economy

I have the BMW R1150R and I usually average around the 18klm per litre

 

My 1000cc yzf uses about 5% less fuel than my 250cc zzr.

GB

 

117.00 a liter? What's it run on, duty-free single malt?

-----sharks

 

My ZZR1100 gets around 15-17 kpl loaded up when touring.

 

"Rod Bacon" wrote

So why didn't you just say that the GSX14 isn't quick enough for you,
and you want MORE power, rather than make up some lame story about
needing better fuel economy?

Theo

 

Well it *is* a Jag, "only the best, thanks old chap".

JL

 

Actually,they use far less petrol than your bikes...

Postman Pat

 

Last time I filled my Jag was in November.

Al

 

Hmmm well I compared the fuel useage of typical 4x4's with 7 seats
against that of a 7 seat people mover and decided that saving 5 litres
every 100kms (when I do an average of 30,000kms a year in the people
mover) was worth it.

I also looked at the fuel consumption of works 3 falcon wagons and
compared it to that of typical 4 cylinder sedans (corolla, lancer &
pulsar), then looked at total depreciation costs and decided next time
I'm buying something other than the typical aussie 6's for the work cars.

People do make comparisons across vehicle classes Theo (at least some
people). I'm one of them...


G-S

 

A Golf 2.0TDI (most common example of high tech euro diesel available
out here) does _not_ use less fuel than my Diversion 900 (no I wasn't
being silly and comparing the car to a 250.

It may well use less fuel than some thirsty bikes, but they average
about 6litres/100kms (at least my mates one does).

The Divvy used about 5litres per 100kms.


G-S

 

Fuel consumption is normally quoted in litres per 100kms.


G-S

 

*and again*

Fuel consumption is normally quoted in litres per 100 kms.


G-S

 

Uses less petrol though.

-----sharks (nice one Pat)

 

Well, good for it. In certain circles, acceleration is usually measured
in seconds per standing quarter mile ...

Anyway, the proper SI unit is probably kg/m ...

-----sharks (sub 9 second quarters ... downwards ...)

 

Count that as a whoosh!

 

It doesn't mean anything to me unless I convert it to MPG.

 

Who said anything about power?

The benefit I'm speaking of is smoother acceleration, no sputtering, no
flatspots. The stock ECU map leaves a lot to be desired. The default
GSX1400 map in the PC3 smooooooths things right out, and definately
helps economy.

If a few extra horses come with it, so be it.

And no.. it's DEFINATELY not too slow for me.

 

Yah... *sigh* [1]


G-S

[1] Not the first time, won't be the last time!

 

I don't have a problem with people using miles per gallon because the
was the standard way of quoting imperial fuel consumption.

The standard way of quoting metric unit fuel consumption for motor
vehicles is litres per 100 kilometres.

All it does when people don't do it that way is make it more difficult
for people to compare consumption figures and waste time.


G-S

 

But most people who ride bikes (that I've conversed with) tend to think
in terms of how many K's they get to a tank, and hence km's per litre is
both the obvious and logical way to consider consumption.

I don't follow conventions if the conventions aren't useful.

JL