Page 1 of 9 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 123

Thread: MPG's and BMW?

  1. #1
    Polarbear Polarbear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Clovis,CA
    Posts
    4,214

    MPG's and BMW?

    Wonder where BMW MC program came OFF the track? About a dozen cars/suvs now get better gas mileage than my Beemer cycle, which I still love. BUT, Even the BMW X5 Turbo Diesel gets 35mpg's, I have a friend bought one and drove it cross country. 35mpg average! My current GSA1200 is at 36-38mpg's. How poor. Of course many smaller and even the giant KLT get a lot better, but com'on BMW, step up and make something happen again!!! That X5 sled gets almost identical as my GSA????? Bad picture in my book. Many are talking now, even VW's are on top of the world regarding this. I WANT BMWMC to step UP to the plate and make a FULL SIZE bike with the same spunk as the VWs and BMW SUVs,etc...My GSA1200 should be at least ahead of the above heavy vehicles! The smaller 650-800BMWMCs do get a lot better, but why not a 1200, if the cages are doing it???Randy

  2. #2
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    142
    First, most people drive their autos much less aggressively than their motorcycles. When ever I'm motoring together with autos, leading or following doesn't matter, I see at least 5MPG increase on average.

    Second, bikes are not aerodynamically efficient. Around here Interstate speeds often are 70-80MPH on average. That hurts the bike more than the autos. I get much better MPG between 45 and 60MPH.

    Third, that's the downside to sticking to an air/oil cooled engine. You can't control the temp as well as a water cooled engine, so combustion efficiency is much worse.

    Fourth, the engine displacement/weight and performance of the two is not even remotely similar.

    Lastly, you're talking about a turbo diesiel! If it didn't get 35MPG or able to pull a 80k lbs trailer, what's the point?

  3. #3
    Registered User lkchris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Albuquerque, NM
    Posts
    4,729
    Come on, motorcycling is just a fun hobby--no need for guilt regarding fuel economy. It's hopeless in any event ... especially if you calculate fuel mileage per person carried.

    For example, a few years ago we used to ride Airheads with another couple ... so four bikes at 40 mpg for, say, 200 miles equals 20 gallons fuel burned. The four of us could have instead done the same highway trip with all our luggage in our diesel Mercedes getting 35 mpg for 5.7 gallons total consumption.

    But, riding is more fun and there's no guilt about the xtra 14.3 gallons consumed. It's a fair price. Yes, you can calculate it too--four bikes would need to achieve 140 mpg each to equal this. Notgonnahappen.com

    Yeah, yeah, there's two-up riding but that severely limits luggage and isn't as fun anyway and I hate being a passenger on the back of a bike.

    And, if it were nice new 2012 RTs, for example, instead of old Airheads, the purchase cost of four of them would exceed that of a nice new diesel Mercedes.

    Plus, if it has to be a "guilt" thing, just tell yourself that today's bike mileage is plenty good compared to the guy commuting solo in his V10 pickup. That ought to be good enough.
    Kent Christensen
    21482
    '12 R1200RT, '02 R1100S, '84 R80G/S

  4. #4
    Riding where it's hot! AZ-J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Scottsdale, AZ
    Posts
    2,621
    I get nearly 50 mpg on my 1200. The fact that my bike weighs much closer to 400 lbs, helps that. The fact that my 1200 puts out 122 HP does not.
    My bike shown here
    Jordan M, MOA #24434
    My Blog

  5. #5
    100,000+ miler 32232's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Southwestern Ontario
    Posts
    793
    I'm getting the equivalent of 50 mpg on my RT and got 60 MPG on my old F800, based on US gallons. A car capable of similar performance would be getting 10-15 MPG.

    If you want to compare a diesel car to a bike, compare it to one of the few diesel bikes available. They get 90+ mpg.
    Dave

    '06 Triumph Scrambler (Trans-Labrador veteran)

  6. #6
    Moondog
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Savannah, GA
    Posts
    912
    Checked my 1996 K1100RS @ 70 mph the other day and got 40.6 mpg. I have gotten almost 50mpg just tootling around locally. Good enough for me.

  7. #7
    Registered User ezec's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    261
    Rode the Ozark Mountains last Sunday for 5hrs. Filled up back in town for $17 bucks. Best money I spent last week.
    2010 R1200RT
    GO HOGS!

  8. #8
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Maryland.
    Posts
    148
    The new bikes seem to all get around 40-55MPG depending on the engine size.
    If you want a fuel efficient bike buy a Honda Rebel. At 250cc, they get 100MPG
    Last edited by LuckyGrownup; 02-25-2012 at 09:00 PM.

  9. #9
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Somers, NY
    Posts
    537

    How hard were you twisting the throttle?

    Other than my R100GSPD, all of my bikes get low to mid 40mpg's.

    Obviously, YMMV
    Somers, NY

    Just enjoying the ride.......

  10. #10
    Registered User RINTY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    4,287
    I confess I scratch my head when comparing car and bike fuel mileages.

    Taking apples to apples (to the extent that that that's possible ) why does a 1,000 c.c. gas 1600 pound Smart car get 60 mpg (Imp), when my (former) 1150 cc 700 pound (loaded) RS gets 52 m.p.g. (Imp)?

    Even if I rode the RS at 60 mph in 6th, it might deliver 60 mpg (Imp) but it weighs less than half as much as the Smart.

    The only conclusion I can draw, as a non engineer, is that the poor aerodynamics of the bike is a much bigger factor than the increased rolling resistance of the heavier Smart.
    Rinty

    "When you don't know where you're going, any road will get you there."

  11. #11
    Riding where it's hot! AZ-J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Scottsdale, AZ
    Posts
    2,621
    The reasons the new equipment in cars get hi-mpg is improvements such as electronic assist, direct injection, CVT trannies, and on and on.

    We have a few to several years old tech on these bikes. My CR-Z hybrid 6-speed gets 37 MPG, while the bike gets 45-55. My next car's mpg will likely beat the m/c.
    My bike shown here
    Jordan M, MOA #24434
    My Blog

  12. #12
    Mongrel Owner
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Eastern Ontario
    Posts
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by rinty View Post
    Taking apples to apples (to the extent that that that's possible ) why does a 1,000 c.c. gas 1600 pound Smart car get 60 mpg (Imp), when my (former) 1150 cc 700 pound (loaded) RS gets 52 m.p.g. (Imp)?

    Even if I rode the RS at 60 mph in 6th, it might deliver 60 mpg (Imp) but it weighs less than half as much as the Smart.

    The only conclusion I can draw, as a non engineer, is that the poor aerodynamics of the bike is a much bigger factor than the increased rolling resistance of the heavier Smart.
    What is the horsepower per litre of displacement of a Smart car? What is it for the bike? If you generate more hp per litre, you are bound to burn more gas as there is a finite amount of energy in a gallon of gasoline. One engine may be more efficient than another, that's why we now have smaller engines producing more power and better mileage than engines of twenty years ago, but more power more or less means more gas burned.
    At least I think it does.
    Cheers,
    Tony

  13. #13
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    4

    Smile

    [QUOTE=Taking apples to apples (to the extent that that that's possible ) why does a 1,000 c.c. gas 1600 pound Smart car get 60 mpg (Imp), .........[/QUOTE]

    My 2009 RT gives me 44 mpg, per the SmartCar website their cars get 38 mpg, real world gas mileage is more like 35. Of course, your mileage may vary.

  14. #14
    Registered User RINTY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    4,287
    ...their cars get 38 mpg...Napadawg
    I pulled my figure off some internet site, and it was a highway only number. The 60 miles per Imperial gallon would work out to 50 mpg U.S., and the mileage for my bike, which was a highway only number at an 81 mph cruise, works out to 43.3 mpg U.S.

    ...more power...means more gas burned...TonysR100
    Good point; I forgot about that. The gas Smart generates 70 hp per litre, and an R1150RS, 82.6 hp per litre. So that would be one of the factors.

    Aircraft engine engineers use a parameter called Brake Specific Fuel Consumption, with is 0.5 to 0.6 pounds of fuel per hp per hour.
    Rinty

    "When you don't know where you're going, any road will get you there."

  15. #15
    Registered User easy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Kerr County, Texas
    Posts
    999
    Quote Originally Posted by Polarbear View Post
    Wonder where BMW MC program came OFF the track? About a dozen cars/suvs now get better gas mileage than my Beemer cycle, which I still love. BUT, Even the BMW X5 Turbo Diesel gets 35mpg's, I have a friend bought one and drove it cross country. 35mpg average! My current GSA1200 is at 36-38mpg's. How poor. Of course many smaller and even the giant KLT get a lot better, but com'on BMW, step up and make something happen again!!! That X5 sled gets almost identical as my GSA????? Bad picture in my book. Many are talking now, even VW's are on top of the world regarding this. I WANT BMWMC to step UP to the plate and make a FULL SIZE bike with the same spunk as the VWs and BMW SUVs,etc...My GSA1200 should be at least ahead of the above heavy vehicles! The smaller 650-800BMWMCs do get a lot better, but why not a 1200, if the cages are doing it???Randy
    It does seem you should be getting better mileage. The BMW spec page states that a new GSA should be getting 51 mpg, at a constant 55 mph, but that assumes youÔÇÖre using premium at a constant 55 not counting stops etc. Not to compare apples to oranges, but on my last trip (about 50 miles in the hill country) I got a little over 51 miles per gallon on my 2006 RT.

    Your profile does not state you have a GSA. Is it new, broken in? Of course how a bike is ridden effects mileage. Does your GSA have any changes to the exhaust, etc? What type of fuel do you use - alcohol content? And weÔÇÖre assuming you ride one up?

    E.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •