Weird Fuel Consumption.

[SleepyC]

SO. I noticed today I had to fill up (to turn off the stupid low fuel warning) at 183 miles.
I put in 3.01 gallons of fuel.

My clock says I'm getting 56mpg and that feels low.
I'm not cracking the throttle. Mostly commuting 5 miles stop and go, 20+ miles 65-70 mph on freeway 5 miles stop and go. (x2 a day)
Shifting as low as I can, cruising in 2.5K rpm's, not lugging but running smoothly...

Any thoughts?

 

[670cc]

If you put in 3 gallons at 183 miles that's 61 mpg, so the display showing 56 is off, or you didn't fill it all the way.

 

[SleepyC]

If you put in 3 gallons at 183 miles that's 61 mpg, so the display showing 56 is off, or you didn't fill it all the way.

Does that still seem low? I thought even being modest this puppy got around 70mpg?

 

[rippin209]

Does that still seem low? I thought even being modest this puppy got around 70mpg?

Depends on how you ride, I ride fast against strong winds and over a small mountain range and get between 60 and 65

 

[670cc]

Fuelly average is about 65mpg.

One person's definition of frugal riding is different than another's. Side bags will kill as much as 5 mpg.

 

[MZ5]

That would be very low for mine, unless I was running 80-85 into a headwind. Other individual bikes don't get as good of economy. One sees the same car-to-car variation in any automobile, but I often think the variation in motorcycles is a bit larger. Don't have solid data to prove it either way, though.

 

[Hunter280]

I've put ~450 miles on mine, mostly two lane country roads and have been using (and liking) the S1 mode. I've been taking it pretty easy on the throttle for breakin and am getting 71.6 as an average. I expect that will go down some after the first oil change.

 

[FezUSA]

Not sure if you're using Fuelly or not. Over the course of 16k miles on 2 different bikes, Fuelly reported better mpg the closer to empty I ran it. Whenever I filled up sooner rather than later I always got a lower mpg according to them, some of my best mpg's were when I hit 0.7 and 0.8 used in reserved and had to put in 3.545 gallons. This also requires you to be very accurate when adding fuel. If you don't fill to the exact same spot every time then you're not going to get good calculations. Obviously this is a little hit or miss though, but I do try and watch where on the inner plate I add fuel up to. I also find that winter fuels decrease mpg, colder temps (<55) decrease mpg, and different stations can give better/worse mpg. During the week I'm riding the exact same route every day, riding the same style with same speeds. The other week I did have to make a slight route change and had to use a different brand station, one that is heavily used due to its proximity to grocery store. The rest of the week I rode the usual and got 5mpg better on that tank!! Main variables were weather and fuel!

When I used to commute 100 miles a day I found that the station closest to my house provided fuel that consistently gave worse mpg than the one across the road that was a penny per gallon more expensive. They were closed for a few weeks while they changed out pumps so I had to use the more expensive station and noticed that I went from 23 mpg to 29mpg! I tracked it for a year and while it did fluctuate, it was almost always 2-8 mpg better, and that was in a '95 Taurus!!

Just my thoughts though, YMMV

BTW, have you checked your tyre pressure recently?

 

[670cc]

When I used to commute 100 miles a day I found that the station closest to my house provided fuel that consistently gave worse mpg than the one across the road that was a penny per gallon more expensive. They were closed for a few weeks while they changed out pumps so I had to use the more expensive station and noticed that I went from 23 mpg to 29mpg! I tracked it for a year and while it did fluctuate, it was almost always 2-8 mpg better, and that was in a '95 Taurus!!

I'd have to wonder, was the station with less expensive fuel actually selling fuel with lower energy content, or were their pumps registering more fuel than was actually pumped? A thumb on the scale, so to speak? And then they finally upgraded the pumps?

 

[SleepyC]

I'd have to wonder, was the station with less expensive fuel actually selling fuel with lower energy content, or were their pumps registering more fuel than was actually pumped? A thumb on the scale, so to speak? And then they finally upgraded the pumps?

I had a friend in CT who owned 8 gas stations. Funny enough, a few through his wife so he could own a few brands, and a generic one.
He said the ONLY difference between all the fuels was a 5 gallon "conditioner" he added to the main 5000 gallon main tanks.

So Shell's special formula was added to the generic gas he bought to make it "Shell" gas and BP's special formula was added to generic gas to make it "BP" gas.
He also said that some will say this is not true because it goes against branding, but he sold all the stations and doesn't care anymore. He swears to me the same truck would fill his Shell station and his BP station and he would just add the 5 gallons of "sauce" to the big tanks.

 

[670cc]

I had a friend in CT who owned 8 gas stations. Funny enough, a few through his wife so he could own a few brands, and a generic one.
He said the ONLY difference between all the fuels was a 5 gallon "conditioner" he added to the main 5000 gallon main tanks.

So Shell's special formula was added to the generic gas he bought to make it "Shell" gas and BP's special formula was added to generic gas to make it "BP" gas.
He also said that some will say this is not true because it goes against branding, but he sold all the stations and doesn't care anymore. He swears to me the same truck would fill his Shell station and his BP station and he would just add the 5 gallons of "sauce" to the big tanks.

Agreed. I don't know what could be different about two brands of gasoline that could affect the gas mileage on an NC700X, except for the percentage of alcohol content. I realize pumps are inspected for calibration accuracy, but I don't know how much variation is allowed.

Around my area there is a big Marathon terminal and all brands of stations pretty much get their fuel from there.

 

[IronBunny]

There is no exact answer to all of this, road conditions, hills, wind, your body side plus shape, how tall are you, do you have side bags installed, which gas station do you use, do you let it run to almos almost completely empty, what oil do you use, type and conditions of your tires, chain and sprockets, do you have rotation issue, is there a fuel injection issue, or is your bike just a natural fuel glotón?

As you can see, the variables are endless so it would be almost impossible to compare your situation to anyone else that reports amazing fuel economy around here...

But the most important factor when it comes to these amazing claims of super speed super comfort and super fuel economy, it boils down to how much enthusiastic are you about this product, how loyal are and what kind of individual are you?

Are you that person that nothing can satisfy you or are you that owner that swears their particular unit was the best unit that came out of the production line?

Back in the old days of horses they used to day the loving eyes of the owner would make the horse look strong well feed and robust.

In conclusion don't always believe all the hype and definitely do not let the hype about someone else's unit stop you from enjoying your unit any less.

Truth is that straight out of the production line, there will be units that are more faster than other, more fuel efficient than others, you can do what you can to help your own unit be the best that it can be, but at the end of the day do not let statistics about gas milage curb your enthusiasm, love your bike and ride it, enjoy it the way she is with all her faults and shortcomings

But to be honest, I have own about 12 different bikes in my career, all different brand and models, none of my bikes have ever been able to do all that is claimed by others in these forums.

I once was and still are a big fan of the secind second generation Suzuki SV, I have owned 3 of them, none ever gave me more the 45 miles per gallon, but if you visit their forum today, there still people there claiming 55 MPG.

Don't believe this claims.

The most I have been able to get out of my NC700X has been 66MPH that was painful, maintaining the perfect balance of not lugging it but babying it and running it until it almost ran out gas with the constant fear of having to walk it to the nearest station, all so that I could also claim good stats. Never again.

Now I don't even pay attention to that kind of stuff, I just ride, I ride for my needs, for safety when am not late and in a rush, I ride for fun, and my bike consistently gives about 58 MPH on average, more then what the 3 different SV650 ever gave me.

I just hate the shirt rev limited and think it is dangerous... specifically if you happen to time it just right when you about to shif, freaking scary.

And on that note...

I must say something else, shame on Honda for following Kawasaki into the NEW CONCEPT of building cheap bikes that looks like they came straight out of china and selling them for top dollars.

I think the second generation SV650 marked the end of times where the Japanese brands where trying to out do each other in quality and craftsmanship for the least MSRP possible.

It is still Dejavu to me that I bought a new 2005 SV650 for $5 grands out the door.

For $5 grands today you can get a rebel 500 or CBR 300.

Just to refresh your memory, in 2005, all the other manufacturers were still offering old technology from the 90's in this segment, heavy still frame bikes build like a tank with carburetors, everything analog, and no modern technology sparkles.

Suzuki was the pioneer in bringing to the market the unheard of, a high reving sport reliable VTwin engine with a lot of character which sounded amazing and no short rev limiter, aluminium frame that made the bike under 400 pounds, digital instrument panel that included a temperature gauge something ai miss alot on the NC, and rear LED lighting that were a beautiful compliment and let me not forget fuel injection. All of that for $5 Grand MSRP.

Unbelievable....

Then comes Kawasaki with their biggest poker joker to the consumers, the china quality made the 650R, to prove Suzuki wrong, in that a very subpart product could be made and still be sold for more money because the dumb consumers will still buy it.

That was like a revelation to the others manufacturers, that opened the flood gates that inundated the matket with the new concept of building motorcycles, why try to trump each other building the highest quality product when we can just give them crab and they will still buy it by the truck loads.

And that is a moment in history for you all just getting into this new concept era of cheap built motorcycles.

The good news is that there is one manufacturer who went the cheap route of steel tubing frame for a while but has now come back to offer top quality built products again, not as cheap as the SV650 once what, but at least we now have the option to buy quality again in this segment of the market, and that is Yamaha with their FZ7 8 and 9 models. Glad to see someone step away from the New Concept disaster.





Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk

 

[Old Can Ride]

Carry all the weight that I do, and you will never have to worry about good gas mileage. It even gets worst once I load my gear.

 

[MalcolmReynolds]

Most fuel economy numbers when you see a good number is driving technique. Always pay attention to elevation, speed, and shift points. Tire pressures play into this also. I had a DL1000 that everyone swore you couldn't get 50+mpg from it. I averaged 52-55mpg every day, every week when I was doing my monster work commute out in CA. And that was with a top case and panniers. But there is always the devil in the details. My commute I literally only had to stop at like 2 or 3 traffic lights. All of the drive was freeway. I always short shifted, always kept my speeds around 65 mph while everyone was flying past me at 80-90mph+ when traffic was moving. I stayed in the right lane and tried to say out of peoples way. If at any time I got in a hurry I could do so quickly, but my fuel economy suffered. So given the right conditions(very few or no stops) and a very conservative riding style I was able to get fuel economy that the Wee Strom guys were getting and sometimes better. But that was a very specific set of riding circumstances that just worked well. So you can get some great numbers if you want to work for them, and be patient with the slower riding speeds. Fill up at the same place, use the same pump if possible, fill up to the same level in the tank to try and reduce variations in your numbers.

So if your goal is fuel economy then you are on the right bike. Now it is refining technique and planning your routes if you are commuting to limit the stop and go as much as possible. Pay attention to the traffic lights and coast when possible. Don't be in a race to get to the next light to only have to stop. I am new to the NC myself and still have to work out my technique on this bike, but I am confident that I will be able to get good numbers because fuel economy is one of my biggest reasons for getting this bike and I try to pay attention.

Now all of that is really geared toward the person with fuel economy as a focus. If you are just wanting to have fun then stop worrying about fuel economy and ride. Even if you don't pay any attention this bike will perform better than most of the bikes on the road for fuel economy. Honda really engineered this bike with economy in mind. Always run your own numbers and track them yourself.

Like OCR just said the more stuff you carry and larger the profile of the bike with bags etc will have an impact.

 

[bamamate]

I'll throw my 2 cents in here. You are hitting 2 of the biggest killers on gas mileage. Stop and go. You get 0 mpg while sitting and then you are accelerating from a dead stop. The others is highway speeds which is dominated by aerodynamics. From reading articles about the funky super efficient record breaker vehicles they drive them around 30-40mph. That is fast enough to give them momentum over road variations but slow enough that wind resistance is low. Once you get above 40-50mph aerodynamics (wind resistance) is the primary factor in lowering mpg. If you remember back to when they raised the speed limit to 55, one of the main points against it was the drop fuel economy that occurs from 55-70mph. Many of the big trucking companies limit there trucks to 65mph because just 5mph saves them 1mpg which over a fleet of trucks driving hundred of thousands a year is a big savings in fuel cost for them.

Another thing to consider when comparing different models of vehicles or even the different vehicles of the same model is percentages. a 10% difference on a 20mpg vehicle is only 2 mpg so instead of 20mpg you get 18mpg. That something you hardly notice. Now on a 70mpg vehicle a 10% drop is 7 mpg so instead of 70 you get 63. That is something you notice even though in reality it is the same percentage drop.

My experience on the NC is back roading where I'm going 40-55mph I get over 70mpg. Around town with lots of stop/go I get mid-high 60s. Interstate I get low to mid 60s and if there is a headwind, which aerodynamic wise is the same as increasing speed, I can go down into the 50s.

 

[SleepyC]

All good answers!

 

[2wheels4fun]

My experience on the NC is back roading where I'm going 40-55mph I get over 70mpg. Around town with lots of stop/go I get mid-high 60s. Interstate I get low to mid 60s and if there is a headwind, which aerodynamic wise is the same as increasing speed, I can go down into the 50s.

Same experience for me but rarely I go into the 50s.

 

[frozenpoet]

Right now i average upper 50's. Interstate, colder, winter blend, with the kappa 47lt side sails...err bags. I get a little better without them. Summer blend and warmer temps I'll rarely dip into the 50s at all. At this point though, i really don't care anymore. Also, I'm not running the stock size rear tire, therefore all the data is incorrect anyways.

 

[TheIronWarrior]

Keep in mind that pumps are calibrated for a specific temperature since the same mass of fluid changes volume with temperature. Around here they're all calibrated to 15*C, so higher and lower temperatures will net you a different amount of gas than you read off the dial.
Remember combustion is a chemical reaction and depends on mass of the reactants, not volume. We're talking minor differences here, but fuel mileage calculated using volume at -20*C and at 20*C are going to be different since a different mass of fuel is burned for the same given volume.
So between volume variances, allowable tolerances, and the fact that most people cannot fill the tank to the EXACT same level time after time (among other factors), a calculated fuel economy is, at best, an estimate. And this is before we talk about traffic, weather conditions, rider's state of mind (angry people drive harder than serene people), etc.
If you were consistently (over many many fill-ups, like 20 or so) getting low-ball numbers, that might be more alarming. One data point does not a conclusion make, may just be an outlier.