Fuel economy...

[Deleted account 210604001]

I have been mildly interested in the BMW Nine T, but also in the GS, and the R12RT, and ... well I just think my next bike will be my first boxer. Anyhoo, couldnt help noticing that the new GS1200 is more economical than the Nine T, the new R12RT and the 800GS Adventure.

I guess the additional weight of the R12RT answers that one, but was very surprised that the Nine T is less economical, and that the RT gets worse economy compared to the others at faster speeds (thought there might be some aerodynamic benefits).

4.1 litres at 90km/h 5.5 litres at 120 km/h = GS1200
4.2 litres at 90km/h 5.9 litres at 120 km/h = R1200RT
4.3 litres at 90km/h 5.7 litres at 120 km/h = 800GS Adv
4.5 litres at 90km/h 5.8 litres at 120 km/h = Nine T

Not suggesting this is a major decision factor, but it is a consideration as Im not welded to any particular model and can see the relative benefits in each of them (Nine T = style, R12RT = touring capability, GS12 = look like your a round the world wannabee).

Anyways, that is all...

RBW.

 

[Nutty]

I guess that the Nine T is the thirstiest as it doesn't have the latest, more fuel efficient engine. If they'd have put the LC motor in, it would drink the least fuel.

 

[dave hendy]

I have been mildly interested in the BMW Nine T, but also in the GS, and the R12RT, and ... well I just think my next bike will be my first boxer. Anyhoo, couldnt help noticing that the new GS1200 is more economical than the Nine T, the new R12RT and the 800GS Adventure.

I guess the additional weight of the R12RT answers that one, but was very surprised that the Nine T is less economical, and that the RT gets worse economy compared to the others at faster speeds (thought there might be some aerodynamic benefits).

4.1 litres at 90km/h 5.5 litres at 120 km/h = GS1200
4.2 litres at 90km/h 5.9 litres at 120 km/h = R1200RT
4.3 litres at 90km/h 5.7 litres at 120 km/h = 800GS Adv
4.5 litres at 90km/h 5.8 litres at 120 km/h = Nine T

Not suggesting this is a major decision factor, but it is a consideration as Im not welded to any particular model and can see the relative benefits in each of them (Nine T = style, R12RT = touring capability, GS12 = look like your a round the world wannabee).

Anyways, that is all...

RBW.

If those figures are as inaccurate as the ones produced for cars I wouldn't worry about it, just ride the bikes and buy the one you like the best!

 

[Deleted account 210604001]

I guess that the Nine T is the thirstiest as it doesn't have the latest, more fuel efficient engine. If they'd have put the LC motor in, it would drink the least fuel.

Possibly, but then the R1200R with the old engine actually equals the new GS1200 wethead economy at 4.1 and 5.5, I suspect they have messed with something on the Nine T's engine to give it more 'character' despite it having same torque and power figures (and near as dammit the same weight).

RBW.

 

[Deleted account 210604001]

If those figures are as inaccurate as the ones produced for cars I wouldn't worry about it, just ride the bikes and buy the one you like the best!

Is there a distinction between inaccurate and inconsistent ? I know what you mean about car consumption figures, and generally you cant get near them because of the rigid and unrealistic way they are tested, however they should give a good comparison as they are all tested in the same way (except some manufacturers may play the game a little more than others, but as we are dealing with one manufacturer in this question I think thats unlikely). So from the same manufacturer a car that achieves 60mpg should be better than a car that achieves 30mpg, even if that means the owner can only achieve 40 and 20 respectively.

I speak as a former Golf Bluemotion owner and failed to get over about 47mpg (but it was a company car, so was driven 'progressively'), even though it should have given me 70mpg+ on a combined cycle.

RBW.

RBW.

 

[Davey B]

I think I can honestly say that in 30 yrs of bike buying, the fuel economy has never featured in my thinking. It may have done if bike A did 10 mpg and bike B did 80 but for the miles most bikers do, 4.1 or 4.5 litres/100km is irrelevant. Isn't it?

 

[tanneman]

Motorcycle sport and leisure concluded that they could get 170 miles to the tank when using the GS LC as a commuter, about 140 miles when spanked.

 

[Wapping]

As tanneman's post shows, it's incredibly easy to get a wild fluctuation in the figures.

His upper number of 170 is a 21% increase in the lower value, as near as damnit a fifth or one in five. Bimble or pootle about and you'll use less fuel and save the planet. Rag its nuts, mate and you won't.

Many bods agonise over their MPG. Many of the same nods have no idea of the capacity of their bike's fuel tank and / or any real concept of how far the bike will really go between fuel stops. Many are very surprised; finding it is much further than they thought.

 

[Packer]

Aren't these figures derived from running on a rolling road? That would account for the GS beating the RT at high speeds. In the real world run any GS at higher speeds (70mph +) and the fuel consumption escalates rapidly irrespective of the engine fitted.

 

[Nutty]

Motorcycle sport and leisure concluded that they could get 170 miles to the tank when using the GS LC as a commuter, about 140 miles when spanked.

They must have been running it with flat tyres in that case.

 

[Deleted account 210604001]

To give another comparison, the Nine T is worse than the K1600GT on fuel (marginally)

RBW.

 

[Deleted account 210604001]

Aren't these figures derived from running on a rolling road? That would account for the GS beating the RT at high speeds. In the real world run any GS at higher speeds (70mph +) and the fuel consumption escalates rapidly irrespective of the engine fitted.

That would be a major factor as wind resistance and rider are not a factor used in the calculation. Still not sure why the Nine T is so poor when compared to for example the R1200R though.

RBW.

 

[Little-Brit]

Aren't these figures derived from running on a rolling road? That would account for the GS beating the RT at high speeds. In the real world run any GS at higher speeds (70mph +) and the fuel consumption escalates rapidly irrespective of the engine fitted.

Doing the tests on a rolling road does not mean that wind resistance is not taken in to account - clever things these computers (well some of the time|)

What would account for the difference between the RT and the GS would be the lower weight and the lack of luggage on the GS (in Normal trim - the RT has luggage as standard).

Incidentally my W/C GS is usually showing over 200 miles on the trip before I refill with about 20 miles left, allegedly...

 

[Wapping]

Incidentally my W/C GS is usually showing over 200 miles on the trip before I refill with about 20 miles left, allegedly...

Usable tank volume (according to BMW) 20 litres, so not surprisingly you are knocking on the rule of thumb of 10 miles per litre. A bit extra (closer perhaps to eleven or twelve, a 10 to 20% gain) as you are maybe running it in.... Or perhaps just careful.

 

[Packer]

That would be a major factor as wind resistance and rider are not a factor used in the calculation. Still not sure why the Nine T is so poor when compared to for example the R1200R though.

RBW.

Perhaps they've set up the 90 for responsiveness and with less emphasis on fuel figures. You see it all the time on dyno exhaust analysis charts, the engine leans out at the revs appropriate to the road speed fuel consumption figures. Once a new map has been input richening the lean spots the bike goes better, feels better and most folk seem to get better fuel economy as well.

 

[Wilsdorf]

What is the 9T's gearing like?

I'd love one, but at more than an S1000 naked, there is something a little off

Thought these were supposed to be around £10k, not £10k + VAT

 

[Little-Brit]

Usable tank volume (according to BMW) 20 litres, so not surprisingly you are knocking on the rule of thumb of 10 miles per litre. A bit extra (closer perhaps to eleven or twelve, a 10 to 20% gain) as you are maybe running it in.... Or perhaps just careful.

The friends I ride with don't think I'm still running it in! I do however have a clean licence, by some miracle, and intend to try and keep it that way.

 

[mwhite5471]

Only getting 39 out of US gallon with my riding style of 80 on the freeways

Hopefully it will get better once the motor fully breaks in, i only have 1,500 on it right now.

 

[tanneman]

The friends I ride with don't think I'm still running it in! I do however have a clean licence, by some miracle, and intend to try and keep it that way.

That depends on what company you keep, but given that the police is fairly thin on the ground in North Bedfordshire I'll bet that you won't have a problem keeping the licence clean. We'll I managed so far except for the 3 points in Scotland. Happy holidays man with white GS.

 

[Little-Brit]

Double post, doh!