Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 62

Thread: Motorcycle Consumer News report substantial difference in HP between Wet Head Models

  1. #1
    wanderer
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bridport Vermont
    Posts
    273

    Motorcycle Consumer News report substantial difference in HP between Wet Head Models

    The latest MCN digital edition write a comparison of the New R1200RS with the Capnord(???) and the FJR1300.
    In this they conclude that "The R1200RS, priced at $19890 as tested, fall short of its competitors...."

    Their opinion....some detail errors in the RS write up ...but it is their opinion....

    But what disturbs me in the normally hard factual MCN is their statement that the
    RS put out 104.55 HP 77.87 ft-lb of torque
    RT put out 112.74 HP
    GS put our 115.65 HP
    and left this finding with no further discussion.

    The the best of my knowledge the engines in these wet head bike are identical. MCN knows this but is willing to publish these figure that either indicate their testing was seriously flawed or BMW is pulling a VW deception on their customer.

    It is shocking to me that MCN did not put more effort in this test give these results.

    I would like to hear more from MCN and BMW on this.

    What do you think?

  2. #2
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Austin, Texas
    Posts
    343
    There are differences between models. Flywheel weight comes immediately to mind. Gearing also has an effect on RWHP.
    2015 R1200GS Adventure

  3. #3
    Registered User JIGGIN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Lake Elmo, MN
    Posts
    104
    To the best of my knowledge, these figures reflect rear wheel horsepower and the difference being the gearing of each model.
    2014 R1200RT

  4. #4
    Debbie's Servant Lee's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    SW Iowa
    Posts
    4,113
    Different dynos maybe I've seen dyno reports of 107 to 113 HP.
    Lee
    2016 R1200RS
    MOA # 30878
    Past BMW Bikes: 2011 K1300S, 2003 K1200RS, 1991 K75S, 1987 K75T, 1984 R100RT

  5. #5
    Debbie's Servant Lee's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    SW Iowa
    Posts
    4,113
    Quote Originally Posted by kurt1305 View Post
    Flywheel weight comes immediately to mind.
    Didn't they all go to the same crank in 2015?
    Lee
    2016 R1200RS
    MOA # 30878
    Past BMW Bikes: 2011 K1300S, 2003 K1200RS, 1991 K75S, 1987 K75T, 1984 R100RT

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Lee View Post
    Didn't they all go to the same crank in 2015?
    Yes, same crank.

    I think you have to allow for some variances, whether in the engine, or the testing equipment or the conditions.
    Last edited by dmilan; 11-09-2015 at 11:16 PM.

  7. #7
    Registered User BMARC153920's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Orange County, NY
    Posts
    623
    Quote Originally Posted by bobzeliff View Post
    The latest MCN digital edition write a comparison of the New R1200RS with the Capnord(???) and the FJR1300.
    In this they conclude that "The R1200RS, priced at $19890 as tested, fall short of its competitors...."

    Their opinion....some detail errors in the RS write up ...but it is their opinion....

    But what disturbs me in the normally hard factual MCN is their statement that the
    RS put out 104.55 HP 77.87 ft-lb of torque
    RT put out 112.74 HP
    GS put our 115.65 HP
    and left this finding with no further discussion.

    The the best of my knowledge the engines in these wet head bike are identical. MCN knows this but is willing to publish these figure that either indicate their testing was seriously flawed or BMW is pulling a VW deception on their customer.

    It is shocking to me that MCN did not put more effort in this test give these results.

    I would like to hear more from MCN and BMW on this.

    What do you think?
    It's these types of omissions and gaps in insight recently of MCN why I let my subscription lapse this year after many years of subscribing. They used to be rock solid, insightful and reliable, this past year or two not so much and seems to get worse every month.

    So many factors go into a dyno run and if the bikes aren't tested back to back under the same conditions I don't think you can fairly compare them. Even back to back there is a margin of variance.

  8. #8
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    2,046
    Transmission ratios changing an engines horsepower production? And flywheels weights are all the same now I do believe. I'd agree these varying results are based more on testing equipment, testing conditions and bike's "set up".
    MOA #46783

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by bobzeliff View Post
    But what disturbs me in the normally hard factual MCN is their statement that the
    RS put out 104.55 HP 77.87 ft-lb of torque
    RT put out 112.74 HP
    GS put our 115.65 HP
    and left this finding with no further discussion.

    What do you think?
    Look at the Winter 2015 issue of BMW Motorcycle Magazine. Maybe the oil level of the three bikes differed!
    Last edited by tlcoulter; 11-10-2015 at 03:57 AM. Reason: Incorrect magazine was originally cited.

  10. #10
    Kool Aid Dispenser! jimvonbaden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Alexandria, VA
    Posts
    1,486
    Something isn't right. The RS should be equal to the RT.

    Jim

  11. #11
    I'm pretty sure I read that the different models have different intake and possibly exhaust systems. Maybe I imagine that I read it. This happens with cars all the time. Packaging restrictions change the intake and exhaust systems. I wouldn't be surprised that an FJR engine makes more power. I guess it matters to some for bench racing but I never considered the RT to be directly similar to a 4 cylinder anything in regards to power. My 2015 R1200R makes what I consider pretty good power for it's design and am satisfied with it. It's faster than I will probably ever be. I am tempted to buy a S1000 for hooligan moments but I try to hold off on that until the urge passes. The FJR seems like a great bike and it wouldn't kill me to own one, but I'll stick with BMW myself. I can't really explain my attachment to the marque. As far as deceptions go, maybe BMW is doing that but if we hadn't read or heard about this article.....would our feelings about the bike have changed? Mine haven't.

  12. #12
    Looks like someone dyno'd the RS in 'Wet Mode'.

  13. #13
    Debbie's Servant Lee's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    SW Iowa
    Posts
    4,113
    Quote Originally Posted by rudyinla View Post
    I'm pretty sure I read that the different models have different intake and possibly exhaust systems.
    I saw one report mentioned the GSA may have slightly more torque because of the airbox design.
    Lee
    2016 R1200RS
    MOA # 30878
    Past BMW Bikes: 2011 K1300S, 2003 K1200RS, 1991 K75S, 1987 K75T, 1984 R100RT

  14. #14
    Kool Aid Dispenser! jimvonbaden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Alexandria, VA
    Posts
    1,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Lee View Post
    I saw one report mentioned the GSA may have slightly more torque because of the airbox design.
    There are differences in the design of all the intake pipes and airboxes. However, the differences make no difference in torque and HP for the different models. At least according to the specs. There are gearing differences and tire differences, plus weight differences, so they will feel different.

    2016 BMW R1200RS
    CLAIMED HORSEPOWER 125 hp @ 7,750 rpm
    CLAIMED TORQUE 92.0 lb-ft @ 6,500 rpm

    2015 BMW R1200RT
    Rated output 125 hp (92 kW) at 7,750 rpm
    Max. torque 92 lb-ft (125 Nm) at 6,500 rpm

    2015 BMW R1200GS
    Rated output 92 kW (125 hp) at 7,750 rpm
    Max. torque 92 lb-ft (125 Nm) at 6,500 rpm

    2015 BMW R1200R -
    Rated output 125 hp (92 kW) at 7,750 rpm
    Max. torque 92 lb-ft (125 Nm) at 6,500 rpm


    Jim

  15. #15
    A bozo on the bus deilenberger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Spring Lake NJ, USA
    Posts
    8,485
    Were all the bikes tested on the same dyno on the same day? Same fuel source?

    Differences between dyno's - and differences between weather on different days can be significant, as can differences on a single dyno on different days. And with adaptive timing - differences between fuel can make significant differences.

    Somehow I think not - I suspect the HP figures quoted, with the exception of the RS that they apparently had for the article, were probably from prior tests - so results CAN be expected to vary. That may be why they published the numbers with no comment.

    That said - there can be variances in the output of specific engines vs seemingly identical engines. Put together a bit loose - an engine will normally make a bit more HP (less frictional losses..) at perhaps the expense of noise, longevity, etc. And was the bike fully broken in? These factors combined with the "learned adaptation values" in the ECU could easily account for the differences listed.

    I wouldn't put a lot of worry into the figures MCN got - go ride the bike. Does it make you smile? If so - buy it, if not keep looking.

    BTW - after 20 years I let my MCN subscription lapse this year. Since for the past 5 years they couldn't get my subscription terms straight - and I was tired of emailing and calling them, figured letting it lapse was the best course of action.
    Don Eilenberger http://www.eilenberger.net
    Spring Lk Heights NJ NJ Shore BMW Riders
    '12 R1200R - I love this bike!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •