Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

Fuel efficiency

Discussion in 'General Motorcycling Discussion' started by tonee, Jun 10, 2009.

  1. My ZZR250 made 400kms on a tank before i had to switch it to reserves.
    I'm surprise how fuel efficient these bikes are, and they're not that slow. And mind you, the way i rode wasn't very conservative on this tank.

    So when i upgrade to a 600, will i get the same fantastic fuel efficiency? I'd interested in the 600 sport bikes like gix, r6, cbr, etc...those who have these, what do you get out of your tank? and those with the mean street fighters, what do you get?

  2. bout 300 give or take
  3. No.

    I had an 02 zzr250 and got 400kms until reserve, then 450 = walking. That means 4L/100kms. Mmmm I miss that economy so much!

    I get 5.5-6L/100km when taking it very easy. 6-7L/100km when giving it a bit. More than that at the track or on the fast curvy bits.

    Thats with a pc3 and custom map, on the ever so slightly rich side to smoothen things out.

    Could improve fuel economy by riding more mildly but bigger bikes are cheeky.

    180-280 with the lowside being fanging and high side being freeway (before reserve which; 15L then 3 til empty)
  4. Similar to your ZZR250 my ninja 250r would get 360KM from a tank. Now my Triumph Street triple 675 normally gets 230KM. Trip computer says avg economy of 6.5l/100KM so its decent but nothing great.
  5. Fuel efficiency is something i dont really get, why is it that a 1.8L Civic or something similar, can get 9-10L/100km, whereas a 600 bike is looking at ~6-7L.

    The civic has 3 times the displacement? yet is not too far off the fuel consumption of a machine almost 1/5 of the weight.
  6. because a civic is designed to be as economical as possible, while a 600cc bike is designed to rip every ounce of power from that 600cc's that is possible, economy be buggered.

  7. I've also wondered why bikes are so inefficient compared to a car when you take the weight into consideration. It'd be interesting to do a direct comparison (i.e. accelerate at the rate of a car rather than at the rate of a bike) but it would have to be a V8 if you were trying to compare to a litre bike.

    If I had a 1.8L (and I had one for 4 years) getting 9-10 then it'd either have to be due to driving through stop/start traffic only or something is wrong with it.
  8. Even so, on non supersport 600's like a hornet 600 or FZ6N its still around 5-6L/100km.

    For comparison, my 3L Magna will do 12-13L/100km, and it weights almost 1.4t, thats 5x capacity, and 7x weight for about 2x consumption. It just doesnt scale right.
  9. Out of curiosity how big is the tank on the ZZR250? My old VTR used to get about 300km before I had to go to reserve. (11 litres + 2 reserve).

    As far as comparing bikes to cars, my old corolla used to do about 6-6.5L per 100km. It was a 1.6 so near on 3 times the capacity of my cbr and weighed about 1000kg. But it also only made about 100hp lol. And as was said earlier, the small cars are built with economy in mind rather than outright performance.

    As a comparison, F1 cars are only what, 3L? Still use a fair bit more fuel than my 2.5L skyline though lol. (Last fill up was 41L after 410km!! so stoked lol)

    The way I look at it is, who cares if it's a 600cc and only getting 6L/100km. It's still as good if not better than nearly all cars - and about 1000x more fun!
  10. I went from around 4-5L/100km on the 250 hornet, to around 5.5-6L/100km on the 600. Although fuel/running costs were a consideration when I decided to ditch 4 wheels for two, I ride/commute because I enjoy it. That said, the advantages of having more power at your disposal, ( making for a safer ride IMHO ), far outweighs the disadvantage of the extra fuel consumption on a larger capacity bike.
    Besides ... it's alot more fun. :p
  11. I am getting about 5.5-6/100 out of my old 750 compared to about
    13 -14/100 out of my old 4 litre falcon wagon.
  12. a Supersport bike squeezes every little bit of power available from the engine, hence it uses massive amounts of fuel to do this, there is no point in comparing a 600 or a 1000 to a normal every day car, youd have to compare it to a highly tuned and tweaked car where you get similar performance...

    compare a gsxr1000 to a highly tuned r34 gtr, massive power from a reasonable capacity engine.. both reasonably crap economy...

    my bandit 250 got about 220 from a tank, carbied so it was sheet economy

    my gsxr1000 gets 160city, 220 highway so thats what 7l/100

    my audi s4 gets around 14/100 city and thats a 2.7L twin turbo with double the power of the gsxr but the audi dosent rev to 13k!

    if you really wanted to throw a spanner in the works, find out how much a mack truck uses, then a 747

    it will make no sence at all
  13. That's wierd, I get 230km till reserve on my striple R. Trip computer says 5 to 5.5l/100km for me...

    Edit: my warning light might just be coming on before yours. I haven't paid attention to how much I put in when the light comes on but its around 13l or so.
  14. On a flat road at a constant speed fuel economy is a function more of drag than mass.
  15. Yep; at constant speeds the power required to push the vehicle along is all about aerodynamic drag, not mass. And small cross-sectional area aside, motorcycle + rider = horrible coefficient of drag compared with a modern car.

    As others have alluded to, bikes aren't fuel efficient because they're designed to be highly efficient at making power between 6000 and 11000rpm, and utterly ridiculous amounts of it.

    Short, wide intake runners; short, wide exhaust headers, lumpy camshafts with massive valve overlap durations... All of these things are what make bike engines capable of extracting 125-150 horsepower per litre without forced induction. All of these things are what make bike engines extremely inefficient when pottering around town at 3000rpm with the throttle barely cracked open.

    (Edit: Another way to look at it; A 10 horsepower scooter can pootle around town at up to 80kph... A litrebike designed to make >135hp isn't approaching anywhere near its designed capabilities to make that much power)

    (Edit edit: Tiger 1050cc retuned for moar powah gets ~5L/100 on long freeway stints, ~6L/100km doing interstate ballistic twisty-road touring, and ~7-7.5L/100km around town.)
  16. the cb400 gets 260 (fanged) to 340 (babied) km from 14L before reserve. thats between 4-5l/100km. It's not tuned to be as ruthless as a full sportsbike though.
  17. Unlike the car, I've found the bike is most fuel efficient at low speeds (~60km/h). I was pleasantly surprised when I used 3.5l/100km on a day of 70-90km/h touring.

    But yeah, as others have alluded to, bikes with their overlapping cam profiles, high RPM breathing and wide bore/short stroke design with lots of cylinders simply have a lot of losses.

    They don't have any automotive technologies like fully variable valve timing and lift, exhaust gas recirculation, lean burn, cylinder deactivation etc. Hell, my bike doesn't even have fuel injection or knock sensor based spark advance :LOL:

    I suspect the reason being is those technologies add weight and may struggle to cope with the huge RPM/performance range a bike engine has.

    Want to save fuel? Get a small car (especially a diesel). Or a 250cc.
  18. Commuting to and from work through city traffic, i get about 180-200.

    If I ride the twisties, i can get up to 230.
    thats on a cbr600.

    vtr, zzr, gpx 250 have really good fuel economy
  19. 04 vtr250, i fill up with about 8L at 220km.
  20. I typically average 4.33L/100 on my modified GS500 (twin K&N, full exhaust and rejetted) and I've checked every fill in 9000 kms since I've had the bike.

    So in theory I should be able to go 450+ kms on my 20L tank, never tried though. Always fill around 300, and that's not hitting the 4.5 reserve.