Gas mileage poll. [keep it short!]

It's not an origin thing that keeps the US SAE, it's a slowness thing. Thomas Jefferson first proposed the metric system for the new Weights and Measures department, but mental midgets have hijacked the conversion since. If "origin" had anything to do with our system, you'd think we'd have been quick to stop worrying about the king's foot.

I've been pretty disapointed with the gas mileage on my R. Stock all around, I've put about 500 miles on it (had 2800 miles when I got it) and I get between 45 to 48 mpg. My ride weight is about 205. My mileage is almost all pavement open road with some dirt roads thrown in a little. I didn't think I ride that hard to get that low of gas mileage. Any ideas?

Took note when I filled up today. I reset the trip meter last fill-up. From last fill-up to fuel light on was 76 miles. At first I thought "WTF?!"

I did the calculation just now, based on my receipt, and 76 miles divided by 1.472 gallons equals ~51 mpg.

Mods? The only thing that could effect mileage is the flapper mod. Otherwise, performance wise, I'm stock. I'm at roughly 1700 feet elevation, if anyone cares.

This is all blasting around town; minimal cruising.

motokid wrote:

I believe the 7% error is only on the speed - not the distance.

On my recent 1600 mile trip, I found the odometer is just as screwed up as the speedometer; according to GPS.

JLR2499 wrote:

I've been pretty disapointed with the gas mileage on my R. Stock all around, I've put about 500 miles on it (had 2800 miles when I got it) and I get between 45 to 48 mpg. My ride weight is about 205. My mileage is almost all pavement open road with some dirt roads thrown in a little. I didn't think I ride that hard to get that low of gas mileage. Any ideas?

I wonder if the weight isn't the key to the mileage differences we're getting. I'm about 215 (disgusting, I know) and I get 55mpg on the highway. I wonder how hard it would be to tie mileage to weight in a poll? I suspect a little bike is a lot more susceptible to wide, heavy riders.

Jäger wrote:

deerHater wrote:

I doubt the USA will ever go fully metric, due to its country of origin.

Depends how well the US remembers its history, I suppose, if that really is the issue.

I think the problem is more our national math incapacity and resistance to change. Tom Jefferson first proposed a metric system in the 1700's and we're still debating it. The national metric conversion and the Fairness Doctrine were at the top of Reagan's hit parade when he took office. However, all government documents (highways, buildings, and other measurements) are designed in metric values and most manufacturing companies are totally metric for export reasons. It's only the uneducated public who have to be coddled with familiar values and I don't see that changing in less than two generations. The Left Behind generation is particularly math disabled and they will be even less flexible than my parents' generation was. Gonna be some hard economic times ahead of us.

When I was in British Columbia a few years back, I was surprised to find that many hardware stores didn't stock any metric fasteners. In fact, the hardware stores I visited seemed more like US facilities than stores that belonged in the Rest Of the World. When I worked in manufacturing (1970-2001) I had the feeling that the whole world, outside of the US, was solidly metric. I had to describe dimensions in SAE terms to our assemblers, but all of our documents and tolerances were metric. When I traveled to Quebec and Mexico, that impression was confirmed. So, when I found myself in western Canada in 2007 and 08 and in an SAE world, it felt like time travel (in a bad way). Fuel, however, is distributed in liters all over the country.

65mpg on almost every tank (light comes on at about 98miles)

275 with full gear on, I usually wind it out through the gears at least once per trip. I just don't work it harder than it needs to be. If theres a car in front of me, I short shift and keep with their rate of acceleration.
Mods are:
Powercore 4
FMF programmer set to 2.5 - 4.5 - 0.5
Airbox door off

This is pretty typical for the fuel consumption for me. A few days ago, I recorded the following:

fuel light came on at 119 Kms (74 miles) measured by GPS. Pulled into gas station immediately and it took 5.5 Litres (1.5 US gallons).

That works out to 4.46 L/100Kms (49.3 mpg).

This was achieved with a 50/50 combination of highway riding at 105 Kmh (65 mph) and slower cruising on back roads at 80 Kmh (55 mph), which may have included a few wheelies and lots of hard acceleration. While it could always be better, it sure beats the 15-20 mpg I get with my car.


FMF programmer (3-3-1-5-2-1)
FMF PowerBomb header
FMF Q4 muffler
flapper & AIS removed
13/47 gearing
17" street wheels

The Myth Busters episode was on yesterday where they checked emissions of motorcycles compared to cars.

The gas mileage Jamie got on the stock wr250r was about 56 mpg if I recall.

That was supposedly with a combination of highway and city driving on a closed coarse.
I doubt he was doing wheelies and extreme or even spirited riding.

I think the wind resistance of the very tall wr250 plays a huge part in getting shitty mpg on highways.

72MPG

(200km for 6.5 Liters)

1/2 city 1/2 highway

I think speed has a big impact. I did a run at wot for nearly a whole 3.7 gallon tank and earned a low 40s mpg. Then yesterday I was coming home from a trip and had a tank where speed was almost never above 55 mph and netted 80.5 mpg all gps tracked.
If I keep it around 55-65 mph im in the mid to low 60s.

Mods
Flapper gone
Q4
Programmer stock settings
14-49 gearing
I think your gearing plays a big role too and of course your right hand.

40mpg for me on the interstate, running 75-80 mph. Low 40s under normal "fun" riding half highway half town. I can get 50 when I try to slow down and take it easy. I'm on an 08 X.

I have a 38 mile commute ( one way), 12 miles is interstate, the rest country roads and small towns. Last week my high was 67mpg, today when I filled up it was 64mpg.

Previous owner did the block off plate and removed the EXUP selenoid. I removed the flapper. Other than that it is stock.

75 Mpg (u.k) thats 60 and a bit U.S MPG.
U.K crazy at moment I use degree celsius for most temperature but F for hot weather sometimes., stones and pounds(body weight) kilos for other weights. MM,CM and M for short distance. Miles for road distance. MPH for speed. We really screwed up use both metric and imperial.

I'm still wondering how some people get such low mileage. I'm heavy, tall, wide shoulders, horribly non-aerodynamic. I ride stop and go traffic with speeds up to 65mph. I still get ~60mpg with all my mods and riding fairly spirited (full throttle at least a dozen times per ride lol). Even highway running at 70mph in to the wind I got low 50s. I have NEVER managed to get less than 50mpg on a tank. I don't think I could make it do it even trying. I actually cant remember getting less than 55mpg on a tank.

Perhaps its the regional fuel cocktails? Perhaps its overly rich settings with your fuel programmer?

~53 MPG

Stock WRX, mostly WOT from stop lights but nothing too crazy. ~200 pounds no gear on.


I find it hard to put the same amount of gas in each time when I fill up as just a little more in the tank can affect your MPG.

You guys are making me feel good.

All stock except for FMF fuel programmer.

High around 70mpg, low 60mpg, usually put in 1.4 gallons right around 100 miles.