MPG test on FJR

[dcarver]

The best I've EVER done is 42.

The rest of you need to find the powerband!

I'm lucky to get 34.

But I get there quicker...

 

[zorkler]

i could care less about gas mileage or the cost of gas i am riding the dam thing any chance i get .

 

[Curve2curve]

That is interesting information, and I would love to see the PCIII with the same method. The MPG computers on most vehicles sucks. The only true method of testing would be to refuel each time and calculate the MPG. Lets also not forget that the Speedometer is usually about 3 MPH (unless GPS derived) hot at 60 and exponentially worse on up which in turn would make the MPG worse too. The Odometer should be slightly off also with this problem.

All in all, I really don't care what the thing does at various speeds. I am already riding a motorcycle to help the fuel and emissions problems of the world...Right...I just love to ride a motorcycle I am going to drive whatever speeds keeps me away from idiots on the highway and slightly faster than traffic ALA Cali Highway Patrol method.

All in all though, interesting bit of info!

 

[2006FJR]

I am always between 28 and 35 and usually average 32 the way I drive. I once got 36 MPG on my trip last weekend up to Monterey.

 

[MadDogMcQ]

 

[markanag]

My 03 consistantly gets 43-46 mpg, no farkles except staintune cans. I ride mostly at 70 - 80 mph.

 

[Rogue]

My 03 consistantly gets 43-46 mpg, no farkles except staintune cans. I ride mostly at 70 - 80 mph.

That explains it, do 70-80 around here and you'll be pulling SUV grills out of you butt! we need to do a minimum of 85 to not get run down!

 

[jestal]

I was interested in reading your data about mpg on your FJR. There is one other variable that I didn't see any mention of and that is elevation above sea level. I have noticed a significant improvement in mpg on both my 01 GL1800 and my 05 FJR when riding at higher elevation. I am no engineer, but I assume this is due to the computer cutting back on the amount of fuel delivered in order to maintain the proper fuel: air ratio as the air thins with elevation. Perhaps others would have other thoughts on this.

I know you are going to laugh.....but.....it is the reduced aero drag causing better fuel economy at altitude. The air is thinner and takes less power to power thru it.

The guess about the PCM cutting back on the fuel is not the reason. The PCM will calculate the correct amount of fuel to deliver based on the speed density calculation. That includes the manifold absolute pressure which will always accurately reflect the correct fueling required regardless of altitude.... Since the bike/car takes exactly the same amount of power to move it down the road whether it is at sea level or 10,000 feet (excluding the aero difference for a moment) the engine will have to make the same exact amount of power to move it along thus ultimately need the same amount of fuel and the same fuel economy will be realized. The manifold absolute pressure is a precise indicator of load on the engine and the amount of air (and the density of that air) that is moving thru the intake manifold. All things being equal the MAP would be the same on a level road at sea level or 10,000 feet. But it isn't. Because there is less aero drag. The thinner air at altitude causes less drag so the engine does not have to make as much power so the MAP for a given condition will always be a tiny bit lower at altitude because of this. Since motorcycles have very aero dependent for mileage this effect is more evident on a bike compared to a car. While the frontal area of a bike is much lower it's shape is very drag inducing highlighting any changes in aero due to the thinner air.

 

[James Burleigh]

I've heard that you get better MPG if you run in 4th and 5th gears vs. 2nd and 3rd. I just found out that I have a 5th gear, so I'm looking forward to better mileage.

 

[Flyguy]

MM2 wrote:

Actually, there are many who like the "overall" appearance of the bike. The major design flaws opined by the masses seem to rotate around a few of issues

I think that it is difficult to accurately ***** beauty with a hard on. Be it a speed hard on or whatever. With the bags off it is "coyote ugly" and I fear more than a few will wake up sober and say "what did I do!" And all to get myself a little (very little) piece of unusable speed.

Add to the list the tank and the faring ducts. AND, worst of all the rear view.

I have never critisized the styling of the C-10 as I always thought it was very balanced if a little dated. The 1200GT could use some styling touches to the slab like faring and adjust bars but the rest is quite well done. The ST1300 is very nicely done and probably better integrated that all the rest. I wish the FJR had built in slide protection but I still prefer it asthetically.

my 2

 

[Flyguy]

Sorry that I have not posted the follow up results yet. I have done the runs with the PC III but the results seem to good to be true (65 mph = 59mpg, 60 = 62.5mpg) so I am doing some investigation and retesting. Will be done by 6/2.

 

[Flyguy]

Sorry to take so long but I got some results that I didn't expect so I re-ran the test in some cases twice to make sure I wasn't doing something seriously stupid. The mileage with the PC III actually went UP! One thing that made the test much more difficult was that this time try as I might I could not get a windless day so I gave up. Some winds were pretty brisk and resulted in large variances in the two runs. Ex: at 65 the results show 57.7. The run downwind was 62.2 while upwind it was 53.1 - 9 MPG difference! Anyway, did my best.

Here are the results.

Results:

STOCK PCIII

MPH - MPG......MPG

50 - 59.0.........61.8

55 - 57.8 ........61

60 - 56.5 ........59.3

65 - 54.8 ........57.7

70 - 52.2 ........55.7

75 - 50.0 ........53.1

80 - 48.6 ........50.2

85 - 46.1 ........47.1

90 - 43.4 ........43.8

This one has me scratching my head. If I find out anything I'll let you know.

 

[Clark Kent]

With gas slipping over $3.00/gal and installation of a PCIII days away, I was interested in finding out how what MPG penalty speed caused. I wanted a comparative "before" and "after" so now was the time. I tried to make the test as emphiracal as possible and I believe it is, at least in relative terms.
Method:

I used a running start at the chosen speed. The "average mpg" was reset at the start and recorded at the finish. The test run was 8 miles of very level road that formed a "U" shape thereby negating any wind effect. The throttle lock was tensioned before hitting the reset and there was about a mile runup prior to the startline to settle on the speed.

Conditions:

Bike 2006 FJR AE

Temp 77f

Wind calm

Fuel 78 ron

Tires BT020

Rear 42psi

Front 39psi

Rider 225lbs

Results:

MPH - MPG

50 - 59.0

55 - 57.8

60 - 56.5

65 - 54.8

70 - 52.2

75 - 50.0

80 - 48.6

85 - 46.1

90 - 43.4

After the PCIII installation I will rerun the test and post it here.

I have observed that in checking the actual fuel used in a tank vs the MPG computer that there is a variance that typically exists of 1.5 - 1.8 mpg less.

[SIZE=18pt]SCIENTIFIC :grin: GAS MILAGE INVESTIGATION[/SIZE]

OK, it's good information to have, but how much gas did you waist running the test? I mean, what difference does it really make ?

AND, if it does make a difference, then I need figures for all temps. between 35f and 102f, for the weight of riders between 125 lbs thru 212 lbs., wind speeds between 2 kts and 20kts for angles of 02% thru 90%, all different tires made for the fjr (front and back), tire air pressure range of 3 lbs high and low of standard (front and rear tire), and to be accurate, I'll need the speeds in one mile increments from 25 mph to 75 mph. ( I only go the speed limit). I'll also need the average idle time per hr. of engine operation and type of road surface and crown % of each road traveled, angle and length of inclines and declines, average operating altitudes, relative moisture, barometric pressure, rpms at each shift point, type of gas for each brand, rider's type of clothing, i.e.: baggy or skin tight?, helmet (full face or open face,) amount and type of traffic bike is operating in, size of vehicles in traffic with bike,

angle of lean at each corner and circumfrence of each, brands of oil and each weight and volume used, types of oil filters and length of use, engine temps, weight of bike itself, weight of all items in riders pockets, air vents on jacket and pants open and closed, size and position of windsheild, each type of plug and age of plugs, each type and age of air filters, with each after market parts (for weight and air resistance), number of bugs on windshield and body work, etc.

If you ran all the above tests in each possilbe combination it would take years and thousands of gal. of gas for the tests. And what does it prove, that we would ride our bikes even if the milage was poor.

If we really cared about milage, we would NEVER:

1. make jack rabbit starts from a light.

2. go over the speed limit

3. rev the bike when stopped at a light

4. do wheelies

5. spin a tire

6. participate in a "speed contest"

7. go on a twisty to get home when a straight road was 5 miles shorter.

8. take a passanger for a "joy ride"

9. shift at any rpm other than optimum.

10. RIDE THE BIKE FOR NO REASON! RIDE JUST BECAUSE WE LOVE TO RIDE!

I bet there is no one anywhere who follows all the above items. If they do it because they have their mother on the back of the bike!

I'll stop here because I think you get the point. What difference does gas milage make if you love to ride and FJR. Are you not going to ride because you get poor gas milage?

You can make sure all the conditions are just right for a "good gas milage ride" only to find that the temp. went up 5 %s during your ride, thus screwing up all your, hundreds of hours of work to find that "best milage" combination.

Anyone who rides a bike for pleasure ( I assume most of us do) and worries about gas milage had better sell the bike and start walking.

The exercise would probably do us all good anyway!

CK

 

[leedavis]

Stock '04 I get 48mpg on the slab running 75-85...consistent with your test. Commuting to work with many stop lights and much jockeying for position 35mpg.

 

[Flyguy]

Clark KEnt wrote:

[i'll stop here because I think you get the point. What difference does gas milage make if you love to ride and FJR. Are you not going to ride because you get poor gas milage? You can make sure all the conditions are just right for a "good gas milage ride" only to find that the temp. went up 5 %s during your ride, thus screwing up all your, hundreds of hours of work to find that "best milage" combination.

Anyone who rides a bike for pleasure ( I assume most of us do) and worries about gas milage had better sell the bike and start walking.

The exercise would probably do us all good anyway

The FJR supports a wide variety of riders. While many are aggressive sport riders and never even glance at the MPG readouts, an equal or greater number also use it for commuting and LD rides. A 10 MPH change has a significant effect on range as does winshield position, large shields, loose floppy clothing and rear bags. I had hoped to provide them with a relative starting point for general info and possibly trip planning purposes. While I don't "worry" about milage I find it interesting and even fun to learn about the factors that contribute to it and find it equally rewarding to deprive Exxon/Mobile of what I can. It has changed my riding habits. As I tend to ride at elevated speeds I now leave the bags at home when not needed, use a tank bag and leave the shield in the "down" position. I also find myself dropping down 5 -10 mph more when I'm not on a schedule.

If you can use the info - great! If not - CLICK. Critisizm over others use of it I find difficult to understand.

 

[RatoneMuerto]

I have a bone stock 05 with a Givi trunk. I just got back from a 3200 mile trip to Big Bend, TX. and the mountains of NM and AZ. I got a low of about 45 MPG around Ft. Davis, TX riding the twisties. Most of my milage was in the low 50 mpg range with a high of 62 mpg. The 62 mpg ride was a steady speed ride from AZ back into NM. Smiles per gallon was very high.

Bob

My '04 is bone stock with an older Power Commander and averaging about the same mileage as my wifes '04 Toyota Carolla(35-38mpg) in Dallas traffic but have a very spastic right wrist .I do get higher mileage on trips when I can stay at about 65 to 70mph and driving conservatively seeing in the range of 50 to 55mpg.I also noticed a mileage change when I changed the windscreen to a Rifle Touring with a tuning block this week.I think the latter has helped to keep my average now up to around 45mpg combined city and highway.The fun factor is miles ahead of the miles per gallon and who wouldn't want to pay for that? :yahoo:

Clark KEnt wrote:

[i'll stop here because I think you get the point. What difference does gas milage make if you love to ride and FJR. Are you not going to ride because you get poor gas milage? You can make sure all the conditions are just right for a "good gas milage ride" only to find that the temp. went up 5 %s during your ride, thus screwing up all your, hundreds of hours of work to find that "best milage" combination.

Anyone who rides a bike for pleasure ( I assume most of us do) and worries about gas milage had better sell the bike and start walking.

The exercise would probably do us all good anyway

The FJR supports a wide variety of riders. While many are aggressive sport riders and never even glance at the MPG readouts, an equal or greater number also use it for commuting and LD rides. A 10 MPH change has a significant effect on range as does winshield position, large shields, loose floppy clothing and rear bags. I had hoped to provide them with a relative starting point for general info and possibly trip planning purposes. While I don't "worry" about milage I find it interesting and even fun to learn about the factors that contribute to it and find it equally rewarding to deprive Exxon/Mobile of what I can. It has changed my riding habits. As I tend to ride at elevated speeds I now leave the bags at home when not needed, use a tank bag and leave the shield in the "down" position. I also find myself dropping down 5 -10 mph more when I'm not on a schedule.

If you can use the info - great! If not - CLICK. Critisizm over others use of it I find difficult to understand.

As a Baptist preacher would so elequently put it" AMEN brother"

 

[Clark Kent]

Clark KEnt wrote:

[i'll stop here because I think you get the point. What difference does gas milage make if you love to ride and FJR. Are you not going to ride because you get poor gas milage? You can make sure all the conditions are just right for a "good gas milage ride" only to find that the temp. went up 5 %s during your ride, thus screwing up all your, hundreds of hours of work to find that "best milage" combination.

Anyone who rides a bike for pleasure ( I assume most of us do) and worries about gas milage had better sell the bike and start walking.

The exercise would probably do us all good anyway

The FJR supports a wide variety of riders. While many are aggressive sport riders and never even glance at the MPG readouts, an equal or greater number also use it for commuting and LD rides. A 10 MPH change has a significant effect on range as does winshield position, large shields, loose floppy clothing and rear bags. I had hoped to provide them with a relative starting point for general info and possibly trip planning purposes. While I don't "worry" about milage I find it interesting and even fun to learn about the factors that contribute to it and find it equally rewarding to deprive Exxon/Mobile of what I can. It has changed my riding habits. As I tend to ride at elevated speeds I now leave the bags at home when not needed, use a tank bag and leave the shield in the "down" position. I also find myself dropping down 5 -10 mph more when I'm not on a schedule.

If you can use the info - great! If not - CLICK. Critisizm over others use of it I find difficult to understand.

My post was in jest. That is what this little smilie means.

(The wink is for "I'm kidding" The smile is for "It's funny.)

This is for those who find my post "difficult to understand".

This means I feel sad for those who find my post "difficult to understand"

And this means I'm laughing at those who find my post "difficult to understand".

CK

(This means "This post too is in jest")

 

[alan sh]

From a test I did last month:

I just did a small test. Filled up at a services petrol station and reset the average mpg ('06 model). Then, onto the motorway (1/2 mile) and set out to go exactly 80 mph for as long as I could and see what the mpg returned.

I managed 30 miles and it ended up at 56.2 mpg - that's UK gallons.

Assuming UK gallons are 1.2009 (from here https://www.cleavebooks.co.uk/dictunit/dictunit1.htm) of the US one , then that is 46.8 miles to a US gallon.

Assuming UK gallons to litres is 4.54609, then we have 12.4 miles per litre.

This is on a bike with around 9,000 miles on the clock in temp of 23c.

Not too sure of the elevation, but around 50-100' above sea level at most.

One thing I just realised - the USA bikes must have their MPG displays calibrated for USA gallons - the UK/European ones for UK gallons - what do the Canadians one have? [they have the UK YISS system, so are sort of European like)

Alan

 

[Flyguy]

CK wrote:

My post was in jest.

If you say so, that's good enough for me. This stuff is only for fun.

 

[Midlifefjr]

I found your experiment quite informative. For the 99.9% of us that love the bike , like to gun it, and still have some interest in analytics on fuel efficiency and the PC3 impact - thanks. :yahoo: (no interpretation needed)