Anyone move from an RT to K1200GT

[1024JLC]

I have been 1/2 considering selling my 04 RT and buying an 04 GT. I ride year round (live in Delaware) and commute almost every workday, and take one or two trips a year (usually less than 1200 miles RT). I really like the idea of 4-cylinder engine, and maybe smoother feel.

I was wondering if anyone has made the move from an R1150RT to a K1200GT, and if so, what has been your experience with the K1200GT compared with the RT, good or bad, with:

- Reliability
- Cost of ownership (i.e.: maintenance cost, fuel cost, insurance cost, etc.)
- More (or less) ability to do your own wrenching
- Better/Worse weather protection
- Comfort (commuting and touring)
- Tire wear (i.e.: has the increased HP been that much harder on the rear tire)
- Additional "Performance awards", or chances thereof

Is there anything else you could shine on this broad, and obviously personal choice, subject?

 

[RJM2096]

I remember a thread once, where there was a K1200GT owner that made the switch. He found that the K1200GT he bought needed a lot of maintenance and the maintenance was very, very expensive. He finally sold it just because of that.

 

[Roy.Jackson55@aol.com]

RT for a K-bike. I don't understand the question.

 

[steviewonder]

I owned a 1998 K1200RS, then added 2004 R1150RT which I owned for just over a year, then sold it and bought a 2004 K1200GT. I rode the RS from Texas to Tennessee as well as all through Texas (long rides). I rode the RT from Houston to Los Angeles to Yellowstone/Glacier National/Grand Teton/Yosemite/Pacific Coast Hwy to LA to Houston as well as multiple long trips within Texas and up to Arkansas. I've ridden the GT from Houston to Michigan and back, Houston to Miami and back and another trip to Knoxville and back (plus The Dragon). So I think I have a pretty good frame of reference subject to the vagaries of personal opinion.

I MUCH prefer the GT. With barbacks installed, the riding position is every bit as comfortable at the RT. The storage space is identical. The fuel mileage is so close as to not be really noticeable (about 40mpg on the GT, maybe 45mpg on the RT). The GT handles better, IMO, and the engine is much more powerful and much smoother. I found the electronic cruise control particularly advantageous on the longer trips vs. ThrottleMeisters. The RT has better wind protection but marginally so and an aftermarket windscreen will help a great deal on the GT. On the maintenance front, I found both bikes to be bulletproof, but the RT takes more attention because of the persistent (and expensive) valve adjustments. I have not found either the RS (essentially the same bike) nor the GT to be higher maintenance bikes nor more expensive when it needed maintenance. The tire wear on the front is the same and the rear a bit higher on the GT simply because there is so much more power and the temptation to use it is overwhelming.

Let me reiterate how much smoother the GT engine is than the RT. HUGE difference that really adds up if you take longer trips.

 

[TONY2733]

Just my point of view

As someone that has experience on all three bikes this is my take:

If the choice is between, prior model year 2004 RT and RS/GT take the RS/GT, as they are slightly more modern in all areas.

If the choice is between 2004 RT, prior model year 2004 RS/GT and 2005 RT, your best choice IMO is take a 2005 RT. The 2005 RT all round a more modern and better choice, your getting a current model not a discontinued model. 2005 RT is lighter, gets better MPG, smoother, and handles better.

Consider when going from an 2004RT to a same year RS/GT it is almost the same, IMO I would step up to a current model 2005RT for a few more $$$, and have a more modern ( Technically ) bike then both of the 2004RT and RS/GT

I know this is really going to shake up the bee hive, but as I said it is only my opinion.

 

[58058D]

In the thirty or more years I have been riding, one thing seems to stick out to me. Folks that learned and grew to love a twin/triple/four cylinder bike tend to really, really prefer that feel. When they change, the character is just not the same. Obviously that does not apply to everyone, but just anecdotally, this seems to hold in the BMW groups I have seen.....just my observations. I learned on a triple and a 4, and while I love twins, not as my primary bike. If I only have one bike, it will be a 4. My wife is the opposite, she learned on twins and loves them, though she is okay being a passenger on my 4....Just a thought to have in the back of your mind. Other than that, to me, the KGT is FAR superior in so many ways, and I do all my own maintenance on my 2000 KRS, which is the same bike as the 04 GT - I have done a long ralley trip on my buddie's '04 GT and loved it, even though it is not set up like my RS. the old YMMV

 

[131946]

OK I'll bite. Having grown up with singles, twins and fours over the last forty years, I've found that twins have the character I desire.

How can you go wrong with a big pair of jugs?

 

[TONY2733]

fours are great

I agree that 4's are great, however they don't have the character, of the twin BMW boxer, and I am willing to pay the BMW premium for the 2. IMO I can't see paying the BMW premium for a 4, of which the Japanese have perfected quit nicely. The new Kawi Concours is hard to beat, since character does not come in to play for me I'll take the $10,000.00 diff. on a new Kawi to the bank. I would go as far to recomend you look at the F800ST, another Character bike, no other parallel twin offers what it offers.

A month ago I purchased a 1994 K75, with 8500 miles and am dumping $1500 into it, so don't get the idea I am a closed minded boxer head. I absolutely love the K75, and the reason is it is unique, and has ???? Character.

I love people and bikes with character, I really have not found a any bike I didn't like, I love them all. The limited bank account is the problem.

 

[steviewonder]

That's like saying you'd own a '64 Chevy as an everyday driver because it has "character". Of course it has more body roll than Roseanne Barr, brakes built for a covered wagon and the handling of a little red wagon, but it does have "character".

Character ???
That's a way to say that they are quirky, much rougher running and have significantly less power.

BTW ... my BMW's were boxers, including my '04 1150RT, up until I bought the taxicab RS. I loved the boxers but there was NO comparison on any performance level. None.

 

[easy]

I have been 1/2 considering selling my 04 RT and buying an 04 GT. I ride year round (live in Delaware) and commute almost every workday, and take one or two trips a year (usually less than 1200 miles RT). I really like the idea of 4-cylinder engine, and maybe smoother feel.

I was wondering if anyone has made the move from an R1150RT to a K1200GT, and if so, what has been your experience with the K1200GT compared with the RT, good or bad, with:

- Reliability
- Cost of ownership (i.e.: maintenance cost, fuel cost, insurance cost, etc.)
- More (or less) ability to do your own wrenching
- Better/Worse weather protection
- Comfort (commuting and touring)
- Tire wear (i.e.: has the increased HP been that much harder on the rear tire)
- Additional "Performance awards", or chances thereof

Is there anything else you could shine on this broad, and obviously personal choice, subject?

http://forums.bmwmoa.org/showthread.php?t=27170

Easy

 

[TONY2733]

Apples to Apples

I was refering to various bikes within 2000 to 2005, 5 years difference, I think over 40 years diff. in your 64 Chevy example is really not apples to apples, as I agree I don't want to back 40 plus years for character. We are only talking and sharing opinions on motorcycles, not our wifes, child, or loved ones. I now think K bikes have the most character of any BMW ever made. Hope we all feel better.
I didn't mean to offend, sorry if you took it that way.

 

[jurgen]

GT is not the best commuter

Compared to the R (I commute on my GS), the GT is heavier, has a larger turning radius and is way more expensive when dropped.


Based on my limited experience on an RT, I believe weather protection is much better on the RT. The GT may be a little better than the RS but still, protection is poor.

Reliability: I'd give the GT the edge but YMMV

 

[zoridog]

I met a guy at the Finger Lakes Rally last year who made a similar choice (1100 RT for K1200GT). The bike was just over 1 year old and had about 15K miles on it.

He could not say enough good things about the GT. He loves his.

Picking a car is a black and white proposition. Buying a bike is like picking a wife. The final decision will be made during the test ride.

 

[bob1100rtc]

My RT is plenty fast for me. I have no problem lifting the front end now and then when I want a kick. I like the feel of the boxer over an inline 4. We're all different though and some are completely opposite from me. I would say ride both and see what you like.

 

[steviewonder]

Jurgen, the weather protection on a GT is substantially better than on an RS. I've owned both. I'd say the GT and the RT are pretty much equal ... MAYBE a extremely slight edge to the RT, maybe.

 

[Astrin]

Jurgen, the weather protection on a GT is substantially better than on an RS. I've owned both. I'd say the GT and the RT are pretty much equal ... MAYBE a extremely slight edge to the RT, maybe.

I'm not sure. After having a really tough time in central Illinois last October with strong crosswind gusts on my K75RT, which has a fairing design fairly similar to the modern R1200RT (albeit a smaller bike), I demoed a 2008 GT all day on a pretty gusty November day and was impressed with how little crosswinds impacted me, and attributed it partly to the fact that the GT has a lot less side fairing structure than the K75RT. There seems to be a lot less surface for crosswinds on the GT fairing. But I didn't get a chance to take out an R1200RT that day for a direct comparison. I do really like the GT fairing, it's effective but fairly minimal.

A bit off-topic, but I'd really like to hear a comparison between the modern RT and GT in strong crosswinds.

 

[steviewonder]

I was addressing rain protection (an oxymoron on a motorcycle anyway) and headwind protection. Having driven both in West Texas, which has more wind generation of electricity than any other state, the home of strong and gusty winds, I would agree the GT has a bit more stability than the RT because of the smaller side profile.

 

[bob1100rtc]

If I could find a clean 64 Nova at the right price I would take it in a heartbeat. Its all about what floats your boat.

 

[steviewonder]

a clean 64 Nova

Isn't that an oxymoron?