• There were many reasons for the change of the site software, the biggest was security. The age of the old software also meant no server updates for certain programs. There are many benefits to the new software, one of the biggest is the mobile functionality. Ill fix up some stuff in the coming days, we'll also try to get some of the old addons back or the data imported back into the site like the garage. To create a thread or to reply with a post is basically the same as it was in the prior software. The default style of the site is light colored, but i temporarily added a darker colored style, to change you can find a link at the bottom of the site.

2014 versus 2013 RT-S

Given the circumstances, do I buy the 2013 RT-S or hold out for a 2014?


  • Total voters
    74
  • Poll closed .
"Real Gas" ?

Having just spent 6 wks ridding my 13 RTS SE5 and enjoying the Blue Ridge area of the country, I must say I am much more impressed with it than I was on the FL flatlands. Plus with "real gas" I got 35 MPG having a blast!
OK, I gotta ask this... What do you mean by "real gas". Are you talking about high-octane, and does that make a difference in mileage? With mid-octane gas, I'm getting about 28 mpg on my Limited. Can there be that much difference in mpg between the RTS and the RT Limited?

Rob
2013 RT Ltd.
 
Hi Dave,
There's more going on here than you've given BRP credit for:
The new charging system; the new 1200 watt alternator puts out a whole bunch more juice!
The new clutch engagement system makes keeping the revs sp a strictly personal choice now! :clap:
The added gear in the transmision that's now possible due to the new triple's powerband and output...
And of course; the new cooling system. :bowdown:

No doubt; both model years ride on the same great chassis... :thumbup:
They both still look great too! :D

Well in my eyes the Spyder engine includes the tranny. Why would anyone need the extra gear how far above 100 do you need to go? How many ever use it? True about the charging system but I have not read about many stator issues. I have grown to enjoy the extra revs personally and coming from a Wing I assume the 14 is more like it...boring. With all the reported little bugs on the 14 you are right about not giving them credit they did not deliver a trouble free engine. I believe it was supposed to be on the 13 and they took an extra year to iron out the bugs but still have them crawling about. JMHO but down the road in a few years I may re evaluate my desire for the 1330 but get more satisfied with what I have as I get more used to it. Seriously the power band and output are not that much better it may seems so because you get a little more torque lower in the band with less rpms but max torque on both is close enough to the same considering the extra engine weight.:dontknow: I have been looking for the 0-60 times, the 2013 is 4.5sec, but BRP has not released it on the 14 nor have any of the reputable reviews mentioned it.
 
OK, I gotta ask this... What do you mean by "real gas". Are you talking about high-octane, and does that make a difference in mileage? With mid-octane gas, I'm getting about 28 mpg on my Limited. Can there be that much difference in mpg between the RTS and the RT Limited?

Rob
2013 RT Ltd.

I should have said "Pure Gas" and the link says it.:thumbup:
 
Hi Dave,
I was HOPING that I'd get a chance for a little bit more Give and take" on this one with you! :2thumbs: :D
Engine/Tranny... fair enough; I won't ding you on it again for neglecting to differentiate between them... :opps:
But... the 6th gear is VERY useful; given the Triple's powerband, and subsequent redline...
It wouldn't work with the 998s at all... it was never designed to be "backwards compatible" with that engine...
But I would like to see the hydraulic clutch lock-up system used in the other bikes...
It would save on a lot of clutch plates and long faces, when clutches wear out early!

Oh! The powerband...
The 1330 is putting out as much torque from 2000 rpm to redline, as the 998 does at it's peak...
My opinion only; but that sure seems like a "little more"; than a 'little more"...
1330 Torque.jpg Sorry for the arful "screen capture"... :opps:
 
Last edited:
Hi Dave,
I was HOPING that I'd get a chance for a little bit more Give and take" on this one with you! :2thumbs: :D
Engine/Tranny... fair enough; I won't ding you on it again for neglecting to differentiate between them... :opps:
But... the 6th gear is VERY useful; given the Triple's powerband, and subsequent redline...
It wouldn't work with the 998s at all... it was never designed to be "backwards compatible" with that engine...
But I would like to see the hydraulic clutch lock-up system used in the other bikes...
It would save on a lot of clutch plates and long faces, when clutches wear out early!

Oh! The powerband...
The 1330 is putting out as much torque from 2000 rpm to redline, as the 998 does at it's peak...
My opinion only; but that sure seems like a "little more"; than a 'little more"...
View attachment 90282 Sorry for the arful "screen capture"... :opps:

http://can-am.brp.com/content/dam/c...14/Documents/Lineup/2014_RT Spec Sheet EN.pdf


http://www.ridermagazine.com/top-stories/2014-can-am-spyder-rt-first-ride-review.htm/

"While roll-on testing back-to-back with a 2013 RT V-twin at the 2014 launch last week in Florida showed the new RT triple is not appreciably quicker at lower speeds, BRP Project Leader Michael Tissier said the goal was to improve roll-on acceleration from 80-120 kph, or 50-75 mph, and there it does feel stronger and less busy than the revvier twin. The 2014 RT’s top speed is higher, it idles lower at 900 rpm and taller gear ratios drop the rpm significantly at cruising speed. Overall the roadster’s NVH (noise, vibration, harshness) are all significantly reduced, while the triple’s signature exhaust note and feel give it an impressive turbinelike quality, like a cross between a Honda Gold Wing and Triumph Rocket III. I noticed a touch of vibration cruising at 4,100 rpm in top sixth gear, which Tissier attributed to some resonance from the belt final drive."

Regardless of the numbers almost all reviews I have read say the 2014 it is not quicker by much. That chart shows a very choppy torque distribution. Most performance guys like to see a smooth progression( more like the 998) not a jump and fall flat on it's face. I don't do much roll on acceleration at 55-75mph heck most of my riding is not at that speed but the 998 pulls enough there for me. I am sure the added torque in that range would be nice if you need it. $9k nice?:dontknow: I also can appreciate the hydraulic vs. centrifugal clutch engagement I will give you that it is one thing I would like to have. The gears in the 2013 get me rolling more than fast enough quick enough to get into trouble. :thumbup:
 
Dave,
You ROCK!! :firstplace: :2thumbs: :bowdown:
I couldn't find a better picture to compare the torque curves... Thanks! :thumbup:

Can you do me a favor?
Find a buddy, and a 2014 RT...
Now you just need a spot for some roll-on tests.
Pick a gear and a speed, and let the fur fly! :D
It should be fun!
 
4_17_211.gif
That's just, "Too Cool; for School!"
36_1_55.gif
 
Hi Len,
Well; I'd go for the 2014. They ARE that much better... nojoke
The problem is; there's nothing really wrong with the prior bikes either! :shocked:
Since you're paying for the band; it's your call about the music! Happy shopping! :thumbup:


:agree: The 14 is that much better of a ride and two years from now that 14 should be worth much more than the 13 because of the engine and transmission.

Cruzr Joe
 
The truth is the 2014 IS NOT that much better. If you read here long enough you will find they have as many issues as any year has had. Are they an improvement...maybe, time will tell. They are not faster but they get a few more miles per tank. Properly set up there is nothing wrong with the 2013 and it is a good value. There are a lot of fanboys singing the praises of the 2014 probably to justify paying the price tag. The 2013 IS the 2014 with a 2012 engine in it and a slightly improved radiator system. The 2013 does seem to run hot but things can be done to help that. It's orange juice vs pineapple juice to me. The more I ride my 2013 with the mods I have made the gladder I am I did not jump to a 14 and take the big depreciation. Just my humble opinion. Neither of these bikes are a shorts and flip flop ride proper gear and a few mods and they are pretty equal to me.:thumbup:


Dave:

A few more miles per tank???? most of us are getting in the 175-190 range per tank vs 110-125 on the 13's
No heat issues or problems.
Much more relaxed ride because of the 6 Speed Transmission.

although i liked my 13, i like my 14 much better, it is a major improvement over the previous years.

Fanboy ???? :hun: :roflblack::roflblack::roflblack::roflblack:


Cruzr Joe
 
Dave:

A few more miles per tank???? most of us are getting in the 175-190 range per tank vs 110-125 on the 13's
No heat issues or problems.
Much more relaxed ride because of the 6 Speed Transmission.

although i liked my 13, i like my 14 much better, it is a major improvement over the previous years.

Fanboy ???? :hun: :roflblack::roflblack::roflblack::roflblack:


Cruzr Joe
I get 130 -150 on my 13 add a gallon gas can and I am there with you mileage per tank wise and your tank is a wee bit larger right?.6.6 vs. 6.9 gal. I usually fill up at 120 and never see the low fuel light. The 252 MPT claim by BRP seems pretty optimistic no one has said anything near that. I do not want to fall asleep I have grown to like the revving 998 engine. You do know the Aprilla 998 had the 6 speed before the Spyder did? I really do not see the need for the 6th gear I never cared for lugging a bike engine and do not ever plan on going fast enough to need it. It is a cruiser not a crotch rocket. Cruising at 3300 vs.4500-5000 not that big a difference. Once again JMHO The 13's have gotten a bad rap due to some BRP engineering mistakes not the engine or bikes fault they do not know where to place or protect parts properly. I will ask again is the 2014 worth 63,000 miles of gasoline more? :dontknow: At least one fanboy admits he is one ;):roflblack:

P.S. This is like bizzaro world ME defending the 2013 ain't it?

http://www.fuelly.com/motorcycle/can-am/spyder_rt_limited_se5_ 27-30mpg for the 998
 
Last edited:
:roflblack::roflblack::roflblack:, I know, i have called you worse :hun:, just kidding. :roflblack::roflblack::roflblack::roflblack:


Cruzr Joe

No, he isn't Bob. I've heard him say worse. (Or should I say worst to hit a nerve with some of the perfectionist? ) <smiles>

Chris
 
I get 130 -150 on my 13 add a gallon gas can and I am there with you mileage per tank wise and your tank is a wee bit larger right?.6.6 vs. 6.9 gal. I usually fill up at 120 and never see the low fuel light. The 252 MPT claim by BRP seems pretty optimistic

I guess I should weigh in here. Dave, you should read my MPG log if you haven't already:

http://www.spyderlovers.com/forums/showthread.php?63290-2014-RT-S-MPG-Report-for-Texas-(V2-0)

Though I don't push it; it does clearly show that BRP's claimed 252 MPT is accurate. In my log you will see that most of my MPG numbers would deliver 252+ MPT, had I used all of the fuel in the tank. I generally fill up around the 200 mark because it works out for my routine, however you will see in one case where I drove 257 miles before putting in 6.04 gallons.

The higher MPG claim on the 2014 RT can't be disputed.
 
...The more that I love it! :D :2thumbs:
Here's what I've noticed so far:
The transmission operates smoother than a baby's bottom... Like BUTTER!! :thumbup:
That 1330 triple... Where, oh where, have you been all of my life?? :D
45 mph in 6th gear:about 2200 rpm; and it's happy! :clap:
The radio speakers seem to be less "distressed", by the volume levels that I'm cranking through them.
But; I'm getting worred; Do you EVER have to stop and put fuel in these things? :shocked: ;)
At 130 miles; I'm still showing almost 3/4 full on the gauge. :yikes:
The brakes... AND the enigne braking, are a quantum leap forward! I thought that the old bikes stopped real well; this baby seems to use about half as much effort!
I'm gonna have to go take it for another ride today; just to make sure that all of what I've reported is actually true!! :D

OK, because of all the good natured "bickering" here, I had to go down to my Can Am dealer today and ride an RT 1330. Took one out for about an hour to see how many of Bob's claims I could observe first hand. That was, of course, the ONLY reason I went to ride one. It's not that I really wanted to, mind you. ;) My summary opinion, from only an hour ride, is that Dave is right on the net power, but Bob is right on just about everything else. free-fighting-smileys-382.gif

As for smoothness, I probably don't have as much first hand experience with a baby's bottom as Bob, but the 1330 IS Smoooth! It's the first thing I noticed even before I got out of the dealer's parking lot. It wanted to shift at about 1000 rpm's lower than my '13, (no more than 3500 or so on the 1330) and it was indeed smooth as could be. Out on the road there was absolutely no jerkiness to the shifting. Felt almost like a luxury automobile (or perhaps like a Honda Valkyrie or Gold Wing). And it was quieter than the 2013. And there was less vibration at highway speeds. (Although I'm hoping that maybe a laser alignment may prevent that in mine as well.)

I forgot to test the engine braking claim (which means I have an excuse for another "test ride"). But the brakes were indeed much more responsive than the 2013. I'd say that Bob's claim to about half the braking effort is accurate.

Best of all.... THE DREADED HEAT PROBLEM WAS COMPLETELY GONE! No heat coming from the radiator vent and none coming up around the seat to my upper legs. That's the thing that made me the most jealous. That, and the new backrest on the seat, which I loved.

Now the power... Yes, I could tell torque was quite a bit higher on the 1330, but as Dave says, so is the weight. I agree with Dave that the net effect was noticeable, but only slightly so, in my opinion. That, in itself, would never want to make me trade my '13 for a '14.

What I also learned, while at the dealer, is that the 2013's have taken a drastic price cut in the market. Dealers are supposedly selling them for cost, less a $4000 BRP factory rebate. That makes a trade-up a very bad deal for most 2013 owners, especially if they've accumulated many miles. And, one of the dealer reps mentioned that they told him at a Can Am training class that something extraordinary is on the slate for the 2015 model year. They wouldn't give him more details, but he "thinks" he knows what it is. And if he's right, it will indeed be revolutionary.

Rob
2013 RT Ltd
 
Last edited:
How about it Dave; A draw?? :D :2thumbs:

And thanks for taking the time to go get us an biased word on the topic! :firstplace: :clap:

Were we "bickering"? :D
I thought it was more like two brothers; just... talking! :2thumbs:
 
Last edited:
Back
Top