Random question: what is considered good mpg for a motorbike?
Just curious.
Bike Forum
[closed]
Random question: what is considered good mpg for a motorbike?
-
Posted 1 year ago #
-
Depends, over 100mpg for a small chicken chaser, teens/single figures for a tuned two stroke.
What kind of bike?
Posted 1 year ago # -
No idea.
Just wondered how a mid range bike (not a superbike) but a decent bike compared to an "eco-car" (diesel).
Random observation: I don't see many motorbikes these days when I drive to work. Tis 30ish miles there (too far for me to cycle
).Fuel prices, my own commute + seeing less bikes, got me thinking how good-a-mpg can a motorbike achieve?
Posted 1 year ago # -
they're surprisingly rubbish...
don't expect more than 50mpg, DO expect a lot less.
Posted 1 year ago # -
I get ~50mpg from my 1500cc cruiser, ~100mpg from the 125cc Vespa, and roughly 30mpg from my old 600cc sportsbike.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Yeah so the 1500cc is similar to a good mpg for a car
100 mpg good lord (the 125cc)
Posted 1 year ago # -
I used to get about 45mph in general use from my Deauville (650cc V-twin) and 50mpg on touring trips. My CBR600 was usually in the low to mid 30's (sub 30mpg if I was in a hurry!) and my CBF1000 in the low 40's.
Little 125cc 4-stroke's can do 100mpg+.
Posted 1 year ago # -
My Aprilia Tuono averages low-30's mpg. But then it is a gurt big V twin and I do like to use the power I paid for
Wouldn't have one as transport, but as a weekend toy it's superb!
Posted 1 year ago # -
Im surprised just how inefficient they are.
Is it lack of development in the engines or something intrinsic to motorbikes?
Posted 1 year ago # -
A little 400 will get you into the 55 mark, but the newer commuter style 'peds are are geting up 80/90 i believe.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Used to get 110-120 mpg out of my 1977 Honda CG125, back in the heady days of 80p a litre petrol. Filling it up was simply loose change, every 200 miles or so.
It's amazing I'm still alive though, all things (e.g. drum brakes) considered...
35 mpg out of my 600cc 4 cyclider Suzuki Bandit though.
Im surprised just how inefficient they are.
Is it lack of development in the engines or something intrinsic to motorbikes?
I think it's got something to do with the drag coefficient of a bike + rider, compared to that of a car. Think: recumbant vs bicycle.
That and maybe something to do with the small size of the rev-happy engines on a 'bike. Maybe some thermodynamics laws going on there too..? Size, heat, efficiency etc...? It's laws of physics, rather than development, per se
Posted 1 year ago # -
Stoner - Member
Im surprised just how inefficient they are.Is it lack of development in the engines or something intrinsic to motorbikes?
They do get a lot of bhp per litre though, much more than a car.
Most modern 1000cc sports bikes put out 160+ bhp
Most 1000cc cars seem to only put out 50 - 60bhp.
Posted 1 year ago # -
that just means you can go quicker though. Surely the force required to move a bike at 70mph cant be anything but less than the force to keep a car at that speed. bhp isnt necessarily the be all and end all.
passat blue motion: 65bhp/l, 73bhp/ton, 64mpg
Posted 1 year ago # -
Stoner - Member
Im surprised just how inefficient they are.
Is it lack of development in the engines or something intrinsic to motorbikes?
One of the issues is that bikes are not generally ridden in their most efficient rev range - or if you do then you are riding very fast and thus using lots of power
Peak torque( which IIRC) is where the engine is most efficient maybes 8000+ rpm
This is why the cruiser gets good MPG as its tuned and geared to have peak torque at lower road speeds and revs
The other aspect is poor aerodynamics
My 1100 cc BMW used to do mid 30s but I did tend to ride it flat out
Posted 1 year ago # -
Triumph 955i - hardly ever dips below 45mpg. Doesn't seem to really matter whether it's round town, motorway or enthusiastic riding on country roads. I think that's not too bad!
Posted 1 year ago # -
I got about 95mpg from the 125, even though it travelled absolutely everywhere with the throttle pinned completely open. My 650 can be convinced to return about 60mpg by very conservative riding but that goes down very, very fast with faster use (partly my fault, it wasn't so inefficient in standard tune). The true average mpg is somewhere mid 30s, it's less efficient than my car. Then again my car can't do 0-60 in under 4 seconds.
Stoner - Member
Is it lack of development in the engines or something intrinsic to motorbikes?
It's direction of development rather than lack of- the emissions standards are lower and the market (in the UK at least) is very sportsbike oriented, so economy takes second place to performance. The point of comparison for the most popular bikes isn't family cars, that's a bit like asking why Ferraris are less fuel efficient than a VW Golf.
Posted 1 year ago # -
My f800GS, gets an average of 60mpg, dropping down to 50 when offroad, the big saving for me is the time the engine is running, as with the bike your travel time can be half that of a car, - big saving over a few journeys
Posted 1 year ago # -
slightly OT
Saw some nice triumph bikes in the motor museum at Coventry a few weeks ago.
Triumph Bonneville
I think there is a modern equivalent. Can't remember the cc, no idea how much those cost or the modern equiv.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Is it lack of development in the engines or something intrinsic to motorbikes?
A large part of the answer is given by how 'efficient' (perhaps 'optimised' is a better phrase) car engines have become in recent years once manufacturers were given an incentive to deliver these improvements. As yet the incentives aren't there in the bike industry to provide the motivation to improve efficiency.
Given the constant performance related innovation in all components I doubt it would be beyond the industry's engineers to focus on lighter weight and improved engine technology to deliver greater efficiency if they were tasked with doing so - even given the comments others have made above about the potential limitations imposed by physics.
Oh, and typically 30-40mpg for me with the bikes I've owned.
Posted 1 year ago # -
If you're considering a bike for economic reasons you'll need to bear in mind that other running costs can be significant; Tyres won't last anywhere near as long as those on a car and service intervals are usually much shorter. You may also find that your journey time isn't significantly shorter either but it will be more consistent as you won't be so affected by traffic. If you want a cheap commuter get something like a Honda CB250, it'll do do 80mpg and 90mpg (not at the same time) be cheapish to insure, easy to manoeuvre in traffic and not overly nickable. You'll also need quite a lot of expensive clothing if you're going to commute in the winter and include the time taken to change at either end.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Im surprised just how inefficient they are.
Is it lack of development in the engines or something intrinsic to motorbikes?
As said, its not really on the 'spec' list.
But with bikes they pretty much do the same mpg however you ride them, except for totally mental. The endurance raced Honda V4's use to average 25mpg, and win.
My old zx9r would do pretty much 40mpg whatever the circumstances, only time you'd get less is if I was seriously pushing it/'racing'. My current 1050cc Triumph averages 50mpg on a fast (100 mile round-trip) commute.
If you want economy, buy something smaller and don't thrash it.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Not looking at getting one.
But going by this the mpg could be significantly better.
Insurance will surely - they don't care if you die
Presumably a new bike costs a lot less than a new car. Same with 2nd hand.
Important point about services intervals and tyres though. But how bad is the tyre wear?
Posted 1 year ago # -
The days of motorbikes being a cheap form of transport seem to have long gone, unless you're going to ride something small.
My 08 Fireblade used to do around 140 miles on 17.7 litres and my current SP1 does around 110 miles on 18 litres.
I usually need a new rear tyre every 2000 miles at £150(ish) and a lot of bikes need servicing every 6000 miles.
My wifes CBF125 is really good on fuel, however it's pretty much game over at 50mph and it has 2500 mile service intervals.
It's good on tyres though, the rubber will be probably be perished long before it's worn out!!!!
Posted 1 year ago # -
Im surprised just how inefficient they are.
Is it lack of development in the engines or something intrinsic to motorbikes?
As said, its not really on the 'spec' list
surely tourers should be specc'd for efficiency?
I have a hankering one day to go for a tour on something like an africa twin (despite being a motorbike noob), but are they not designed to cruise efficiently?
Posted 1 year ago # -
Stoner - Member
Im surprised just how inefficient they are.
Is it lack of development in the engines or something intrinsic to motorbikes?
As said, its not really on the 'spec' list
surely tourers should be specc'd for efficiency?
I have a hankering one day to go for a tour on something like an africa twin (despite being a motorbike noob), but are they not designed to cruise efficiently?
I've never had a proper tourer, but I've had a few VFR800's which were good on fuel even when cained. I used to get just over 200 miles from my last VFR no matter how fast I rode it.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Tyre wear depends on the tyre and the bike. Sports bike might only last 2000 miles, and they're a lot more expensive than your standard car tyre. Tyres on the cruiser are cheaper and manufactured with long distances in mind I guess, and they're like new after 9,000 miles. As in 10mm+ tread depth new. It never goes fast enough round corners to build up a significant amount of wear, and it's far too heavy to be wheelspinning. Servicing is an oil & filter change every 5000 miles, which I do myself. Costs about £25 all in. It's shaft-driven so no chain wear to worry about, and has a self-adjusting camchain. Only bit of regular fettling is the brake pads, due to the weight of the bike. Again, they're about £40 for front and rear, and I do them myself. Apart from that it's virtually maintenance free. Insurance is only £230 a year, and tax is £70. All in all, a very cost-friendly method of transport.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Ye, Flying Ox what would be a sensible commuter motorbike with reliability and running costs in mind rather than ragability?
Posted 1 year ago # -
The days of motorbikes being a cheap form of transport seem to have long gone, unless you're going to ride something small.
My 08 Fireblade used to do around 140 miles on 17.7 litres and my current SP1 does around 110 miles
Hondas are notoriously rubbish on fuel. Quote from a dealer "Triumph, 50 miles per gallon. Honda 50 miles per tank."
He wasn't far off either, I could get 44mpg average out of my Speed Triple.
----------------------------------
I've always worked out the fuel consumption of my bikes:
CB500s (Not a slow bike) got 54mpg average and I once got 65mpg out of it.
Speed Triple as mentioned 44mpg, possible over 50, just under 200 mile tank range
Ducati Monster 696 52mpg, and that's thrashing it everywhere!
Old CG125 about 115mpg. Used to get bored waiting to fill it up.
Current Vespa GT200, 72mpg
Sportsbikes rev like crazy and drink fuel, but Ducatis seem to be very economical in general. A 996 will easily do 40-45mpg whereas the equivilant Honda SP1 or SP2 will be low 30s.
A Duke ST2 will do 65mpg fairly easily apparently.... Posted 1 year ago # -
Conqueror.
I know lots of people would think I'm crazy for suggesting it, but I'd be hard-pressed to argue for anything other than my cruiser: Kawasaki Drifter 1500. It's very large and so not predisposed to nipping up the middle of a queue of traffic, but it's cheap to run, and it's VERY loud so you're always going to be noticed by that traffic. Think safety: Loud Pipes Save Lives, and all that. It's also extremely comfortable for the longer journeys.
The alternative, if you're talking about urban commuting, is a scooter. My Vespa is awesome for just zipping into town for half an hour, but doesn't have quite the same road presence of something like the Drifter so you have to really own the road to stay safe.
Joe Average would suggest something like a Suzuki GS500. They're the bike of choice for 99% of motorbike training school for a reason.
Posted 1 year ago # -
If you are commuting on a bike, a question for you:
Q The car in front has its right indicator on, what does this mean?
A Logically, the only conclusion is that the light works...My bike saves me an hour a day, I make £50ph - it doesn't matter that it costs the same as my car to run.
Posted 1 year ago # -
I've got a 1200 bandit and 1000 firestorm. Neither does much over 30mpg. I had a 900 Ducati which did about 45mpg. My enduro bikes did about 20mpg.
Posted 1 year ago # -
ZZR 1100
240 miles on 20 litres
5-8 k on tyres£110 insurance....
Not too bad and it saves time per day. Not as good at commuting as Orangina's XT 600 though...
Its on 4 carbs not injection and I guess it shoves a lot of fuel it if you try.. !
Posted 1 year ago # -
Motorcycle fuel economy is as varied as the bikes you can buy.
I've a got a Honda 650 single cafe racer that does 50-75mpg. A lot of modern bikes can't get close to this.
Honda's new CBR250 is meant to do 70+mpg but I used to have a Honda CB250RS from the early eighties that made more power and gave more economy - but perhaps it didn't have a cat or meet current emissions standards?
I've got a Suzuki RGV250 two stroke that struggles to return more than
28mpg and drinks a £12 bottle of synthetic two stroke oil every 5 tank fulls. A commuter bike it is not.A Honda C90 or the modern version an Innova will do about 140mpg and 55mph
Posted 1 year ago # -
My Bros 650 does 2 hrs/tank on an open road. My Yamaha RXS100 (2-stroke) that I dispatched on did 80+mpg in town and could reach 65mph coming back from Paddington towards Ealing (it used to be 50mph limit, now down to 30 I believe).
Posted 1 year ago # -
I've got a Honda Bros, and I did think it was about 65mpg, but I've just looked at the conversion chart into UK mpg, and it seems to be less than 60mpg!
Here's the graph if anyone's interested:
(red is imperial, blue is US)I get about 250kms/12l = 21km/l
I'm surprised how inefficient they are, given the power to weight ratio.
Posted 1 year ago #
Topic Closed
This topic has been closed to new replies.
