Discussion
I've recently traded in my 1200GS for a new 1250, I liked it on a test ride and fancied having cornering ABS.
It's better to ride than the 1200, noticeably smoother.
But.
Fuel consumption is very high, during running in I was getting about 53 MPG as opposed to the 57/58 the 1200 always returned. OK I thought, engine a bit tight and E10 fuel must account for a few %. Other owners reckoned it would improve after a few hundred miles.
Now I've just exceeded 1000 miles and the last tankful went at 47MPG, the range readout which gave me about 240 for a full tank on the old bike is now showing less than 200, so it's inconvenient as well as expensive.
What's going on here? The shift cam technology is supposed to make it better not worse, and apparently it only kicks in over about 6000 rpm which I rarely hit (it's well over 80MPH with a gear to go) so shouldn't make much difference.
What with that and having to pay over £300 to transfer the insurance across half way through the years policy (previous premium was just over £200 for the year) I'm regretting buying it.
It's better to ride than the 1200, noticeably smoother.
But.
Fuel consumption is very high, during running in I was getting about 53 MPG as opposed to the 57/58 the 1200 always returned. OK I thought, engine a bit tight and E10 fuel must account for a few %. Other owners reckoned it would improve after a few hundred miles.
Now I've just exceeded 1000 miles and the last tankful went at 47MPG, the range readout which gave me about 240 for a full tank on the old bike is now showing less than 200, so it's inconvenient as well as expensive.
What's going on here? The shift cam technology is supposed to make it better not worse, and apparently it only kicks in over about 6000 rpm which I rarely hit (it's well over 80MPH with a gear to go) so shouldn't make much difference.
What with that and having to pay over £300 to transfer the insurance across half way through the years policy (previous premium was just over £200 for the year) I'm regretting buying it.
£18,000 bike and you are concerned over mpg and what the computer says. If it is a deal breaker why not go to your garage put the bike on the mainstays and fill it until the fuel tank level is no longer dropping. Then ride it as normal for 150 miles and repeat the procedure. The amount of fuel actually used then for the miles covered wlll give you a real world mpg.
The 1250 is a tad worse on fuel for two reasons. Its larger capacity and you tend to ride them more enthusiastically.
Also my 2nd 1250 took until 2000 miles to really loosen up and then it was capable of 200 reasonably quick miles on a tank. Which was up from 160 when I first got it.
If all that fails up an 800 GS as I understand that they do 80 mpg plus.
The 1250 is a tad worse on fuel for two reasons. Its larger capacity and you tend to ride them more enthusiastically.
Also my 2nd 1250 took until 2000 miles to really loosen up and then it was capable of 200 reasonably quick miles on a tank. Which was up from 160 when I first got it.
If all that fails up an 800 GS as I understand that they do 80 mpg plus.
Chipchap said:
If all that fails up an 800 GS as I understand that they do 80 mpg plus.
Consistent 67 on my F850GS. With the 1250, give it a bit more time. I’ve found big twins tend to get better as the miles add it.
The 1250 is definitely a bit thirstier but it’s also very easy to ride hard so will naturally consume more.
Fortnine did a video on this, an opinion for sure, but relevant to what you are finding.
See what you think.
https://youtu.be/TjtDznmeWTU
See what you think.
https://youtu.be/TjtDznmeWTU
Pebbles167 said:
Fortnine did a video on this, an opinion for sure, but relevant to what you are finding.
See what you think.
https://youtu.be/TjtDznmeWTU
It's interesting that the shift cam also has an effect at low revs, I hadn't realised that. But the guy on the video reckons fuel consumption is significantly better on the 1250. Low 40s MPG on the 1200 sounds slightly high consumption even for US gallons, but high 40s for the GSA variant is better than I'm getting for the GS. See what you think.
https://youtu.be/TjtDznmeWTU
One of the big selling points of the 1250 is the increased output. The torque on the 1250 is almost 15% more than the 1200. Where do you think this extra is coming from?
As suggested, you can only really compare the two bikes by comparing exactly what goes in the tank when you fill after a given distance. The computers always have a significant "margin for error" and are very much a guide at best. My BMWs would hardly change the range for the first 50 miles of the tank, but would drop 15 miles in 3 miles when the fuel warning light came on.
I would also suggest that if you are concerned about fuel mileage and used to get 55mpg plus from your 1200, then you're probably better suited to an 800GS.
As suggested, you can only really compare the two bikes by comparing exactly what goes in the tank when you fill after a given distance. The computers always have a significant "margin for error" and are very much a guide at best. My BMWs would hardly change the range for the first 50 miles of the tank, but would drop 15 miles in 3 miles when the fuel warning light came on.
I would also suggest that if you are concerned about fuel mileage and used to get 55mpg plus from your 1200, then you're probably better suited to an 800GS.
Obviously fuel consumption will be heavier when more power is actually being produced, but just having the capability of more power shouldn't in itself make it less efficient when producing the kind of power the 1200 is capable of. If that's the issue, I'd rather not have the extra power thanks, if I wanted to play Top trumps I'd buy an S1000RR.
Lost ranger said:
Obviously fuel consumption will be heavier when more power is actually being produced, but just having the capability of more power shouldn't in itself make it less efficient when producing the kind of power the 1200 is capable of. If that's the issue, I'd rather not have the extra power thanks, if I wanted to play Top trumps I'd buy an S1000RR.
Hmmm! You mean in the way a 3 litre car travelling a the same speed as a 1200cc car uses the same amount of fuel? 
black-k1 said:
I would also suggest that if you are concerned about fuel mileage and used to get 55mpg plus from your 1200, then you're probably better suited to an 800GS.
The 800 is chain drive therefore not a serious motorcycle.
But seriously, you might just as well say if your concerned about an extra few HP get a Ducati Pantechnicon or whatever.
black-k1 said:
Hmmm! You mean in the way a 3 litre car travelling a the same speed as a 1200cc car uses the same amount of fuel?
The 1250 is 1254cc as opposed to 1170 for the 1200, so shouldn't make that much difference. When BMC went from 1100cc to 1300cc for some of their small cars fuel consumption actually reduced.Both my Deauville (647cc 65HP) and my 1200GS returned about 55-60 MPG, with the GS being very slightly the thirstier on a motorway run. Same weight and no doubt roughly similar frontal area, so greater throttle losses on the GS seem to have been compensated for with improved technology.
If an extra 84cc somehow puts the range below 200 miles, I'm going to stick with my 1200.
I’m looking forward to getting my new 1250 in a few weeks.
Honestly a couple of mpg is going to make little difference. I’ve never sat and worked out the mpg on anything I’ve ever owned and if it’s on the menu somewhere I doubt I’ll bother looking.
If I wanted to save money I wouldn’t be sinking £19k on a bike
Dr Jekyll said:
black-k1 said:
Hmmm! You mean in the way a 3 litre car travelling a the same speed as a 1200cc car uses the same amount of fuel?
The 1250 is 1254cc as opposed to 1170 for the 1200, so shouldn't make that much difference. When BMC went from 1100cc to 1300cc for some of their small cars fuel consumption actually reduced.Both my Deauville (647cc 65HP) and my 1200GS returned about 55-60 MPG, with the GS being very slightly the thirstier on a motorway run. Same weight and no doubt roughly similar frontal area, so greater throttle losses on the GS seem to have been compensated for with improved technology.
If an extra 84cc somehow puts the range below 200 miles, I'm going to stick with my 1200.
Lost ranger said:
Obviously fuel consumption will be heavier when more power is actually being produced, but just having the capability of more power shouldn't in itself make it less efficient when producing the kind of power the 1200 is capable of. If that's the issue.
Was incorrect. I was deliberately being extreme to emphasize the point.The 1250 is a whole new engine and is designed to produce almost 15% more torque (pretty much anywhere/everywhere in the rev range) than the old engine. As such, the fact if burns a different amount of fuel in the same circumstances is, to most, unsurprising.
The point made by many regarding the cost of a brand new bike vs the extra cost of fuel consumption is very valid. But, beyond that, the fact that your Deauville and your GS return the same mpg figures begs the logical question of why bother with the GS at all? Those getting 55-60 MPG from their GS must only be using the equivalent performance of a Deauville so the question is not only "why buy a new 1250" but "why even have a 1200 in the first place"?
I have no doubt that every GS owner can answer that question and can justify the extra purchase expense and running costs over the Deauville. That same justification is what should be used with regards change in fuel consumption of the 1250.
black-k1 said:
Was incorrect. I was deliberately being extreme to emphasize the point.
The 1250 is a whole new engine and is designed to produce almost 15% more torque (pretty much anywhere/everywhere in the rev range) than the old engine. As such, the fact if burns a different amount of fuel in the same circumstances is, to most, unsurprising.
The point made by many regarding the cost of a brand new bike vs the extra cost of fuel consumption is very valid. But, beyond that, the fact that your Deauville and your GS return the same mpg figures begs the logical question of why bother with the GS at all? Those getting 55-60 MPG from their GS must only be using the equivalent performance of a Deauville so the question is not only "why buy a new 1250" but "why even have a 1200 in the first place"?
I have no doubt that every GS owner can answer that question and can justify the extra purchase expense and running costs over the Deauville. That same justification is what should be used with regards change in fuel consumption of the 1250.
1) The Deauville isn't made anymore.The 1250 is a whole new engine and is designed to produce almost 15% more torque (pretty much anywhere/everywhere in the rev range) than the old engine. As such, the fact if burns a different amount of fuel in the same circumstances is, to most, unsurprising.
The point made by many regarding the cost of a brand new bike vs the extra cost of fuel consumption is very valid. But, beyond that, the fact that your Deauville and your GS return the same mpg figures begs the logical question of why bother with the GS at all? Those getting 55-60 MPG from their GS must only be using the equivalent performance of a Deauville so the question is not only "why buy a new 1250" but "why even have a 1200 in the first place"?
I have no doubt that every GS owner can answer that question and can justify the extra purchase expense and running costs over the Deauville. That same justification is what should be used with regards change in fuel consumption of the 1250.
2) The seating position on the GS is better.
3) The GS engine is smoother.
4) Being able to go as fast as I want using a small fraction of the available power is more pleasant (to me) than having to work the bike hard.
5) Th extra performance of the GS is nice to have even though I only use it occasionally and not often enough to make a noticeable difference to fuel consumption.
But the 1200GS gives ample power for my purposes so I don't think I'd benefit from a few extra HP. Or, based on a ride on 1250, even notice it. Also bear in mind that BMW actually claims improved fuel consumption for he 1250, and the video linked to above makes the same claim.
My 1200 was all the bike I ever needed and I was fully intended that to be my last bike (unless the Mrs gave up riding pillion).
However that lasted all of 6 weeks so on looking at secondhand prices they were all so high my man maths decided to go for new.
But the 1200 was a good enough bike. Going back to the original point I wouldn’t let a couple of mpg decide which bike I wanted unless it was purely a commuter doing a whole load of miles.
But for a fun machine a couple of quid extra on a day out…who cares.
Iminquarantine said:
Personally I would find it pretty annoying if my car were to get better mileage than my bike… which seems possible if bike manufacturers don’t pay attention to fuel consumption.
Me too - fortunately I rarely get more than 20mpg in my cars so 35mpg doesn't feel so bad
Gassing Station | Biker Banter | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff