Gas Mileage....?

[crazypaint]

lol checked plugs there good double checked my milage with my buddies trip still got 50mpg with stage 3 jet kit pods and 4into1 v&h pipe running on average 65-70 did 300 and some miles on last ride

 

[noobie]

You might want to look into the trip meter malfunction you're experiencing

I redid the calculation... twice since I couldn't believe it myself Exact consumption was 4.17 liters per 100 km, on Austria Styrian roads Not sure anymore if I was using 95 octane or 100 octane.

Best mileage ever attained on a bike of mine was 66.44 mpg on my '83 Nighthawk 650 which had only 10,000 miles on the clock back then. That was mostly at 65 mph on our Interstate, 130 miles. Only one owner before, when bought it it only had 8900 miles and still only the 2nd set of tires ... front was 16 years old and rear was 19 years old (that was 2 years ago). Not even my '03 Gixxer 750 (can probably say R.I.P. here for the Gixxer) ran as well as this bike does.

 

[Guest]

lol checked plugs there good double checked my milage with my buddies trip still got 50mpg with stage 3 jet kit pods and 4into1 v&h pipe running on average 65-70 did 300 and some miles on last ride

I would double check your math bud :hand:
They didn't do this new with no mods.

 

[tkent02]

I would double check your math bud :hand:
They didn't do this new with no mods.

They could if everything was tweaked perfectly. From the factory they were tuned for power, not mileage. Cam timing was haphazard but aimed at high RPM horsepower, the low power circuits (the ones used for cruising) were too lean, there were a lot of other factors which cost fuel economy. Suzuki just didn't care about it at that time... Speed sells.

I have ridden a 750/1100 hybrid, 4-1 pipe, very well tuned fast bike, got over 50 accurate mpg.

 

[Guest]

They could if everything was tweaked perfectly. From the factory they were tuned for power, not mileage. Cam timing was haphazard but aimed at high RPM horsepower, the low power circuits (the ones used for cruising) were too lean, there were a lot of other factors which cost fuel economy. Suzuki just didn't care about it at that time... Speed sells.

I have ridden a 750/1100 hybrid, 4-1 pipe, very well tuned fast bike, got over 50 accurate mpg.

65-70???
C'mon Tom
:-\\\

 

[tkent02]

65-70???
C'mon Tom
:-\\\

Different bike:

Best mileage ever attained on a bike of mine was 66.44 mpg on my '83 Nighthawk 650 which had only 10,000 miles on the clock back then.

My R1100 gets over 60 routinely, (if I ride it slow enough, like a whole tank riding at night in the rain or something) why wouldn't some smaller Honda?
Again, if it is all tuned perfectly, it could be that good. Or he could have a crappy odometer.

 

[noobie]

Different bike:

Best mileage ever attained on a bike of mine was 66.44 mpg on my '83 Nighthawk 650 which had only 10,000 miles on the clock back then.

My R1100 gets over 60 routinely, (if I ride it slow enough, like a whole tank riding at night in the rain or something) why wouldn't some smaller Honda?
Again, if it is all tuned perfectly, it could be that good. Or he could have a crappy odometer.

Well, whatever it was, I know I paid a little over 8 euro for that trip to the sea, while with the Gixxer I would've paid at least 12 EUR and with the GW about 13 EUR (the thirstiest bike in our collection).

 

[crazypaint]

They could if everything was tweaked perfectly. From the factory they were tuned for power, not mileage. Cam timing was haphazard but aimed at high RPM horsepower, the low power circuits (the ones used for cruising) were too lean, there were a lot of other factors which cost fuel economy. Suzuki just didn't care about it at that time... Speed sells.

I have ridden a 750/1100 hybrid, 4-1 pipe, very well tuned fast bike, got over 50 accurate mpg.

i would never bull**** my favorit turds lol jk but really thats what i got no lies

 

[crazypaint]

that was ment for chef sorry bout that

 

[GTGS]

I get about 45-48 on my 550 mostly riding in town.

 

[Hornswaggle]

Just buzzing around town on my 450 I'll average around 55+mpg. I got 63mpg last Saturday cruising along the Mississippi River between Wabasha and Red Wing in SE MN checking out the sail boats and bald eagles Definately a recommended destination if you are ever in this neck of the woods. And don't forget the twisties on Hwy 60 between Wabasha and Zumbro Falls, a lot of fun.

 

[MikeJ]

Best mileage ever attained on a bike of mine was 66.44 mpg on my '83 Nighthawk 650 which had only 10,000 miles on the clock back then.

Whoa. Would that be imperial gallons, then? Or was that downhill, with a tailwind?

IMO personal riding style, weight, and riding conditions have a lot more to do with actually experienced gas mileage than do minor design variations between bikes. I get anywhere between 35 mpg and 50 mpg on all my bikes, from the big fours down to the 250 twin, depending on conditions. I suppose I could maybe get 65-70 mpg out of the Ninjette (even carrying my 6'3", 280 lb. bod) if I kept it to a steady throttle setting at 55 mph on a flat, smooth road, but what fun is that?

That said, my understanding is that internal-combustion engines are most efficient (i.e. they make the best use of their available fuel being turned into usable energy, which is another way of saying they get better mileage out of a tank of gas) when they are running at or near wide-open throttle. So a little 50cc tiddler running WOT at 45 mph can get well over 100 mpg while a bigger bike, that is barely putting along above idle at that speed, will get much worse mileage. That's also the reason the big thumpers and pushrod twins typically get better gas mileage at ordinary highway speeds than a high-revving four - on the interstate at 75 mph they are running much closer to their designed max engine speed and WOT than a high-revving multi like our GS's would be.

That was mostly at 65 mph on our Interstate, 130 miles.

Steady-as-she-goes does get you the best mileage figures. It's the acceleration (not just raw speed) that eats up the most gas, including having to twist the throttle to get back up to speed after slowing down if you are doing anything other than holding a constant speed.

Only one owner before, when bought it it only had 8900 miles and still only the 2nd set of tires ... front was 16 years old and rear was 19 years old (that was 2 years ago).

Hope you replaced them, even if they had almost all their tread left. Tires that old have hardened and lost their grip, not good for anything but sitting on a museum pedestal, or puttering along at 3 mph in a parade.

 

[noobie]

Whoa. Would that be imperial gallons, then? Or was that downhill, with a tailwind?

US gallons, was using an online calculator.

It was uphill, downhill, facewind, tailwind, sidewind,... Everything imaginable. Plus some of it was also on regular roads, not just interstate (it gets too boring).

That said, my understanding is that internal-combustion engines are most efficient (i.e. they make the best use of their available fuel being turned into usable energy, which is another way of saying they get better mileage out of a tank of gas) when they are running at or near wide-open throttle.

Or at the RPM at which they give their best torque. Imagine riding a sportsbike at all times at at least 10k RPM... My Gixxer had highest torque at 10500 RPM... which means in 1st gear at about 130 kmh (80 mph). Which unfortunately makes it not only unpractical, but also dangerous and illegal.

Hope you replaced them, even if they had almost all their tread left. Tires that old have hardened and lost their grip, not good for anything but sitting on a museum pedestal, or puttering along at 3 mph in a parade.

Um... Took about two years to replace them... put about 3k miles on the old ones. STill had a pretty good grip when they warmed up and the front tire had at least 50% tread still left.

 

[Guest]

That said, my understanding is that internal-combustion engines are most efficient (i.e. they make the best use of their available fuel being turned into usable energy, which is another way of saying they get better mileage out of a tank of gas) when they are running at or near wide-open throttle. So a little 50cc tiddler running WOT at 45 mph can get well over 100 mpg while a bigger bike, that is barely putting along above idle at that speed, will get much worse mileage. That's also the reason the big thumpers and pushrod twins typically get better gas mileage at ordinary highway speeds than a high-revving four - on the interstate at 75 mph they are running much closer to their designed max engine speed and WOT than a high-revving multi like our GS's would be.

I don't think this is true....inefficiency rises at WOT situations, in general. Aerodynamic drag is a huge factor also, esp at higher speeds...drag increases with the square of speed. Gearing too, shouldn't be overlooked as a factor, when comparing twins etc. to the GSs.

 

[tkent02]

The engines may be the most efficient wide open, the vehicles definitely are not.

Specific fuel consumption and gas mileage are two entirely different things.

 

[pwrdbyoreos]

Did we ever find the answer to this? I have wondered the same thing. I have a 1000 with pods, stage three, wide open kerker 4-1 and I can get around 125 miles on 4 gallons.

 

[crazypaint]

wow thats what i get in town when im running mine hard i got a 1100 16v with all the same stuff but my pipe is a V&H with a baffle

 

[Steve]

My only trip out with "Junior", my 850G"K", I got 39.4 cruising on the freeway at about 70 mph on the way to Red River Rally. On the way home, we took the 2-lanes at a slower pace, got about 43 mpg.

OK, "Junior" has now been on another trip, the 'Roo Rally.

We were stopping before the tank was empty, due to limited range on some of the other bikes, but here are the mileage figures for successive tanks:
40.20
42.35
40.74
40.14
43.95
44.12
46.62
40.30
40.84
Remarkable consistency, if nothing else.

My wife's bike joined Simon's on the trailer for the trip home, just so she could sit in the van and visit.
Mileage figures for her bike:
43.62
44.96
49.49
46.00
54.34
then the trailer ride.

.

 

[Skateguy50]

My only motivation for knowing mileage is to not run out of gas, my gauge shows empty at 2 gallons and the reserve setting also goes dry at 2 gallons. With a 3 gallon tank I cant run with just the two and would rather leave it set to ON than fiddle with it while slowing to a stop 3 lanes over on the highway.

Typically I would run for 100 miles and then look for gas, well my worst mileage in a while got me run out at 110 miles... it was a VERY windy day and I was running it pretty fast, but again the miles is the only thing that really shows my my gas level unless I adjust the gauge to read lower somehow.

My solution was to get a small 1 gallon tank and put that in my saddlebag with the toolkit. One side is now the gas can, quart of oil, and tool bag.

Oh and I got a solid 50 mpg on a group ride last weekend doing 55 on back roads, so it does better if Im not doing 80 on the highway into the wind.

 

[Steve]

Oh and I got a solid 50 mpg on a group ride last weekend doing 55 on back roads, so it does better if Im not doing 80 on the highway into the wind.

If you look back, that is EXACTLY what I had posted earlier about my wife's bike.

My wife's 850 struggled to keep up with a large group on the freeway, doing about 75 into a 15 mph headwind. Got about 29 mpg for two consecutive tanks. Later on that same trip, there were several consecutive tanks in the 52-56 mpg range, with a high of 59.
(Actually, it kept up just fine, it just sucked a LOT of gas doing it.)

.