Fuel Milage

Post by **towerworker** » Tue Sep 05, 2006 7:02 pm

I'm not asking for a poll or replies---just thought this was interesting. Made a trip down the Blue Ridge Parkway sunday afternoon with some friends. Was riding two-up with my wife and had cases packed for an overnite stay in Roanoke. Riding mostly around 50 or so and most of the time in 5th and sometimes 4th gear. Only rarely hit 6th and then not for very long. Had to do the math twice when I filled up before heading back home monday morning (in the rain I might add) got 56.2 mpg on the trip down the parkway. I realize 45 to 50 seems a pretty fuel efficient speed but never thought I could get that kind of milage fully loaded.(and I mean fully loaded!)

Wayne
03r
Staunton Va[/b]

Post by **DSKYZD** » Tue Sep 05, 2006 9:11 pm

Riding style has the most effect on mileage.

I get my best mileage 2 up.

DSKYZD

R4R&R · Post by **R4R&R** » Wed Sep 06, 2006 6:36 am

I've seen the same results of constant low speed rides. I too experienced about 55MPG on the BRP a couple of years ago - I went through a whole tank of fuel on that road, maintaining about 50mph. I was thinking my low fuel light bulb burnt out.

My daily commute is about 18 miles each way with some city driving in there. I think between warm up times and the low speed shifting it brings my average mpg down to about 44 per tank but when I go on a road trip it will increase drastically (even with my type of riding). I think because of the constant riding without the engine being turned off/on and the stopping.

NorseMan9 · Post by **NorseMan9** » Wed Sep 06, 2006 7:42 am

towerworker wrote:I'm not asking for a poll or replies---just thought this was interesting. Made a trip down the Blue Ridge Parkway sunday afternoon with some friends. Was riding two-up with my wife and had cases packed for an overnite stay in Roanoke. Riding mostly around 50 or so and most of the time in 5th and sometimes 4th gear. Only rarely hit 6th and then not for very long. Had to do the math twice when I filled up before heading back home monday morning (in the rain I might add) got 56.2 mpg on the trip down the parkway. I realize 45 to 50 seems a pretty fuel efficient speed but never thought I could get that kind of milage fully loaded.(and I mean fully loaded!)

Wayne
03r
Staunton Va[/b]

My mileage is typically nowhere near as good. That's probably because I run the bike around 4500 to 5000 rpm regularly and my trips are relatively short with a lot of shifting and speed changes. I usually get between 35 and 38 mpg.

Post by **sjbmw** » Wed Sep 06, 2006 8:30 am

I get better mileage long haul 2 up with camping gear than I do fully unloaded.

geothepencil · Post by **geothepencil** » Wed Sep 06, 2006 9:32 am

Due to no gas stations able to pump across Ontario a while back and the need to conserve as much as possible, we got 52 or so MPG from an 02 R/R and an 03KRS. When you drop down in speed, those mpgs are quite possible. Normally I get 42 or so with the R/R.

geo

Samiam · Post by **Samiam** » Wed Sep 06, 2006 3:42 pm

Interesting that this should come up today. I recently did a 65 mile jaunt on a limited access 4-lane road, using mid-grade fuel to see if I would get pinging and how the mileage would be. I got 49.13 mpg riding as gentlty as possible and cruising at 65 mph, with no pre-ignition. I've been using mid-grade since then.

Today I filled up, and my riding on this tank has been town traffic, some local errands and a couple of trips into town. My mileage this time was 48.35 mpg. This includes some hard acceleration, very little top gear work and no thought for economy.

When I was using super-premium, I was getting from 40 to 45 mpg with one tank (my very first one) getting 54 mpg. Oh, I just turned 5,000 miles today so maybe mileage improves with miles?!? I may try a tank of regular soon just to check pinging and mileage.

Post by **boxermania** » Wed Sep 06, 2006 4:02 pm

Samian

Yes your mileage will improve as the engine "losens-up", or also referred as broken in.....

BTW, differences in Octane rating will not improve your mileage any all grades have the same caloric value, in BTU's that is. The additive package tha increases the Octane might provide for a better running bike in line with your riding habits.

johno · Post by **johno** » Thu Sep 07, 2006 4:40 pm

The MPG debate doesnt apply to us Aussies, as our gallon has 4.55litres in it, as aposed to yours at 3.9?
What sort of economy per litre? That way we can comment.

I usually get 18.5ks/litre.

Panzerleder · Post by **Panzerleder** » Thu Sep 07, 2006 11:01 pm

Samiam - You may want to keep in mind that you could be getting detonation without actually hearing it -- especially with all the racket these engines make, the wind, traffic noise, etc. It's a false economy to try to save a few bucks on high test and wind up ruining your engine. The manufacturer requires the use of high test for a reason. Just a thought ....

Samiam · Post by **Samiam** » Fri Sep 08, 2006 6:39 am

The reason I'm experimenting with fuel grades is not so much to save a few pennies per fill-up but due to comments I've seen on forums regarding carbon build up. If the additives to stop detonation also result in incomplete combustion (in an engine not requiring that additive) it makes sense to use a lower octane.

I really question the whole carbon build-up thing but I don't want to take any chances. I want this bike to last for many years.

Panzerleder · Post by **Panzerleder** » Fri Sep 08, 2006 1:34 pm

"The reason I'm experimenting with fuel grades is not so much to save a few pennies per fill-up but due to comments I've seen on forums regarding carbon build up. If the additives to stop detonation also result in incomplete combustion (in an engine not requiring that additive) it makes sense to use a lower octane."

The internet (and these forums) are great resources, but they are also the source of more misinformation, paranoia, and downright foolishness than you'll find anywhere. If additives to stop detonation really did result in incomplete combustion you'd get backfiring, sooty exhausts, and lousy fuel mileage. If anything, they do precisely the opposite -- i.e., result in more complete combustion.

Carbon buildup can best be addressed by giving your engine an occasional shot of BG-44 or the like. These chemicals, used on a regular basis, do a marvelous job of keeping valves and pistons as clean as a baby's bottom.

tor1150r · Post by **tor1150r** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 10:00 am

sjbmw wrote:I get better mileage long haul 2 up with camping gear than I do fully unloaded.

Ditto here,
I got excellent mileage riding 2-up and fully packed.
The 'frugal' spot seems to be 90 km/h, 5th gear - which is 3500 RPM.

There was a point when I thought the fuel light wasn't working, but it finally came on at the 305 km mark.

Riding solo with my buddies, the light comes on at around 275 km.

I was getting 50 mpg on our trip - regardless of fuel grade (used 91 Oct and 87 in the remote areas due to availability)

Arbreacames · Post by **Arbreacames** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 8:39 pm

My experiments with octane are even more radical than Samiam's. I tried low grade and my mileage increased by 10% and no detonation. So I now use almost exclusively low grade. Interestingly, I sometimes hear a bit of pinging at full throttle when the engine is not fully warm (which I should not be doing anyway). When warm, I get no pinging at all. I assume that when cold the timing is more advanced?
On the recent Hungry Mother State park ride with others from this forum I consistently got 51 mpg or better on low grade over several tanks.
The better mileage on low grade is not that much of a surprise: the best mileage is technically obtained just short of pinging.
When I know I will be commuting and riding in town, I use midgrade to avoid that occasional ping.

priapismic · Post by **priapismic** » Tue Sep 12, 2006 1:30 pm

On my recent summer trip to Colorado, I was getting some amazing gas mileage. While I routinely average around 42-44 mpg down at sea level, on long trips I will often get to 46, 47, even 48 mpg. Once I started riding at higher elevations, I was surprised to find my gas mileage routinely exceeding 50 mpg; one tank returned an amazing 55.99 mpg!

I thought at the time it was some combination of altitude and that oxygenated 10% gasohol crap that they sell up there. I hadn't considered octane grade before, but now, after reading some of these other posts regarding octane levels, particularly the observation from Arbreacames about octane grade, perhaps my increased mileage was due to the amount of "lower" grade fuel I was using. In the mountains of Colorado, "regular" gas is 85 octane (much too low for our boxers), "mid-grade" is 87 octane (what passes for regular where I live), and "premium" is something around 90-91 octane. Since my '04 is recommended to use 89 octane, I figured it was a waste of my money to constantly use 90 or 91 octane, so I mixed tanks - at one fill-up, I would top up with 87 octane. At my next fill-up, which was ususually way before I needed to fill up, I would top off with 91 octane. I continued this mixing of octane grades at alternate fill-ups throughout my visit to the Rockies. Now methinks that perhaps using the 87 octane might have had a bigger influence than I first thought. Hmmmm .....

Years ago I knew a retired Shell Oil chemist who told me that mid-grade will yield the poorest fuel economy of all the grades sold in the US. I may just try running a tank or two of 87 octane and see if a.) I get better mileage than my usual 42-44, and b. if I notice any pinging. If I DO notice pinging, that'll be the quick end to THAT experiment. Pinging is deadly to your engine. I'm just wondering if I'll even hear it? My hearing ain't worth a crap any more, and I always wear ear plugs ...

Post by **NoRRmad** » Tue Sep 12, 2006 1:40 pm

On a recent run on the Chief Washakie Trail through Wyoming, where each town posts its altitude along with the population figures ("Population -- 98, Altitude 8149") my low fuel light came on at 224.0 Miles, and when I filled it up -- with only 3.999 gallons -- the odometer read 230.3. Works out to 57.59 MPG. I think the altitude makes a big difference; less oxygen to burn, so the computer leans the mixture, and less air to push aside at cruising speed, so less power needed. Along the BRP the situation might be similar.

Panzerleder · Post by **Panzerleder** » Tue Sep 12, 2006 3:13 pm

Priapismic -Because of the high altitude in the Rockies, engines require less octane to make the same power. Thus, gas formulated for that region is lower in octane rating, but gives you the same power as higher-octane fuel at sea level.

jfbarron · Post by **jfbarron** » Tue Sep 19, 2006 12:57 pm

Pulled over for gas in Nova Scotia, at sea level and the odometer had logged exactly 200 Km. Put in 10 litres of gas. That is 20 km per litre.

10 litres of gas is 2.641721 gallons US.
200 Km is 124.2742 miles.

So is works out to 47.043 miles to the US gallon. That was with lots of luggage, one rider and a two lane twisty road being moderately thrashed in gears from 3rd to 6th.

That seem like pretty good fuel mileage to me. Bike had about 8500 km on it at that point.

Post by **scottybooj** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 10:51 pm

I get 30-35!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

even on long distance rides, my fuel light would hit, at the LATEST, 175 miles.

m49512 · Post by **m49512** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 9:05 am

same for me... 30 - 35

BMW R1200R R1150R/T F800 K1200R R1100R/T R1250R RnineT Message Board

Fuel Milage

Fuel Milage

Re: Fuel Milage

gas mileage