempt a doctoral thesis of mind-numbing technical detail, we’ll just call this one a draw.

Value—Gold Wing 1st, K1600GTL 2nd Value is a relative term in a luxury item, when status means more than performance, economy or features for money. Both machines are very close in terms of price, and either can be the more costly, depending on the individual options chosen. However, we found a big difference in service costs; our standard maintenance calculation more than three times higher for the BMW ($124 for sparkplugs, for instance). Even if we consider their prices similar, our decision comes down to which bike wins more points, and by this reckoning, clearly the Honda Gold Wing is the better value. It wins on engine, transmission, suspension, ergonomics and riding impression to the BMW’s victories in brakes and handling.

Overall—Gold Wing 1st, K1600GTL 2nd BMW has stated that the new K1600GTL is not a replacement for the K1200LT, and we have to agree. In fact, it’s really a larger six-cylinder evolution of the K1300GT, which is definitely a sport-tourer at heart. Its smaller luggage capacity vs. the Gold Wing (117 liters vs. 147) is further confirmation. Of the two versions of the K1600, the GT and GTL, the GT is truer to its bloodline, with taller seating and even more rearward footpegs. It also has a narrower windshield that creates a lot less cockpit turbulence than the GTL’s, which can sometimes be very bothersome, regardless of screen height. America and Europe are very different continents. Our wideopen spaces are rare over there and a machine built to explore the expanse of the US doesn’t lend itself equally well to Alpine twisties. This continental divide is clearly illustrated by the contenders’ respective talents. But we’re here, and to beat the Gold Wing at its own game will require an equally specialized effort. But generalities are inherently unfair and individual situations will crisscross the borders. Horsepower, handling and braking can be worth more than sheer comfort and capacity to many longdistance riders, and the GTL is truly a distinctive motorcycle. If only every problem in life offered such happy choices. Visit us at WWW.MCNEWS.COM

●

SEPTEMBER 2011

15

Model Comparison Right: If you ever wanted to pilot a 747, the Wing’s cockpit will make you feel right at home with over 50 knobs and switches. The instrument faces are big and easy to read at a glance with the GPS screen below. Rear preload is air adjustable over a wide range with two presets, and both riders and passengers were impressed by its supple and well-controlled ride. Its low CofG helps immensely. Above: The GL’s 1832cc flat six is perfect to handle the weight of a fully loaded Gold Wing. It easily pulls away from a stop and is capable of shockingly quick acceleration between corners—no shifting needed. Flawless fuel injection adds greatly to its remarkable driveability.

Left: The throne-like seating has been improved this year with new upholstery materials. Both are all-day seats. Armrests and floorboards keep passengers secure and comfortable.

Left: The Wing’s rounded nose and flush-mounted windshield provide a very comfortable cockpit with minimal turbulence. The windshield manually adjusts for height, and the central vent provides useful air-flow on hot days. The four big headlights give tremendous illumination, and the addition of the optional lower driving lights make the Wing look like a UFO approaching the dark. Right: The easiest way to identify the 2012 Gold Wing is from the rear, which reveals new squaredoff saddlebags that add another 7 liters of storage—now 147 liters in total capacity. The taillights are also new as are the two-tone paint schemes.

TESTERS’ LOG The Gold Wing remains the very definition of a luxury motorcycle tourer, with more amenities than I could list here. Its pancake six motor is a gentle giant, with a smooth power delivery and so much low-end torque that it is unfazed when ridden two-up. The same could be said of its handling character, which is predictable and makes the Wing feel lighter than its 910 lbs.—so long as you don’t attempt low-speed U-turns in tight confines. There’s still room for improvement—a rebound-adjustable shock and an electrically adjustable windscreen are just two items on my wish list—but as long-distance tourers go, the ‘Wing is the king. —Scott Rousseau Sliding into the passenger seat on the Gold Wing was like slipping into the hug of a familiar recliner. With plenty of room between me and the rider, wide and stable footboards and most importantly, incredible lumbar support, I felt like Goldilocks! The armrests provided a sense of security, along with the grab rails

16

SEPTEMBER 2011

●

MOTORCYCLE CONSUMER NEWS

alongside the seat (though they could have been a touch higher for my taste). The rear speakers were a nice touch, and would have proved near-perfection with the small addition of a passenger volume control. While insulated from wind blast, cooling air still somehow found its way to my air vents. For a relaxing tour across the country, this is your bike. —Shawna Rousseau Improvements to the upholstery, suspension, carrying capacity and infotainment systems for 2012 have made the Wing even better. But what remains is the same incredible motorcycle that has defined luxury touring for the past 36 years. At over 900 lbs. the Wing would be nearly unrideable with a CofG as tall as the BMW’s. But with a flat-six motor and its gastank under the seat, it doesn’t feel top-heavy or hard to handle at all. Great ergonomics for both the rider and passenger, supple but well-controlled suspension, excellent wind protection and a torque-monster motor make it my choice in this class. —Dave Searle

2012 Honda GL1800 Gold Wing SPECIFICATIONS AND PERFORMANCE DATA ENGINE

PERFORMANCE

Type:Liquid-cooled, 180° opposed six Valvetrain:SOHC, 2 valves per cylinder, shim-under-bucket valve adjustment Displacement: ........................1832cc Bore/stroke: ................74.0 x 71.0mm Comp. ratio: ..............................9.8:1 Fueling: ....PGM-EFI, w/auto cold start Exhaust: ......................6-into-1-into-2

Measured top speed ......125.5 mph 0–1/4 mile ..................12.70 sec. @ 100.89 mph 0–60 mph ....................4.15 sec. 0–100 mph ..........................n/a 60–0 mph ........................127.4' Power to Weight Ratio ........1:9.09 Speed @ 65 mph indicated......65.4

DRIVE TRAIN

MC RATING SYSTEM

Transmission:........5-speed w/electric reverse Final drive: ..................................shaft RPM @ 65 mph*/rev limiter: ....2930/6500

EXCELLENT VERY GOOD GOOD FAIR POOR

*actual, not indicated

ERGONOMICS TEMPLATE

DIMENSIONS

A B

SUSPENSION

D E

41.75"

48.75"

9.6"

65.0"

29.25"

45.25"

C

75.5" 61.0"

14.5" 35.25"

Wheelbase: ................................66.5" Rake/trail:..........................29.15°/4.3" Ground clearance: ......................5.25" Seat height: ..............................29.25" GVWR: ................................1321 lbs. Wet weight: ........................909.5 lbs. Carrying capacity: ..............411.5 lbs.

Horizontal (nose to) A: Passenger seat (middle). B: Rider seat (middle). C: Handgrip (center). D: Passenger footpeg (center). E: Rider footpeg (center). Vertical (ground to) F: Handlebar (center). G: Rider footpeg (top). H: Rider seat (lowest point). I: Passenger peg (top). J: Passenger seat (middle).

:::::

––––Heavyweight Tourer –––– ::::: Engine ::::: ::::; Transmission ::::: ::::; Suspension ::::: :::;. Brakes ::::: ::::; Handling ::::: ::::: Ergonomics ::::: ::::; Riding Impression ::::: Instruments/Controls ::::; ::::: ::::: Attention to Detail ::::: ::::; Value :::::

SAE CORRECTED REAR-WHEEL HORSEPOWER

SAE CORRECTED REAR-WHEEL TORQUE, LB. FT.

Front: ..45mm cartridge fork with antidive control, 4.8" travel ::::; OVERALL RATING F G HI J ::::: Rear: Pro-Link monoshock, computer MISCELLANEOUS controlled preload adjustability with DYNAMOMETER DATA two memory presets, 4.1" travel Instruments: ......analog speedo, tach, ::::: Low end 105.04 lb.-ft. odometer, 2 tripmeters, clock, fuel BRAKES Mid-range ::::; • level, overdrive indicator, coolant • ::::. Front: ....................Dual 296mm disc, temp., ambient temp., audio modes Top end three-piston single-action calipers Indicators: ........ hi-beam, t/s, neutral, The Gold Wing’s flat-six is 100.05 hp low fuel, EFI fault, oil pressure, low w/combined braking system(CBS) the motorcycling equivalent of the big block V-8, fuel, sidestand, cruise control Rear:316mm disc, three-piston caliper hugely muscular, very trunk/saddlebag open ......w/combined braking system(CBS) smooth, with a muted MSRP: ..................................$25,899 whooshing exhaust note. TIRES & WHEELS Routine service interval:........4000 mi. Perfect fuel injection Valve adj. interval:..............32,000 mi. behavior does a lot to creFront: ..130/70R18 Bridgestone G704 Warranty:Three years, unlimited miles ate its flawless driveability on 3.50" x 18" wheel Colors:..Candy Red, Pearl White, Ultra and friendly character. RPM, THOUSANDS Rear: ....180/60R16 Bridgestone G704 Blue Metallic, Black on 5.00" x 16" wheel TEST NOTES STANDARD MAINTENANCE ELECTRICS Labor Parts PICKS Item Time Battery: ..............................12V, 20Ah : Awesome seating for long-distance touring Oil & Filter ................0.8 ..........$13.87 +$40 $64.00 Ignition: ........Digital/3D/transistorized : Massive power is ideal for the two-up mission Air Filter....................0.6 ..........$22.51 ..........$36.00 Alternator Output: .................... 300W Valve Adjust..............4.5 ..........$85.40 ........$360.00 : Great luggage capacity—long distances = more stuff Headlight: ........................2 x 55/55W Battery Access..........0.1 ............MF ................$8.00 Final Drive ................0.4 ................................$32.00 PANS FUEL R/R Rear Whl. ..........2.0 ..............................$160.00 : It’s heavy…okay, very heavy Tank capacity: ........................6.6 gal. Change Plugs............0.6 ..........$14.88 ..........$48.00 : A sixth gear would improve gas mileage Fuel grade:..............87 octane, regular Synch EFI..................1.5 ..............................$120.00 : An electrically adjustable windshield should be an option High/low/avg. mpg: ......41.4/34.4/37.0 $840.00 $176.66 10.5 Totals * MCN has changed the estimated labor rate to $80 starting March 2007

Visit us at WWW.MCNEWS.COM

●

SEPTEMBER 2011

17

Model Comparison Below: The GTL’s centrally located, gyro-controlled Adaptive Xenon Headlight steers into turns as the bike leans, but requires high speeds to have a noticeable effect, which is not how we tend to ride unfamiliar dark roads. The chrome spears (arrow) swing out to direct cooling air into the cockpit.

➡

Above: The K1600GTL’s 1649cc transverse inline six is very smooth and makes an exotic high-rpm wail. Although the dyno shows its low and mid-range performance is barely less than the Wing’s, its gearing makes it feel much less muscular. However, its advantage at high rpm is over 30 hp, and it kills the GL1800 in the quarter-mile. Unfortunately, snatchy fuel injection and an odd pressure plate assist in the clutch work against rider control; the engagement range changing with rpm and the clutch lever continually moving. The black driving lights don’t match the bike’s style and look like an afterthought.

Above: Unlike its GT sport-touring brother, the GTL has a wider windshield that flattens at its outer edges, which seems to create a lot more buffeting that none of its electrically adjustable positions could eliminate. The analog speedo and tach faces have poor contrast and hard-to-read markings. Below: The GTL’s bags are all removeable when you don’t need their storage room, but the passenger backrest isn’t as steady as a fixed unit and bounces off the passenger’s back on rough roads. The GTL’s front speakers have better quality than the Gold Wing’s, but the lack of rear seat speakers doesn’t give the wrap-around feel or sound in back.

➡

Left: The Multi Controller (arrow) rotates forward and back and can be pushed or pulled to scroll through and select from the vast array of electronic rider aids and sound choices—eliminating many buttons. The grips are very firm and angled back more than the Wing’s and generated some complaints.

TESTERS’ LOG Personally, I like the K1600GTL more than the Gold Wing, and less, and it’s inconsistency that costs the K-bike the win in my eyes. BMW has engineered a fast and smooth six-cylinder motor, placed it in an excellent-handling chassis and incorporated electronic genius with its new Multi Controller, which saves a lot of hassle when looking for the right button for this or that function. But, to me, the GTL represents an unfavorable compromise between sporttourer and a luxury bagger, and it isn’t as good as the K1200LT it replaces. I loved the old LT’s comfy riding position, larger hardbags and integrated trunk. The GTL offers less capacity, and its ergos left my legs cramped after just 80 miles! I was really hoping for a successor to the LT, but while the GTL is a real hoot in the twisties, I still prefer the LT. Too bad that sweet K1600 motor won’t swap into the LT’s chassis. —Scott Rousseau If your trip through the twisties will be punctuated with only short stretches of straightaway, the BMW K1600GTL is an

18

SEPTEMBER 2011

●

MOTORCYCLE CONSUMER NEWS

amazing bike. The movement in its backrest took a bit of getting used to, although I didn’t spend much time using it. The bike felt zippy and nimble, even from the back, but it did require me to hang onto the hubby because the K1600 lacks passenger grab rails. After a few hours, I felt the beginnings of fatigue in my seat and legs, likely because seating position is closer to the rider and footpegs are closer to the seat. From the first moment to the last, though, the BMW screamed adventure and excitement! —Shawna Rousseau The GLT has the high-end power, handling and braking prowess the Gold Wing lacks. But it also lacks the same level of comfort. The amount of windshield buffeting it creates is unacceptable to a rider spoiled by the Gold Wing. And more fuel injection issues? A clutch that makes control more difficult? Cramped seating for the rider? It’s all fixable, and the aftermarket will surely profit, but if you ask me, the K1600GT is the better sport-tourer, and the K1600GTL is no match for the Gold Wing. —Dave Searle

2011 BMW K1600GTL SPECIFICATIONS AND PERFORMANCE DATA ENGINE

PERFORMANCE

Type: ........Liquid/oil-cooled iniline six Valvetrain: .... DOHC, 4 valves per cyl., shim-under-bucket valve adjustment Displacement: ........................1649cc Bore/stroke: ................72.0 x 68.0mm Comp. ratio: ............................12.2:1 Fueling: ..............................BMS X EFI Exhaust: ......................6-into-1-into-6

Measured top speed ......134.3 mph 0–1/4 mile ..................11.75 sec. @ 113.87 mph 0–60 mph ....................3.69 sec. 0–100 mph ..................9.18 sec. 60–0 mph ........................122.4' Power to Weight Ratio ........1: 5.96 Speed @ 65 mph indicated......62.5

DRIVE TRAIN

MC RATING SYSTEM

Transmission: ......................6-speed Final drive: ................Paralever Shaft RPM @ 65 mph*/rev limiter: 3120/8400

EXCELLENT VERY GOOD GOOD FAIR POOR

*actual, not indicated

ERGONOMICS TEMPLATE

DIMENSIONS

72.75" 58.4"

C

38.5"

37.0"

29.8"

D E

62.6"

17.1"

SUSPENSION

A B

––––Heavyweight Tourer ––––

Horizontal (nose to) A: Passenger seat (middle). B: Rider seat (middle). C: Handgrip (center). D: Passenger footpeg (center). E: Rider footpeg (center).

43.1"

Wheelbase: ................................66.1" Rake/trail:............................27.8°/4.3" Ground clearance: ......................5.75" Seat height: ................................29.8" GVWR: ................................1191 lbs. Wet weight: ........................784.5 lbs. Carrying capacity: ..............406.5 lbs.

:::::

Vertical (ground to) F: Handlebar (center). G: Rider footpeg (top). H: Rider seat (lowest point). I: Passenger peg (top). J: Passenger seat (middle).

Engine Transmission Suspension Brakes Handling Ergonomics Riding Impression Instruments/Controls Attention to Detail Value

::::: ::::; ::::: ::::; ::::: ::::. ::::: ::::: ::::; ::::: :::;. ::::: ::::. ::::: ::::.

SAE CORRECTED REAR-WHEEL HORSEPOWER

SAE CORRECTED REAR-WHEEL TORQUE, LB. FT.

11.75"

::::: ::::. Front: ....Duolever double-leading arm ::::: ::::. fork, Electronic Suspension Adjustment, 4.9" travel F G HIJ ::::: ::::. OVERALL RATING Rear: ..............Monoshock, Electronic MISCELLANEOUS Suspension Adjustment, DYNAMOMETER DATA 131.64 hp 5.3" travel Instruments: ......Analog speedo, tach, ::::. 131.43 hp Low end digital fuel level, odometer, tripmeter, 110.34 lb.-ft. 130.85 hp • BRAKES Mid-range ::::; •• 107.88 lb.-ft. coolant temp.,gear indicator, clock, ::::: Top end Front: Dual 320mm semi-floating discs, • trip computer 101.22 lb.-ft. • • four-piston, double-acting calipers Indicators:..........hi-beam, t/s, neutral, BMW’s E-Gas fly-by-wire low fuel, ESA II, riding mode, check w/integral ABS throttle allows multiple driving modes, varying engine, oil pressure Rear: Single 320mm disc, two-piston, power and response. The MSRP: ..................................$25,845 double-acting caliper w/integral ABS standard or “Road” was, Routine service interval:........6000 mi. by far, our favorite, with Road Dynamic Rain TIRES & WHEELS Valve adj. interval:..............24,000 mi. good response and best Warranty: ..........3 years, 36,000 miles overall power. However, Front: ..........120/70ZR17 Bridgestone Colors: ............Mineral Silver Metallic, there was an odd delay in Battlax BT021 on 3.50" x 17" wheel ............................Royal Blue Metallic response from idle. RPM, THOUSANDS Rear: ..........190/55ZR17 Bridgestone Battlax BT021 on 6.00" x 17" wheel TEST NOTES STANDARD MAINTENANCE ELECTRICS PICKS Item Time Parts Labor Battery: ..............................12V, 19Ah : Exciting high-rpm power and exotic sound Oil & Filter................0.65 ..........$20 + $58 ....$52.00 Ignition:..............................Digital TCI : Nimble handling for its class Air Filter....................0.5 ..........$63.65 ..........$40.00 Alternator Output:.......... 580W @ 14V Valve Adjust..............2.6 ........$341.12 ........$208.00 : Excellent braking power and feel Headlight: ..............................60/55W Battery Access ..........0.5 ............MF ..............$40.00 PANS Final Drive ................0.5 ................................$40.00 FUEL R/R Rear Whl. ..........0.4 ................................$32.00 : Rider ergonomics are hard on knees Tank capacity: ........................7.0 gal. Change Plugs............1.7 ........$124.02 ........$136.00 : Turbulence around windshield regardless of position Fuel grade: .......................... Premium Synch EFI..................n/a ....................................$.00 : Luggage capacity is much less than the Gold Wing’s High/low/avg. mpg: ......44.2/31.9/37.9 Totals 6.85 $606.79 $548.00

52.0"

* MCN has changed the estimated labor rate to $80 starting March 2007

Visit us at WWW.MCNEWS.COM

●

SEPTEMBER 2011

19