Gas Milage with the RS

[Black Pig]

so if I was to get 36MPG (imp)
I would be getting 30.3 MPG (US)

But realistically, it is exactly the same, because in both instances I am getting 8 Miles Per Litre in both instances.

*Gad I had to take my socks off for the final part of that calculation....*

[Bob Denman]

Imp. Gal. = 4.560 L
Us Gal.=3.785 L

So you knock about sixth-off when going from metric to U.S...


And and back about a fifth when doing the Math in the other direction...

[aka1004]

My average is just below 25 mpg, I think.
It's been as low as 90 miles to 150 when red light comes on but I think 23 mpg on average.

[Laila's Dad]

I will probably never get real deep into how the engine and filters help gas milage(I put that in my mechanics hands) but if I average driving around 60 to 60 mph is it safe to assume that I should get around 30 mpg? I know that wind and other things are factors, but in general...

[Bob Denman]

I would assume that 30 mpg is a safe estimate...
But your mileage may vary!

[boborgera]

I ran out of gas on purpose once, I had two 1 gal tanks in the trunk, Put the one tank in and ran it dry,
Went 49 miles, Then when i was putting in the second tank i realized the two tanks had 1-1/2 gal in each each.
So being that i thought the tank was 1 gal does that 49 mpg still count.

[bone crusher]

If you get 30, you're doing fine. My sentiment is that anyone getting 35ish is driving it like a granny. If you have a manual and punch it on twisties and like some speed here and there, you're not going to get 35.

When I 'cruise' with my harley buddies, I get around 33...when I ride in a more spirited fashion, I sit around 29-30.

Juice box, Green filter, and hindle...

[MLavore]

Sounds right. I just calculated mine at 27.956 mpg average over the last 2200 miles and I don't drive like a psycho but I have a little fun on straight-away's every now and again.

I am on a 2011 RSS with a Hindle, hard bags and passenger backrest if that counts for anything.

[Spyder777]

I always ride HARD. Shift upwards of 6,000 rpm always. Sometimes 8,000 and always get at least 30 mpg. Even 2 up.

i'm actually pretty sure that the harder I ride, the higher the mpg.

2012 RSS SM5

[hawkiii]

I don't get very good mileage. I haven't learned how to ride like an adult yet.

[Trevor G]

I always ride HARD. Shift upwards of 6,000 rpm always. Sometimes 8,000 and always get at least 30 mpg. Even 2 up.

i'm actually pretty sure that the harder I ride, the higher the mpg.

2012 RSS SM5

That actually is the reverse of what really happens.

The higher the revs, the more fuel you use.

The faster you travel, the more fuel you use.

Even if you use a lower gear with seemingly less throttle rolled on, you will still be using more fuel at the same speed than if you were in a higher gear.

That's one of the reasons we have gears, so that at cruising speeds we can be using fewer revs and less fuel.

The main reason Spyders are so thirsty is because BRP made a very bad compromise when they chose the engine and gearbox for the Spyder. They used a semi-racing engine with a close ratio, 6 speed gearbox.

They dropped 1st gear so that we could get reverse, then lowered the overall gearing so that first would not be too high. It is still too high, and 5th is too low for economical touring/round towning.

The engine is revving around 4,500 at 65mph, way too high for economy. Even 3800rpm would be probably higher than need be, especially with the torquier RT engine.

You really only need to be able to maintain cruising speed on the flat into a headwind to have the best overall gearing and economy. Meet a hill? Drop it down, afterall, that is what gearboxes are meant for, either to accelerate to pass or to keep momentum up a big hill with a big load.

For economy and best overall performance we need a wide ratio gearbox, with bigger jumps between gears, a lower 1st and a higher 5th. Better still would be the appropriate wide ratio 6 speed gearbox, but that isn't likely to happen now.

Unfortunately BRP cheapskated on the gearbox - and surprisingly they got away with it.

[retread]

That actually is the reverse of what really happens.

The higher the revs, the more fuel you use.

The faster you travel, the more fuel you use.

Even if you use a lower gear with seemingly less throttle rolled on, you will still be using more fuel at the same speed than if you were in a higher gear.

That's one of the reasons we have gears, so that at cruising speeds we can be using fewer revs and less fuel.

The main reason Spyders are so thirsty is because BRP made a very bad compromise when they chose the engine and gearbox for the Spyder. They used a semi-racing engine with a close ratio, 6 speed gearbox.

They dropped 1st gear so that we could get reverse, then lowered the overall gearing so that first would not be too high. It is still too high, and 5th is too low for economical touring/round towning.

The engine is revving around 4,500 at 65mph, way too high for economy. Even 3800rpm would be probably higher than need be, especially with the torquier RT engine.

You really only need to be able to maintain cruising speed on the flat into a headwind to have the best overall gearing and economy. Meet a hill? Drop it down, afterall, that is what gearboxes are meant for, either to accelerate to pass or to keep momentum up a big hill with a big load.

For economy and best overall performance we need a wide ratio gearbox, with bigger jumps between gears, a lower 1st and a higher 5th. Better still would be the appropriate wide ratio 6 speed gearbox, but that isn't likely to happen now.

Unfortunately BRP cheapskated on the gearbox - and surprisingly they got away with it.

Comparing the Spyder powertrain to the Aprilia Tuono, the Spyder has less hp, more torque, and the gear that's missing is 6th, which was replaced with reverse, the ratios 1 thru 5 are identical. Even by playing with gear and final drive ratios we won't gain much, we need an engine with a low to mid range torque peak for that.
By the way, the best mileage I've gotten was on a twisty turny ryde where I rarely got above 3rd gear, and never above 45 mph..38.7 mpg.

john

[SPYD3R]

MPG averages around 35 if i keep it below 5000 RPM's... once over that speed, mileage suffers greatly...
i do notice a true increase of 2 - 3 mpg when using NON-ETHANOL GAS... also, a set of 8.8 mm plug wires seemed to help...
i have an '09 GS SE5
SAM_0318.jpg

[Recluze]

Hi Everyone
I am just wondering what gas mileage most of you are getting with the RS riding single not 2 up...
mine is a 2008 model. Today I filled up the tank when the little red gas pump came on I did the math
and I am getting 27.8 MPG the tank before was 27.5. Is that normal ???? my car gets better than that
my daily driver is a Cheve. HHR it always gets 30 or better average, My ST1100 and ST1300 both get
46 to 50 MPG all the time.... I am guessing it must be the added mass bigger frame more tires on the ground
and such. But how would you explain the milage the car gets it has way more mass 4 tires on the ground
and weights more. ????
Dave

The gas mileage on the RS/GS sucks. I get 30 mpg riding one up for my driving style. It does not ever seem to vary very much.

You are getting MPG reports from out of the state of California. Some of these people have access to gas without ethanol in it. We don't here in Kalifornia. Everytime I go out of state my fuel mileage jumps at least 10%. It does so with my suv also. I have never quite understood why the difference is so radical. I understand that ethanol has only 70% of the energy of gasoline but it is only 10% of the mix. I would expect a 3% decrease in mileage but not 10%. I once put E85 in my Spyder and the mileage dropped even further.

Fuel costs are the cheapest part of owning a Spyder. I once had a boat that got 1/2 mile to the gallon. Anything better than that I don't complain too much about.

[spydee owner]

I hate telling you the bad news but you don't have an RS......You have a GS........As do I, more bad news I average 38 to 39 MPG consistantly over the past 5000 miles or so........Mike

If Bone crusher is right you must drive like a great granny Mike

[Campverdefela]

That actually is the reverse of what really happens.

The higher the revs, the more fuel you use.

The faster you travel, the more fuel you use.

Even if you use a lower gear with seemingly less throttle rolled on, you will still be using more fuel at the same speed than if you were in a higher gear.

That's one of the reasons we have gears, so that at cruising speeds we can be using fewer revs and less fuel.

The main reason Spyders are so thirsty is because BRP made a very bad compromise when they chose the engine and gearbox for the Spyder. They used a semi-racing engine with a close ratio, 6 speed gearbox.

They dropped 1st gear so that we could get reverse, then lowered the overall gearing so that first would not be too high. It is still too high, and 5th is too low for economical touring/round towning.

The engine is revving around 4,500 at 65mph, way too high for economy. Even 3800rpm would be probably higher than need be, especially with the torquier RT engine.

You really only need to be able to maintain cruising speed on the flat into a headwind to have the best overall gearing and economy. Meet a hill? Drop it down, afterall, that is what gearboxes are meant for, either to accelerate to pass or to keep momentum up a big hill with a big load.

For economy and best overall performance we need a wide ratio gearbox, with bigger jumps between gears, a lower 1st and a higher 5th. Better still would be the appropriate wide ratio 6 speed gearbox, but that isn't likely to happen now.

Unfortunately BRP cheapskated on the gearbox - and surprisingly they got away with it.

Unfortunately the tranny doesn't lock up until 4000 rpm so a lower cruising rpm is probably not good.

[napper39]

never use ethanol in your spyder ,use gas hi test 98 octane.no wonder so many are having trouble with there spyders.and mine runs so good,i use high test in my scooter also.ethanol

[Trevor G]

Comparing the Spyder powertrain to the Aprilia Tuono, the Spyder has less hp, more torque, and the gear that's missing is 6th, which was replaced with reverse, the ratios 1 thru 5 are identical.

Would you have those ratios handy? And the gear tooth numbers?

Even by playing with gear and final drive ratios we won't gain much, we need an engine with a low to mid range torque peak for that.

With a 6500rpm ceiling? It would need to be 1400cc or more.

Actually, we would gain quite a lot with an appropriate wide ratio gearbox. First needs to be a lot lower to help with trailer and hill take-offs, and also in slow or bumper to bumper traffic.

5th needs to be somewhat higher to allow a lower rpm for cruising. Need extra performance? Just drop a gear or two. That's what the gearbox is meant for.

[Trevor G]

Unfortunately the tranny doesn't lock up until 4000 rpm so a lower cruising rpm is probably not good.

You must be referring to the SE5.

I don't believe your information is correct.

I have done 400 miles on two different RT SE5s, one with about 4,000 miles and the other with over 20,000 miles.

On neither was there any sign of clutch slip once under way. I don't remember at what speed the clutch locks in when taking off in first, but it seemed to stay locked in.

I do know that the GCU would only allow me to change up once I reached a certain engine speed, obviously based on the speed that would be available once the next higher gear was selected. I kept flicking to change up as soon as possible - I think I could select 5th at around 40mph. That is around 3,000rpm, I believe, maybe just below.

I repeat - at no time was there any sign of clutch slippage. I'm the sort of person who would notice something like that.

However, if you are in 1st in slow moving traffic or a parade you could expect a lot of clutch slip - that is when it will occur, and cause the main damage.

Second problem will be with a big load, (bulky rider and passenger), a trailer and hill starts. In some cases that might be the only time major slippage and wear occurs. Whatever the circumstances, a lower first gear (and appropriate intermediate ratios with a higher top) is the best solution.

The cheapskates should have done it in the first place!

[NancysToy]

You must be referring to the SE5.

I don't believe your information is correct.

I have done 400 miles on two different RT SE5s, one with about 4,000 miles and the other with over 20,000 miles.

On neither was there any sign of clutch slip once under way. I don't remember at what speed the clutch locks in when taking off in first, but it seemed to stay locked in.

I do know that the GCU would only allow me to change up once I reached a certain engine speed, obviously based on the speed that would be available once the next higher gear was selected. I kept flicking to change up as soon as possible - I think I could select 5th at around 40mph. That is around 3,000rpm, I believe, maybe just below.

I repeat - at no time was there any sign of clutch slippage. I'm the sort of person who would notice something like that.

However, if you are in 1st in slow moving traffic or a parade you could expect a lot of clutch slip - that is when it will occur, and cause the main damage.

Second problem will be with a big load, (bulky rider and passenger), a trailer and hill starts. In some cases that might be the only time major slippage and wear occurs. Whatever the circumstances, a lower first gear (and appropriate intermediate ratios with a higher top) is the best solution.

The cheapskates should have done it in the first place!

The SE clutch locks in at 3,200 +/- 200, so anything below 3,500 has the possibility of slippage. You cannot go by the seat of your pants here. The slippage is slight and subtle. A great many SE clutches have been replaced at the owner's cost due to too low RPM operation. BRP has put out a firmware update that raises the allowable shift points to try to address this issue. They have also introduced a new clutch pack, with an additional disc and different material for the plates, to combat clutch slippage issues.

[danlnc]

Hi Everyone
I am just wondering what gas mileage most of you are getting with the RS riding single not 2 up...
mine is a 2008 model. Today I filled up the tank when the little red gas pump came on I did the math
and I am getting 27.8 MPG the tank before was 27.5. Is that normal ???? my car gets better than that
my daily driver is a Cheve. HHR it always gets 30 or better average, My ST1100 and ST1300 both get
46 to 50 MPG all the time.... I am guessing it must be the added mass bigger frame more tires on the ground
and such. But how would you explain the milage the car gets it has way more mass 4 tires on the ground
and weights more. ????
Dave

I get what I get. I don't care because I am going to ryde it anyway.

[Trevor G]

The SE clutch locks in at 3,200 +/- 200, so anything below 3,500 has the possibility of slippage. You cannot go by the seat of your pants here. The slippage is slight and subtle.

3,200 + 200 = 3500? I know you are just averaging out for safety's sake.

It's so subtle that the engine doesn't speed up at all?

Isn't this an over-centre clutch that locks up at a certain rpm, but unlocks at a somewhat lower rpm?

A great many SE clutches have been replaced at the owner's cost due to too low RPM operation. BRP has put out a firmware update that raises the allowable shift points to try to address this issue. They have also introduced a new clutch pack, with an additional disc and different material for the plates, to combat clutch slippage issues.

I would have thought that BRP would have designed the auto shift to not allow engine speeds that would damage the clutch.

Are you sure they aren't ripping off owners?

Or are those having their clutches replaced doing so because they were trickling along in first gear, slipping the clutch, in slow traffic or the like?

I appreciate your knowledge and willingness to share - thanks. The questions I raise are more rhetorical, directed at BRP themselves, rather than at you as a helpful Spyder man.

[Tierhog]

The gas mileage on the RS/GS sucks. I get 30 mpg riding one up for my driving style. It does not ever seem to vary very much.

You are getting MPG reports from out of the state of California. Some of these people have access to gas without ethanol in it. We don't here in Kalifornia. Everytime I go out of state my fuel mileage jumps at least 10%. It does so with my suv also. I have never quite understood why the difference is so radical. I understand that ethanol has only 70% of the energy of gasoline but it is only 10% of the mix. I would expect a 3% decrease in mileage but not 10%. I once put E85 in my Spyder and the mileage dropped even further.

Fuel costs are the cheapest part of owning a Spyder. I once had a boat that got 1/2 mile to the gallon. Anything better than that I don't complain too much about.

Hey Recluze...try Boyette fuel. No ethanol that I'm aware of..but I don't care for the winter formula

[NancysToy]

3,200 + 200 = 3500? I know you are just averaging out for safety's sake.
You don't want to run right on the edge. 100 rpm is the bare minimum safety margin that should be considered.

It's so subtle that the engine doesn't speed up at all?
That's correct. You are very unlikely to notice it until there is significant wear (and slippage), but the clutch plates and discs will...in time.

Isn't this an over-centre clutch that locks up at a certain rpm, but unlocks at a somewhat lower rpm?
It is a centrifugal clutch, that engages and disengages gradually. It is not "on & off". It doesn't "lock up", but gradually engages and disengages.

I would have thought that BRP would have designed the auto shift to not allow engine speeds that would damage the clutch.
So would I. They seem to be trying to correct that error with the recent update. I don't think they envisioned owners trying to operate outside the norminal power band of the engine.

Are you sure they aren't ripping off owners?


Or are those having their clutches replaced doing so because they were trickling along in first gear, slipping the clutch, in slow traffic or the like?
Generally, I expect that is the case, as well as trying to use the engine to climb hills at lower speeds, instead of downshifting. Many people used to automatics on cars don't understand the downshifting concept well. The car will kick down with a vacuum or mechanical modulator, to select a better gear. The Spyder won't. The car's torque converter will also slip without wear or damage...something a centrifugal clutch cannot do.

I appreciate your knowledge and willingness to share - thanks. The questions I raise are more rhetorical, directed at BRP themselves, rather than at you as a helpful Spyder man.
Understood. BRP has really done nothing wrong here. They have introduced a vehicle that has attracted a large following of sometimes neophyte users, and has proven to have capabilities that tend to make it ridden a bit differently than what was probably imagined, both in terms of performance and utility. People don't consider the limitations of the platform...they just want three wheels with outstanding stability. To them, all else is secondary. JMHO

[coz]

I get what I get. I don't care because I am going to ryde it anyway.