MotorCyclist Comparison

[Top_Speed1]

I think we all agree here the FJR is an awesome bike. The K1600 is just a natural step-up and a lot of owners of the BMW have come from FJR's (some also keeping their FJR's as their second ST bike!).

For me, I have a bunch more GWF's than just the Adaptive Xenon and 6th gear... my biggest (heard) gripe on the FJR is the buzz, whine and/or vibrations of the Feej at high speeds. There is NONE, zero, nilcho, nada with the super smooth K1600's 6cyl. My really only gripe w the K1600 (as said many of times by me) is the cost. I guess if you take off some of the wow factor (or GWF as you say), the price goes down to where a lot of peeps want, but personally I want the wow factor so it is what it is.

 

[Fred W]

Hmmm... Step up? Not so sure. I haven't actually ridden either of these other bikes, nor a 2013 FJR yet (but I intend to), so I'll have to accept your opinion on that.

I guess the other way to add some objectivity to the comparison would be to ask:

"Which bike would you choose if they all cost the exact same amount?"

I'm not sure that my answer would be any different.

 

[Top_Speed1]

"Step-up" wording was actually taken from fellow/past FJR owners over on K1600.com about the transition. I think the phrase is maybe even over used there but again, it is what it is.

 

[20valves]

I haven't even seen a K1600 in the flesh as our BMW dealer went tits up about a year ago. That alone would keep from getting one as the nearest dealer is now 100 miles away. I've never owned a BMW bike but they don't enjoy a great reputation for being trouble free.

The strongest factors in my purchase decision are that I know FJR's are bulletproof and my local dealer (Maxey's Yamaha in OKC) is excellent with a truly professional service department. I have never found any objectionable vibration on my Gen I, II or III FJR's. I have no doubt the BMW's engine is brilliant and the tests say the bike manages its weight really well. I've ridden RT's and they steer lightly but that Telelever suspension system takes some getting used to.

I'd be reluctant to own something as big and complicated as the 1600, but I'd LOVE to ride a GT version and see what it's like. There is a big difference in owning a bike versus trying it out. Day in, day out....the hassle factor of owning an FJR is about zero, just ride it, do the maintenance, period. And it's such a great looker and performer on top of all that that I never had a moment of doubt getting a Gen III over the other stuff out there.

 

[Chaser]

I read the article as well. I've been considering a S/T for this year and the article helped me choose the '13 FJR. After reading Ash's (RIP) comments on the Triumph Trophy -in contrast to the FJR- I went to a Triumph dealer and looked and sat on one for myself. Yes, it is a whale. It's huge. It reminds me of what a pizza delivery guy would ride in a large inner city. The dyno run info in the article completely refuted Ash's claims on the "missing low end torque" of the FJR. The 3 cyl, 1200cc Trophy had noticably lower HP and torque. It doesn't compete against ALL the others.

I feel the Concourse is overrated by sports biker rider/reviewers that can't change their stripes. I sat on a new 2013 Concourse. It's almost claustrophobic. The `13 FJR has so much more going for it. I feel I made a wise choice AND I got an excellent deal from my Yamaha dealer.

I Can't wait to enjoy this baby!

 

[Rolavine]

It was an interesting test, they did say all the bikes were really good and only the BMW was a standout, making the 2-4th place finishes academic.

I thought the Triumph was too big, the comment about the Connies linked brakes being lethal was enough for me to steer clear of it, and as far as smooth goes, I love smooth.

 

[SoCalFJR1300]

Here ya go fellas~https://www.cycleworld.com/touringsport-touring/

Nice bike but IMOP no bike is worth $10,000 more than a FJR, no bike!

 

[20valves]

...I thought the Triumph was too big...

It is! I got my US MCN magazine yesterday and its test of the Trophy 3. Comparing spec sheet numbers, it has a 6th gear but still turns more rpm per mph in top gear than an FJR, it has a bit less displacement (83cc) but about 15 fewer horses and about 15 fewer ft. lbs. of torque, weighs about 50 lbs. more, FJR is quicker and faster, has much better "roll on" performance. For over $3K less, the FJR doesn't have the Trophy's heated seat, stereo or adjustable suspension. According to MCN, the comfort and sport suspension settings were useful, the "normal" setting was badly sorted and so was never used. The noise coming from the fairing was such that the stereo was drowned out. Glad I spent my money on the FJR, again.

 

[MCRIDER007]

...I thought the Triumph was too big...

It is! I got my US MCN magazine yesterday and its test of the Trophy 3. Comparing spec sheet numbers, it has a 6th gear but still turns more rpm per mph in top gear than an FJR, it has a bit less displacement (83cc) but about 15 fewer horses and about 15 fewer ft. lbs. of torque, weighs about 50 lbs. more, FJR is quicker and faster, has much better "roll on" performance. For over $3K less, the FJR doesn't have the Trophy's heated seat, stereo or adjustable suspension. According to MCN, the comfort and sport suspension settings were useful, the "normal" setting was badly sorted and so was never used. The noise coming from the fairing was such that the stereo was drowned out. Glad I spent my money on the FJR, again.

I talked to a local on his first day of Trophy ownership and he said the opposite. He thought the comfort setting was spongy and the sport setting was extremely harsh....didn't seem like there was much value in the electronic suspension.

 

[20valves]

I talked to a local on his first day of Trophy ownership and he said the opposite. He thought the comfort setting was spongy and the sport setting was extremely harsh....didn't seem like there was much value in the electronic suspension.

So, with the "benefit" of the expensive suspension negated, looks like an FJR owner could spend some of his savings over the Triumph on aftermarket suspension and have a better suspended bike than the Triumph and still have spent less money.

MCN also states the Triumph has 110 lbs. less carrying capacity than the FJR. Oh, and the speedo on the FJR is quite accurate (65 indicated = 63.5 actual) where the Triumph isn't (65 mph indicated = 61.6 actual).

 

[MCRIDER007]

I talked to a local on his first day of Trophy ownership and he said the opposite. He thought the comfort setting was spongy and the sport setting was extremely harsh....didn't seem like there was much value in the electronic suspension.

So, with the "benefit" of the expensive suspension negated, looks like an FJR owner could spend some of his savings over the Triumph on aftermarket suspension and have a better suspended bike than the Triumph and still have spent less money.

This has been true (for me) regarding every motorcycle with electronic suspension that I have ridden to date.

 

[Auron]

Here's MD's take. Fatheads still complaining about 5 gears.

https://www.motorcycledaily.com/2013/03/md-ride-review-2013-yamaha-fjr1300a/

Out of curiousity, how much narrower is the bike at footpeg level from having one less gear?

 

[Granger]

I think this comparison is out of whack. Pitting a 6-cyl, 1600cc, $25k+ bike against others under $20k with 300cc less? Why not throw a Goldwing into this mix and call that a Sport-Tourer as well?

A worthwhile comparison is among bikes within 10-15% price of each other with approx. the same engine sizes. How do they perform against each other for that much grunt and bucks for a similar riding purpose? When you throw into the mix that the Kawa or the FJR could be had for about $3-4k less than 2013 retail with very low mileage and one year of age, while the Triumph is currently overpriced and the BMW is a rich man's sit-up cruiser, is preposterous.

It's clear from the comparison article that they love the "extras" that the money buys in the BMW. What a shocker.

But I liked this: "the BMW ruled in the 60-80 roll-on test at 3.37 seconds. The Yamaha was next, at 3.66 seconds", so our bird is no slouch!

...and also this: "Because these four really split into two groups--the upscale Euro speedsters and the trimmer Japanese pair--it's a hard one to call." so the C14 and the FJR are set up more towards the sport end than the BMW and Triumph for riding style (Triumph had the largest air pocket for the rider);

...and this: "with the Yamaha's new found refinement and softer suspension making it a much better pure-highway trawler than the tautly sprung, growly Connie. It comes down to personality. The FJR1300 is plush--slightly too plush, actually--and smooth, seldom calling attention to itself."

The FJR acquited itself quite well, with some reviewers liking at after sensibly taking the expensive Beemer out of the mix. They liked that it could sport, and they liked that it could tour. And that it didn't sacrifice too much of one for the other.

That's exactly what I bought the FJR for, and bike I could take in either direction, for a great price.

See you on the Highway.

 

[Granger]

BTW, I did want add one interesting note about the Motorcyclist review which I found quite informative: in the pages where they show the specs of each bike, they also provide measurements for distance-positioning of saddle, footpegs and bars so that you can see the differences in riding positions that each bike may offer for your body size.

I'd never seen this before but it makes a lot of sense. For my 5'8" frame I had to do two sets of risers (actually Helibars + riser inserts) on the FJR bars to get them close enough for my short arms (otherwise I'd always be laying on the damn tank to reach), and now that I've seen the distance between seat and bars (FJR was the longest of the four bikes, the Triumph the shortest) I know why. And by the way, I am still not sitting as upright as I would be in the Triumph, but at least now the bike fits me.

See you on the Highway.