What gas mileage?

did a 300+ mile this last weekend and saw at the worst 48 and a best of 52, oh yea I'm on a 97 vfr too. Carbs ROCK!

 

Fuel economy (FE) is HIGHLY dependent on the speeds/loads you ride (i.e. route and style).

If you are the type of rider to blitz hole-shots from each redlight, chances are your FE will suffer.

I was getting 30 - 35mpg when I rode the VFR solely as a weekend twisty machine. A lot of heavy throttle twisting going on there.

Now that I have been commuting on the VFR on my 35 mile (one-way) trip to work, I have been averaging 45 mpg regularly on premium fuel (93 (R+N)/2) .. I am going to start running 91 octane from the Sunoco and see how that effects the mileage. The route I ride is about 10 miles of local and limited access highways and 25 miles of open highway where traffic regularly runs 80-90mph. The highway portion of the drive has some significant elevation change. <My gear/bag and I probably weigh 210lbs and my VFR is stock with the exception of a TBR Titanium low pipe.>

My '04 HEMI Durango would get 20 mpg (according to the trip comp.) on flat hwy, and it only avg'd 18 on the hwy portion of my commute due to the hills.

That's about a 10% change, so I wonder if the VFR can really average 50 mpg on flat hwy.

Back to my wknd chores (it's raining)...

-S

 

About 46 MPG on my 2nd generation 700, but I take it pretty easy.

 

All this talk about gas millage and no one asks to see a photo of the Wolf under tail exhaust? Come on guys you're slipping.

 

My 98 was getting 38 mpg with K&N filter and D&D exhaust. I changed to Mobil 1 synthetic oil and, I kid you not it went to 45 mpg! I thought it was a fluke but after 4 tanks of fuel it is still 45 mpg.

 

Interesting...might be worth a shot to go synthetic.

 

K&N, Staintune & Honda Dino GN4.

Last fill up: 197.7 miles @ 4.091 gallons = 48.32MPG

This is pretty much what I've been getting for the last 8 years & I DO NOT baby this bike, at all.

KC-10 FE out...
lane: :usa2:

 

This fill up, I actually tried to get good mileage. Same as above, K&N, Staintune & Honda GN4.

205.4 @ 4.11 gal = 49.89MPG

This represents my new best MPG ever. I know I can get 50MPG + at least once.

Based on the piss poor MPG my POS F-150 gets, if I ride to work exclusively for 1 month, I save enough money to buy a set of Continetal Road Attack from Ride Direct.
Continental Road Attack - Ride Direct - Motorcycle Tires, Parts, Accessories and more - www.ridedirect.com

KC-10 FE out...
lane: :usa2:

 

I just noticed that those of us on 5th gen Califonia bikes are getting an average lower fuel economy. I use my VFR for commute and I have a few hills to climb before I get to the freeway, I ride consistant at 75 mph and average 43 miles per gallon with stock exhaust and K&N air filter. Just wondering if the dumb emmision crap is killing our economy out a bit??

 

I'm getting 47 mpg on my 60 mile work commute running 70-75 mph.

 

I just bought an 87 f2 specifically for less expensive means to get to work, but I'd do a happy dance :rofl:if I were to get 45-50. Mind you my busted up jeep gets 18, so it would save me more than $200/month.

 

I've been getting a consistent 43mpg out of my bike. All stock except for a Jardine pipe. I should check the air filter, maybe that'll give me a boost =P. Anyone know how to defeat the CA emissions crap?

 

Ive been watching my mileage pretty close & Ive got 5 reciepts here. 3 are 42 MPH, one is 43 MPG & one is 45 MPG. its a 98 & has a slip on & nothing else. Im a slow poke driver. I do about 70 MPH & sit in traffic a bit. Im going to swap the plugs & filter here soon as well as do the valve adjustment. typically I put Super in it.

Bob

 

If it's a Kommiefornia model, it will absolutely get worse MPG than a non-Kommifornia. I would think somewhere in the neighborhood of 10% - 15%.

KC-10 FE out...
lane: :usa2:

 

yeah you can think the cali eco-nazis for that one. california is known for having the strictest vehicle emissions laws in the country, with texas being second. the difference is that cali actually mandates that every vehicle sold in the state have additional emissions gear on it (mind you, ANY emissions gear is going to rob the engine of performance and horsepower). they dont seem to really care about the fact that all this additional BS on their vehicles makes a truly negligible difference, but i guess the fact that they screw all their residents makes the masses of cali feel a little better about themselves.

 

I find that ironic, we are gonna save the environment by reducing emissions, but get way worse fuel economy. It's kinda like are gun laws too. Most are feel good laws that were written by people who really know nothing.

 

Remember many years ago as a kid regularly reading my fathers Popular Science Magazines leading with "new" engine design stories for example the Stirling engine that held much promise but never went anywhere mainstream.

What would be better is if a real technogical breakthrough with the internal combustion engine made so efficient it produced the same drivable power with much better fuel economy and no need for costly performance zapping external emission devices eg Cats etc.

 

This is so freaking true. I hate my F-150 since it has no power & gets lousy MPG. I was going to buy a GMC DuraMax. I have no NEED for a diesel, I just WANT a diesel. That's based on the ridiculous power they make & the ease of making even more power for relatively little $$$. A friend has a 2004 Chevy DuraMax & he gets 23MPG-25MPG all day. When he tows his 4 place enclosed bike trailer, he get 17MPG. When he tows his dual PWC trailer, he gets 20MPG. I figured the new DuraMax would be just as good. As it turns out, this is not the case. Mandated by the current federal emissions laws, the new 2007.5 & up DuraMax has a diesel particulate filter & some other new tech gizmos on it. The cost for this new engine is $8000 on the option list. That doesn't include the $1600 madatory Allison 6 speed transmission, so in reality, it is a $9600 option. Every so often, the computer revs up the engine & dumps raw diesel directly into this filter to burn the soot out. This results in flames, quite literally flames, occasionaly escaping the tail pipe. Because of this DPF & other crap, the new DuraMax's only get about 16MPG-17MPG. Modding them for more power is harder & more expensive. Now, since the MPG is down & they cost more money, there is now way in hell I'm buying a diesel. All in the name of "Clean air", the EPA & CARB have ruined the main advantage diesels brought to the market. Now, even though they have cleaner emissions, it is negated by the 30%-40% more diesel they need to burn in order to be that clean. This is freaking retarded.

Since the new Chevy/GMC 5.3 with the 3.42 axle & 2WD can easily return 20MPG during normal driving I would have to be legally insane to purchase a DuraMax. GM is also offering a $5000 rebate on all Silverado's/Sierra's at the moment. The 2009 truck will feature a 6 speed auto. As soon as I get home from this deployment, I'm ordering a new 09 GMC Sierra. Anyone want to buy a 2005 Ford F-150?

KC-10 FE out...
lane: :usa2:

 

preach on KC, preach on!!!

youd be surprised all the hokey crap that youre pouring into your gas tank lately. if you were to compare the unleaded gasoline we have today to the unleaded gas we had in say, 1990, youd all probably projectile vomit at the piss-poor quality of fuel that we are being forced to use. the govt mandates the blend of the gasoline, which has been getting progressively less efficient, and all in the name of "burning cleaner". what theyre either failing to notice, or possibly failing to even care about, is these so called "improved" blends give EVERY vehicle less miledge overall, hence we have to burn more gas. isnt that kinda counterproductive?!?!? wouldnt we want an ultimately efficient blend of fuel, regardless of the emissions, so we burn as little as we possibly could? oh wait, that would help the economy too much, and line the pockets of the oil execs less. damn, how dare i come up with something like that.

next, lets touch on the farce that is corn ethanol. this is a subject i could rant about all day long. who here knows that corn is one of, if not THE most inefficient source of ethanol that is out there today? it produces less energy return when burned than any other ethanol made. AND WE'RE USING IT HAND OVER FIST!?!?! WHAT THE HELL!? this is even FURTHER dragging our miledge through the mud, and for what? so some asshole corn farmers and a few lobbyists can have a few extra bucks? somebody go to these lobbyists, punch them in the face, and cram a report on Cellulosic Ethanol down their throats (and also teach them about sugar ethanol, too!).

it scares me, how far up their rears that the eco-nazis have planted their heads, and it scares me even more that theyre winning the battle against common sense.

if i had my way, my truck and bike would see nothing less than the 1990 blend of super unleaded, with NO ethanol in it whatsoever. TAKE THAT, ENVIRONMENT!

 

I regularly get 220 miles before the low fuel bar blinks on my stock 2000. Mixed riding styles.