S10 Fuel Consumption Thread

[TacoPapa]

Gents, several days ago Mark replied to my assertion of illogic with "Maybe I'm missing something.... I agree with you that the display probably is intended to read MPG US, but I don't understand the logic above. To my mind, you have things reversed.
For any given fuel consumption, miles per US gallon is going to be a LOWER number than miles per Imperial gallon. A US gallon has LESS fuel than an Imp gallon so the bike will go a SHORTER distance, not a longer one. If the display is intended to be miles per Imperial gallon then it would read lower, not higher, for miles per US gallon. You are multiplying by 1.2 above when you should be dividing.
Put another way, if your bike reads 53 mpg and actually gets 42 US, then this supports (rather than refutes) the idea that the display is reading Imperial. But your data doesn't match with mine or what most of us are seeing where the computer MPG is much closer to miles per US gal rather than miles per Imp gallon."

And he's absolutely right ... don't know what happened in my head! The Avg mpg display is still reading ~53mpg after another 200 miles, and calc at fill-up is ~45mpg US... 53/1.2 = 44.2 so we're right in the neighborhood. WHY is this bike delivered in the US with readings in miles per Imperial gallon?

 

[zartenere]

i am glad we work in metric .you run out of gas, it is so confusing .

 

[fender5803]

i am glad we work in metric .you run out of gas, it is so confusing .

Not really, but I agree that metric should used be worldwide.
For example if one grew up speaking Latin and Portuguese then they are easy to understand ... yes-?

::022::

 

[zartenere]

i have a fatboy that is in mph.i have got a few speed fines on it .

 

[markjenn]

WHY is this bike delivered in the US with readings in miles per Imperial gallon?

Glad the math is sorted. I think the question is "why is YOUR bike reading miles per Imp gallon?" as most of us are not getting average computer MPG's in the 50's. Now with 6k+ miles, my computer is showing an overall average of 43 while my actual is 41.5.

- Mark

 

[Yamaguy55]

My computer derived reading is usually about 47, which works out to 45 something US. When the weather is warmer and the FI leans it out more, 48-49 indicated isn't hard to achieve.

I'm wondering if the software elves that reflash the ECU could add swap from Imperial Gallons to US gallons as part of their package. If they did, that may very well convince me to take the plunge.

 

[fredz43]

This is the 4th bike I have owned that had avg MPG display, 3 Hondas and 1 Yamaha. Every one of them read slightly optimistic, about 2-3 MPG. None of them was programmed for imperial MPG, that is just the nature of the beast. ::021::

 

[SteveO]

please forgive me for not reading the full 10 pages, but I'm curious about gas type on the S10.

Has anybody tried running the standard octane gas, such as the 86 octane or midgrade 89 octane?

I would hope that Yamaha considered this issue if they were expecting to have their bikes go on actual adventures outside of the U.S., where gas is not as clean......

 

[jajpko]

please forgive me for not reading the full 10 pages, but I'm curious about gas type on the S10.

Has anybody tried running the standard octane gas, such as the 86 octane or midgrade 89 octane?

I would hope that Yamaha considered this issue if they were expecting to have their bikes go on actual adventures outside of the U.S., where gas is not as clean......

I just started using 89 octane. Ran about 1k miles and my mpg was 42-43. hand calculated. That is with cases and PCV.
I had no problems with ping or knock.

 

[eemsreno]

I am convinced that my bike starts better on the 89 octane 10% ethenol. I fires up on the first turn over now and with premium it would turn over twice before it fired up.

 

[TacoPapa]

OK, I ran another tank of 87octane/ 10% ethanol through & filled up today. Avg (Imp) MPG is shown as 51.9 (51.9/1.2 = 41.2 US MPG). I hand-calculated 47 at the fill-up, but I didn't fill as high because in the warmer spring temps (82degF) the gas apparently expands & vents through the overflow while parked for the first 20 miles when I fill as high as possible. Still wondering why my bike -- bought in the US -- reports Imperial Gallons, but I can live with it ... & definitely live with 45-47 US MPG. The S10 is a GREAT bike! ::003::

 

[markjenn]

Has anybody tried running the standard octane gas, such as the 86 octane or midgrade 89 octane?

Yes several. They report no illl effects. That being said, Yamaha does spec 91 and the bike does NOT have knock sensors. If I can get it, I use what the bike specs. If not, I use what is available.

I would hope that Yamaha considered this issue if they were expecting to have their bikes go on actual adventures outside of the U.S., where gas is not as clean......

Perhaps they did, but their target was the R1200GS which also specs premium and is widely used for around-the-world adventures. (It does have knock sensors, however.) For one reason or the other, Yamaha didn't consider lower-octane gas compatability be a priority in the development of the S10. I have no issue with this, but the lack of a knock sensors on a modern engine does seem like serious corner cutting to me. This is one of about five or six things where I wish the cost accountants hadn't ruled the day.

- Mark

 

[tomatocity]

Gas Mileage

Last tank was 179.7 miles at 4.9 gallons - 36.67 MPG. This is the worst tank in the last six weeks. Average riding around town. No extended trips.

Fuel Injection settings: CO set at 3. Right adjustment at 1/2 turn. Left adjustment balanced with a Harmonizer.

... Any Suggestions ? ...

 

[TierHawg]

Last tank: 217 miles, took 5.125 gallons to fill. Works out to 42.34 Miles Per Gallon.

That is about what I've been regular getting whenever I check milage. Stock California bike.

 

[GrahamD]

I have no issue with this, but the lack of a knock sensors on a modern engine does seem like serious corner cutting to me. This is one of about five or six things where I wish the cost accountants hadn't ruled the day.

- Mark

The way I see it YAMAHA does so much engine development for third parties, have made a huge amount of motors for all kinds of applications and may actually know how to make an engine that can run happily on low octane fuel. If it is quality low octane fuel even better.

Maybe knock sensors might be needed for some really off fuel, but then again maybe the engine will just survive.

The Strom runs the same compression ratios and will happily motor along on 91 RON on a warm day. I don't know why the S10 would be any different apart from the fact it is closed loop on the O2 sensor.

Both manufacturers recomend premium and in Australia both recommend no ethanol. Overseas they say it's OK.

Many inconsistencies between legal departments. When a YAMAHA engineer at a launch says it is fine do you think he is just making it up?

 

[hANNAbONE]

4000 miles
spirited driving in "S" mode...mostly out of town, hard top roads 55-75 mph
OEM stock bike
213 miles before light - fueled with an additional 7 miles totaling 220 = 4.56 gallons = 48 mpg
Jesse bags attached for more than 1/2 the miles
Parabellum 22" windscreen

 

[markjenn]

When a YAMAHA engineer at a launch says it is fine do you think he is just making it up?

When an OM says 91-octane is required do you think it is "making it up"? As far as veracity goes, hearsay about what a single engineer said at a Yamaha promotional event doesn't automatically carry more weight than the OM. In fact, I think the opposite is true.

Been discussed in other threads at length. As I said, the OM says premium is required and I've never seen anything official from Yamaha that supersedes this. The bike doesn't have knock sensors. Lots of folks think regular is fine, but that's true of almost any vehicle that specs premium. Do what you like.

- Mark

 

[~TABASCO~]

I run 89 in my bike all the time with the PCV, Etc... My light comes on normally about 180-185 and I can get to 200 easy.. I fill up somewhere between there. The other night I filled the tank to the top. Subtracting out what I just had filled up, it showed I had 3/4 of a gallon for "reserve" left in the tank before I started pumping. Im going to fill up with 93 next fill up, see if I can see any difference at all. Run bags all the time, stock windshield, hot rod engine bolt ons.

 

[jajpko]

I run 89 in my bike all the time with the PCV, Etc... My light comes on normally about 180-185 and I can get to 200 easy.. I fill up somewhere between there. The other night I filled the tank to the top. Subtracting out what I just had filled up, it showed I had 3/4 of a gallon for "reserve" left in the tank before I started pumping. Im going to fill up with 93 next fill up, see if I can see any difference at all. Run bags all the time, stock windshield, hot rod engine bolt ons.

I got 1-2 mpg better with 93. For the added cost I don't feel it is worth it.
If you remember what Steve Saunders said. When you are using low octane, just don't lug the engine or hot rod it.
Something like that anyway.. ::025::
He did around 50,000 miles and it did not seem to hurt the engine.

I think running 89 instead of 93 will be better for the engine as it should run cleaner. That's just my idea and can't guarantee anything.. ::025:: ::025::

 

[~TABASCO~]

I got 1-2 mpg better with 93. For the added cost I don't feel it is worth it.
If you remember what Steve Saunders said. When you are using low octane, just don't lug the engine or hot rod it.
Something like that anyway.. ::025::
He did around 50,000 miles and it did not seem to hurt the engine.

I think running 89 instead of 93 will be better for the engine as it should run cleaner. That's just my idea and can't guarantee anything.. ::025:: ::025::

Ill prolly just stick with "mid" grade..... I will have to test the "low" grade for when im deep in the jungles of South America or my Around The World trip.... (in my dreams) ::26::