My personal observations are similar to eemsreno. While doing back road riding, even quickly, I was seeing 53mph on the dash. This was confirmed at the pump with calculations. Computer mileage changes quickly after a reset, but much more slowly as the miles build. I've also noticed that the dash mileage is more accurate when I ride more, steady speed, highway. In town, stop-n-go seems to confuse the dash mileage, and is overly optimistic. My Jeep's dash mileage is exactly the same way. 60mph or less seems to be the desired "mileage" speed for both.
Average MPG
- Thread starter stormingnorm
- Start date
You are not alone in the Gen1 group with your 2013. Yamaha addressed speedo accuracy with the Gen2, speedo is off on the Gen1 bikes by about 8%, and speed (actually odometer) is part of the mpg calculation.Tenman said:
2daMax
Active Member
Mine Gen1 2012. Usually off by 2km/l from the dash. Dash reads 23.5km/l average, and full tank calculations results in 21.5km/L My usual route has many stop and go traffic conditions.
I never really bother with MPG's, but I reset the average MPG as I was setting off on my 3 week trip around Greece recently (RR to follow?).
things to take into consideration:
- 2012 Gen 1
- 2 up fully loaded / 4300kms
- 20% motorway
- 35% country roads
- 45% mountain roads (fun fact - Greece is 80% mountainous)
averaged 6.2L / 100kms
things to take into consideration:
- 2012 Gen 1
- 2 up fully loaded / 4300kms
- 20% motorway
- 35% country roads
- 45% mountain roads (fun fact - Greece is 80% mountainous)
averaged 6.2L / 100kms
Fatallybitten
Member
These fuel economy discussions are always interesting. Here is my two cents worth. I have had a 13 (Gen 1) that I put 30,000 kms on and a 14 (Gen 2) that I put 66,000 kms on. Here is the raw data.
2013 2014
High 4.3 L/100KM 66 MPG Imp 55 MPG US 4.2 L/100KM 67 MPG Imp 56 MPG US
Low 6.2 L/100KM 46 MPG Imp 38 MPG US 7.0 L/100KM 41 mpg Imp 34 MPG US
Average 5.0 L/100KM 56 MPG Imp 47 MPG US 5.3 L/100KM 54 MPG Imp 45 MPG US
My observations are that fuel economy is affected by speed, wind, terrain, load, and aggressive throttle. The best mileage with either bike was a result of unloaded, calm or downwind riding on relatively flat secondary highways at ~100 km/h. The worst is fully loaded, riding into strong head winds, interstate riding at +130 km/h. There is little difference between S and T modes but a lot of difference between shifting at ~ 4,000 rpm and 5,000+. Interestingly, lugging in 6th gear at 3,000 rpm in hilly country is worse than riding in 5th gear.
2013 2014
High 4.3 L/100KM 66 MPG Imp 55 MPG US 4.2 L/100KM 67 MPG Imp 56 MPG US
Low 6.2 L/100KM 46 MPG Imp 38 MPG US 7.0 L/100KM 41 mpg Imp 34 MPG US
Average 5.0 L/100KM 56 MPG Imp 47 MPG US 5.3 L/100KM 54 MPG Imp 45 MPG US
My observations are that fuel economy is affected by speed, wind, terrain, load, and aggressive throttle. The best mileage with either bike was a result of unloaded, calm or downwind riding on relatively flat secondary highways at ~100 km/h. The worst is fully loaded, riding into strong head winds, interstate riding at +130 km/h. There is little difference between S and T modes but a lot of difference between shifting at ~ 4,000 rpm and 5,000+. Interestingly, lugging in 6th gear at 3,000 rpm in hilly country is worse than riding in 5th gear.
steve68steve
Active Member
I'm not big on fuel economy discussions, but this was so noteworthy, that I, er... took note.
I commute daily in FL. 35 miles each way, mostly 80mph slab, alternating between hi octane unleaded and ethanol-free whatever octane. I've noticed the bike feels spunkier on the ethanol-free, but no noticeable change in MPG which is always in the low 40's.
A few months ago I spent two weeks in CO. A few days of that was sustained high-speed running, similar to my commute. To my astonishment, my average MPG (per the display, I didn't calculate), marched steadily up to nearly 50 MPG.
I was shocked that hills, high altitude, and spirited throttle made my MPG go UP by something like 20%.
I don't know if the bike is mapped better for altitude or if CO gasoline is different, but something was going on.
I commute daily in FL. 35 miles each way, mostly 80mph slab, alternating between hi octane unleaded and ethanol-free whatever octane. I've noticed the bike feels spunkier on the ethanol-free, but no noticeable change in MPG which is always in the low 40's.
A few months ago I spent two weeks in CO. A few days of that was sustained high-speed running, similar to my commute. To my astonishment, my average MPG (per the display, I didn't calculate), marched steadily up to nearly 50 MPG.
I was shocked that hills, high altitude, and spirited throttle made my MPG go UP by something like 20%.
I don't know if the bike is mapped better for altitude or if CO gasoline is different, but something was going on.
WJBertrand
Ventura Highway
Fuel injected engines always get better mileage at altitude. The ECU will dial back the fuel delivery to match the thinner air. A carbureted engine can’t do that.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Cycledude
Well-Known Member
Yes my fuel injected bike usually get quite a bit better mpg at higher altitudes.
Also notice gasoline sold at higher altitude is usually lower octane, regular 87 octane here in Wisconsin would be regular 85 octane in Colorado .
Also notice gasoline sold at higher altitude is usually lower octane, regular 87 octane here in Wisconsin would be regular 85 octane in Colorado .
steve68steve
Active Member
I started replying to this and the lightbulb finally went off in my head: at altitude, the engine can't burn fuel as fast as it can at sea level, for the same RPM or speed/gear combination. So, (as someone mentioned), less power. My wringing it out - giving it a lot of throttle - was probably just getting me back to burning the same fuel/time as I do at sea level with less throttle.WJBertrand said:
Octane being lower at altitude makes sense, too - there's less need to restrict combustion because there's less air to achieve it. Maybe that translates to less ethanol, which means more gas, which is more power dense and would account for the MPG gain.
The only other thought I had is the air here in FL is really, really, humid - CO air was bone dry. I wonder how much energy of combustion is used cooking off all that water vapor? ... or maybe the water vapor doesn't need to cook off, but it would be a thermal sink robbing some heat (and power), right? If so, dry air should burn hotter/faster/ better than wet air. Too tired to think.
In Colorado a couple weeks ago I pulled out to pass, cranked it up and crap what’s wrong with my 10? After I finally got around I looked at the Garmin and 9500 feet high.Sierra1 said:
Felt much better.
WJBertrand
Ventura Highway
It’s not that the engine burns the fuel more slowly, chemical reactions pretty much occur at the same rate. Why you get better mileage is that the ECU cuts back the amount of fuel delivered to keep the fuel/air ratio constant. Less air at altitude means less fuel is required to match it.
With respect to water vapor, it’s already vapor so nothing to cook off. You won’t get a cooling effect heating up something that’s already vaporized. It’s quite different if you’re changing phases as from a liquid to a vapor.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
With respect to water vapor, it’s already vapor so nothing to cook off. You won’t get a cooling effect heating up something that’s already vaporized. It’s quite different if you’re changing phases as from a liquid to a vapor.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
BigBob said:
I think that it is 3% horsepower loss per 1000'. So, you had a 27.5% (ish) power loss. ::26:: But, hey....you'll get 50mpg instead of having to baby your bike down the road. Mr. Bertrand is absolutely correct, the bike brain keeps that "oh, so important" air/fuel ratio correct. (remember the fire triangle....fuel, oxygen, heat/ignition) It's not that it burns "slower"; it doesn't want to burn at all without oxygen.
outdoor
Active Member
Interesting. The specs indicate a mileage of 6L/100KM
lund
Well-Known Member
I get 4L/100km, will see around 6 if off road but quickly goes back to 4 once on tarmac.
I haven't reset my avg mileage readout in about a year; 43.5mpgUS. Occasionally I do the math at a fill up. The display is about 1.5 optimistic. Generally, I see 60mpg at 60mph. Obviously, the slower she goes, the higher the mileage. There's been more than one occasion where going into the wind dropped me to 36mpg, while the trip home saw 78mpg. Boxes mounted will totally ruin your mileage.
Travex
Lost is my destination.
49.5mpg with a fairly heavy hand. For whatever reason my mileage has always hung around there and I go through rubber like water. 4k from a set of Balttewings if I'm lucky and around 10k for Dakars. Usually go about 12-2X per year. Not flashed.
This is from when I'd commute, but MPG is almost totally dependent on average speed because the adventure bikes have the aerodynamics of a brick.
