Better MPG

[Mister Moo]

...a hi of 62.

62 mpg over a complete tankful?

[arp]

My last fill up was 5.0 US gallons to the bottom of the red filler neck (as per the manual) with the bike level on the center stand. That is the second time I've put in 5 US gallons. Range was 202 mi and the prior fill up was done the same way, so 40.4 mpg. The computer showed an average of 41 mpg and 25 mph in mixed riding (highway, city, stop and go, 2nd and 3rd gear twisties, lots of figure 8's in parking lots). The fuel stip (my 4th) indicated the remaining range was 13 mi ... but the manual says I should not rely on that .

[Newportcycle]

I turned just over 1000 miles over the weekend and I'm averaging around 45mpg, not to bad for new engine, I'm hoping to see some improvement. The MPG indicator seems rather accurate, and I was suprised that MPG at highway speed was in the high 30's. My fuel strip was dead 30 miles from showroom floor.

[xprof]

I once got over 60 mpg for 30 miles at 50mph at sea level, and 27 mpg at 100+mph at 4000 feet, for what it's worth. With my standard level of throttle-twisting I get 42 mpg overall and 44 on highway only. My fillips are on the side stand and are almost always well over 5 gallons, up to 5.8 when squeezing it hard. I usually look for gas at 220 miles, and at 250 miles I drop speed to 55 and start praying.

[Mister Moo]

...My fillips are on the side stand and are almost always well over 5 gallons, up to 5.8 when squeezing it hard. I usually look for gas at 220 miles, and at 250 miles I drop speed to 55 and start praying.

+1

So, a few tanks with the little screen says fuel consumption hasn't changed that much - up maybe 1-2 mpg. Taking off the bags means more to mpg than a large screen vs. small screen. And why be surprised? Even with the large screen gone my body is still there. Best mileage will probably come from small screen, no bags and no driver.

[ammolab]

On mountain roads around home at 7000 ft and limited to about 65MPH I have been seeing 59MPG for about a year.

Just took a 800 mile run to Texas coast at avg speed of 60MPH...a lot of 75MPH stretches. Average MPG dropped to 49. Still beats my K75C which does 44MPG on Highway runs.

[deilenberger]

Think wind..

Today on a ride - went one way on an Interstate highway at umm.. well a bit over legal speed.. and there was a steady 20MPH wind out of the east. Had lunch, then went the other way.

Going west (wind off the back) - 6th gear at 75 or so - instant MPG reading - about 52MPG.
Going east (wind on the front) - same speed, same gear - instant MPG reading - 44 MPG.

Other than the head/tail-wind effect, bike was the same, muffler clamp torque wasn't changed, same fuel, same rider. Big difference in MPG. I have a 20" CeeBailey G1 screen on my R12R, tilted back a bit to eliminate turbulence. I might have been 2lbs heavier on the way back since we were returning from lunch. I was just curious about the effect of the wind, hence the instant MPG readings (reset while riding.)

Best I've ever seen is a little better than 55MPG over a tank. That was when the bike was new and I was riding the Blue Ridge in VA/NC, not too much over the speed limit (45MPH) and not taking it above 4,000 RPM a lot. Had about 250 miles on the tank when I filled it and it took around 4.5 gallons. That was when I still trusted the fuel strip (first one hadn't failed yet.) When I got gas the fuel computer was telling me I had 40 miles left on the tank.

My conclusion is - I don't worry about it a bunch. It almost always is better than 45MPG, and any higher than that is a bonus.

[David R]

I have been experimenting. Instead of filling with 93 octane every time I have been buying the mid grade which is usually 89 or 91. fuel Mileage has gone up about 3 mpg every tank full.

I started this test because the back of my muffler is black and so are my lower plugs.

At 6,000 miles I switched the plugs thinking maybe the lower plug needs to be hotter. Then I decided to try the mid grade fuel thing from 6,000 miles to 9,000 (between oil changes) I am at 8500 miles now so I will know in a week if the lower plugs come out better or not.

Last night I ran home on back roads averaging 50 mph in 5th gear. Average fuel read out was 51 mpg, an all time high for me. This was on a 200 mile ride.
At 80 mph average readout is 40 mpg. I have a true barn door for a windshield, Parabellum.

I do get an occasional ping with the mid grade fuel which I feel is normal.

David

[rad]

I started this test because the back of my muffler is black and so are my lower plugs.

Last night I ran home on back roads averaging 50 mph in 5th gear. .

David

Well, I would guess this is why your plugs are black. That is really luging an R motor.

[Don C]

I just got my best mileage from a tank of gas so far, 236 miles showing when the low fuel lamp went on. I usually get to 210. This was with more highway riding than is usual for me, but there was a week of in-town commuting also. I think that the new Scout fairing is making some difference here.

[David R]

I started this test because the back of my muffler is black and so are my lower plugs.

Last night I ran home on back roads averaging 50 mph in 5th gear. .

David

Well, I would guess this is why your plugs are black. That is really luging an R motor.

Am hurting it?

David

[rad]

I don’t think any motor, other than a diesel, is meant to be lugged. You don’t have to be bouncing off the rev limiter but you should try to operate any motor in an rpm range where the motor does not start to carbon up.

The problem with the R (the BMW opposed twin motor, not just the R bike) motors for years is that they have just so darn much torque down low in the rpm range it is easy for someone coming off a Japanese bike, especially if water cooled, to run the BMW at too low an RPM.

At the speeds and gear you were at you were most likely running at times under 3K rpm, very low for an R motor for extended operating.

My experience is that they really respond well and run well when they are kept closer to 4K rpm and above.

Just my take on the subject

Best of luck
conrad

[deilenberger]

I started this test because the back of my muffler is black and so are my lower plugs.

Last night I ran home on back roads averaging 50 mph in 5th gear. .

David

Well, I would guess this is why your plugs are black. That is really luging an R motor.

Am hurting it?

David

Nope. On level ground that's just fine.

[deilenberger]

I have been experimenting. Instead of filling with 93 octane every time I have been buying the mid grade which is usually 89 or 91. fuel Mileage has gone up about 3 mpg every tank full.

I started this test because the back of my muffler is black and so are my lower plugs.

Normal. The bottom plugs don't run as hot as the upper plugs. Have always seen a tiny bit of soot on mine when I replace them. The inside of the muffler is normally black. If it wasn't - the engine would be running too lean, and that's not a good thing.

At 6,000 miles I switched the plugs thinking maybe the lower plug needs to be hotter. Then I decided to try the mid grade fuel thing from 6,000 miles to 9,000 (between oil changes) I am at 8500 miles now so I will know in a week if the lower plugs come out better or not.

Last night I ran home on back roads averaging 50 mph in 5th gear. Average fuel read out was 51 mpg, an all time high for me. This was on a 200 mile ride.
At 80 mph average readout is 40 mpg. I have a true barn door for a windshield, Parabellum.

I do get an occasional ping with the mid grade fuel which I feel is normal.

David

I would be a tad concerned about the ping. The R1200R has dual knock sensors and a fast ECU. If it pings it is supposed to retard the ignition timing until the ping goes away. It typically does this so quickly that you never really hear the ping (at least I don't.) If you can make it ping, say by holding it at a particular throttle position in a certain load condition, I'd be thinking you might be better off with premium. The system IS supposed to be good enough to compensate for crappy fuel, but it sounds as if yours isn't.

[David R]

Ah yes, the beauty of the camhead. Its got torque way down there at low RPM. Usable torque.

I upgraded from a 2000 oilhead to the newer more modern camhead for a lot of reasons. One of the biggest was my oilhead ran great around 4,000 RPM but vibrated a little too much. The camhead, and I understand all hexheads, are much smoother at 4,000 RPM which is where the engine likes to run.

What I liked to do is run around in 4th gear on the oilhead for better engine performance, quicker response and a little more engine braking.

SO when I bought this bike, I drove it that way. What a hoot. Smooth as can be. The thing is this motor has much more torque below 4,000 RPM that it does not NEED to be in a lower gear, it just runs. Twist the throttle and it goes no matter what gear its in.

For the ping, I can hear ONE ping, then it adjusts and keeps going. Knock sensors are working. The book recommends 91 octane R+M/2 method. Here all that is available is 87, 89, or 93.
Back in the old days when we power timed things set it (advance) until it pings, then back off just a little bit. The occasional ping is normal to me.

I am not afraid to run the twisties at 60 mph in 3rd gear or even take it up to 100 mph in 3rd which is just to the rev limiter. I have even lofted the front tire in 3rd but the traction control kicked in and set it back down before I had a chance to. I will report on my pugs at the 9,000 mile mark when the test is done. I will probably still run the mid grade fuel. It says right on the tank, premium 89 minimum octane.

Gotta go to work.
Enjoy the day and your bike