1986 Kawasaki 1000GTR
At last a Japanese factory has brought its engineering expertise to bear on the production of a true sports/touring motorcycle. The company is Kawasaki and the bike is the 1000GTR. There’s a bit of work still to be done, but for a first effort this bike is a gem.
Road tests of bikes labelled “sports tourer” or “all rounder” are usually peppered with adjectives like “adequate”, “satisfactory”, “capable”, “reasonable”, and “fair”. The qualifying term “but” also gets a good workout.
It’s the specialist machines in the sporting and touring arenas which score the “excellent”, “brilliant”, and “I’m in love” accolades, simply because if you set out to build a bike that’ll do a limited number of things well, chances are you’ll succeed to a far greater extent than the bloke who has tried to make a bike to please everybody.
In the last couple of years, high praise for a sports tourer has been almost impossible to justify, because the specialists have pushed the boundaries back so far in both directions.
The Japanese, and Ducati with its 750 F1, have redefined sports motorcycling time and time again with outrageous power outputs and high levels of handling finesse.
Occasionally, they’ve gone backwards, too. Kawasaki’s GPZ1000RX is an example.
In the touring vein, BMW’s K100RT was a giant leap forward. As well, the K100RT has more poise in the sports role than any other bike with touring credentials, and this quality caused us to comment in our December ’84 test that it “is the most versatile of the the Grand Tourers by not just one, but by 1000 country miles.”
Well, a week and 2000 country miles with Kawasaki’s new 1000GTR have seen it well and truly wrest this crown from the K100RT and, incidentally, earned it plenty of those superlatives usually reserved for single purpose bikes only.
The test started as a two day introductory ride down the coast from Sydney to Melbourne. There were nine GTRs, a Z1300, a GPZ1000R and a 900R, plus assorted press bods and a couple of Kawasaki personnel, including new National Sales and Marketing Manager, Andrew Beare.
The big K obviously expects big things from the GTR.
Arriving in Melbourne on the Wednesday night before Easter, your correspondent, eager for more, declined the offer of a flight back to Sydney and instead pinched a test GTR to ride up to Bathurst the next day. On the Monday after the meeting it was up to her indoors at Coonabarabran and back to Sydney the following afternoon.
Rolling
Day one was a pretty low key run from Sydney to Eden, near the Victorian border. The first surprise, sprung during kilometre number one, was how well balanced and easy to ride the GTR is, considering its bulk, dry weight (265kg with panniers), wheelbase (1555mm) and generally truck-like proportions. On the slow crawl out of town the bike could be trickled along very slowly without the constant balancing act often required on similar biggies, and its centre of gravity, which on first glance would be though high enough to make the beast feel top heavy, was found to be sufficiently low in the frame to endow the GTR with excellent manoeuvrability in traffic. Lane splitting is a tad risky though – large gaps become tiny ones real quick on the Kawasaki.
Out on the Wollongong tollway, the bike started to earn its tourer credentials. The soft version 1000RX motor is capable of pulling sixth gear cleanly from 2000rpm (an indicated 60 km/h) and while there’s a slight flat spot from 4000 to 5000 rpm (120 to 150 km/h) you’ve still got enough grunt in hand here to pass smartly.
Below 4000 rpm (the tacho shows 3400 rpm at 100 km/h, but the correct figure is 3750 rpm) the GTR requires a shift down to fifth or, if you’re in a big hurry, fourth, to deliver the initial kick required to start a quick overtaking manoeuvre.
Top end performance suffers due to the tall gearing and barn door fairing, but even so there’s plenty of it. Power builds progressively from 5000 rpm with no real surges or sags to the 10,500 rpm redline. Third gear will make it to this mark, fourth just falls short and fifth and sixth don’t get close.
The following speed/indicated rpm figures tell the story: 100 km/h-3400; 120 km/h-4000; 140 km/h-4800; 200 km/h-6800; 220 km/h-7300.
While the strength of the GTR’s donk is sufficient to produce acceptable midrange performance even with this tall gearing, it’s fair enough to say Kawasaki could have extracted a good deal more by dropping the redline 1500 rpm and beefing up the 3000-7000 rpm region.
It’s this area that BMW concentrated on in its K series bikes. The K100RT redlines at 8500 rpm, has a top speed similar to the GTR (around 215 km/h), but in a top gear roll-on will walk away from the Kawasaki at any speed. The Kawasaki’s peak power and torque figures (80.1 kW at 9500 rpm and 98.0 Nm at 6500) demonstrate that you’re looking at 185-plus km/h before the best punch is available in sixth. The K100RT, in contrast, produces 90 percent of its peak torque (86 Nm at 6000 rpm) at 4000 rpm, at which point it’s pulling just over 100 km/h in fifth.
So while the factory has certainly done a reasonable job of converting its sportster RX motor into a more touring-orientated device (it produces around 12 percent more power and torque between 3000-7000 rpm, and peak torque occurs 2000 rpm sooner) it could have gone further.
Still, on the road this simply means that you’ve got to use the gearbox for quick overtaking from sub-120 km/h speeds. Otherwise, the GTR can be left in sixth until you hit 55 km/h and below territory. The fact that the motor is mated to such tall gearing should mean that it’ll run forever, too.
Where the GTR really has the goods on the BM is its engine smoothness at legal speeds.
Excessive vibration can ruin a touring bike, especially the high-frequency, in-line four-cylinder variety. Considering the GTR’s engine rests in a strengthened version on the 900R diamond-type frame, without the benefit of rubber mounting, its vibration level at all rpm is minimal, and, except for a hint of roughness through the pegs at 5200 rpm, spreading to the bars at 6000, it’s as smooth a four-cylinder machine as you’ll find this side of Kawasaki’s own 1000RX, which has the benefit of a cradle-type frame and rubber mounting.
It’s the vibe
Why does the RX – the sportster – get the vibration-masking hardware while the tourer doesn’t? The aim with the GTR was to get the weight as low as possible in the frame, and the engine-as-stressed-member 900R trellis offers this advantage, deemed by Kawasaki to be more significant than the 1000RX’s vibration-damping attributes.
I’ve spoken to several K-series BM owners who ride at below 90 km/h or above 110 – but never in between – because the vibes in this range are akin to having a mild electric current flowing through them. No such problem on the Kawasaki. It vibrates like a typical in-line four when whipping through the gears, but on tour it’s one of the smoothest bikes around. The K100RT is smoother up to 90 km/h, but between here and 110 the Kawasaki wins hands down, while above this speed there’s little to separate the two.
Similarly, in the rider comfort/protection field, the Kawasaki (intentionally?) is very similar to the K100RT. The big fairing offers nearly complete protection from the wind, although those over six feet tall (like me) cop some buffeting around the top of the helmet.
All the test GTRs had optional air scoops fitted near the rear side-panel fairing vents to direct cool air into the gearbox area and past the lower legs. These had the effect of reducing the build-up of heat inside the fairing. The small gap between the fairing-to-tank panels and the tank itself, as well as the other three vents on each side, contribute to a cooler cockpit than the K100RT setup, which has no gaps, a large rubber gaiter between fairing and forks. and only two vents on each side.
In stop-start traffic, where a constant supply of cool air is not available, the whole show heats up very quickly and, more often than not, the thermostat-controlled fan cuts in. But on the highway, the large aluminium radiator and well-vented fairing are a comfortable combination for both engine and rider, with the temperature gauge staying around the one-third-off-cold mark. The gearbox must run very hot though, because the gear lever was nearly too hot to touch at fuel stops.
I should mention here that it didn’t rain at all during the test. Murphy’s law dictates that had the bike in question been an unfaired machine with no claims to wet weather rider protection, it would have bucketed down, but the GTR stayed dry. However, one of the Pommy magazine tests, by Superbike’s John Cutts, gave the GTR the thumbs up here, with Cutts stating “I got wetter crossing the carpark on foot than in riding through 70 miles of hard driving rain.”
The rider’s portion of the seat is wide, well-padded and gently contoured, and caused no discomfort at all on the first two 500 km days. Day three was an 800 km number, and the last 200 of these saw the preliminary stages of callouses on the McKinnon arse. The old frame poking through the seat trick on some R Series BM seats had a similar effect.
One thousand kilometre day merchants would be advised to add a sheepskin, but most will find the GTR’s seat easy to live with.
Compromised
The seat/footpeg/bars relationship is touring-orientated from the waist down and sports-orientated (similar to the FJ1200 Yamaha) from waist up. That’s to say the pegs are low and not too rearset, while the bars are lower than typical touring items and do cock the wrists slightly, producing minor discomfort towards the end of the day.
Kawasaki claims that the riding position is designed to put you in the best situation to exploit both the sportster and tourer sides of the GTR, and bearing this in mind, it’s just about right.
The second day of the press ride took us through one of the sweetest sections of high-speed swervery on the East Coast: the Eden to Orbost (Vic) section of Highway One. It’s 185 km long, and on the Victorian side the road surface is excellent.
The GTR sat happily on 160 km/h for the duration. Above this speed, the wind, trying to force its way past the fully loaded panniers, created some instability, and towards 200 km/h the front end became lighter as well, probably due to lift being generated under the fairing. The fact that it was a windy day contributed to both these characteristics.
Up to 160, the GTR handles and steers like a much lighter bike. Steering is responsive, neutral and sharper than the 18-inch front wheel, 28.5 degrees rake, and 123 mm trail combination would suggest; and the bike’s well thought-out weight distribution, as mentioned before, makes it feel substantially less cumbersome than a 265 kg motorcycle should.
Once the bends tighten up (55 km/h advisory signs and below), the GTR’s steering responsiveness becomes more dependent on rider effort. A tendency to drift wide at the front, caused by the slow geometry/wheel combination, means that more body english is required to change direction quickly. At no stage does the GTR feel unwieldy, but it does need to be deliberately pointed in the direction you want to go.
It will hold the chosen line with determination in corners, yet still allows you to alter course with more ease than most bikes of its size and weight. Cornering clearance is better than similar machines also, with first the centrestand base and then the footpegs touching the road. Neither cause any upset to the bike’s progress, although grounding the centrestand over a bump would probably lift the rear wheel.
Where the GTR shines handling-wise is when the road gets messy. This is where the sports side of the “sports/tourer” combination is revealed. Basically, you can ride the GTR as hard on rough roads as on perfect blacktop.
Air assisted (linked), braced 41 mm forks (without AVDS) were run with 10-12 psi during the test, and they gave a comfortable ride without bottoming at all during the entire 3000 km. More importantly, at no stage did the GTR display the remotest hint of bump steer. It could be ridden confidently over anything, as it was on day three: a 140-160 km/h blast up the severely potholed, corrugated, wrinkled and anything else you care to imagine Olympic Way to Bathurst.
At the rear, a rising rate Uni-Trak monoshock, solidly mounted at the top (unlike the RX’s compressed-from
both-ends unit) has four-way adjustable rebound damping and air assistance. Both adjustment points are under the right sidecover.
The Kawasaki’s rear suspension offers more compliance than Honda’s VF1000 Bol d’Or, but better damping than BMW’s fade-prone Monolever system. It does, however, need to be adjusted towards the top end of both the damping and air ranges to avoid wallowing with a full load or a passenger.
The first two days had the air pressure at 15 psi and the damping on the second position. On the relatively undemanding Highway One, this was fine, although on the rougher stretches at high speed it did feel a touch underdamped.
Accordingly, the damping was set on position four and air pressure was raised to 20 psi for the Olympic Way, and this improved things a lot. The worst section – 220 km between Albury and Cootamundra – was covered with consummate ease. Both front and rear suspensions gave a comfortable ride, yet didn’t fade despite being worked extremely hard. Rider comfort and the refusal to bottom out (at both ends) is assisted by a generous (unloaded) 140 mm of wheel travel at the front and 70 mm at the rear.
No fear
Day four, after Bathurst (where the GTR drew a bigger crowd than some of the races) covered some choppy tight stuff, a bit of dirt, and more open Olympic Way standard roads on the journey to Coonabarabran.
The GTR’s firm yet complaint long travel suspension and its lack of bump steer mean that it’ll see off many specialist sports bikes on poorly surfaced 55 km/h and above sections of road, simply because it has the ability, and therefore inspires the confidence, to go very hard in such territory without the front end getting out of shape. It has the edge on the softly-sprung K100RT here too, because dive under brakes is far less, as is the torque reaction from the long shaft drive when under power or rolling off suddenly in mid-corner.
The GTR does lose out to the K100RT in sub-55 km/h sections as far as ease of riding goes, because the BM is lighter by 29 kg (without panniers the Kawasaki weighs 258 kg dry) and is easier to manhandle through tight corners.
The GTR’s strong midrange, slightly notchy but positive gearbox, and light clutch all work together to enhance its sporting capabilities. First and second gears are low, and it’s rare that they are used out of the city. The motor has enough midrange punch to swing quickly through swervery in fifth and sixth, and if you really mean business, third, fourth and fifth will put you in the 5500 to 7500 band range where, as you’d expect, the bike has as much stomp as most of us can use.
The clutch features a back-torque limiter, which is designed to slip slightly on hard downshifts to reduce the chances of rear wheel lock-up. Unlike Honda’s attempt to do the same with its “one way” clutch, the result doesn’t contribute to drivetrain slop, which on the GTR is commendably low, though not as good as the GS series Suzukis.
The GTR’s maximum speed is around 215 km/h; considerably less than the 1000RX’s 250-odd km/h, but more than enough. Without panniers it remains stable up to this speed (the dial will show nearly 240) but, as mentioned before, insecurity and less-than-perfect tracking becomes apparent pannier-equipped at above 160-170 km/h. The addition of a passenger on the GTR (with panniers) actually improves high-speed (above 160 km/h) stability.
The brakes are strong, with plenty of feel. The single piston calipers (used also on the RX) are starting to show their age a little against the latest offerings from Yamaha and, especially, Suzuki with its “deca-piston” setup on the GSX-Rs, but they’re still able to do the bike justice.
Gobbledegook
The drilled discs are slightly different to those on the RX. At the front they are smaller, because, according to the Kawasaki blurb “(they are) easier to modulate for performance more suitable for a sports tourer.” What does this mean? I wouldn’t have a clue. The rear disc is larger, because of its location out of the wind and the heavier braking loads it has to take.
The tyres – a 110/80-18 on the front and 150/80-16 rear – are Dunlop radials. The rear (K700G) was run at the recommended 41 psi and held the road despite big handfuls, while assisting ride comfort due to its bump-absorption qualities.
The front tyre (K105F) is claimed to be designed specifically for the GTR, and it too stuck well, considering the Kawasaki’s forward weight bias. Its recommended pressure is 36 psi. Stability under brakes is impressive, as is the absence of sudden changes in behaviour from vertical to full lean. Unfortunately, the lack of rain didn’t allow the radials’ wet weather abilities to be tested, although Superbike praised their performance in these conditions.
While the Dunlops are a wise choice as far as performance goes, the wear rate on the front tyre’s centreline to sidewall treads was so severe that it’s fair enough to predict a front tyre change will be due well before a rear one. The leading edges looked like they’d been attacked with a file after 3000 km, but the centre tread was hardly worn at all. Dry weather handling wasn’t affected, but things could become interesting in the wet, as they are supposed to channel water away. The marginal wear on the rear tyre, combined with the front, set up a small side-to-side rocking motion at sub-50 km/h speeds also, but this disappeared once speed increased.
An area where the Dunlops take the honours over Pirelli’s MP7, and the GTR itself is a pleasant surprise, is in the dirt. Comfort, feedback from the front wheel, and traction are all excellent. The rear suspension requires the softer air and damping settings to avoid bouncing on corrugations, while the front, at 10 psi, is superb. The K series BMs, due to their lighter weight, are easier to throw around in the dirt but – correctly adjusted – the Kawasaki’s suspension at both ends is just as capable, if a little harsher.
The final test stage, a 450 km afternoon/night two-up run from Coonabarabran to Sydney, revealed that passenger comfort is close to the best there is. The pegs are a bit high, but the seat and grabrails (one on each side) got the seal of approval from a very contented wife. Most barn-door faired bikes are great for the rider but create a mini-hurricane around the passenger. Not so the Kawasaki’s which shifts the wind around both.
The 300-odd km stretch from Coona to Lithgow was covered without stopping – a new record for Kerry! Apart from the armchair cruisers, like the big Harleys and Suzuki’s GS1100GKE, she’d go for the GTR anytime.
Suspension performance didn’t suffer two-up, and was left on the MelbourneBathurst settings. (The front was already 1.5 psi over the recommended 8.5 psi maximum pressure, while the rear was only one short of the upper limit of 21 psi.) Cornering clearance was reduced by around 15 percent, but as mentioned before, high speed stability with panniers was actually improved.
On the juice
Fuel consumption on tour was quite poor at 100-120 km/h (15.5-16.0 km/l) but didn’t increase dramatically with higher speeds. A fairly constant 140 km/h returned 15 km/l (14 km/l two-up), while at 140-160 km/h consumption rose only slightly to 14.8 km/l.
A hard third/fourth/fifth gear session through the hills will get consumption up to the high thirteens, while, at the other end of the scale, 100 km/h cruising in perfect conditions (with loaded panniers) will see a rate of 17.5 km/l. A six-stone midget, riding across the Nullarbor at 80 km/h with a tailwind, may get close to Kawasaki’s claimed 20 km/l average, but I doubt it.
The 28.5-litre tank (six litre reserve) is good for between 400 and 500 km (taking the best and worst figures above). At an average cruising rate (120 km/h) of 16.0 km/l, you’ll go 456 km before it’s time to fill up again (360 km before reserve).
As a comparison, the K100RT has a 22-litre tank (but the fuel pump can only get at 20 of these). It recorded better cruising consumption of 17.3 km/l, and a worse figure when ridden hard (13.0 km/l).
The 55/60 watt headlight has a good spread, but too sharp a cutoff on low beam (like most rectangular lights). On high it’s one of the best, allowing sustained 140 km/h riding due to its deep penetration and wide range. The Hi-Lo switch is a bit small to find and operate instantly with gloved hands, though.
The bike was chocka with gear on this run, and Kawasaki deserves credit for producing not only the best standard gear carrying equipment on any Japanese bike to date, but the best on any sports/touring bike.
The plastic panniers are big enough to take a full face helmet, are well made, and include strong locks, all operated by a single key. They slip onto their rubber-mounted steel brackets in the same manner as BMW items, and lock at the front of the frame likewise. They showed no signs of cracking or coming loose during the test, although a bit of dust sneaked through the seals.
The rear carry rack, accessible via a screw under the seat, is small, in the interests of keeping clean lines with its cover on. It’ll carry a substantial amount because the tops of the panniers can be used for additional support, and the ocky strap attachment hooks on each grabrail and on either side of the tail light are a welcome convenience.
Tankbags. Ah yes. Well, you’ll need one with extra-long straps to get around the monster 28.5-litre tank; alternatively, Kawasaki will soon have a bag on the market which is secured via four magnets on each side. More on this next issue.
Completing the carrying of stuff facilities are two small bins on each side of the fairing. They’re good for sunnies, a wallet or what have you, and their vinyl covers are secured by six press studs.
Switches and instruments are top class. The former are standard GPz fare, while the instruments are housed in a rectangular binnacle with a perspex cover angled to minimise the chances of backlit reflection. The mechanical speedo and electronic tacho are separated by a fuel gauge (pessimistic by 40 km between main and reserve) and a coolant temperature gauge. Above these are lights for high beam, neutral, indicators and oil pressure. All are easily visible day and night. A small pod above the instruments houses an electronic clock.
Mirrors are adjustable up, down, forwards, backwards, and out. They present a clearer image than most, but above 140 km/h and on corrugated dirt they turn in/sag respectively. The toolkit is adequate, and includes a tyre pressure gauge, but a pump and tubeless repair kit should be thrown in too. There’s a lightweight anti-theft chain which won’t stop any thief and could well be ditched in favour of the pump/repair kit. Oh yes. There’s also a cute little window on the right sidecover for your personalised nameplate.
And so…
The length of this test reflects the versatile nature of the GTR. It’s good at many things, so there’s been plenty to talk about.
The press release states that it “should prove to be the King of Grunt”. Not quite. This honour rests with the FJ1200 Yamaha, the GSX1100 Suzuki, the VF1000 Honda, BMW’s K series fours and, believe it or not, Yamaha’s XS1100. A short ride on Kawasaki’s own Z1300 Six during the test made the GTR feel decidedly limp afterwards as well.
But it doesn’t lose out by much to the other fours, and if it were only a five speeder then it would go close to matching them.
When you consider that the GTR makes a better fist of Australian roads than any other big bike currently available (including the K series BMWs) then it starts to look pretty good at around $8500. The K100RT costs approximately $400 more.
Add a smooth, reliability-proven motor, the longest range around, excellent rider and passenger comfort, the best gear carrying equipment bar none, a top class finish – and a commitment by Kawasaki to maintain the styling for five years – and the GTR starts to look very impressive. Top this lot off with a healthy dose of sporting ability and you’ve got your answer.
By Bill McKinnon. Two Wheels, June 1986
