Lmar Posted May 10, 2009 Posted May 10, 2009 Just turned 700 km on my new RT. Filled the tank this morning and calculated the fuel mileage. 375km and 20 liters of fuel comes out to 53 miles per gallon. Not too bad! My fuel warning light came on showing 74 km left. I filled 20.11 liters with the bike on the side stand. It seems like my fuel gauge is relatively close.
Quinn Posted May 10, 2009 Posted May 10, 2009 You can stuff more gas in it on the center stand. Mine gets 44.6mpg life to date.
effexer1 Posted May 11, 2009 Posted May 11, 2009 Don't forget that the US Gallon is only 4/5ths of an Imperial Gallon. L-mar, were you calculating US or Imp. gallons?
Rocer Posted May 11, 2009 Posted May 11, 2009 Lmar - great to hear you've got 700km on the 1200 already. Keep up the good work (as if that isn't going to happen). Saw your "bringing it home post". Sweet machine. Quinn - we run with imperial gallons in Canada which are larger in volume than the U.S. gallon and I'm too far into some wine this evening to calculate yours and Lmar's equivalent mpg's. Like Lmar, I still talk in terms of mpg and not the metric equivalent of km's per 100 litres. happy moto'n eh!
Lmar Posted May 11, 2009 Author Posted May 11, 2009 Don't forget that the US Gallon is only 4/5ths of an Imperial Gallon. L-mar, were you calculating US or Imp. gallons? I was calculating Imperial Gallons (4.54 liters to a gallon). Lmar - great to hear you've got 700km on the 1200 already. Keep up the good work (as if that isn't going to happen). Saw your "bringing it home post". Sweet machine. During the week work seems to keep me from riding. I loving the RT. It took me a year and half to make the decision. I am sure happy i did. I have a couple longer trips planned over the next couple weekends. The earliest I could get in for my 1000km inspection was May 28th. I told the service manager that I will be quite a bit over the 1000km by then, he said that won't be a problem.
smiller Posted May 11, 2009 Posted May 11, 2009 Don't forget that the US Gallon is only 4/5ths of an Imperial Gallon. L-mar, were you calculating US or Imp. gallons? I was calculating Imperial Gallons (4.54 liters to a gallon). 53 Imperial MPG = 44 US MPG
RSR Posted May 11, 2009 Posted May 11, 2009 Just got back from a little day trip out to the Saskatchewan border and back, averaged 62 MPG it gets a little better when the weathers warmer. But that is imperal gallons.
Lmar Posted May 11, 2009 Author Posted May 11, 2009 Just got back from a little day trip out to the Saskatchewan border and back, averaged 62 MPG it gets a little better when the weathers warmer. But that is imperal gallons. That's what I'm doing next weekend. I'm meeting my brother for lunch in North Battleford. We may do a two day loop somewhere. It will be a good test for my butt and the RT seat.
Paul In Australia Posted May 11, 2009 Posted May 11, 2009 Hi 2008 R 1200rt with 20,000 miles and getting just over 50MPG ( IMP gallons). Mostly commuting , so pretty happy with that. regards PCH
boatzo Posted May 11, 2009 Posted May 11, 2009 Don't forget that the US Gallon is only 4/5ths of an Imperial Gallon. L-mar, were you calculating US or Imp. gallons? I was calculating Imperial Gallons (4.54 liters to a gallon). 53 Imperial MPG = 44 US MPG I'm glad we have at least one sober enough to figure that out. Thanks Seth. I am getting 44.5 mpg (US) on my 1100, using the center stand when filling up.
EddyQ Posted May 11, 2009 Posted May 11, 2009 Just curious, how does this mileage compare to what the BC mileage computes?? My '07 RT BC seems to compute mileage based on a running average of the instantanious mileage determined with the fuel injection usage and the odometer/speedometer. This method is quite accurate as long as you never stop. In other words, my '07 RT BC mileage can be off quite a bit when I stop and idle a bunch. It is quite good for long non-stop highway runs. Perhaps with your '09, the BC mileage is computed differently and matches closely to your calculated mileage? BTW, I'm reasonably convinced my RT gets 50-55mpg(US) at a steady 70mph highway. Commuting with 50% fast and 50% slow traffic (avg speed 30mph), I get 45-47mpg. That is quite good, cause I do not baby the bike!
Nice n Easy Rider Posted May 11, 2009 Posted May 11, 2009 Just curious, how does this mileage compare to what the BC mileage computes?? My '07 RT BC seems to compute mileage based on a running average of the instantanious mileage determined with the fuel injection usage and the odometer/speedometer. This method is quite accurate as long as you never stop. In other words, my '07 RT BC mileage can be off quite a bit when I stop and idle a bunch. It is quite good for long non-stop highway runs. Perhaps with your '09, the BC mileage is computed differently and matches closely to your calculated mileage? BTW, I'm reasonably convinced my RT gets 50-55mpg(US) at a steady 70mph highway. Commuting with 50% fast and 50% slow traffic (avg speed 30mph), I get 45-47mpg. That is quite good, cause I do not baby the bike! I average 43-44 mpg in my daily (commuting) use. On the trip to the BRR which included some slab it picked up to about 45-46. mpg. I might do better on a long haul but, in all honesty, I'm not going to lose any sleep over a few mpg as long as she runs well and I'm having fun.
Lmar Posted May 11, 2009 Author Posted May 11, 2009 Originally Posted By: smiller Originally Posted By: Lmar Quote: Don't forget that the US Gallon is only 4/5ths of an Imperial Gallon. L-mar, were you calculating US or Imp. gallons? I was calculating Imperial Gallons (4.54 liters to a gallon). 53 Imperial MPG = 44 US MPG I'm glad we have at least one sober enough to figure that out. Thanks Seth. wink I am getting 44.5 mpg (US) on my 1100, using the center stand when filling up. You know if yo guys in the US would go metric, we wouldn't have this issue!
Mister Tee Posted May 12, 2009 Posted May 12, 2009 You know if yo guys in the US would go metric, we wouldn't have this issue! What are you trying to do, start a war?
Lmar Posted May 12, 2009 Author Posted May 12, 2009 Mister_TeeOriginally Posted By: Lmar You know if yo guys in the US would go metric, we wouldn't have this issue! What are you trying to do, start a war? We don't want to have all the fun with this metric BS.
Quinn Posted May 12, 2009 Posted May 12, 2009 You know if yo guys in the US would go metric, we wouldn't have this issue! I must admit that 10.16cm sounds more impressive than 4 inches. And 96 kilos sounds like I've lost weight. You might just be on to something here.
upflying Posted May 12, 2009 Posted May 12, 2009 You can stuff more gas in it on the center stand. Mine gets 44.6mpg life to date. I always sit on mine and hold it vertical while fueling. Of course my opinion will start another debate about fire safety.
Dick_at_Lake_Tahoe_NV Posted May 12, 2009 Posted May 12, 2009 You know if yo guys in the US would go metric, we wouldn't have this issue! I must admit that 10.16cm sounds more impressive than 4 inches. And 96 kilos sounds like I've lost weight. You might just be on to something here. Yup, and I'd much rather be riding 120km/hr than 75mph. And when I take an Iron Butt ride my friends are more impressed if I've ridden 1600+ kilometers.
Deek Posted May 12, 2009 Posted May 12, 2009 Just turned 700 km on my new RT. Filled the tank this morning and calculated the fuel mileage. 375km and 20 liters of fuel comes out to 53 miles per gallon. Not too bad! My fuel warning light came on showing 74 km left. I filled 20.11 liters with the bike on the side stand. It seems like my fuel gauge is relatively close. I'm pretty happy with my mileage also. I'm getting 49 mpg for highway travel, although the bike's computer consistently shows 45 mpg on the LCD. My fuel warning comes on about 30-40 miles left. Not sure why it's not consistent. Usually computers tend to be optimistic! The one on my Chevy truck calculates 5-10% higher than actual mileage.
Deek Posted May 12, 2009 Posted May 12, 2009 I always sit on mine and hold it vertical while fueling. Of course my opinion will start another debate about fire safety. Ewie!! Don't spill any; man that would BURN in a spot we don't want burning!
BlueTools Posted May 12, 2009 Posted May 12, 2009 Funny! Problem is the hour. You never hear the metric wienies pimping for Base 10 time. When they do, I might consider changing my ways of measuring things. Yup, and I'd much rather be riding 120km/hr than 75mph.
Lmar Posted May 12, 2009 Author Posted May 12, 2009 Funny! Problem is the hour. You never hear the metric wienies pimping for Base 10 time. When they do, I might consider changing my ways of measuring things. Originally Posted By: Dick_at_Lake_Tahoe_NV Yup, and I'd much rather be riding 120km/hr than 75mph. After we converted to the Metric System, Metric time became a common April Fool's joke.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.