998 to 1330?

[Tomline]

When, in what model year, Did the engine size change? I have a 2012 rt & it seems I have plenty of power even two up!

[PistonBlown]

2014

[Peter Aawen]

2014

Only on the RT's & the F3 when it came along - they got the 1330 Triples while the sportier models got to keep the revvier engine! ;)

[Bam Bam and Pebbles]

I had a 2012RT and moved to a 2015RT last year. I always thought the 998's had plenty of power, but the reduced maintenance schedules, better handling and a few more perks made the move pay off for me.

[Bob Denman]

Fore years, we screamed for more power, more torque, better fuel mileage, lower operating rpms, and reduced maintenance...

BRP delivered ALL of it, in 2014! :yes::yes::yes:

:D They WERE listening! :thumbup:

[Chupaca]

The year was 2014 on the RT then the F3 came out with the 1330 stock. The 2012 I believe was the last year for the 106 hp 990 series engine and then they dropped it to 100 991 series and the 1330 has 115. Not much difference there but the other factors make it popular with the 6 speed tranny and the lower RPM's and low end torque. Buit I still love making my 106 high revving Twin scream...:clap::clap:

[ARtraveler]

Have owned four with the 998 (two cylinder--one SM and the other three SE ) configuration and one 2014 1330 triple. The 1330 triple wins hands down for me. I like the quieter (less revvy) operation and the longer maintenance schedule. :yes:

[4 MARIE]

998 to 1330 ? don't get out much, huh?

[Bob Denman]

998 to 1330 ? don't get out much, huh?
Everybody has their own level of "content involvement". :thumbup:
It's probably a good thing that we each get to choose for ourselves; just how deep into it we go.

[PistonBlown]

Fore years, we screamed for more power, more torque, better fuel mileage, lower operating rpms, and reduced maintenance...

BRP delivered ALL of it, in 2014! :yes::yes::yes:

:D They WERE listening! :thumbup:

...to RT riders;-)

[ARtraveler]

...to RT riders;-)

How about the F3? I would call that a revised RS in its most pristine form. The upline models start adding the bags and other farkles. :thumbup:

[PistonBlown]

How about the F3? I would call that a revised RS in its most pristine form. The upline models start adding the bags and other farkles. :thumbup:

The F3 did fill a large gap in BRPs line up but it wasn't a replacement for the RS. The erganomics are clearly designed to emulate crusers, as is the styling. The RS sitting position was sports tourer, as was the styling.

And though the engine in theory is more powerful its actually slower than a pre-2013 RS. Offically only 1 second slower 0-60 but when I did some test laps on a road circuit on one it was significantly down on my RS. I did post the resulting times on this site a while back. There were two factors that I think caused this. Firstly second gear was guttless, and for the twisty NZ roads this slowed the F3 out of the corners. Secondly the feet forward sitting position meant I couldn't move myself around in corners to keep nanny happy.

The F3 is a great bike and I can see the appeal, particularly in the states. But it doesnt meet my requirements.

[Rob Rodriguez]

The F3 did fill a large gap in BRPs line up but it wasn't a replacement for the RS. The erganomics are clearly designed to emulate crusers, as is the styling. The RS sitting position was sports tourer, as was the styling.

And though the engine in theory is more powerful its actually slower than a pre-2013 RS. Offically only 1 second slower 0-60 but when I did some test laps on a road circuit on one it was significantly down on my RS. I did post the resulting times on this site a while back. There were two factors that I think caused this. Firstly second gear was guttless, and for the twisty NZ roads this slowed the F3 out of the corners. Secondly the feet forward sitting position meant I couldn't move myself around in corners to keep nanny happy.

The F3 is a great bike and I can see the appeal, particularly in the states. But it doesnt meet my requirements.


Well said.

[Peter Aawen]

Well said.

Ditto! :thumbup:

I don't believe the F3 was ever intended to 'replace' the RS or the ST - it simply satisfies those who like the Cruiser style of rydes & ryding, yet it ignores the significant number of riders who either don't WANT that sort of Spyder or can't manage a Spyder with that seating position. If anything, dropping the sportier Spyders in favour of the broader range of F3's has probably alienated at least 1/3rd of their potential market, but it may convince some RT ryders to move across to F3's & might get some 'new' Spyder Ryders who wanted a cruiser or a 'self optioned' bagger to buy.... Maybe they are planning on dropping the RT's next..... :dontknow:

[Jim&Teresa]

Yes, the 998 was a good engine with no issues from my viewpoint. The 1330 triple was available on the RT starting in 2014.

However, we wanted a more "touring" feel for the bike, smoother, lower rpm's, etc. Well, we decided to trade our 2012 RT Limited in just a little over a year after we bought it to a 2014 RT Limited - best move we ever did for what we wanted.

It's all what you want and what you are happy with. If you are happy with your 2012 RT with the 998, stay with it. It costs us some significant $s to make the upgrade to the 2014, but we are much happier for the following reasons.

1. It met more of my expectations of a "touring" machine.
2. Much smoother and lower rpm's at highway speed. Less vibration/noise ....
3. The 1330 engine is fantastic and that powertrain has an additional gear - 6 speed vs. 5 speed.
4. We have experienced better fuel economy with the 1330 vs the 998, especially at highway speeds. To me, that indicates the RT was underpowered with the 998 engine.

You should test drive a new model RT if that's what you want so you can do the comparison yourself. We have about 35,000 miles on our 2014 RT Limited and enjoy it greatly!

[ARtraveler]

The F3 did fill a large gap in BRPs line up but it wasn't a replacement for the RS. The erganomics are clearly designed to emulate crusers, as is the styling. The RS sitting position was sports tourer, as was the styling.

And though the engine in theory is more powerful its actually slower than a pre-2013 RS. Offically only 1 second slower 0-60 but when I did some test laps on a road circuit on one it was significantly down on my RS. I did post the resulting times on this site a while back. There were two factors that I think caused this. Firstly second gear was guttless, and for the twisty NZ roads this slowed the F3 out of the corners. Secondly the feet forward sitting position meant I couldn't move myself around in corners to keep nanny happy.

The F3 is a great bike and I can see the appeal, particularly in the states. But it doesnt meet my requirements.

You make very good points. I can't argue them and win. :bowdown::bowdown: