OK, somebody explain this...

2010 Yamaha FZ6R, supposedly their "all round commuter, tourer, sport bike" with all of its technical innovations and 600cc electronically fuel-injected 6-speed liquid cooled high-tech motor (a direct descendant of my 550 Secas) gets a whopping 43mpg according the the literature (so you know it's "optimistic.")

1981-83 Seca 550 with its first-generation carbureted XJ motor gets a real world 52-56mpg.

WTF???

(I was only looking...)

 

Just like the window sticker says " Your milage may vary" . They take the average milage the vehicle gets and post that. The milage depends on the drivers habits, some are heavy on the gas some are not. I have always got better than the posted EPA milage estimates. I would bet that FZ6R would get 55 mpg in the real world.

 

Which would be what I'm getting with 30 years' older technology.

Hence my consternation-- shouldn't there be a drastic improvement accompanying all that development and the resultant complexity? The R6 motor has computer-controlled cam timing fer chrissakes, and a liquid-cooled oil cooler. And probably 4X as many parts. Where's the improvement? Not seeing any ROI here...

 

I think there is a missprint somewhere as the 2010 model looks like it is rated at 78 bhp.

The 2009 model is 98. Thats where all the fuel is going.

I agree that you would think that technology = economy though!

 

I've noticed that too, Most of the 600 I4's are showing Mid 40's as MPG, not an incentive for me, I use my bike as a commuter, I love the look of rthe FZ6, but it labeled at 37 .

Noticed the same with cars, the new "Gas misers" don't seem to be doing much (if any) better than the sub compacts from the 80's
Tons of technology but no real progress

 

i think the feds changed the way they figure MPG recently, at least in cars

 

who cares really?

 

1975 VW Rabbit (Diesel): 57 mpg
1989 Ford Festiva: 45 mpg
1989 Honda CRX HF: 50 mpg

2010 Toyota Prius: 45 mpg
2009 Smart ForTwo: 41 mpg

Go figure...

 

I was amazed at all the high-tech gadgetry in the new 600cc motor is all. And it seemed for all that added difficult to service high-tech geegawry, there would have been some improvement other than just speed.

 

The biggest inprovement is probably in the emisions of the engine. The CO and CO2 output of a computer controlled engine are much less than a carburatored one.

 

4X as many parts means a lot more stuff turning and moving around too. (loss of efficiency that might be gained by their function)

I remember when Cummins came out with their "B" and "C" series industrial engine. The big boast was something like 45% less moving parts than the competitor. And the thing was WAY more efficient.

 

I know they did.

http://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/

The rated mileage is only useful as a comparison between vehicles with the same test procedure. If you drove vehicle A and vehicle B, and A was rated 10mpg better than B, than you likely would get 10mpg better mileage out of A. But that doesn't mean you would get the same mileage that the EPA test got, because the EPA test probably doesn't drive like you drive.

You can't use the mileage ratings from 1982 and compare them to 2010 at all. That would be like giving someone a easy test and someone else a hard test, and then saying the person with the hard test is dumber, because they didn't score as well.

The new tests are much harder, making the vehicles look dumber.
Your own personal test may be easier (55mph on freeway? Easy test.) and will make the vehicle look smarter.

Does that explain it?

 

My old boss bought a 2006 V-star 750 FI back in 2006. It only got 35 mpg.

 

The 1981 Goldwing 1100 CC- - 55 MPG
Venture Royale with the needles shimmed- - 55 MPG
My 900 running lean- - 49 MPG

But let's look at 470 MPG at hiway speeds- -

http://www.motherearthnews.com/Energy-M ... etter.aspx

 

I have a 250 mile ride tomorrow. 2 up haulin' ass through the twisties I will get 40-43 mpg on the Beemer. If the ride was in July I would get 46-50 mpg same bike, same ride, same loading. Gasahol kills my mileage but it's ok because they raise the price so I can use more fuel because there is less energy in alcohol than gasoline????

We're gettin' screwed huh?

Loren

 

Where I'm from 10% ethanol is cheaper.

Is it not that way most places?

Granted, I'm talking about the midwest here. Where all your extra tax dollars (mine now, I guess) are going to subsidize ethanol production.

Loren, I wish my beemer tog 40-43 mpg. My 325i gets 30 in the best conditions. Except that one time I was hauling ass tailgating a SUV driving 90 mph. He took all the wind, I went 200 mi on a quarter tank! 40mpg overall on the way up to Kansas City. I don't know what that little bit got me, lucky someone was actually passing me (at 90) when the HP was there. Got lucky on that one. I don't normally speed, though.

 

I've noticed the same thing with some of the cars nowdays. Those sib compact cars advertise 32 mpg and my '88 Accord gets 36 mpg with 270,000 miles on it! I'll keep buying the olds ones and save some $$>

 

yeah... i was selling new Benz's when the EPA "changed their methods" basically switched from dyno-ing at the crank to dyno-ing at the wheels under various loads. They "CYA"-ed themselves, though. Look at a window sticker, they now show the figures as averages within a range. Here's an example:

2007 C280 (iirc) was 21 city 29 hwy
2008 C280 (same drivetrain) ended up being 19 city 26 hwy. But under each figure it said something to the tune of "drivers may see actual city mileage of 17-22 and hwy mileage of 23-29 depending upon conditions and driving habits." So, in other words, the EPA tells us this new car gets anywhere from 17-29 mpg and confuses everyone in the process.

 

I wasn't. I was comparing my real-world experience with my '81 and '83 550s (52-56mpg) with Yamaha's published rating of 43mpg for their 2010 600cc bike.

 

Anyone confused as to why they get 29 mpg on the highway at 65 (if they ever go 65) while getting 17 mpg driving in downtown Big City, will, IMO, never understand the EPA ratings anyway.

Unfortunately, this is most people. The same people that drive 20 mph over the speed limit, and cut in front of people, while saving 30 seconds on the trip, just to come up to a light at which everyone catches up anyways. And then wondering why their Hummer only gets 10 mpg when it's rated a 15. Cursing at the price of some of the cheapest gas in the world, a national interest that men and women are dying for. Insert favorite swear word here.

They should get rid of the quantitative analysis and give a qualitative score, like "This car ranks in the top 10 percentile of all cars made in terms of fuel economy." Or even better, 5 stars!!

Makes too much sense, and diminishes a marketing point. So it'll never happen.

 

Fitz, true you weren't. Others in the forum were, though. You did ask if someone could explain it, however.

To recap, yes I can explain this:

1: You have better driving habits.
2: The new EPA tests are no longer "optimistic". They are actually quite harsh.
3: The innovations in the engine are not for the purpose of increased mileage.

1: Perhaps I could be more clear...you cant compare personal experience to laboratory standards. They are testing different things. Your experience is your experience. The lab test is NO ONES experience, but is an attempt to approximate an average users experience.

I bet you can get one of the new bikes to get great gas mileage. My car is rated 23 on the highway. I can get 32. The new cars like it are rated at 29. I bet I can get at least 38. If I tried, I bet I could get 20 on the highway too.

2: A few years ago people complained that the EPA standards were too optimistic. They weren't actually supposed to indicate what real world mileage will be, but they were marketed by the manufacturer that way. So they changed it. Now it is pessimistic, unless you start and stop a lot, and drive LIKE THIS all the time.

3: Also, like someone said, "Who Cares?" My take on that is that few motorcycles in the US are purpose built for mileage over performance, and they still get GREAT gas mileage compared to a car. Even a Prius, which doesn't get it's best mileage on the highway, or didn't awhile ago, anyway.

Think about it, when was the last time you rode a bike that took 10 s to get from 0-60? Or bought a F1 race car, stock, for $13000?

I completely disagree that technology = fuel economy. Technology could easily = more power, or longer life, or cleaner emissions, or cheaper bike. All things that are more desirable to most than fuel economy. If you want proof, CHECK THIS OUT

Did I do an adequate job of explaining it? Honestly Fitz, you're a smart dude and seem like you should know all this. Perhaps I'm not picking up what you're putting down, but there ya go.

 

From my understanding with motorcycles the technology today is to produce more HP out of the motor not fuel effeicancy. But with more hp you use more gas to my understanding.

For comparison. The seca 550 has a max of say 50bhp? My uncle had a 93 FZR600 rated at 90bph and 9 years later comes the 2002 gsxr 600(he has one) same displacement motor but it is rated at 115bhp from the factory.

It seems to me the newer the bikes get the more power they have for the same displacement motor