MCRIDER007
Well-known member
I am spending the week in Seattle and yesterday we had a beautiful spring day, a perfect opportunity to test ride a BMW K1300S (S) and K1300GT (GT). Ridewest, a really first class dealership that I would like to give my business to, supplied the fully equipped demos and all I had to do was bring them back in the same condition and replace the gas. Unfortunately, that day also seemed to be LEO revenue generation day so most of my riding was at or near the speed limits and was about 75 percent freeway (with both smooth and some pretty rough pavement).
I wasn't trying to duplicate a motorcycle magazine test, I just wanted to know how the engine performance and ride compares to the 2008 models of FJR, C14, and ZX-14 that I have sitting in my garage. Both BMWs were introduced in 2009 with the S getting pretty much great reviews while the GT was given mixed reviews. I have not been able to find a comprehensive test on either although there have been several comparisons to like models and those results have also been mixed.
I was also very interested in the ESA (Electronic Suspension Systems). BMW advertised 9 different suspension combinations of spring and damping adjustments to meet every road and riding condition. There are 3 preload positons and the rider can then select Sport, Normal, or Comfort on the fly. The GT looks like a very large bike sitting on the showroom floor and I initially was not that interested but the fit and finish was great so I decided to give it a try after I rode the S model.
Once on the highway, I was surprised how low the gearing was on the S, 4,000 rpms was an indicated 65 mph, about the same rpms that the C14 or ZX-14 would be turning in 4th gear. It was hard to make any meaningful comparisons of engine performance when the gearing is so different because I normally do not ride in 4th gear on the highway. There was a little vibration in the handlebars but not enough to be annoying and the on-board computer said the gas mileage was between 48-50 mpg. The ESA was a disappointment because I could feel every small bump in the road and was jolted by the big bumps. Changing the setting from comfort to sport didn't seem to make much difference and sometimes the sport setting had a better ride than the comfort setting. I really didn't know what to think while I was riding except I would rather have aftermarket, adjustable suspension.
I was pleasantly surprised by the GT. Once moving the weight and size seemed to disappear and I was very comfortable riding it. Like the S model, the engine is under geared and turns 4,000 rpms at 65 mpg indicated. Unlike the S, it did have some noticeable vibration in the handlebars but did have very impressive roll on power at 60 mph in 6th gear...but so would an FJR if it were running in 3rd or 4th at 60 mph. It also was indicating 48-50 mpg most of the time. I could tell an immediate change in the suspension when I used the ESA but rather than comfort, normal, and sport it was more like rough, harsh, and more harsh. In spite of the busy engine and disappointing suspension, I thought it was a great bike to ride and by the time I got back to RideWest it seemed like I was riding on one of my own bikes.
The salesman who was in charge of the demo program appeared to be a bit shocked that I didn't like the ESA and was also surprised at my comment that the bikes were under geared. I stated that if I were to buy one it would be without ESA because the money would be better spent on some quality suspension. His reply was that I was the first one to ever complain about the ESA, everyone else demands it, and they don't stock a bike without it. Buying a model without ESA would be a special order and may take months...which wasn't a disappointment to me because I would not buy one until they also change the gearing and that probably will not happen in my lifetime.
A bit more about ESA, while there are nine combinations there are really only 6 different settings, 3 for preload and 3 for damping. I think the harsh ride is a product of either very stiff springs or too much compression damping. BMW's can carry heavy payloads, about 460 pounds for the S and 515 for the GT so the shock springs may be biased towards the heavy loads and just too stiff for a solo rider; the GT might have a very nice ride when packing double but it still seems like they should have compression damping adjustments on a $23K bike, and anyone who thinks you can go from a comfort to a sport mode just by adding a few clicks of rebound damping is being naive. As it currently stands, all you really get with ESA is an electronic preload selection on the rear shock and the ability to make small, fixed adjustments in the rebound damping rates (on both ends). I think what Ducati is offering on the new MultiStrata is the way to go.
What's the bottom line? The S model is kind of in a class of its own, a high performance shaft drive, that can be used for touring. I might be interested in one if I didn't already have a ZX-14 but when comparing those 2 models the S only wins in gas mileage and range. The ZX-14 has far superior suspension, the engine makes more power everywhere, is smoother and more fun to ride...and cost much less. I think the GT makes more power than an FJR but only at higher rpms, the downside is that the engine seems busy all the time and the suspension is not as plush. The GT is more of a touring bike than the FJR but even if I were riding some long distances, I would rather be riding my FJR (or the C14) if riding solo. The GT might have an advantage over the FJR riding double with its long wheelbase and what appears to be very heavy shock springs but both BMWs need fully adjustable suspension and taller gearing...and in case you are wondering, the base price on a BMW is a marketing ploy, a stripped model is a special order.
I wasn't trying to duplicate a motorcycle magazine test, I just wanted to know how the engine performance and ride compares to the 2008 models of FJR, C14, and ZX-14 that I have sitting in my garage. Both BMWs were introduced in 2009 with the S getting pretty much great reviews while the GT was given mixed reviews. I have not been able to find a comprehensive test on either although there have been several comparisons to like models and those results have also been mixed.
I was also very interested in the ESA (Electronic Suspension Systems). BMW advertised 9 different suspension combinations of spring and damping adjustments to meet every road and riding condition. There are 3 preload positons and the rider can then select Sport, Normal, or Comfort on the fly. The GT looks like a very large bike sitting on the showroom floor and I initially was not that interested but the fit and finish was great so I decided to give it a try after I rode the S model.
Once on the highway, I was surprised how low the gearing was on the S, 4,000 rpms was an indicated 65 mph, about the same rpms that the C14 or ZX-14 would be turning in 4th gear. It was hard to make any meaningful comparisons of engine performance when the gearing is so different because I normally do not ride in 4th gear on the highway. There was a little vibration in the handlebars but not enough to be annoying and the on-board computer said the gas mileage was between 48-50 mpg. The ESA was a disappointment because I could feel every small bump in the road and was jolted by the big bumps. Changing the setting from comfort to sport didn't seem to make much difference and sometimes the sport setting had a better ride than the comfort setting. I really didn't know what to think while I was riding except I would rather have aftermarket, adjustable suspension.
I was pleasantly surprised by the GT. Once moving the weight and size seemed to disappear and I was very comfortable riding it. Like the S model, the engine is under geared and turns 4,000 rpms at 65 mpg indicated. Unlike the S, it did have some noticeable vibration in the handlebars but did have very impressive roll on power at 60 mph in 6th gear...but so would an FJR if it were running in 3rd or 4th at 60 mph. It also was indicating 48-50 mpg most of the time. I could tell an immediate change in the suspension when I used the ESA but rather than comfort, normal, and sport it was more like rough, harsh, and more harsh. In spite of the busy engine and disappointing suspension, I thought it was a great bike to ride and by the time I got back to RideWest it seemed like I was riding on one of my own bikes.
The salesman who was in charge of the demo program appeared to be a bit shocked that I didn't like the ESA and was also surprised at my comment that the bikes were under geared. I stated that if I were to buy one it would be without ESA because the money would be better spent on some quality suspension. His reply was that I was the first one to ever complain about the ESA, everyone else demands it, and they don't stock a bike without it. Buying a model without ESA would be a special order and may take months...which wasn't a disappointment to me because I would not buy one until they also change the gearing and that probably will not happen in my lifetime.
A bit more about ESA, while there are nine combinations there are really only 6 different settings, 3 for preload and 3 for damping. I think the harsh ride is a product of either very stiff springs or too much compression damping. BMW's can carry heavy payloads, about 460 pounds for the S and 515 for the GT so the shock springs may be biased towards the heavy loads and just too stiff for a solo rider; the GT might have a very nice ride when packing double but it still seems like they should have compression damping adjustments on a $23K bike, and anyone who thinks you can go from a comfort to a sport mode just by adding a few clicks of rebound damping is being naive. As it currently stands, all you really get with ESA is an electronic preload selection on the rear shock and the ability to make small, fixed adjustments in the rebound damping rates (on both ends). I think what Ducati is offering on the new MultiStrata is the way to go.
What's the bottom line? The S model is kind of in a class of its own, a high performance shaft drive, that can be used for touring. I might be interested in one if I didn't already have a ZX-14 but when comparing those 2 models the S only wins in gas mileage and range. The ZX-14 has far superior suspension, the engine makes more power everywhere, is smoother and more fun to ride...and cost much less. I think the GT makes more power than an FJR but only at higher rpms, the downside is that the engine seems busy all the time and the suspension is not as plush. The GT is more of a touring bike than the FJR but even if I were riding some long distances, I would rather be riding my FJR (or the C14) if riding solo. The GT might have an advantage over the FJR riding double with its long wheelbase and what appears to be very heavy shock springs but both BMWs need fully adjustable suspension and taller gearing...and in case you are wondering, the base price on a BMW is a marketing ploy, a stripped model is a special order.
Last edited by a moderator:
