how much do the 1100 bikes go thru in fuel compared to the 250's?
In our family: YMMV 150cc Scooter (4-Stroke) 4.2L/100Km - Mostly cruising @ 110km/h 2 up GN250 Suzuki 4.1L/100Km - Medium Throttle 110km/h cruising + City work Honda 900 Hornet 6.5L/100Km - Medium Throttle, some cruising 120+, Some squiding
Jasmoto, my 1400 gets 8L per 100 Km if I ride like a pussy, and 12L per 100 Km if I go hard. So an average of 10 would be close.
Hmmmm...it's new right? Could still be a little tight I guess, but those figures seem too high to me. Maybe they set the FI to uber-rich during run in. Some guys on the net are reporting 5.2L/100Km for a GSX14, after all they are a really, really detuned oldskool air cooled engine, not exactly a superbike performance engine. Maybe they are just ineffecient with the air-cooling?
Just done a comparo of litre sports bikes and combo riding (commute, transport sections, freeway, twisties) shows in and around 7 litres per 100 km for all of them ck
Nonsensical question. Apples and oranges. My 250cc 2 stroke consumes more fuel when flogged through the twisties than my 1 litre twin does. My 2 ton 5.3L V12 sedan uses less juice on a highway run than my 1.2ton 2.6L V6 did (gearing,awd vs rwd, and rev range). My g/f's cbr600rr gets marginally worse fuel economy than my 1L twin in a mix of highway and windy roads (ie Sydney to the Oxley and back). But when we swapped bikes for a highway stint I got better fuel economy on the CBR than she did on the raptor (and she's 15Kg lighter than me before anyone makes the smartarse comment). Bottom line, a sporty 250 won't cost a lot to run. A big heavy 1100 might. A light one might not. You any the wiser ? JL (are you hammo ?)
The fuel cost isn't really the one you need to be most aware of for that comparison, as other are pointing out, its not nearly as much different as the difference in engine size suggests, _BUT_, ask about tire consumption... I get ~20,000km out of a set of sports tires on my Spada (250cc) @ about $300/set. I get about 20,000km out of a set of sport touring tires on my Monster (a low hp 750cc) @ ~$450/set. My flatmate once had to stop in Newcastle on the way home from Brisbane to replace the rear tire that was brand new when he left for Brisbane 5 days earlier - he'd got maybe 2000km out of it - thats on a Hayabusa though, which might just be the worst possible case for tires life... big
Bandit/GSXR1100/GSX1100F(G) type motors have always been fairly heavy on fuel if you aren't gentle with the throttle, I see no real reason why the GSX1400 should be any different G-S
I've spoken t a few people since posting my figures, and mine is s little on the heavy side (so am I). I've just ordered a PC3 and booked a dyno, as I suspect the ECU map is a little off.
"Rod Bacon" wrote You're going to spend what, $250 on a dyno to save $1 a week on fuel. Hmmmm... Theo
Not really. I was going to do it anyway. It's just a coincidence that this topic started today. I have change my muffler and air filter, and it's not 100% right any more, even after I've had the stock ECU tweaked a little. benefits from the improved map the PC3 provides.
You cant go wrong with a PC3, please report back your experiences RE: fuel consumption after the fitting. Oh an HP figures too
No they don't, they look at specific vehicle consumption within it's class. There are a large number of different classes within both capacity groups that have wildly different consumption rates because they have wildly different design parameters. In some the 1100 will use more than the 250 and vice versa - it's the wrong comparison parameter. So by all means question "is a 4 cylinder sporty 250 cheaper on juice than a 2 cylinder sporty 250" or whatever. I have not however seen a review that compared a Nissan patrol's consumption with that of a Barina (except in a tongue aside of "don't expect it to be as light on juice as a Barina") No I didn't, I pointed out the "intuitive"(1) answer was a "yeah maybe, but maybe not". Hence the "you any the wiser" JL (1) Intuitive to the non-cognescenti who will generally, I assume (going on available data), make the assumption that bigger capacity equals worse consumption (which may or may not be the case).
