• Welcome, Guest! We hope you enjoy the excellent technical knowledge, event information and discussions that the BMW MOA forum provides. Some forum content will be hidden from you if you remain logged out. If you want to view all content, please click the 'Log in' button above and enter your BMW MOA username and password.

    If you are not an MOA member, why not take the time to join the club, so you can enjoy posting on the forum, the BMW Owners News magazine, and all of the discounts and benefits the BMW MOA offers?

RT vs GTL

RT vs K1600

Having owned both K bikes and R bikes I have the following observations:
1. As a rule, the K bike engines were great; my 2 K75s were flawless in that regard, I also had a K1100RS, a K1100LT a K1200GT and a K1200LT.
Very fuel efficient and packed with usable power as well as more top end than the boxer motors. That having been said, the K1100RS and the K1200RS had real heat management problems. Both put so much engine heat on my legs that I would not ride either one when the temperature got above 85. While the new 1600 is a wonderful engine, I've talked to dealers as well as other owners who complain about engine heat on their feet. IMHO BMW needs to become aware that America is not Germany and it gets hot as hell here! I am sure that 100mph on the Autobahn will keep you relatively cool in 70 degree weather but that ain't Texas in June. Where the K powerplants fall flat is their poor heat management.

2. I have also owned a plethora of Boxers, both 247 air cooled and 259 oil cooled:
ZERO heat management issues.
Less will go wrong when there is less to go wrong.
The design lends itself to better cooling characteristics rather than Rube Goldberg fixes on the more complex engines to compensate for extreme engine heat.

3. The 1600s have F15 like shocking power which is most assuredly like a drug in my experience; the potential problem here is that if you are in the twisties in the rain and due to the smoothness of the 6 find yourself in a lower gear than you realized, too much throttle could send you into the trees given the high-reving nature of the 6.

4. The boxers by comparison have a more even powerband which I find to be a bit safer.

5. The boxers are lighter; were I Hulk Hogan, I expect a 1600 would be just right for me, but I'm done with 800 lb motorcycles. I recently changed from a K1200LT to an RT for that reason.

FWIW

Regards,

Will
 
Having owned both K bikes and R bikes I have the following observations:
1. As a rule, the K bike engines were great; my 2 K75s were flawless in that regard, I also had a K1100RS, a K1100LT a K1200GT and a K1200LT.
Very fuel efficient and packed with usable power as well as more top end than the boxer motors. That having been said, the K1100RS and the K1200RS had real heat management problems. Both put so much engine heat on my legs that I would not ride either one when the temperature got above 85. While the new 1600 is a wonderful engine, I've talked to dealers as well as other owners who complain about engine heat on their feet. IMHO BMW needs to become aware that America is not Germany and it gets hot as hell here! I am sure that 100mph on the Autobahn will keep you relatively cool in 70 degree weather but that ain't Texas in June. Where the K powerplants fall flat is their poor heat management.

2. I have also owned a plethora of Boxers, both 247 air cooled and 259 oil cooled:
ZERO heat management issues.
Less will go wrong when there is less to go wrong.
The design lends itself to better cooling characteristics rather than Rube Goldberg fixes on the more complex engines to compensate for extreme engine heat.

3. The 1600s have F15 like shocking power which is most assuredly like a drug in my experience; the potential problem here is that if you are in the twisties in the rain and due to the smoothness of the 6 find yourself in a lower gear than you realized, too much throttle could send you into the trees given the high-reving nature of the 6.

4. The boxers by comparison have a more even powerband which I find to be a bit safer.

5. The boxers are lighter; were I Hulk Hogan, I expect a 1600 would be just right for me, but I'm done with 800 lb motorcycles. I recently changed from a K1200LT to an RT for that reason.

FWIW

Regards,

Will

And, that is why I personally think the R1200RT is the best motorcycle on Planet Earth. Will, well said!
 
Having owned both K bikes and R bikes I have the following observations:
1. As a rule, the K bike engines were great; my 2 K75s were flawless in that regard, I also had a K1100RS, a K1100LT a K1200GT and a K1200LT.
Very fuel efficient and packed with usable power as well as more top end than the boxer motors. That having been said, the K1100RS and the K1200RS had real heat management problems. Both put so much engine heat on my legs that I would not ride either one when the temperature got above 85. While the new 1600 is a wonderful engine, I've talked to dealers as well as other owners who complain about engine heat on their feet. IMHO BMW needs to become aware that America is not Germany and it gets hot as hell here! I am sure that 100mph on the Autobahn will keep you relatively cool in 70 degree weather but that ain't Texas in June. Where the K powerplants fall flat is their poor heat management.

2. I have also owned a plethora of Boxers, both 247 air cooled and 259 oil cooled:
ZERO heat management issues.
Less will go wrong when there is less to go wrong.
The design lends itself to better cooling characteristics rather than Rube Goldberg fixes on the more complex engines to compensate for extreme engine heat.

3. The 1600s have F15 like shocking power which is most assuredly like a drug in my experience; the potential problem here is that if you are in the twisties in the rain and due to the smoothness of the 6 find yourself in a lower gear than you realized, too much throttle could send you into the trees given the high-reving nature of the 6.

4. The boxers by comparison have a more even powerband which I find to be a bit safer.

5. The boxers are lighter; were I Hulk Hogan, I expect a 1600 would be just right for me, but I'm done with 800 lb motorcycles. I recently changed from a K1200LT to an RT for that reason.

FWIW

Regards,

Will

What about someone built like Bulk Hogan? :whistle
 
I have yet to own a bike that worked perfectly out of the box.

I'm pretty easy to please and have no real issue out of the box. I am the exact opposite of a farkle dude. I hate all that crap on my handlebars. I especially hate bells hanging off motorcycles. Never have been able to understand that one in particular. Of course, I am in the minority which is good because I don't mind selling it as it puts food on my table :eat . To each his own.
 
I'm pretty easy to please and have no real issue out of the box. I am the exact opposite of a farkle dude. I hate all that crap on my handlebars. I especially hate bells hanging off motorcycles. Never have been able to understand that one in particular. Of course, I am in the minority which is good because I don't mind selling it as it puts food on my table :eat . To each his own.

I am not a farkle dude either(I am super cheap), but I've had to modify almost every bike I have owned for ergonomics.
 
I am not a farkle dude either(I am super cheap), but I've had to modify almost every bike I have owned for ergonomics.

I'm not cheap but I would be my own worst customer. I'm just not a consumer for almost anything. I basically just don't care to any degree about owning a whole bunch of stuff and having the old garage overflow. Like I mentioned I'm pretty easy to please.

Ergonomics are important on a bike. If you're too short or too tall or too heavy all of that will come into play on how comfortable you are when riding. I'm 6'1" and 190 pounds so I fit pretty well on most of what's out there. My biggest issue is the 'ol posterior as I just seem to get a sore butt pretty easily.
 
That whole discussion about RT vs GT(L) is like discussing whether to buy a Dodge Dart or a Chrysler 300. There are enough signifcant differences between the two vehicles, that it is absolutely useless to try to determine a universal preference.
 
That whole discussion about RT vs GT(L) is like discussing whether to buy a Dodge Dart or a Chrysler 300. There are enough signifcant differences between the two vehicles, that it is absolutely useless to try to determine a universal preference.

Significant yes but both are aimed at the touring market. It's actually very common for these bikes to be compared by people thinking about a touring bike despite the differences.
 
Significant yes but both are aimed at the touring market. It's actually very common for these bikes to be compared by people thinking about a touring bike despite the differences.

And as with so many kinked comparisons, they only serve the purpose to justify a preformed opinion. Why are these people not comparing an F800GT witht he R1200RT and with the K1600GT? And... many, many people tour on a GS. What's up with that?
 
And as with so many kinked comparisons, they only serve the purpose to justify a preformed opinion. Why are these people not comparing an F800GT witht he R1200RT and with the K1600GT? And... many, many people tour on a GS. What's up with that?

I started this particular thread. I ride an R1200RT and absolutely love it. Fortunately, (or unfortunately) my girlfriend loves it too. She has no desire to ride her own bike so we are two-up a lot. Long distance, and camping at rallys, etc. Other than a 10 minute ride on a 1600 GTL, I have no experience with anything but a boxer. I was looking for someone with experience with both machines because as was previously mentioned both are tourers. Yes, you can make an argument for the 800, or the 1600GT, but I am not interested in either one of those.

Also considering a trailer and how that might effect either bike. (oh, boy. Here it comes now)
 
And as with so many kinked comparisons, they only serve the purpose to justify a preformed opinion. Why are these people not comparing an F800GT witht he R1200RT and with the K1600GT? And... many, many people tour on a GS. What's up with that?

I don't know other than most feel the F800 is too small. That is not necessarily the case with RT v GTL. And, yes some do compare the GS's but given the nature of the GS my experience has been most comparisons involve RT v GTL. Have not made a scientific count of that however so could be wrong. I'm just calling it as I experienced it.
 
I started this particular thread. I ride an R1200RT and absolutely love it. Fortunately, (or unfortunately) my girlfriend loves it too. She has no desire to ride her own bike so we are two-up a lot. Long distance, and camping at rallys, etc. Other than a 10 minute ride on a 1600 GTL, I have no experience with anything but a boxer. I was looking for someone with experience with both machines because as was previously mentioned both are tourers. Yes, you can make an argument for the 800, or the 1600GT, but I am not interested in either one of those.

Also considering a trailer and how that might effect either bike. (oh, boy. Here it comes now)

I have substantial RT experience and minimal GTL experience. Rode Gold Wings for a number of years.
First time I rode an RT I fell in love with it as it felt more like a motorcycle to me. Pure opinion nothing more. Totally meaningless if you like a GTL better.
 
And as with so many kinked comparisons, they only serve the purpose to justify a preformed opinion. Why are these people not comparing an F800GT witht he R1200RT and with the K1600GT? And... many, many people tour on a GS. What's up with that?

Are you angry about something? We're only talking comparisons here.
 
Are you angry about something? We're only talking comparisons here.

What in the world would I be angry about? If you read my previous posts, you see I own both an R1100RT and a K1600GT. I am saying that the RT, even the latest R1200RT and the K16 compare like apples and pears.
That's the opinion of an owner of both and not that of an occasional rider of either.
I do not recall many people in the past trying to compare a K1200LT with an R1150RT, why do we suddenly try to compare RT with GT(L) and attempt to rate one above the other?
And the "comparison" is even more off, if you pick the GTL instead of the GT. Just look at the prices and the equipment packages.
 
I started this particular thread. I ride an R1200RT and absolutely love it. Fortunately, (or unfortunately) my girlfriend loves it too. She has no desire to ride her own bike so we are two-up a lot. Long distance, and camping at rallys, etc. Other than a 10 minute ride on a 1600 GTL, I have no experience with anything but a boxer. I was looking for someone with experience with both machines because as was previously mentioned both are tourers. Yes, you can make an argument for the 800, or the 1600GT, but I am not interested in either one of those.

So what was the reason for your inquiry? Did you just want to hear confirmation that you got a great bike in the R1200RT and you do not need a K1600GTL? And why, if you compare your R1200RT with another bike of similar qualities would you absolutely not be interested to include the 800GT and the 1600GT. Both are much closer to your R1200RT than the 1600GTL is.

Here is the "Touring" line-up the way I see it: F800GT - R1200RT - K1600GT - K1600GTL
-R1200GS -

I would rate the R1200GS and RT on the same level, except for the GS more for a single rider and the RT more for two-up, mainly because the pillion position on the RT is more comfortable. And of course, if your "touring" includes the occasional excursion on non-paved highways, there is no alternative to the GS.
In the end, everybody will vote for what his/her preference is, based on (emotional?) intangible reasons and/or financial considerations.

I think this thread - at least for me - has run its course.
 
So what was the reason for your inquiry? Did you just want to hear confirmation that you got a great bike in the R1200RT and you do not need a K1600GTL? And why, if you compare your R1200RT with another bike of similar qualities would you absolutely not be interested to include the 800GT and the 1600GT. Both are much closer to your R1200RT than the 1600GTL is.

Here is the "Touring" line-up the way I see it: F800GT - R1200RT - K1600GT - K1600GTL
-R1200GS -

I would rate the R1200GS and RT on the same level, except for the GS more for a single rider and the RT more for two-up, mainly because the pillion position on the RT is more comfortable. And of course, if your "touring" includes the occasional excursion on non-paved highways, there is no alternative to the GS.
In the end, everybody will vote for what his/her preference is, based on (emotional?) intangible reasons and/or financial considerations.

I think this thread - at least for me - has run its course.

Mike, you do write like you have a chip on your shoulder. Nothing wrong with the 800, or the GS. Just not my style. I don't think the 800 would be near as comfortable with a pillion. Neither has the element protection of the RT or the GTL either. I wasn't asking for an opinion on the soundness of my rational for comparing the RT with GTL. I have my reasons. I was simply asking if anyone had experience with both bikes and pros and cons of each in relation to the other. With the exception of Walker, not much in the way of constructive comments here. The 1600 tourer site was much more constructive.
 
Mike, you do write like you have a chip on your shoulder. ....


With the exception of Walker, not much in the way of constructive comments here. The 1600 tourer site was much more constructive.

What did I say makes you think I have a chip on my shoulder? I tried to make constructive comments but it seems you don't want to hear them unless they are what you want to hear = the R1200RT is the best bike in the world.

I do get tired of threads that turn in circles.
 
Back
Top