Account removed
Guest
Yonkyo;1986276) I’m lucky to own a HP2S said:
120 BHP GS1200
- Thread starter thosoneill
- Start date
If BMW do drop the HP2S motor into a GS, it will be an admission that they've given-up all pretence of it being a GS (in the original sense).
The only justification for increasing the power since the earliest GS's has been to enable them to shift their own lardy arses. To be honest, I think that the 80 bhp of the 1100GS was sufficient, the increases since then have been for commercial reasons.
A 120 bhp GS?
That should ensure that that they stay on major roads and in easy reach of BMW-Assist.
The only justification for increasing the power since the earliest GS's has been to enable them to shift their own lardy arses. To be honest, I think that the 80 bhp of the 1100GS was sufficient, the increases since then have been for commercial reasons.
A 120 bhp GS?
That should ensure that that they stay on major roads and in easy reach of BMW-Assist.
Account removed
Guest
Is that peak torque "mid-range"I don't think so when the engine revs out around 8000 ish rpm.
it's most torque the engine can make at any rpm
(RIP) Bin Ridin
Registered user
Bring it on!
jtw000
Registered user
I think this would be a mistake. 120bhp is nothing by modern sports standards but this isn't a sports bike. It's a GS, an all rounder enduro-tourer. This would means that BMW are listening to the wrong people. The upgrades i want to see are decent finish and less useless crap to make it even more useful off road. A more powerful engine means a more complicated engine and more to go wrong means even less useful in the real world these bikes are meant to be aimed at. I applaud BMW for making the HP2 but even though i want one it's not the right bike for me, and sadly nor would this proposed GS be.
From what I could see they were suggesting that although use of the twin cam type arrangement would make +22HP possible it would possibly be detuned/modified to give more low down and mid range and as such would then not give +22hp.
I dont know to much about it but from from what I seen discussed before the change will probably be more about improved emmissions than inreased power.
I got an 08 GSA and for me more grunt would be welcome, top end or out and out power wouldnt really matter. I got five bikes and the GS is the one I pick most times for most uses, I love it.
I dont know to much about it but from from what I seen discussed before the change will probably be more about improved emmissions than inreased power.
I got an 08 GSA and for me more grunt would be welcome, top end or out and out power wouldnt really matter. I got five bikes and the GS is the one I pick most times for most uses, I love it.
As I don't ride off road the extra power would be wellcome, but I do agree with all those who are concerned that such " upgrades" would alter the character of the new bike, and move it even further away from the original concept. As someone who has short legs I have benefited from the evolution from the older higher heavier models to the 1200, and await the official announcement of the specs of the new model with great interest. However on this occasion I am determined not to act as an unpaid development rider for BMW!
Aggy
Guest
I'll agree to that
People are being blinded by the marketing and figures again, it works everytime!
'It's a more power engine! I want I want I want!!!!! I need the extra horsepower!!!!'
And while people are declaring to the world that they NEED the extra horsepower they forget about the oh so minor fact that its unreliable.
Personally keep the extra 15hp and I'll buy the reliable one please........
Pauly S
Registered user
bhp versus torque
put any bike on a rollling road and produce a bhp versus torque curve.
then look at the area of rpm when you make the fastest acceleration on the road, i bet you its where the torque is at its highest,my bandit made 110hp at the rear wheel, but that was at 9500 rpm,tbh honest i had shifted up way before that @ around 5750 rpm, which was when the bike accelerated the fastest.wringing its neck to 9500 didnt really achieve much cos it took a while to get there, but rev between 4k to 7 k and it was like lightening.
I'm pretty sure its the Torque which makes the difference for acceleration not the bhp, just as tim cullis said.
put any bike on a rollling road and produce a bhp versus torque curve.
then look at the area of rpm when you make the fastest acceleration on the road, i bet you its where the torque is at its highest,my bandit made 110hp at the rear wheel, but that was at 9500 rpm,tbh honest i had shifted up way before that @ around 5750 rpm, which was when the bike accelerated the fastest.wringing its neck to 9500 didnt really achieve much cos it took a while to get there, but rev between 4k to 7 k and it was like lightening.
I'm pretty sure its the Torque which makes the difference for acceleration not the bhp, just as tim cullis said.
ktmmark
Registered user
I would like a 100 mpg + with 70 mph all day capability don't mind if it's diesel 
Not quite 70mph but 170mpg.....
Attachments
ktmmark
Registered user
What's it like to ride how much and where from spring to mind 
I like me 1100 80-85 bhp? usable power, where are you going to use 120 bhp??
Somewhere that's not the overcrowded hell-hole which is the Sarf East of Englandshire.........squire.......
Chris Terry
Registered user
Thats what they said about 80-85 bhp
Old Git Ray
Registered user
The bike appears to have valve shims. A mechanic at SBW told me they were on the way for the 1200 last month.
Also looking at the piccys it is obvious there are no adjusters.
This simple fact alone makes the bike less usefull for overlanding. Anyone who has ever adjusted valves with shims will tell you its a nightmare and you need a selection of shims to do the job. Not realy self service job when touring.
Add to that the extra time and money for dealer servicing.
My 2 cents worth...sorry
Also looking at the piccys it is obvious there are no adjusters.
This simple fact alone makes the bike less usefull for overlanding. Anyone who has ever adjusted valves with shims will tell you its a nightmare and you need a selection of shims to do the job. Not realy self service job when touring.
Add to that the extra time and money for dealer servicing.
My 2 cents worth...sorry
I made the same comment about the 24k service on a similar thread. It'll be a mistake to have big service costs embedded in the schedules for the GS. The exotic HP2 can justify such costs, but it'd effect used prices for a vanilla GS with 20k on the clock.
Either way BMW will have already made the decision re the engine. I think chasing more power is a real mistake, although there's always people who go ooo and ahhh whenever bhp is mentioned.
And, whenever a manufacturer says "detuned for more midrange" they actually mean just "detuned".
I think the power/torque/weight of the current model is fine - if you need more, you really need a different bike.
BMW do need to develop the GS/GSA - they need to stop it rusting and breaking down, anything else is just window dressing.
I think I'm beginning to sound like a fekkin 1150 owner now.......
Either way BMW will have already made the decision re the engine. I think chasing more power is a real mistake, although there's always people who go ooo and ahhh whenever bhp is mentioned.
And, whenever a manufacturer says "detuned for more midrange" they actually mean just "detuned".
I think the power/torque/weight of the current model is fine - if you need more, you really need a different bike.
BMW do need to develop the GS/GSA - they need to stop it rusting and breaking down, anything else is just window dressing.
I think I'm beginning to sound like a fekkin 1150 owner now.......
Thats what they said about 80-85 bhp
at what point do you say that is enough power for normal road use,that is all 99.99% of these bikes will be used for i can get to highly illegal speeds with 80-85 bhp and i hav'nt noticed 1150/1200's leaving me standing on ride-out's
even with 25 or so bhp more than i have
Similar threads
