• 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?

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

vtbob

wanderer
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?
 
There are differences between models. Flywheel weight comes immediately to mind. Gearing also has an effect on RWHP.
 
To the best of my knowledge, these figures reflect rear wheel horsepower and the difference being the gearing of each model.
 
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.
 
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".
 
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:
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.
 
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 :brow
 
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.
 
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 :brow
You got a point there.
 
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?

Bob, I think you seem pretty fussed up about the review/comparrison test...
I have not received my hard copy yet, and am not interested enough to read it in digital form.
I have owned/own 2 LC, an RT and a GS, and although MCN mostly gushed on and on about them, I'm not a big fan of the bikes. I've already sold the '14 RT. My point being that just because they chose a particular bike to be ranked last in their comparrison, it doesn't mean that it would rank in last place in everyone's estimation.


The 92 ft lb and 125 HP figures are from the manufacturer and are measured at the crank right?

The figures from MCN are measured at the rear wheel, at their own facility, or at a vendor.
Some level of variance, especially at the rear wheel doesn't surprise me. I would expect it from year to year, model to model and even from day to day..
It is also possible that someone might have made an erreor. (opps, ya see)

Write in to them, if you haven't already, and ask them for their .02 worth. Over the years, I've frequently seen MCN address such issues /questions in a straight forward manner.
 
Last edited:
Bob, I think you seem pretty fussed up about the review/comparrison test...

Write in to them, if you haven't already, and ask them for their .02 worth. Over the years, I've frequently seen MCN address such issues /questions in a straight forward manner.

My point is as Jim VonBaden has confirmed these bike have identical engines and specs from BMW. A "tested" 10% difference is significant and of interest to me.

David Searle of MCN has responded directly to my email to them.

I'm hoping they do some journalist home work, find out what BMW says..., fine out from their dyno shop...can we really expect 10% different reading from the same engines on different dates. Personally if so, dyno tests are not at all good tool for consumers to compare the same or different bikes over time and that is a point of knowledge and interest to me.
 
My point is as Jim VonBaden has confirmed these bike have identical engines and specs from BMW. A "tested" 10% difference is significant and of interest to me.

David Searle of MCN has responded directly to my email to them.

I'm hoping they do some journalist home work, find out what BMW says..., fine out from their dyno shop...can we really expect 10% different reading from the same engines on different dates. Personally if so, dyno tests are not at all good tool for consumers to compare the same or different bikes over time and that is a point of knowledge and interest to me.


Again, there are other variables. Gearing, tire size, ambient conditions at the time of the test and list goes on.
 
Again, there are other variables. Gearing, tire size, ambient conditions at the time of the test and list goes on.

Gearing and tire size and issues like that do NOT impact HP/Torque measurements any more that motor cycle weight,etc.

Temperature / humidity/ altitude do effect engine performance but most dynos have various type of compensation to address these normal variables
All this goes to competent Dyno testing. Maybe the state of dyno technology only give 10% accuracy?? That is what I would like to know. Are dyno test figure any more value that Manufacture's press statement? I have believed that dyno numbers were more valid. I now question that.
 
Back
Top