BMW K1600GT vs. Kawasaki Concours 14 - Motorcycle Consumer ...

Model Comparison 

BMW K1600GT vs. Kawasaki Concours 14 

Scott Rousseau 

BMW CERTAINLY GRABBED its share of headlines in 2011 

with the debut of its K1600GT sport-touring and 

K1600GTL luxury-touring models, each representing a 

tremendous step forward for a German manufacturer that prides 

itself on bringing innovative products to the marketplace. BMW 

engineers pulled out all the stops with the GT and GTL, as both 

feature BMW’s all-new inline six-cylinder engine, lightweight 

chassis and a host of interesting new technologies such as its E- 

GAS ride-by-wire throttle system with three driving modes, 

revised electronic suspension adjustment (ESA II) and handlebarmounted 

Multi-Controller. 

The K1600GT also represents a formidable foe for our current 

champion in the big-bore sport-touring class, the Kawasaki Concours 

14 ABS, which set new standards for performance, comfort 

and value during our all-Japanese Sport-Touring Shootout 

(MCN, August 2010). Refined for 2010, the second-generation 

C14 addressed a number of complaints by diehard Concours customers, 

incorporating such improvements as a new dual-compound 

front tire that greatly improved its handling, a new fairing 

that stopped unwanted engine heat from the cockpit and a taller 

adjustable windscreen. It also sported new technology of its own 

in the form of Kawasaki’s K-ACT ABS and KTRC traction 

control, along with two driving modes—one for performance and 

the other for economy. 

So equipped, the C14 handily dethroned our previous favorite, 

the Yamaha FJR1300, and Honda’s VFR1200F in that comparison, 

but the K1600GT is proof that there’s rarely time to rest on 

one’s laurels. We wanted to know if C14 version 2.0 was capable 

of withstanding the new-tech challenge of the K1600GT. 

In the end, it was a tough call, but we made it anyway. 

Engines & Performance—K1600GT 1st; C14 2nd 

Neither of these big-block sport-tourers left our test team with 

much to complain about in the engine department. Both make 

similar peak horsepower numbers, but we give the edge to the 

BMW K1600GT despite the C14’s slight advantage during our 

performance testing. The lighter C14 zipped from 0–60 mph in 

just 2.91 sec. and from 0–100 mph in 6.56 sec. on the way to a 

16 FEBRUARY 2012 ● MOTORCYCLE CONSUMER NEWS 

Germany takes on Japan’s best 

in a bare-knuckle sport-touring brawl 

by Scott Rousseau 

brisk 10.56 sec/127.68 mph in the quarter mile. That’s quicker 

across the board than the GT’s best 0–60 time of 3.00 sec., 0–100 

of 7.30 sec. and respectable 10.89 sec. @ 122.13 mph, but the 

K1600GT still wins because its more prodigious torque output and 

silkier, more responsive character work better in the real world. 

The K1600GT’s all-new 55° slant-block inline six-cylinder is 

a marvelous showcase of BMW’s engineering and design capabilities. 

For starters, it’s extremely compact, measuring just 21.9" 

wide despite its generous 72.0mm bores and 67.5mm stroke, 

which yield 1649cc. Its radically canted cylinder block also 

allowed BMW engineers to place the alternator, pumps and starter 

motor in the free space between the block and the transmission 

cases to condense it even further. Fed by a single 52mm throttle 

body, the GT’s six intake tracts snake up and over these parts to 

feed its DOHC four-valve cylinder head. It’s also relatively light, 

weighing just 226 lbs., thanks to a diet of lightweight internal and 

external parts including hollow composite camshafts, slipper pistons, 

a one-piece crank and magnesium valve and clutch covers. 

And it sets a great example of just how linear and shake-free a 

1600cc+ engine can be, with virtually zero vibration despite the 

lack of any counterbalancers. With its rev limiter set at just 8400 

rpm, stratospheric top-end power isn’t in the GT motor’s playbook, 

but that doesn’t hurt its charm. With 110.3 lb.-ft. of peak 

torque on tap at 5500 rpm and more than 90 lb.-ft. available from 

as low as 2500 rpm, the GT offers a broad spread of useable lowend 

and midrange power with excellent driveability partly due to 

its long intake runners but also because its BMS X EFI system 

incorporates BMW’s excellent variable-displacement fuel pump 

for precise and instantaneous fuel metering. And unlike the 

K1600GTL that we tested for the September, 2011 issue, our GT 

test unit’s E-Gas ride-by-wire throttle exhibited no weird glitches 

or lag, just perfect response under all conditions. 

The GT also offers considerable flexibility via its three driving 

modes, Dynamic, Road and Rain, which alter the fuel and 

ignition maps to deliver appropriate power and throttle response 

to match various road conditions. Unlike our time aboard the 

GTL, we preferred Dynamic mode on the GT, which unleashes 

the motor’s full capability for pure exhilaration in the twisties.


“Road” creates slightly less snappy throttle response, although it’s 

nowhere near as muted as Rain, which substantially reduces 

torque and horsepower. While Rain certainly has its place on 

swampy roads, it sucks the life out of the K motor when activated 

in the dry. 

The GT can also be ordered with BMW’s S1000RR-derived, 

gyroscope-based Dynamic Traction Control, which features 

separate levels of traction control for each driving mode, 

although our experience with the DTC is that it cuts power 

too abruptly. 

Introduced in 2007 and based on Kawasaki’s powerhouse Ninja 

ZX-14, the Concours 14’s DOHC inline four is a formidable 

opponent for the all-new BMW, delivering robust power while its 

gear-driven counterbalancers quell unwanted vibration. The C14 

also features different driving modes—but just two: Full Power 

and ECO Mode, the latter curtailing throttle response—but not too 

much power—for better fuel economy. Compared to the GT, the 

C14’s KTRC traction control smoothly reduces power to prevent 

wheelspin when traction is compromised. 

On the dyno, our 2011 C14 delivered practically identical numbers 

to the 2010 model in Full Power mode, topping out at 135.6 

rwhp @ 8750 rpm. On the street, throttle response through its 

bank of 40mm throttle bodies is positively velvety, but it just 

doesn’t feel as strong down low as the GT motor because the 

C14’s 91.4 lb.-ft. peak torque output isn’t as hearty and occurs at 

a much higher 7250 rpm. Furthermore, the C14 uses a 

Variable Valve Timing mechanism that relies on oil 

pressure to advance its cams for optimum power, and 

the slight lag time required to build this oil pressure 

undoubtedly contributes to its less authoritative feel 

below 6000 rpm. It’s especially noticeable during topgear 

roll-ons at 65 mph, when, while turning over at 

just 3200 rpm in its overdrive sixth gear, the C14 will 

often require a downshift to pass traffic. 

Transmissions, Clutches & Drivelines—C14 

1st; K1600GT 2nd 

Both machines utilize six-speed transmissions and 

wet multi-plate slipper clutches, but the C14’s gearbox 

is vastly superior to the K1600GT’s stacked-shaft 

transmission, offering positive gear changes and 

smoother shifting regardless of rpm, load or throttle 

position. The Kawi’s clutch is also equipped with a 

radial pump master cylinder that contributes to its more 

linear lever feel. 


The K1600GT’s hydraulic-assist clutch offers a light 

pull, but it also generates a peculiar, snatchy feel at the 

lever that changes depending on rpm and/or load. This 

is because BMW engineers fitted the clutch with a variable 

pressure plate system in an attempt to decrease 

lever effort, which it does, but which also tends to 

decrease the range of the friction zone as rpm increases. 

Even less endearing, feedback from the GT’s driveline 

can be felt through the clutch lever, which pulses in and 

out during acceleration and deceleration. The GT’s 

transmission action is surprisingly notchy, too, and it’s 

perhaps the least refined attribute of the new BMW. 

Both of these shaft-drive sport-tourers incorporate 

systems intended to isolate their rear suspensions from 

driveshaft-induced lift and squat, but the C14’s Tetra- 

Lever does a better job than the GT’s Paralever. The 

C14’s dual-sided four-link arrangement emulates the 

behavior of a chain-driven motorcycle by constantly 

keeping the motor output drive on the same plane as the 

final drive, and the system works like a charm, giving the 

C14 the smoothest and least cumbersome shaft-drive ride quality 

we’ve yet experienced. The GT’s single-sided, parallelogram-style 

Paralever allows more driveline-influenced lift and squat during 

heavy acceleration and deceleration than the C14. 

Suspension—K1600GT 1st; C14 2nd 

The C14’s excellent shaft-drive system might lead one to logically 

conclude that it has the best suspension feel as well, but the 

K1600GT really turns the tables on the Kawasaki when it comes 

to overall ride quality in this category. Offering 4.5" of front 

wheel travel and 5.3" in the rear, BMW’s Norman Hossackinspired, 

Duolever double-A arm front suspension and Paralever 

rear dazzle with the high-tech convenience of BMW’s updated 

change-on-the-fly ESA II electronic suspension adjustment, 

which offers multiple preset levels of front and rear damping as 

well as rear preload and spring rate adjustability. The ESA II features 

presets for solo riders, solo-with-luggage or two-up with 

luggage, giving nine variations in all. Unlike our experience with 

the K1600GTL pitted against the Honda Gold Wing (September, 

2012), the K1600GTs settings provided noticeable variations 

of enjoyable suspension quality for a variety of road 

conditions. Find yourself on a smooth, twisty backroad? The 

GT’s Sport Mode offers firm yet compliant compression and 

rebound damping that makes canyon carving a delight. Hammering 

out some serious freeway mileage? Switching to the GT’s 

Visit us at WWW.MCNEWS.COM ● FEBRUARY 2012 17



Comfort Mode softens up the damping for a true easy chair feel. 

Naturally, Normal is a compromise between the two, and it was 

the mode we found ourselves in the least on the GT. Ironically, 

it was our preferred mode on the heavier GTL. 

Adjustable for preload and rebound damping but not compression 

damping, the C14’s 43mm male-slider fork offers 4.4" of 

front wheel travel and its single shock offers 5.4" of rear wheel 

travel. To its credit, the C14’s suspension achieves an acceptable 

balance between a taut sportbike feel and plush tourer on the 

highway, but the GT’s change-on-the-fly damping spoils its rider, 

while the C14 rider must stop and break out the wrenches and 

screwdrivers to dial in what is, at best, a compromised ride. Our 

attempts at matching the C14’s ride to the GT’s left us wishing for 

compression adjusters to fine-tune the fork, something any OEM 

flagship sport-tourer with manually adjustable suspension should 

include in the package. Also, while the C14 offers tremendous 

compliance and control, its front fork performance is hampered 

when the rear brake is applied—but more on this later. 

Brakes—K1600GT 1st; C14 2nd 

When it comes to braking performance and feel, the BMW 

K1600GT easily upstages the Kawasaki Concours 14. Both offer 

ABS and their own version of linked braking, with the C14’s 

Kawasaki Advanced Coactive-braking Technology (K-ACT) 

linking its dual 310mm front rotors and radially mounted fourpiston 

calipers with its single 270mm rear rotor/dual-piston 

caliper front-to-back and back-to-front. The C14 features two 

combined modes, Solo and High Combined, which adjust the 

brake bias for one- or two-up riding. The GT’s 320mm rotors use 

four-piston double-action calipers up front and a dual-piston, 

double-action caliper in the rear with a partially integrated ABS 

in which the rear brake is completely independent of the fronts, 

while applying the front brake lever does activate a portion of the 

rear brake’s power. 

The BMW’s front brakes offer excellent stopping power and an 

extremely linear feel that inspires rider confidence, and so do the 

C14’s, but the difference between the two machines lies mostly 

in the rear. The C14’s rear brake feels more snatchy than the 

GT’s, a sensation created more by the fact that the K-ACT exerts 

too much influence on the front brake than because of any flaw 

in the rear brake by itself. Applying the rear brake causes the 

C14’s front end to settle too much for our tastes and makes 

trailbraking into a corner more of a challenge. The GT’s Duolever 

front suspension resists such dive under braking. 


Out on our test range, the BMW’s brakes proved their 

superiority by posting shorter stops from 60 mph than the 

lighter C14 did. The GT’s best result was a very good 

123.8'—almost 1.0 G of stopping power in a machine 

with full-time ABS—while the C14’s best performance 

was a respectable but marginally longer 127.8'. 

Chassis & Handling—K1600GT 1st; C14 2nd 

Based on their weight alone, one might expect the 

BMW K1600GT to be the heavier handling sport-tourer 

of this pair, but while the 745.5-lb. GT outweighs the 

695.5-lb. Kawasaki Concours 14 by 50 lbs., the GT wins 

our Handling category. The GT’s 66.1" wheelbase is 

rangier than the C14’s 59.8", and its 27.8° rake is more 

relaxed than the C14’s (26.1°), but the GT is lighter-steering 

than the C14 at all speeds and easily outpaces it in the 

canyons, even though the Duolever tends to isolate the 

rider from the road more than we’d like. The GT’s all-new 

chassis, a combination of “chill cast” aluminum, magnesium 

and a welded square-tube alloy subframe, weighs 

just 35 lbs., yet it’s rigid enough not to feel flimsy when 

the GT is ridden aggressively. Its side-to-side agility is also 

admirable. The overall package imparts an intuitive feel that only 

increases the rider’s confidence with each passing mile. 

The C14’s chassis is based on the Ninja ZX-14’s, but significant 

changes include a redesigned swingarm attachment point to 

accommodate the shaft drive, and different upper and lower cross 

members. Increasing its rake 2.5° achieved more stability but 

also required a revised frame casting with increased wall thickness, 

which happily results in more torsional rigidity and crisper 

handling than the old ZX-14. 

The Kawi exhibits a neutral handling character, but its steering, 

while no less precise than the BMW’s, is more deliberate. It’s as 

if the C14 is carrying its weight higher in the chassis than it really 

is, even though its slightly lower CofG tells a different tale. Still, 

the C14 is a model of stability, and hardcore riders may find it to 

be the more capable of the two at a fast pace in high-speed sweepers, 

but the GT is still the more nimble machine despite carrying 

slightly more weight on its front wheel (49.6% vs. 47.2% for the 

C14). The Kawasaki handles extremely well. The BMW handles 

like a dream. 

Ergonomics—K1600GT 1st; C14 2nd 

While both of these sport-tourers feature electrically adjustable 

windscreens, the BMW K1600GT’s greater frontal area and wider 

screen provide more protection from the elements than the 

Kawasaki Concours 14, increasing rider comfort over the long 

haul. But behind the screen, the BMW’s higher and wider handlebars 

are less of a reach, and its flat, comfy seat is a real ergonomic 

advantage over the C14, whose lower and more forward-mounted 

bars and high-back saddle tend to force the rider forward in the 

ergonomic triangle, hindering the ability to move around on the 

seat during long rides. The difference in feel is considerable 

despite their very similar seat heights, 31.75" for the GT and 

31.6" for the C14. 

Instruments/Controls—K1600GT 1st; C14 2nd 

The K1600GT and the Concours 14 offer all of the amenities 

a long-distance rider will need, including temperature-adjustable 

heated grips and instrumentation with multi-function trip computers. 

The C14’s easy-to-read LCD display can be scrolled through 

via a button on the front of the left handlebar. 

But for all-out command and control, the GT’s left handlebarmounted 

Multi Controller is hard to beat, offering access to 

practically all of the GT’s adjustable features, including the

ESA, driving modes and grip heat, via the rotation of a single 

knob. It takes a little getting used to, but it is very intuitive and 

fun to use. 

Riding Impression—K1600GT 1st; C14 2nd 

With their powerhouse engines, neutral handling, excellent 

wind protection and heated grips, the K1600GT and the Concours 

14 are excellent platforms from which to view the world in 

fast motion. The Concours 14 offers up the more aggressive feel 

with its slightly forward seating position and lower handlebars. 

But there are two things that make the GT stand out during 

long rides. The first is its Multi-Controller, which gives the rider 

plenty of options to fiddle with and occupy time while droning 

down a desolate stretch of highway. Even better, though, is the 

amazingly raspy exhaust note that emanates from the GT’s dual 

mufflers. With less baffling than the GTL, the GT’s mufflers 

allow the rider to enjoy the BMW six’s exciting exhaust note, 

which is more reminiscent of a 12-cylinder Ferrari or Lamborghini 

than any German vehicle we’ve ever heard. It makes running 

the GT through its gears all the more enjoyable. 

The fuel economy delivered by these two is reflective of their 

big-block powerplants, and admittedly we aren’t overly confident 

that our GT’s fuel mileage is entirely accurate. The problem 

lies with the fact that the GT’s fuel filler neck incorporates 

a long plastic spigot that extends down into the tank and makes 

it difficult to tell when the GT’s 7.0-gal. fuel tank is topped. At 

any rate, our GT averaged 42.4 mpg, while the C14 averaged 

37.4 mpg. For more perspective, you can compare these 

numbers to the 37.9 mpg that we recorded for the GTL in our 

September, 2011, touring comparison and to the 43.3 mpg that 

the C14 averaged on our long-distance Japanese Sport Touring 

Shootout in August, 2010. 

Attention to Detail—K1600GT 1st; C14 2nd 

If not for two irritating so-called “amenities,” the Kawasaki might 

have equaled the BMW in this category. First is Kawasaki’s Intelligent 

Proximity Activation Start System (KIPASS), which does away 

with the traditional motorcycle key in favor of a remote key fob that 

secures the C14 whenever the fob is more than 5.25' from the motorcycle. 

We’re all for security, however, this system has severe drawbacks. 

First is that you cannot open the fuel cap or remove the 

saddlebags without the fob, as it locks the C14’s over-sized ignition 

key into the ignition. You can use the accessory key located in the 

fob if you should happen to have it with you, but the entire 

arrangement is more of a hassle than it’s worth. 

The second is the C14’s map case. Kawasaki engineers 

relocated it from the fuel tank to the left side of the 

fairing for 2010, but the new case door’s latch mechanism 

is far from precise, often requiring serious prying 

to get it to release. By the same token, the door can also 

require several attempts just to close it securely. 

On the plus side, the C14’s saddlebags are easy to 

open and easy to remove—if you have the key fob— 

and its grip heaters offer plenty of warmth for cold riding 

days. Also redesigned in 2010, Kawasaki’s lower 

fairing does a fantastic job of keeping heat off the rider 

on warmer days. 

The K1600GT exudes a high degree of fit and finish 

without any noticeable glitches, but it isn’t perfect. Its 

annoying fuel tank filler neck is a perfect example. 

Another is that while its swing-out air scoops do an 

excellent job of ventilating the cockpit in warm weather, 

there are no detents to allow the rider to incrementally 

adjust their airflow. Adding detents would be a small 

improvement that could greatly increase rider comfort. 


Value—C14 1st; K1600GT 2nd; 

If you’ve read any of our recent model comparisons that have 

included BMW motorcycles, then you probably know the challenge 

in justifying price vs. value of motorcycles in the same 

class as a BMW. The GT’s base MSRP of $20,900 is nearly $5000 

more than the Kawasaki, but that doesn’t even scratch the surface 

of the GT’s available trim packages. 

The base K1600GT does include a fixed Xenon headlight with 

BMW’s dynamic leveling feature, heated seat and heated grips, 

cruise control, the multi-function display, on-board computer 

and Multi-Controller, the integral ABS package, the E-Gas throttle 

with power modes, the electrically adjustable windscreen and 

a luggage rack. BMW’s Standard Package increases the price to 

$23,405 and adds the ESA II electronic suspension adjustment, 

GPS-ready wiring and a safety package that includes the Xenon 

adaptive headlight, dynamic traction control and tire pressure 

monitoring system. Stepping up to the Premium Package for 

$24,540 includes all of the above plus a full audio system with a 

radio, Sirius satellite radio (with a free one-year subscription), 

iPod/USB integration, and an auxiliary input and additional security 

features in the form of a power locking system and an alarm. 

The 2011 Kawasaki Concours 14 ABS, as tested here, costs 

$15,599. While it lacks all the rider-pampering features of the 

GT, it does include two power modes, ABS, traction control, an 

electrically adjustable windshield and heated grips. 

Simply put, if price is important to you, then the Kawasaki 

Concours 14 wins this category, hands down. If the status appeal 

of the BMW plays a big role in your purchasing decision, the 

GT may well justify its hefty premium. 

Overall—K1600GT 1st; C14 2nd 

The Kawasaki Concours 14 ABS is an extremely polished 

sport-tourer, with a powerful yet civilized engine, supple suspension 

and very good handling character. What it lacks in hightech 

gadgetry it makes up for with a purist’s sport-touring ride. 

It’s still the best Japanese sport-tourer we’ve ever ridden. The 

BMW K1600GT sets a new bar for the category with its sweetrunning 

six-cylinder engine, luxurious comfort and its impressive 

array of new technology. For most potential buyers, choosing a 

winner will come down to cost. The Kawasaki represents the best 

value in the over-1000cc sport-touring class today, but the BMW 

is simply at the head of the class. If you want the best, you can get 

it in the BMW, but it will cost you. 

Visit us at WWW.MCNEWS.COM ● FEBRUARY 2012 19


Right: The GT’s flat, narrow and cushy 

saddle provides all-day comfort for 

rider and passenger. The rider’s seat 

height is 31.75". 

Below: The GT’s cockpit is roomy, and 

its handlebars provide plenty of leverage. 

Most of the GT’s riding functions 

are accessible via BMW’s unique Multi- 

Controller wheel located just inboard of 

the left handgrip. BMW purists probably 

won’t like the GT’s UJM-style turn signal 

switchgear, but we do. 

TESTERS’ LOG 

In my opinion, this K1600GT, as opposed to the GTL, is the bike 

that BMW’s engineers set out to build. The GTL was just a clever 

way to grab some sales from those looking for an alternative to 

the Gold Wing or a replacement for the K1200LT. 

Without the buffeting caused by the GTL’s enormous windshield, 

the GT’s cockpit is a model of aerodynamic efficiency. 

And with a taller seat, its riding position is all-day comfortable, 

not cramped. Even the GT’s ESA II worked perfectly, not confused 

by the weight of a passenger like the GTL’s. It still has the same 

weird constantly moving hydraulically boosted clutch lever, making 

hard launches harder to judge, but the engine’s perfect fuel 

injection gives it the driveability and quick reflexes to be much 

more entertaining to ride—not to mention its operatic exhaust 

note. And its brakes are excellent, too. 

But the one quality that really won me over was its handling— 

incredibly poised and precise, so that I could rail our favorite 

canyon roads while entertaining myself by keeping easily within 

an 18"-wide strip of pavement. Awesome! —Dave Searle 


Left: Shrouded by the GT’s sleek 

bodywork, BMW’s all-new, 1649cc, 

inline six-cylinder motor doesn’t 

require screaming-high rpm to sing 

its tune. Nearly perfect first- and second-order 

balance yields smooth yet 

exciting performance, with a broad 

torque curve. Its fuel injection, which 

uses a single 52mm throttle body 

feeding all six cylinders, is equally 

as flawless at any rpm. 

Right: The GT’s six-hole 

mufflers feature less 

baffling than the GTL’s 

for a more raw yet earpleasing 

sound—its 

exhaust note is more 

Ferrari than BMW. The 

GT’s lockable standard 

hardbags offer 33 liters 

of storage capacity, and 

they’re easily removable. 

Its LED taillight is 

wide and very conspicuous 

when activated. 

Above: The GT’s electrically adjustable 

windshield offers generous wind protection,while 

its Duolever front suspension 

resists dive under braking. 

BMW’s optional change-on-the-fly ESA 

II suspension features three damping 

options: Sport, Normal and Comfort. 

So what if BMW didn’t quite kill two birds with one stone by 

introducing both the K1600GT sport-tourer and the GTL luxury 

tourer. While the GTL may just miss the mark for lap-of-luxury 

touring fans, the GT squarely hits the bullseye for sport-touring 

riders wishing to go the distance. The throaty sound from its 

beautiful aluminum mufflers alone is enough to jumpstart my 

pulse, and it’s fun to buzz through the gears—even though I’m 

not as much a fan of its light-switch clutch and clunky transmission 

action—so that I can enjoy the aural pleasure they bring. 

And the GT’s engine is both athletic and gentlemanly, with a 

broad sweep of power that doesn’t require redline-crowding rpm 

to move the GT’s 745.5 lbs. smartly down the road. 

Beyond that, what makes the GT feel so good is what you 

don’t feel, such as any vibration from its engine, heavy steering 

or harsh feedback from its Duolever and Paralever suspension, 

a wind buffeted helmet or a sore keister because of an uncomfortable 

saddle. Too bad that, like my favorite BMW, the 

R1200GS, I can’t afford a GT. —Scott Rousseau

2011 BMW K1600GT 

SPECIFICATIONS AND PERFORMANCE DATA 

ENGINE 

Type: ........Liquid/oil-cooled in-line six 

Valvetrain: .... DOHC, 4 valves per cyl., 

shim-under-bucket valve adjustment 

Displacement: ........................1649cc 

Bore/stroke: ................72.0 x 68.0mm 

Comp. ratio: ............................12.2:1 

Fueling: ..............................BMS X EFI 

Exhaust: ......................6-into-1-into-6 

DRIVE TRAIN 

Transmission: ......................6-speed 

Final drive: ................Paralever Shaft 

RPM @ 65 mph*/rev limiter: 3040/8400 

*actual, not indicated 

DIMENSIONS 

Wheelbase: ................................66.1" 

Rake/trail:............................27.8°/4.3" 

Ground clearance: ........................5.5" 

Seat height: ..............................31.75" 

GVWR: ................................1191 lbs. 

Wet weight: ........................745.5 lbs. 

Carrying capacity: ..............445.5 lbs. 

SUSPENSION 

Front: ....Duolever double-leading arm 

fork, ESA II suspension adjustment, 

4.9" travel 

Rear:..Monoshock, ESA II suspension 

adjustment, 

5.3" travel 

BRAKES 

Front: Dual 320mm semi-floating discs, 

four-piston, double-acting calipers 

w/integral ABS 

Rear: Single 320mm disc, two-piston, 

double-acting caliper w/integral ABS 

TIRES & WHEELS 

Front: ..........120/70ZR17 Bridgestone 

Battlax BT022F on 3.50" x 17" wheel 

Rear: ..........190/55ZR17 Bridgestone 

Battlax BT021R on 6.00" x 17" wheel 

ELECTRICS 

Battery: ..............................12V, 19Ah 

Ignition:..............................Digital TCI 

Alternator Output: .................... 580W 

Headlight:....................Xenon 60/55W 

FUEL 

Tank capacity: ........................7.0 gal. 

Fuel grade: .......................... Premium 

High/low/avg. mpg: ......56.7/35.6/42.4 

A 

B 

C 

D 

E 

72.75" 

58.0" 

36.75" 

62.25" 

53.5" 

ERGONOMICS TEMPLATE 

42.5" 

MISCELLANEOUS 

12.25" 

Instruments: ......Analog speedo, tach, 

digital fuel level, odometer, tripmeter, 

coolant temp.,gear indicator, clock, 

trip computer 

Indicators:..........hi-beam, t/s, neutral, 

low fuel, ESA II, riding mode, check 

engine, oil pressure 

MSRP: ..$20,900 ($24,540 as tested) 

Routine service interval:........6000 mi. 

Valve adj. interval:..............24,000 mi. 

Warranty: ..........3 years, 36,000 miles 

Colors:..................Light Grey Metallic, 

....................................Vermillion Red 

31.75" 

TEST NOTES 

16.75" 

Low end �� 

Mid-range �� 

Top end �� 

The GT’s E-Gas fly-bywire 

throttle and driving 

modes are glitch-free and 

more responsive than 

they were on the heavier 

GTL. Dynamic delivers 

sharp response for fun 

sport riding. Road is comparatively 

tame, and Rain 

cuts power and torque 

PICKS 

� Broad power and excellent response, top to bottom 

� Handles much lighter than its size and weight suggest 

� All-day comfort and generous wind protection 

PANS 

�� Awkward and inconsistent clutch feel 

�� Shifting action should be far more refined 

�� All that technology costs big bucks 

35.6" 

F G HI J 

Horizontal (nose 

to) A: Passenger seat 

(middle). B: Rider 

seat (middle). 

C: Handgrip (center). 

D: Passenger footpeg 

(center). E: Rider 

footpeg (center). 

Vertical (ground to) 

F: Handlebar (center). 

G: Rider footpeg 

(top). H: Rider seat 

(lowest point). 

I: Passenger peg 

(top). J: Passenger 


DYNAMOMETER DATA 

SAE CORRECTED REAR-WHEEL HORSEPOWER 

PERFORMANCE 

Measured top speed ......151.4 mph 

0–1/4 mile ..................10.89 sec. 

@ 122.13 mph 

0–60 mph ....................3.00 sec. 

0–100 mph ..................7.30 sec. 

60–0 mph ........................123.7' 

Power to Weight Ratio ........1:5.66 

Speed @ 65 mph indicated......63.1 

EXCELLENT 

VERY GOOD 

GOOD 

FAIR 

POOR �� 

––––Heavyweight Tourer –––– 

Engine �� 

�� 

Transmission �� 

�� 

Suspension �� 

�� 

Brakes �� 

�� 

Handling �� 

�� 

Ergonomics �� 

�� 

Riding Impression �� 

�� 

Instruments/Controls �� 

�� 

Attention to Detail �� 

�� 

Value �� 

�� 

OVERALL RATING �� 

�� 

101.22 lb.-ft. 

MC RATING SYSTEM 

110.34 lb.-ft. 

107.88 lb.-ft. 

RPM, THOUSANDS 

131.64 hp 

131.43 hp 

130.85 hp 

STANDARD MAINTENANCE 

Item Time Parts Labor 

Oil & Filter................0.65 ..........$20 + $58 ....$52.00 

Air Filter....................0.5 ..........$63.65 ..........$40.00 

Valve Adjust..............2.6 ........$341.12 ........$208.00 

Battery Access..........0.5 ............MF ..............$40.00 

Final Drive ................0.5 ................................$40.00 

R/R Rear Whl. ..........0.4 ................................$32.00 

Change Plugs............1.7 ........$124.02 ........$136.00 

Synch EFI..................n/a ....................................$.00 

Totals 6.85 $606.79 $548.00 

Visit us at WWW.MCNEWS.COM ● FEBRUARY 2012 21 

• 

Road Dynamic Rain 

• 

• 

SAE CORRECTED REAR-WHEEL TORQUE, LB. FT. 

* MCN has changed the estimated labor rate to $80 starting March 2007


Below: The Concours 14’s cockpit may 

lack the bling of some of its competition, 

but its instrumentation is easy-toread. 

Its handlebars force the rider to 

lean forward into the cockput, but its 

mirrors are well-placed for easy viewing 

from the more sporting position. 

TESTERS’ LOG 

Our 2010 Japanese sport-touring shootout highlighted the 

C14’s remarkable capabilities as a long-haul sport-tourer, and I 

still can’t think of any bike that can beat it for relaxed competence 

in really high-speed sweepers or stability in whipping crosswinds. 

But compared to the new K1600GT, it really suffers. 

Its seating and cockpit aerodynamics are only slightly inferior, 

its potent motor is equally good at high speeds, although it’s not 

as responsive at lower speeds, its transmission and clutch are 

better, its saddlebags are great, it’s actually lighter although its 

handling doesn’t benefit in exchange, and it has important features 

like heated grips, ABS and traction control, too. 

But it has a couple of flaws that really make it feel unfinished 

next to the seamless K1600GT. Its shoddy glovebox lid seems 

destined to fail, and its poorly configured linked rear brake goes 

from smooth to grabby within mere ounces of pressure at the 

pedal, making corner entries awkward and spoiling the fun of 

tight twisties. Do these irritations justify the BMW’s $5000 

higher price? Only you can answer that one. —Dave Searle 


Left: Redesigned for 2010, the C14’s 

fairing still casts an imposing silhouette, 

but its sealed fairing lowers 

no longer let engine heat from its 

1352cc four-cylinder motor fry the 

rider’s legs—a welcome change. Its 

5.8-gal. gastank should be good for 

a range of about 216 miles at subsonic 

cruising speeds. The C14’s 

radially mounted 310mm front 

brakes offer good power and feel. 

Right: The Concours 14’s 

four-link Tetra Lever rear 

suspension system delivers 

on its promise of 

chain drive-like rear end 

behavior, isolating pinion 

gear torque-induced lift 

and squat. Its 5.4" of rear 

wheel travel can be finetuned 

via the large preload 

knob located near 

the passenger peg. The 

C14’s monoshock is also 

rebound adjustable. 

Above: Check out the size of that muffler! 

Its volume boosts high-rpm power 

output, but we’d prefer a bit more pull 

at lower rpm. The C14 could stand to 

be more responsive below 6000 rpm. 

Left: Measuring 36.1" from the ground, 

the C14’s dished high-back saddle can 

become uncomfortable on longer 

rides. The C14’s saddlebags offer a 

generous 35-liters of storage, but 

Kawasaki’s KIPASS key system makes 

opening or removal a bothersome task. 

It amazes me how, every time I think I’ve ridden the ultimate 

bike in a given category, some new bike comes along and handily 

tops it. During our Japanese sport-touring shootout a year and 

a half ago, if you had told me that another OEM would build a 

machine capable of defeating the mighty Concours 14 at its own 

game, I would’ve guffawed out loud. But then along came the 

BMW K1600GT...Who knew? 

Even so, the Concours 14 still offers a fantastic blend of sportbike 

excitement and touring capability, and it offers many of the 

Beemer’s amenities, such as an adjustable screen, heated grips, 

ABS and traction control for thousands less than even the base 

GT, and BMW’s engineers should wish they designed a clutch 

and transmission that shifts as silky smooth as the Kawi’s. 

Overall, I still think that, for $15,599, the Kawasaki represents 

a heck of a value, and I’d bet that, with more low-end 

rsponse, a little refinement to its K-ACT linked braking system, 

a fully adjustable suspension package and a flatter saddle, it 

could beat the GT outright. —Scott Rousseau

2011 Kawasaki Concours 14 ABS 

SPECIFICATIONS AND PERFORMANCE DATA 

ENGINE 

Type: .......... Liquid-cooled, in-line four 

Valvetrain: .... DOHC, 4 valves per cyl., 

shim under bucket valve adjustment 

Displacement: ........................1352cc 

Bore/stroke: ................64.0 x 61.0mm 

Comp. ratio: ............................10.7:1 

Fueling: ......EFI 40mm throttle bodies 

Exhaust: ..........................4-into-2-into-1 

DRIVE TRAIN 

Transmission:........................6-speed 

Final drive: ..................................shaft 

RPM @ 65 mph/rev limiter ..3230/10,000 

DIMENSIONS 

Wheelbase: ................................59.8" 

Rake/trail: ..........................26.1°/4.4” 

Ground clearance: ........................5.0" 

Seat height: ................................31.6" 

GVWR: ................................1172 lbs. 

Wet weight: ........................695.5 lbs. 

Carrying capacity: ..............476.5 lbs. 

SUSPENSION 

Front: ...... 43mm male slider fork, adj. 

preload and reb. damping, 4.4" travel 

Rear:Monoshock, adj. preload and reb. 

damping, 5.4;" travel 

BRAKES 

Front: Linked ABS, dual 310 mm petal 

discs, 4-piston radial-mount calipers 

Rear:..Linked ABS, 240mm petal disc, 

two-piston, dual-action caliper 

TIRES & WHEELS 

Front: ..120/70ZR17 Bridgestone Battlax 

BT021F M/C 58W on 3.50" x 17" 

wheel 

Rear: ..190/50ZR17 Bridgestone Battlax 

BT021R M/C 75W on 6.00" x 17" 

wheel 

ELECTRICS 

Battery: ..............................12V, 14Ah 

Ignition:........................Transistorized 

Alternator Output: ..581W @ 5000rpm 

Headlight: ..............................55/60W 

FUEL 

Tank capacity: ........................5.8 gal. 

Fuel grade: ..........................Premium 

High/low/avg. mpg: ....40.1/34.3/37.4 

A 

B 

C 

D 

E 

35.6" 

62.0" 

52.6" 

55.5" 

ERGONOMICS TEMPLATE 

45.0" 

71.2" 

MISCELLANEOUS 

33.25/34.25" 

12.5" 

Instruments:Speedo, tach, odometer, 

dual tripmeters, clock, battery voltage, 

current and avg. mpg, range to 

empty, tire air pressure, gear 

position, fuel gauge, coolant temp., 

ambient temp. 

Indicators:.......... hi-beam, t/s, neutral 

MSRP: ....................$15,599 as tested 

Routine service interval:........7500 mi. 

Valve adj. interval:..............15,000 mi. 

Warranty: ..3 years, unlimited mileage 

Colors: ..Atomic Silver/Flat Super Black; 

Ebony/Flat Super Black 

TEST NOTES 

20.0" 

PICKS 

� Brawny yet controllable engine 

� KTRC traction control does its job very well 

� Superb clutch and gearbox action 

28.0" 

F G HI J 

PANS 

�� Forward-tilting ergonomics limit comfort 

�� Rear brake linkage is more hindrance than help 

�� Memo to Kawasaki: Get rid of the KIPASS! 

Low end �� 

Mid-range �� 

Top end �� 

The C14’s in-line four 

delivers smooth, exciting 

power, although it could 

use more low-end grunt. 

Its fuel injection is glitchfree, 

and its dual counterbalancers 

ward off any 

unwanted vibration. It’s 

still the best engine among 

Japanese sport-tourers. 

Horizontal (nose to) 

A: Passenger seat 

(middle). B: Rider 

seat (middle). C: 

Handgrip (center). 

D: Passenger footpeg 

(center). E: Rider 

footpeg (center). 

Vertical (ground to) 

F: Handlebar (center). 

G: Rider footpeg 

(top). H: Rider 

seat (lowest point). 

I : Passenger peg 

(top). J: Passenger 


DYNAMOMETER DATA 

SAE CORRECTED REAR-WHEEL HORSEPOWER 

PERFORMANCE 

Measured top speed ......152.8 mph 

0–1/4 mile..................10.56 sec. 

..........................@ 127.68 mph 

0–60 mph ....................2.91 sec. 

0–100 mph ..................6.56 sec. 

60–0 mph ........................127.8' 

Power to Weight Ratio ........1:5.12 

Speed @ 65 mph indicated ....62.4 

MC RATING SYSTEM 

EXCELLENT 

VERY GOOD 

GOOD 

FAIR 

POOR �� 

––– Adventure-Tourer ––– 

Engine �� 

�� 

Transmission �� 

�� 

Suspension �� 

�� 

Brakes �� 

�� 

Handling �� 

�� 

Ergonomics �� 

�� 

Riding Impression �� 

�� 

Instruments/Controls �� 

�� 

Attention to Detail �� 

�� 

Value �� 

�� 

OVERALL RATING �� 

�� 

RPM, THOUSANDS 

135.61 hp 

133.58 hp 

91.44 lb.-ft. 

• 

88.15 lb.-ft. 

Tested by CycleDoctor.com, 

Costa Mesa CA 

STANDARD MAINTENANCE 

Item Time Parts Labor 

Oil & Filter......................0.5..............$22 + $12.06 ..$40.00 

Air Filter ..................0.75 ..........$42.98 ..........$60.00 

Valve Adjust..............2.0 ..........$80.96 ........$160.00 

Battery Access..........0.2 ............MF ..............$16.00 

Final Drive ................0.5 ............$8.99 ..........$40.00 

R/R Rear Whl. ..........0.5 ................................$40.00 

Change Plugs............0.5 ..........$42.00 ..........$40.00 

Synch EFI..................1.0 ................................$80.00 

Totals 5.95 $208.99 $476.00 

Visit us at WWW.MCNEWS.COM ● FEBRUARY 2012 23 

• 

SAE CORRECTED REAR-WHEEL TORQUE, LB. FT. 

* MCN has changed the estimated labor rate to $80 starting March 2007

BMW K1600GT vs. Kawasaki Concours 14 - Motorcycle Consumer ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?