Global Rider said:
My standard 1200 is far more economical than the standard 1150 that I had previously. I would normally get in the region of 180-200 miles on my 1150 prior to the fuel light coming on during my day to day driving. On the 1200 that mileage is 190-210 before the appearance of the low fuel light. Given that the 1200 has a fuel tank with capacity 5 litres less than my 1150, that makes for a useful improvement in fuel consumption.
Global Rider
Guest
Bob Southgate said:
At what speed?
A fuel warning light coming on?
Bob, that is a totally unscientific way of determining which is more efficient. You fill it to the top, ride till almost empty, fill it again and do your fuel calculations.
I keep my fuel consumption records on an MS Excel spreadsheet and you know what, they are spot on with BMW's claims at the listed speeds, so why would BMW's fuel claims for the R1200 GS be any different?
Here are some numbers that I copied from another forum...
The range of an R1200 GS Adventure if you ran the gas tank dry based on a 33 liter gas tank and 4.6 and 6.1 l/100 km:
At 90 km/hr (55.9 mph): 717 km or 445 miles.
At 120 km/hr (74.5 mph): 540 km or 336 miles.
The range of an R1150 GS Adventure if you ran the gas tank dry based on a 30 liter gas tank and 4.5 and 5.7 l/100 km:
At 90 km/hr (55.9 mph): 666 km or 414 miles.
At 120 km/hr (74.5 mph): 526 km or 327 miles.
The R1150 GS Adventure despite the previous engine design get better gas mileage than the R1200 GS. Plus it looks a whole lot better.
Chill out! 
IMHO the 1200GSA should not be considered as a "replacement" for the 1150GSA.
Just like the 1150GSA was a larger fuel tank version of the 1150GS, the 1200GSA is a larger fuel tank version of the 1200GS ( I know all the subtle differences too).
There is no lineage between the two GSA bikes. The 1200 "chassis" and gearbox are more road orientated than the 1150, hence the upward sales of the 1200 (despite early production gremlins - see other threads).
Its like saying apples are better than pears for filling a fruit bowl
IMHO the 1200GSA should not be considered as a "replacement" for the 1150GSA.
Just like the 1150GSA was a larger fuel tank version of the 1150GS, the 1200GSA is a larger fuel tank version of the 1200GS ( I know all the subtle differences too).
There is no lineage between the two GSA bikes. The 1200 "chassis" and gearbox are more road orientated than the 1150, hence the upward sales of the 1200 (despite early production gremlins - see other threads).
Its like saying apples are better than pears for filling a fruit bowl
Global Rider
Guest
luckylucian said:Chill out!
Nobody is upset, at least I'm not.
I'm just surprised that fuel efficiency took a "backward" step when improvements usually mean "forward" steps.
Fanum
Toubab
If they'd sort out that under-specced rear bearing , I'd probably get the 12adv...otherwise, I'd get the 1150Adv and spend the rest..As David said early on, that's a big price difference.
roddy
Registered user
Capt America
have you decide what one to go for yet ?
I have a 1150GSA and find it a better bike overall than my old 1100GS, however if you've never owed either bike, I would go for the cheaper one, less money spent in case you don't like the GS experience, if you do more money to spend on goodies.
also I believe you will only know the difference between the 2 GSA if you have owed and ridden both for a while otherwise go with your heart, whatever bike you choose you'll be happy.
just my two penny's worth.
cheers
have you decide what one to go for yet ?
I have a 1150GSA and find it a better bike overall than my old 1100GS, however if you've never owed either bike, I would go for the cheaper one, less money spent in case you don't like the GS experience, if you do more money to spend on goodies.
also I believe you will only know the difference between the 2 GSA if you have owed and ridden both for a while otherwise go with your heart, whatever bike you choose you'll be happy.
just my two penny's worth.
cheers
Shep
Shep of the Dessert
Fanum said:
The main problem seems to be the unservicability of the final drive, as it seems all modern gs's have a delicate final drive, i was hoping that once the 1200's were out of warrantee, somebody would start offering a bearing/seal repair kit for home repair, similar to that avalable for the 1150's.
Anybody had a 1200 fd apart yet
Shep
Ibex
Guest
1150GS vs 1200GSA
I unexpectedly changed from much beloved 1150 GS ( 24k miles in 2 years) to a 1200GSA two weeks ago when the former had an ABS pump failure (£1400 to you Sir). Dealer offered a good price to trade and there I was. 3 days later I went to Spain on it - got back on Sunday. IMHO the 1200GSA is so much better than I would have believed. The weather protection is way better, and the engine much smoother and more powerful. Only parts I dont like are the shorter gearing on the new one - at least 500 revs more at 90 in top, and the electronic servo brakes on the grounds of complexity. Having said that - I met a tractor on a blind bend whilst riding down a narrow Pyrennean route. It wanted all the road and I had nowhere to go. I was absolutely astonished to actually stop about 8 inches before hitting the b*****d. Not sure the 1150 would have done so in the distance available. I was so surprised I lost balance and down we went anyway, but no damage was done.
It really is a good bike, and so much better looking than the standard 1200GS. I like the helicopter gunship comparison! Maybe Touratech will bring out some rocket launchers.....would come in handy with Spanish tractors!
I unexpectedly changed from much beloved 1150 GS ( 24k miles in 2 years) to a 1200GSA two weeks ago when the former had an ABS pump failure (£1400 to you Sir). Dealer offered a good price to trade and there I was. 3 days later I went to Spain on it - got back on Sunday. IMHO the 1200GSA is so much better than I would have believed. The weather protection is way better, and the engine much smoother and more powerful. Only parts I dont like are the shorter gearing on the new one - at least 500 revs more at 90 in top, and the electronic servo brakes on the grounds of complexity. Having said that - I met a tractor on a blind bend whilst riding down a narrow Pyrennean route. It wanted all the road and I had nowhere to go. I was absolutely astonished to actually stop about 8 inches before hitting the b*****d. Not sure the 1150 would have done so in the distance available. I was so surprised I lost balance and down we went anyway, but no damage was done.
It really is a good bike, and so much better looking than the standard 1200GS. I like the helicopter gunship comparison! Maybe Touratech will bring out some rocket launchers.....would come in handy with Spanish tractors!
GS Rider
Registered user
Ibex said:
Hi,
I had the gs1200ad on loan from SBW for the Pinkway first and second legs and yes its one hell of a bike for its size and the screen was great
Rode all day with my visor up
and on a hot day you need loads of that 
But had to give it back shame that 
.BillIbex
Guest
Gearing crit on 1200GSA
I may have been a little harsh in my moan yesterday about gearing difference between old trusty 1150GS and new 1200GSA. The thing is, I was always aware that, relative to my GPS, the speedo on the 1150GS was way optimistic. 90mph indicated only showed 84 on GPS. On the GSA however, the correlation is almost dead on, within 1mph anyway. So maybe there is no actuall gearing difference its just that 90mph indicated is actually 90 and not 84!!
The detail I did forget to moan about however was the useless fuel gauge on the GSA. At that price you would think BMW would be able to fit one that worked? Forget it. It's one of those "They all do that Sir" - which frankly isn't good enough in 2006. Mine has three positions; Full, which it holds for about 150 miles before dropping suddenly to half, then down to a single bar usually within a further ten miles. It holds this until the low fuel warning comes on about 100 miles or so later. I quickly found that I had to rely on the mileage trip (one of two available - dead useful) in order to have some peace of mind.
Still doesn't detract from a very good motorcycle though!
I may have been a little harsh in my moan yesterday about gearing difference between old trusty 1150GS and new 1200GSA. The thing is, I was always aware that, relative to my GPS, the speedo on the 1150GS was way optimistic. 90mph indicated only showed 84 on GPS. On the GSA however, the correlation is almost dead on, within 1mph anyway. So maybe there is no actuall gearing difference its just that 90mph indicated is actually 90 and not 84!!
The detail I did forget to moan about however was the useless fuel gauge on the GSA. At that price you would think BMW would be able to fit one that worked? Forget it. It's one of those "They all do that Sir" - which frankly isn't good enough in 2006. Mine has three positions; Full, which it holds for about 150 miles before dropping suddenly to half, then down to a single bar usually within a further ten miles. It holds this until the low fuel warning comes on about 100 miles or so later. I quickly found that I had to rely on the mileage trip (one of two available - dead useful) in order to have some peace of mind.
Still doesn't detract from a very good motorcycle though!
Global Rider said:
It may be unscientific, but with one bike having a larger fuel tank than the other it is still a good way of comparing the fuel ecoomy of both bikes. Of course if that isn't good enough for you I can refer to the running cost records that I maintain, which include fuel consumption records. These clearly show my 1200 is more fuel effiecient than my old 1150.
Global Rider said:The R1150 GS Adventure despite the previous engine design get better gas mileage than the R1200 GS. Plus it looks a whole lot better.
Not according to my records it doesn't. I take it you have allowed for the 10% inaccuracy in the odometer readings on the 1150?
snoopy
Guest
The idea that the 1200 is more fuel efficient is not down to advancement in engine technology but down to twin spark which yields upto 7% better fuel consumption.
Some adventure models don't have this, so I don't think the conparison between 1150 and 1200 fuel consumption can be justified in the way that it has been.
Some adventure models don't have this, so I don't think the conparison between 1150 and 1200 fuel consumption can be justified in the way that it has been.
Global Rider
Guest
Bob Southgate said:
Same here on an MS Excel spreadsheet for every vehicle that I own. See my next post.
Bob Southgate said:
Not an issue since all things are usually equal...the R1200 GS odometer is spot on? Why would it be and others not?
Global Rider
Guest
snoopy said:
But the R1200 GS isn't more fuel efficient, not according to the BMW specifications, and trust me, a company will always try to make their product look as good as possible.
But I'm glad you brought up the "twin spark". The BMW supplied numbers I quoted of 4.5l/100 @ 90 km/hr and 5.7l/100 @ 120 km/hr are out of an older "pre twin spark" sales brochure.
Therefore numbers for a twin spark should be lower and sure enough, that explains why my 2003 "twin spark" GS is only burning 5.3l/100 (consistently) at a GPS indicated speed of 120 km/hr (our roads are pretty straight, so that speed is quite constant). That is 0.8 l/100 less than the newer technology. Go figure!
Anyways, we are splitting hairs here. The point of the discussion is why is the newer model not more efficient, at least not according to the BMW specifications.
Global Rider said:
It is an issue as it happens. The speedo and odometer readings on the 1100/1150's are well known for over reading by 10%. It can be improved by fitting the speedo drive from the R1100R, bringing the over read down to 3%. Of course such a over read on the standard speedo drive will mean that your fuel economy figures are out by 10%.
The odometer on the R1200GS is much more accurate, only 0.3% out, so the fuel economy figures are spot on.
Global Rider said:
Oh but it is, and by a useful amount. There are plenty of former 1150 owners who now have 1200's who can testify to this, myself included. Why are you having such trouble accepting this from people who know i.e the owners themselves? You only have experience of the 1150. Come back to us when you have had good use of the 1200 and have been able to measure its fuel consumption. Only then will you be in a position to make a fair comparison.
Global Rider
Guest
Bob Southgate said:
Why are you having so much trouble accepting published data from a company that would have it in THEIR interest to have good looking numbers.
I wonder why BMW AG wouldn't take advantage of your knowledge and post better looking fuel consumption figures?
I work in a standards lab and one thing I've learned over the years, people are sloppy making measurements.
Global Rider
Guest
Bob Southgate said:
0.3% And you confirmed this how?
Earlier this year in Wunderbar Deutschland, riding day to day with a couple of buddies, riding together, staying together, some fast work (up to 90mph) some twisties, but all riding as one... several days doing 120 to 180 miles a day... tank full to tank full, filling together...
My 650 would consistantly take up to 7 (yes seven) litres less than mates 1150 at the end of the day, and three less than the 1200
Mates 1200 would consistantly take 4 (yes four) litres less than the 1150 at the end of the day....
Fact
www.adventure.gs
My 650 would consistantly take up to 7 (yes seven) litres less than mates 1150 at the end of the day, and three less than the 1200
Mates 1200 would consistantly take 4 (yes four) litres less than the 1150 at the end of the day....
Fact
www.adventure.gs
Similar threads
