Motorcycles and fuel economy: the good, the bad and the ugly

All of my bikes have done some miles to a tank. The Bandit was a bit
thirstier, the KTM seems slightly more frugal. But, generally, some
miles. To a tank. For some money.

HTH.

 

I used to measure mine in giggles per gallon. Never bothered about
consumption only tank range and laughs.

 

The best single tank mileage I ever got on a road trip was while
returning from Laguna Seca to Santa Barbara, CA on my GT750 two-stroke
triple.

This was no 55 mph economy run, the Water Buffalo loved to cruise at
80 to 90 mph where it would actually lean surge at a quarter
throttle...

I filled up in Salinas, and didn't stop anywhere along Highway 101,
and I had the prevailing wind at my back all the way down the Salinas
Valley to the Gold Coast.

I thought I might run out of gas, but I didn't go onto reserve, as I
descended from the top of the shortcut San Marcos Pass (saves 15
miles) into Santa Barbara.

Total 222.25 miles / 4.5 gallons = 49.38mpg = 4.76 Liters per 100 km

http://www.convertworld.com/en/fuel-consumption/Liters+per+km.html

 

SC engines run at less than stoichiometric - something like 20:1, IIRC.
Didn't know NOx was a problem, though.

 

The fuel economy argument in and of itself is a red herring. Arguments
for motorcycles as clearly superior usually fail to include the extra
costs associated with bikes, including but not limited to lower tire
mileage and increased replacement frequency to maintenance costs, extra
required gear to lessen the safety gap and that in many parts of the
world, the bikes end up getting 0mpg while parked during the unpleasant
months.

 

Wotcha.

<<waves>>
90+ mpg out of the B33.

 

Small cylinders are generally more efficient than large ones.

 

Then you should consider lower adquisition cost, lower parking cost, and
consider the time they save as a highly negative cost (which can be easily
calculated as long as one knows how much earns per hour). Riding pleasure is
more difficult to estimate in terms of money.

At the end it is a matter of total cost of ownership per mile.

 

No, it's not.

The OP wasn't a question about economy. It was a technical question.

 

My Hornet 600 was pretty poor on fuel - under 40mpg when ridden harder but
not much more than 45 when treated gently.
It was certainly worse than the Thundercat it replaced.
The only efficient two wheeled vehicles I've had have been modern Vespas.

 

What've you done to get 300bhp out of yours Ace?

 

It came that way. It's the 3.6l version in the R36. Big load-lugging
4wd estate, so it doesn't half surprise other drivers when you floor
it.

Mind you, I did once try that on a motorway split when a BMW was
coming up in the outside lane, only to find he kept with me all the
way, then breezed past when I pulled across. How are you supposed to
recognise an M5 from the front anyway?

 

So do SC engines use a cat, then? I thought they did.

 

A recent mag had an article about future engine developments and
included direct fuel injection and ultra-lean-burn; variable valve
timing and lift; variable displacement/cylinders; variable compression
and variable stroke.

 

Parking cost? What parking cost?

Time saved? You mean like the time saved by the couple of hours to do
an oil change (including getting the items, doing the job and disposal
afterwards) as opposed to paying $15 for someone to change my car's oil
in 20 minutes while I read the newspaper and drink complimentary coffee?

 

Not too technical to see that $400/pair every ~10,000 miles for bike
tires vs $250/4 every ~50,000 miles for a car pretty much alone kills
the economy debate anyways, even before you throw in the
eleventybillion-dollar-an-ounce super-duper-ultra-mega-uber-synthetic
oil people seem to have this perverted fascination with these days.

Just another case of widespread selective memory on actual ownership costs.

 

I park the bike in front of my office. Colleagues coming by car have to rent
a parking place in the city center. That's a grand a year.

What you are talking about is negligible, and not what I meant.

I mean the time saved in my daily commute in traffic jams. Motorcycle is 50
minutes a day less than public transportation an 35 minutes less than car.
That is some 150 hour a year, near a month salary. It is a month of labour
time I can evote to other things, and that has a value.

If you talk about $ costs you probably live in a car-oriented country, but
there is a fucking planet out there which is not always like your country.

 

Not my fault your government taxes you up the ass, no vaseline, for
anything and everything from TVs to being able to use the roads. I
guess they have to pay for those 4.5M government owned and monitored
security cameras somehow...

 

Mine need them every 40,000 or so, at a cost of $220 including mounting
and balancing when I bought them last year.

 

Bought them in Walmart?
http://www.peopleofwalmart.com/?page_id=9804