2013 KTM Adventure 1190

[Paulvt1]

It's certainly got the stats on it's side. Looking forward to throwing a leg over one.

[wilmar13]

Originally Posted by v8toilet

Yes it looks fine @ 45mpg, who's KTM gets that? (Bring on the three guys who will claim their bikes do, it's not the rule it's the exception.) I couldn't find much on the RC8 consumption numbers but I did see 35mpg at constant throttle. If it's detuned it should get slightly better mileage. I would think 42-43mpg at constant throttle. Ride it hard and it will probably drop to normal KTM 36-38 I think I can get my SE down in the high 20's if I try.

Since its fuel injected the 24 liters is probably not usable capacity with pump and filters. I think it will be a nice bike and a good alternative for folks looking for a Multistrada with more dirt capability. Maybe I'll buy one once the bugs are squashed, it only took me 7 years to try the 950.....

It would make a nice two-up tourer with the misses. Combined we weigh in at 270lbs, I bet 150hp would move us around nicely.

I get 45mpg on my rc8... The dual spark engine is more efficient than the original rc8. See post 80 in this thread.
http://www.advrider.com/forums/showp...1&postcount=80

I was on the fence between MTS for practicality and jack of all trades attributes, but chose the rc8 for many reasons (including sexiness and brand appeal to me over Ducati douchiness). The engine is actually a gem, with really smooth and tractable torque through the entire rev range, noticeably better than the multistrada. Even without detuning, this will make a great power plant for adventure bike.

[MookieBlaylock]

Originally Posted by wilmar13

multistrada.

i don't get the hype about that bike. I rode one and it seriously sucked under 5k rpm and then took off, how that is beneficial on a dirt road is beyond me. Handled nice though. If ktm can manage to tune the fueling so it's not too twitchy off idle and still have good low rpm grunt it might be a special bike

[Katoom72]

Originally Posted by MookieBlaylock

i don't get the hype about that bike. I rode one and it seriously sucked under 5k rpm and then took off, how that is beneficial on a dirt road is beyond me. Handled nice though. If ktm can manage to tune the fueling so it's not too twitchy off idle and still have good low rpm grunt it might be a special bike

When pigs can fly my friend, when pigs can fly....

[v8toilet]

Originally Posted by wilmar13

I get 45mpg on my rc8... The dual spark engine is more efficient than the original rc8. See post 80 in this thread.
http://www.advrider.com/forums/showp...1&postcount=80

I was on the fence between MTS for practicality and jack of all trades attributes, but chose the rc8 for many reasons (including sexiness and brand appeal to me over Ducati douchiness). The engine is actually a gem, with really smooth and tractable torque through the entire rev range, noticeably better than the multistrada. Even without detuning, this will make a great power plant for adventure bike.

That is great news, my comment regarding mileage should have said "Who's LC8 gets that?"

[Balsta]

Originally Posted by wilmar13

I get 45mpg on my rc8... The dual spark engine is more efficient than the original rc8. See post 80 in this thread.
http://www.advrider.com/forums/showp...1&postcount=80

I was on the fence between MTS for practicality and jack of all trades attributes, but chose the rc8 for many reasons (including sexiness and brand appeal to me over Ducati douchiness). The engine is actually a gem, with really smooth and tractable torque through the entire rev range, noticeably better than the multistrada. Even without detuning, this will make a great power plant for adventure bike.

It seems I may finally be forced to ditch my beloved SE. About the RC8, what would it take to get some more force than the 150 hp? Why not put the RC8 unchanged into the new 1290R? To be compared with my SE with the SD 990R motor, soo much more fun to ride than the oem 950, (yes, on gravel too, at high speed) I like the tighter gearing as well. About the 21/18 versus 19/17 rims, I'll buy both on day 1.

[srad600]

Originally Posted by v8toilet

That is great news, my comment regarding mileage should have said "Who's LC8 gets that?"

Not quite 45, but my '11 990A (6,500 mi) has been getting 42.x (usually 42.3) mpg lately, bone stock motor/exhaust/emissions. This is also a mix of riding, both aggressive and cruising. Since I bought it, the mileage has steadily been going up. So I think 45 may be possible.

[zoomdude57]

Originally Posted by Katoom72

When pigs can fly my friend, when pigs can fly....

Fueling on my 2011 RC8R is as good as any fuel injected bike I have owned and fuel economy surprisingly good. I think KTM finally figuring this out and hopefully these lessons make it to the adventure bikes.

[syzygy9]

After having just completes a 5,000 km ride across the Australian outback of which 4,000 kms was on dirt and some of it pretty gnarly, the last thing I'd want is more weight. What happened to a 180kg, 600-800cc 70-80 bhp adv bike with good dirt credentials?

Frankly, after having dropped, unloaded, picked up, moved to hard ground, reloaded my 200kg 990 Adv for the 3rd time in 20 kms (each one taking 30mins to get back going) the thought of adding more power (not needed) and more weight (definitely not needed) is an anathema to any serious Adv travelling.

As an aside, fuel consumption averaged over 5,000 kms (fully loaded), a mix of high speed tar, high and low speed dirt, was 42.3 US mpg (5.9l/100km) giving a 650+ km range with a Safari tank.

[mousitsas]

Originally Posted by syzygy9

After having just completes a 5,000 km ride across the Australian outback of which 4,000 kms was on dirt and some of it pretty gnarly, the last thing I'd want is more weight. What happened to a 180kg, 600-800cc 70-80 bhp adv bike with good dirt credentials?

Frankly, after having dropped, unloaded, picked up, moved to hard ground, reloaded my 200kg 990 Adv for the 3rd time in 20 kms (each one taking 30mins to get back going) the thought of adding more power (not needed) and more weight (definitely not needed) is an anathema to any serious Adv travelling.

As an aside, fuel consumption averaged over 5,000 kms (fully loaded), a mix of high speed tar, high and low speed dirt, was 42.3 US mpg (5.9l/100km) giving a 650+ km range with a Safari tank.

Place your 990 on good scales and if it comes up less than 230 report back

[Terence FFM]

Originally Posted by mousitsas

Place your 990 on good scales and if it comes up less than 230 report back

My thoughts exactly. There is a DIN norm (don't know the number off hand, but trust me, there is a norm in Germany for EVERYTHING) regarding maufacturer claimed weights. It stipulates that all fluids must be on board which are required for operation (unlike the Japanese you used to like to weigh their bikes sans cooling water, brake fluid, or acid in the battery) plus 90% of the maximum fuel load. According to this, the ABS KTM Adventures came in at 231kg without crash bars or luggage racks which can easily add another 10 kg.

So to agree with Mousitsas, unless your KTM has undergone some serious dieting, your 200 kg estimate is a little conservative. The 950 SE weighed in at right around 200 kg, (wet, of course) if I recall correctly.

On another note, not mentioned so far is a final quote from the Motorrad article (I have to paraphrase since I don't have it with me here):

KTM: Our goal was to be number one off-road among the enduros (euro speak for adventure bike).
Tester: In my opinion, you have just built the best two cylinder enduro period.

The tester raved earlier how the dual spark heads, additional rotating weight, new mapping plus whatever other mods KTM has undertaken have completely transformed the engine. Lots of low end grunt, great mid-range and a top end rush that only the Multistrada can complete with were the raves. The added weight seemed to add a great deal of smoothness at low rpm without detracting from the quick revving character the KTMs are known for. Only complaint was a bit of roughness about 7000 rpm but that equates to 180km/h so not an issue in the real (non-Autobahn) world.

Also praised were the new off-road ABS (insert flame here). The system from Bosch allows for a high rate of slippage on the front before it kicks in, and the rear is completely free to be locked up. From the brief article, it really sounds like KTM made a lot of very intelligent design choices and/or compromises.

[crazybrit]

Originally Posted by Terence FFM

My thoughts exactly. There is a DIN norm (don't know the number off hand, but trust me, there is a norm in Germany for EVERYTHING) regarding maufacturer claimed weights. It stipulates that all fluids must be on board which are required for operation (unlike the Japanese you used to like to weigh their bikes sans cooling water, brake fluid, or acid in the battery) plus 90% of the maximum fuel load. According to this, the ABS KTM Adventures came in at 231kg without crash bars or luggage racks which can easily add another 10 kg.

I thought KTM published weights were always semi-dry. That's including coolant, oil, battery but no gas. My experience has always been that adding gas to a KTM and weighing it gets you pretty close to the published weight plus the weight of the gas.

The semi-dry weight of the 2012 990R is 207kg. So looks like the bike has gained 6 kilos, give or take.

The Japanese published weights are always dry, no coolant, no oil, no battery, even then they don't usually match reality. I've read that sometimes the bike is missing tubes/tires also.

[Goti]

Originally Posted by crazybrit

I thought KTM published weights were always semi-dry. That's including coolant, oil, battery but no gas. My experience has always been that adding gas to a KTM and weighing it gets you pretty close to the published weight plus the weight of the gas.

The two or three test/reviews I've read about the 990 showed 210-212-214 kg with all fluids and no gas so yes, KTM figures seems pretty accurate.

Originally Posted by crazybrit

The Japanese published weights are always dry, no coolant, no oil, no battery, even then they don't usually match reality. I've read that sometimes the bike is missing tubes/tires also.

Yep, they even remove the bike's soul.

[Florida Lime]

Originally Posted by crazybrit

The Japanese USED TO publish weights always dry, no coolant, no oil, no battery, even then they don't usually match reality. I've read that sometimes the bike is missing tubes/tires also.

Have you looked lately ?

Example: http://www.yamaha-motor.com/sport/pr...1/0/specs.aspx
Yamaha Super Tenere:
Wet Weight***
575 lb
***All standard equipment and all fluids, including full tank of fuel, not including options or accessories.

[syzygy9]

Originally Posted by mousitsas

Place your 990 on good scales and if it comes up less than 230 report back

I have knocked off bout 5kgs of the back-end by replacing the stocks cans with Wings cans - but probably put those kgs back on with a light saddlebag pannier rack and rear plate.

My own experience on some pretty gnarly roads is that the current 990 Adv is probably a bit too heavy and overpowered for dirt road riding. On tar you can use the power and the weight comes in handy, but if that's what your doing there are 1000's of road orientated bikes that will do the job much better.

IMHO, KTM might be better off building their great for the road but useless off the road 1290 Adv bike but supplement that with dirt capable 600cc, 160kg single and a 700cc, 180kg twin for 'proper' adventure riding.

Frankly, the current 990 is right on the limit of anything I'd like to take off road and a pig in sand - after the 3rd pick-up in 20 kms, regardless of how good the suspension is, the 200 kgs and 110+ hp starts to wear very thin (and lower the gearing for chrissake! - the way to high for anything remotely tough off road).