Sorry guys I thought this was a thread about sharing experiences of the KTM 950/990. As I've owned one for 5 years and travelled a to a few places I thought I had a good idea about the merits of the bike, didn't realise I was surrounded by so many experts.

Same old same old.

Anyway, it's good that you saw the video, at least you know what one looks like now.....

exactly, there's nothing unique about them... all big bikes have their off-road limitations, all small bikes have their on-road limitations. take your pick. colour is irrelevant.

KTM 950 excellent bike, owned one for 5 years done about 40 odd thousand much of it two up on all kinds of terrain. Never let me down when I was away. Build quality excellent, reliability excellent,ride quality excellent and for two up riding its excellent. The downside are its a bit labour intensive for servicing and to maintain (roadside problem solving and repairs are a bugger due to poor access to the engine and main running parts), parts are expensive and can be a problem to obtain and its quite a handful when the going gets challenging more so when loaded up heavy.(like most big bikes) - my r80gs is easier to ride in all the above conditions - far simpler to work on or maintain, but is slower and not as much fun as a riders bike. Like Dougie said take your pick it what your happy with at the end of the day and live with the downsides - they all have up and downsides.

Thanks Jake, that is really useful to hear. Exactly what I was looking for.

When I see posts like this I smell the reek of cognitive dissonance. I have not owned a KTM but my brother has. Reliability is a major problem, his was in the garage being repaired for two thirds of the time he owned it. We chatted to the engineers and they admitted that these bikes are no end of trouble.
While owning my old BMW F800gs I was approached by three 990 owners who all said to me they wanted a bike like mine due to the weight and poor fuel economy of the KTM. For the record, I wouldn't take the BMW either, that turned out to not be as reliable as I had hoped. Getting a smaller bike is good advice. Better advice is sticking to a bike you already trust and know well.

Its a shame you have had such bad experience of the KTMs that you know about. I know of three including my own that have done over 50000 miles of all year round use in british winters, been used for trips into remote areas two of the bikes to hot sandy dusty conditions my own to arctic and Russia all three of these bike have been very reliable with a few minor faults. All the
bikes are early 2003 950s so maybe the first were built better - or maybe the maintenance on the ones you know about has not been up to standard - but I can only speak of my own experience and the bike was simply excellent but expensive in time and parts to maintain. One other bike I know of with 40000 miles a 950S the original very tall model owned by a mate from new is about to come up for sale - and it also has been very reliable.

The way I see the bike of choice needs two main qualities.

Fuel range, and weight.
However the single and most important requirement, far outweighs all others, is "reliability and ease of repair"
All these big bikes are more than powerful enough, so I have discounted power.

From the probably the three most popular bikes mentioned, here they are.
BMW F800GS
KTM 990
Africa Twin 750.

All details taken from MCN.

2008 BMW F800GS Specifications
Top speed
130mph
1/4-mile acceleration
secs
Power
85bhp
Torque
60ftlb
Weight
185kg
Seat height
880mm
Fuel capacity
16 litres
Average fuel consumption
45mpg
Tank range
140 miles
Insurance group
12
Engine size
798cc
Engine specification
8v parallel twin, 6 gears
Frame
Tubular steel
Front suspension adjustment
45mm inverted forks, no adjust
Rear suspension adjustment
Single shock, preload and rebound damping adjust
Front brakes
2 x 300mm discs
Rear brake
265mm disc
Front tyre size
90/90 x 21
Rear tyre size
150/70 x 21





KTM 990 Adventurer Specifications
Top speed
140mph
1/4-mile acceleration
11.03 secs
Power
115bhp
Torque
71ftlb
Weight
196kg
Seat height
855mm
Fuel capacity
19 litres
Average fuel consumption
48mpg
Tank range
150 miles
Insurance group
17
Engine size
999cc
Engine specification
8 valve, 75 degree V-twin
Frame
Steel trellis
Front suspension adjustment
Fully adjustable
Rear suspension adjustment
Fully adjustable
Front brakes
2 x 305mm discs
Rear brake

Front tyre size
120/70 17in
Rear tyre size
180/55 17in





Last model 2003 Aftica Twin Specifications
Top speed
110mph
1/4-mile acceleration
13.9 secs
Power
61bhp
Torque
46ftlb
Weight
202kg
Seat height
860mm
Fuel capacity
23 litres
Average fuel consumption
38mpg
Tank range
190 miles
Insurance group
12
Engine size
742cc
Engine specification
6v V-twin, 5 gears
Frame
Steel perimeter
Front suspension adjustment
Preload
Rear suspension adjustment
Preload, compression
Front brakes
Twin 276mm discs
Rear brake
256mm disc
Front tyre size
90/90 x 21
Rear tyre size
140/80 x 17




The Africa Twin is 10 years older than the other 2 bikes, and as such I believe will be far easier to fix.
The Africa Twin, gives far greater driving range that any of the others.
However the Africa Twin, because it is older, is also a little heavier.
BMW = 185 kg
KTM = 196 kg
AT = 202 kg

In the big picture, the Africa Twin isn't that much heavier.

In view of all the information, there is but just one sensible choice, and that gents, is the Africa Twin.

'vette

given the choice of those 3 bikes, I would probably have taken the KTM myself.

__________________

Personal Insults Deleted...

Now I like the R80gs. I like that a lot and would have gone that way except for a couple of factors. One, they're insanely expensive now, presumably because of their excellent reputation for reliably, durability and simplicity. Secondly, if I was to get one I would face a major overhaul of bearings and gear to prove it (purely to myself) and third it's just old tech. Not that I think that old tech is worse, far from it it's just that my modern 650 single gives the same power with a far lighter overall weight and similar reputation for reliability while giving far better fuel economy. I couldn't justify swapping it in.
I did look into KTM when i was shopping for the right bike. Specs wise I ended up opting for the F800gs which is the absolute perfect adventure bike... until you own one. Then the flaws start to show up, the forums are now full of the minor faults and major ones too. Crying shame, it had so much potential. To ride, the KTM is a good bet but I don't think I could ever trust it. I'm heading a long way from home and every modification i make to my bike is in the order of having one less thing to worry about. I've ended up going for a bike with major design drawbacks but a solid reputation. A year into owning it and it's proved to be very durable and I'd be stupid now to change it.

PS... MCN details are not very accurate. The F800gs delivered and average of 65mpg around town and the 880mm seat height doesn't include the fact that after riding 50 miles you feel like you've got pure evil nailed to your arse with rusty tent-pegs. Also the power delivery is odd so the BHP figures don't feel accurate.

Like you I cant help doing stuff to the GS - mine it now weighs in at less than 185kgs, has 43litre tank so massive range, puts out 65hp at crank (54 at back wheel and Torque at the back wheel of 72nm from just over 2000 revs and stays at that to over 6000, loads of other mods and front and rear suspension upgrades puts it up there with many modern bikes and averages 51mpg but I have had well over 60mpg on leisurely long runs on tarmac (55mph steady) and its better than almost any single two up which is important to me. Oh and when i bought mine she was about £2400, I have spent about £4,500 on her over the years to get her to where she is now and she has also covered near to 100,000 mile ( complete engine rebuild upgrade and modification in last year was Large amount of that money - still a lot cheaper than a new or replacement bike.)

just my 2 cents on ktm reliability:

I have 70.000 km on a ktm 990 2006, never had any major issues (just the clutch slave cylinder replaced and main relay that burned) services (yeah quite expensive) always done on time and regularly.

if you check this guys they left for a trip around the world: ktm 990 more than 100.000 km (62000 miles) with no problems (they list all the spares and services done, look yourelf)

http://www.ride-the-world.net/wordpress/?page_id=14〈=en


Ktm 950 and 990 have few well known (all minor) issues. if you know them you can leave for a round the world trip 100% assured that you will come back.

Have a look to the last 10 years Paris-Dakar all won by Ktm and count how many Bmw's are there ( the number approaches zero), experience in raids definitely goes also in production bikes (and Meoni probably the greatest driver ever was riding a ktm 950 in paris-dakar).

Data reported from MCN is definitely wrong, a ktm has a 21 inches front wheel (90/90/21) and a 18 inches rear (150/70/18)

i definitely agree that are heavy bikes even more with panniers and some farkles but the only alternative IMO is a mono.

That's great but again, anecdotal evidence. Of the people I have spoken to and the articles I have read I don't trust KTM and had to rule them out as a reliable travel machine.
The Dakar is a lousy test of a bike these days. The backup crew, the modifications to the machine make it all about who is throwing the most money in a pot. I read an article about a man entering without a backup crew, just one man, a bike and a toolkit, not that was a good test of a bike and a man.
As I said before, KTM make great competition machines, that's what they build but they don't transfer well to adventure touring because to KTM reliability, maintenance, economy and durability are secondary concerns to performance. Nothing wrong with that at all but it does mean they don't suit me.

@adventure950
That's great, a lot of gains in power. I have a 650 single for my trip this year but a change in circumstances means my partner is tagging along through a trip around europe so now I'm a bit torn and wish I had a reliable boxer. I love the boxer, it rides like a big single, loads of torque and puts all the bits you need to work on exactly where they should be. Sadly the modern ones are overstuffed with toys that break down so the ones like yours are the ones to have. Of course now I've committed to this bike so we have to make the best of it. I would prefer to be on a bigger machine, the R1100gs still calls me. That's a lot of cash to spend on upgrades but I know what you mean. I got my single for £3200 but it's selling for about £2500 now and I've spent that again on bolted on goodies and still she wants more. Bloody bikes. Mine still has a lousy 9.5 litre tank and a 5l auxiliary so my range is poor. I get 200 miles plus reserve.

Not sure if I believe that, the OC riders on advrider.com are getting more like:

* KTM 35mpg (US) (200 mile tank range for 22L tank); whilst the,
* BMW 50mpg (US) (200 mile tank range for 16L tank).

The BMW is much more economical for not much less powerful.

Having said that I'm still considering the KTM over the BMW (fuel, maintenance and cost notwithstanding) for everyday duties (including the odd trip). 'Rotax' 990 V2 in a motocross frame - damn that is one sexy bike.

If I was contemplating a RTW - reliability, simplicity, cost become very important factors . . . . and than it is really hard to look past a DR650 et al - just not as much fun to ride.

Dont sell short the more interesting bikes.

Who said "Fun to ride" should not be part of the equation?

Why cant a bike be lightweight, and fun to ride for a RTW bike?

Whats wrong with thinking "no KLR and no DR ... too boring"?

Whats wrong with spending a little more and building up a modern lightweight, performance big single like a 690, and actually have fun riding it, rather than just using a bike as a deadbeat mule to simply transport you and your gear?

For me, "fun to ride" and "excellent handling" are now essential parts of a RTW bike. And simplicity is overrated.

__________________