KTM 990 - long term experience wanted

[Triwi]

Just returned from 4 weeks in OZ on my 990 and have to say that fuel usage is at the front of the brain all the time. You seriously do not want to get the speed/usage equation wrong. On one occasion the map showed a pump - closed several months prior - it was only the friendliness of a local contractor that saved a 400km return hitch and an overnight stay. I record usage all the time and trip figures varied from 15kpl to 18.5. The figures improve closer to the east coast as cruise speeds slowly reduce toward the 100kmh limit in the highly populated areas. Strange that. Returning from Ayers rock to Alice the bike returned 15kpl sitting at constant 130 (per GPS). Two up with all camping gear etc. Akra tune and open 2 int 1 pipe. It was interesting to note that one up with gear made no difference ie the drag of panniers is considerable and pillion 'fills the space' aerodynamically so even tho bike is much less overall weight the extra turbulence negates that. Running without bags showed immediate improvement in economy of 2kpl under any conditions.
2 other thoughts for comment
-Outback roads had me cruising (where possible) at around 100kph. With 17/45 gearing peak torque is some 2500rpm higher at this speed. Accordingly, specially on sand or loose based roads where rolling resistance is higher the motor was on the point of labouring requiring some more throttle opening. Change down and greater throttle opening assured. Hence economy at modest speeds was only 15/16kpl. I do wonder if KTM lowered the revs for peak torque a bit whether the fuel use issues would calm down.
-Why cant manufactures get the speedo readings perfect at least when tyres are new? 130 indicated 122 true. 107 indicated 100 true.
cheers
triwi

[warewolf]

-Why cant manufactures get the speedo readings perfect at least when tyres are new? 130 indicated 122 true. 107 indicated 100 true.

There's been some long & involved discussions, on this site and others. General consensus is that of course, in this day and age if they wanted to, they could. They don't want to, because the powers-that-be like it this way and possibly there are legal ramifications about under-reading.

IIRC last time I read through the regs, there was a -0.0% tolerance allowed, ie the speedo could not under-read by any amount. So the manufacturers make sure they over-read (eg +5%) to avoid under-reading.

[Ruralman]

I just saw this and thought i'd throw a curved ball into the arguement.

LOL

I can't read the text of the article - I assume its about BMW riders ???

[Ruralman]

. I record usage all the time and trip figures varied from 15kpl to 18.5. The figures improve closer to the east coast as cruise speeds slowly reduce toward the 100kmh limit in the highly populated areas. Strange that. Returning from Ayers rock to Alice the bike returned 15kpl sitting at constant 130 (per GPS). Two up with all camping gear etc. Akra tune and open 2 int 1 pipe. It was interesting to note that one up with gear made no difference ie the drag of panniers is considerable and pillion 'fills the space' aerodynamically so even tho bike is much less overall weight the extra turbulence negates that.
Running without bags showed immediate improvement in economy of 2kpl under any conditions.
2 other thoughts for comment
-Outback roads had me cruising (where possible) at around 100kph. With 17/45 gearing peak torque is some 2500rpm higher at this speed. Accordingly, specially on sand or loose based roads where rolling resistance is higher the motor was on the point of labouring requiring some more throttle opening. Change down and greater throttle opening assured. Hence economy at modest speeds was only 15/16kpl. I do wonder if KTM lowered the revs for peak torque a bit whether the fuel use issues would calm down.
-Why cant manufactures get the speedo readings perfect at least when tyres are new? 130 indicated 122 true. 107 indicated 100 true.
cheers
triwi

Interesting stuff - I leave the small panniers on all the time and save the big ones for when I really need them. I did notice with the Tiger and especially the Transalp that fuel useage went up with panniers on.
I'll do another quiet trip with the bike as it is to use up most of this tankful and see what it does and might do a comparison without the panniers sometime.
The other day coming home I did just use roll on in top gear for passing traffic - the thing can still get up and rumble, probably we change down because we enjoy the rocket ship express it turns into with a few more revs where in fact often it really isn't necessary (but who the fuck wants to restrict themselves to "necessary" anyway!!)
As far as speedo accuracy goes - I'm pretty sure the Tiger was very close to being correct. If the KTM is as far out as you guys are saying then there are a shitload of cars that are out by a lot more based on how many you catch up on even cruising at 110km (on the Tiger this seemed to happen at closer to 100km/hr)

[Frodo]

There's been some long & involved discussions, on this site and others. General consensus is that of course, in this day and age if they wanted to, they could. They don't want to, because the powers-that-be like it this way and possibly there are legal ramifications about under-reading.

IIRC last time I read through the regs, there was a -0.0% tolerance allowed, ie the speedo could not under-read by any amount. So the manufacturers make sure they over-read (eg +5%) to avoid under-reading.

The workshop manual for my bike states that odometer accuracy is +- 0%, speedo accuracy is set at +6%. This is a design rules requirement and matches with my experience with my odo and speedo. I agree that they could get it right but are told not to. This is presumably to make drivers/riders think they are going faster than they are, hence encouraging lower speeds.

Cheers

[ducatijim]

Just returned from 4 weeks in OZ on my 990 and have to say that fuel usage is at the front of the brain all the time.That sounds a lot like wot I bin saying!!! Returning from Ayers rock to Alice the bike returned 15kpl sitting at constant 130 (per GPS). Two up with all camping gear etc. Oh....ya gotta love the 'territory' don't ya!! Outdoors folk can carry guns, beaut roads....fantastic climate( for 6 months anyway), adventure round every corner( and only 500km between corners!!!)...take me back.............( sept 23)
triwi

Will we see a ride report Triwi??

[Ruralman]

Well enough of this gentle riding crap.
On this tankful (with panniers on the whole time) and trying my best to keep the speed around 110-115 indicated I did 276.4km on 16.78 litres - ie 16.47km/litre.
There was the odd burst - I mean sanity requires it really - but most of the time it was pretty restrained. So I'm a bit unimpressed by that result

One question though - I notice theres a lot of sooty specks around the outlet of the exhausts. Has anyone else noticed this? Is this just our shitty fuel plus maybe some turbulence caused by the topbox and panniers? or, does it mean it might actually be running a bit rich ? If its the latter then I assume the dealer will be able to plug it in to a computer and alter the fuel mapping.

I don't know anything about the previous owner - I suppose if he was a real nanna then maybe I'm just blowing out some deposits??

[Gremlin]

... trying my best to keep the speed around 110-115 indicated I did 276.4km on 16.78 litres - ie 16.47km/litre.
There was the odd burst - I mean sanity requires it really - but most of the time it was pretty restrained. So I'm a bit unimpressed by that result

Don't get a KTM if you want fantastic fuel economy... thats really it in a nutshell. I went on a search for fuel economy with my SM (hell, I can barely ever manage 16km/L) much to the amusement of my shop. Problem was, it was ruining my range between having to fill (220km ish before R on 15L).

They told me to stop wheelying or they could restrict the first few gears again No thanks!

Yes, its highly likely the bike will run rich. Has it got stock pipes, do you know what map has been loaded etc? You'll have a small amount of movement on the fuel map, but not a full custom map.

[The Duck 01]

I can't read the text of the article - I assume its about BMW riders ???

I just happened upon this which might help

http://www.adrianmolloy.com/1050_Tiger_Roadtest.html

Take a read interesting

[oldrider]

I just happened upon this which might help

http://www.adrianmolloy.com/1050_Tiger_Roadtest.html

Take a read interesting

Yes RM, you should find the link above interesting seeing as you own both brands, it "might" help you to decide which bike to keep!

No contest really!

[Ruralman]

Yes RM, you should find the link above interesting seeing as you own both brands, it "might" help you to decide which bike to keep!

No contest really!

Thanks for that John. KTM must have sent out some sort of upgrade for the fuel mapping or something because it sounds like the jerkiness was quite a problem back then (I have heard it from several places), but it seems to be largely sorted now. Mine is still a bit jerky in 1st gear on/off the throttle but not really a problem, and I certainly don't notice any issues when just plodding along slowly in a group ride in the higher gears.
The ABS is an interesting one - I have ridden mine with it off and on on the gravel - I have now decided I prefer to have it on. KTM seem to have programmed the setup well for our gravel roads and on the Danseys I really like being able to use a lot of power on the front brakes coming into a corner and shed a lot of speed very quickly without any risk of a front end washout. I can at times definitely feel the pulsing in the back wheel on corrugations etc if braking hard but I think this is outweighed by the power and confidence in the front brake.
Probably on some really knarly trail with lots of loose rocks etc I might be tempted to disable the ABS but I think some of the comment comes from people who just think that they are better riders than need ABS and that you shouldn't have ABS on non-sealed surfaces - without actually trying it out and learning to use the advantages of having it. Believe it or not I was rather skeptical about the ABS myself but having ridden with it I am now a convert.
I certainly find the 990 a lot easier to ride on gravel than the Tiger - on the hard packed stuff it probably doesn't make much difference but once theres more loose stuff plus ruts etc theres a big difference. It was a test ride on a little goat track of a road that had been recently graded that really sold the KTM to me.
I think the ideal rider height for the Tiger was about 5ft10 - I'm 6ft 2 - the KTM fits me better and is more comfortable and suits me better for what I like to do . That doesn't take away anything from the Tiger
Bruce
Apart from that the tester was probably a lightweight anorexic dwarf

[The Duck 01]

Thanks for that John.
Apart from that the tester was probably a lightweight anorexic dwarf

Yeah it sounds like Oldrider

Back to ride to "RIDE WHAT YOU BRUNG"

Until one or other goe's out shed hold the party line......

[XF650]

Wouldn't the main difference between the 990 & the Tiger on gravel be the front wheel size?

[oldrider]

Yeah it sounds like Oldrider

Back to ride to "RIDE WHAT YOU BRUNG"

Until one or other goe's out shed hold the party line......

Bloody charming, I am trying to take the piss with Ruralman and you switch allegiances and side with him! There is no justice!

The Triumph man (the writer/tester) may have been a tad biased RM, just a wee tad!

[The Duck 01]

Wouldn't the main difference between the 990 & the Tiger on gravel be the front wheel size?

It's size of the HEAD of The Rider