• There were many reasons for the change of the site software, the biggest was security. The age of the old software also meant no server updates for certain programs. There are many benefits to the new software, one of the biggest is the mobile functionality. Ill fix up some stuff in the coming days, we'll also try to get some of the old addons back or the data imported back into the site like the garage. To create a thread or to reply with a post is basically the same as it was in the prior software. The default style of the site is light colored, but i temporarily added a darker colored style, to change you can find a link at the bottom of the site.

Improving MPG

ironbuttdean

ironbuttdean

New member
2012 RT-S with 2100 miles on it since purchase six weeks ago. MPG started at 24. Todays' fill up yielded 31.4 MPG, mostly riding double at about 65-70 MPH.

Only mods have been BajaRon swaybar and a bump skid. Custom Dynamics parts arrived yesterday so the farkling can begin in earnest.

Getting happier with the mileage, not that that is enough to make me unhappy overall.
 
I am on my 2nd RT and 26-28 is the avg mpg on both. I have never seen 31 except for a short run exception...

but then, I never bought a Spyder looking for fuel mileage. When asked the question (often) about mileage. I usually tell them "when you're ryding a rocket who cares about mileage!" :thumbup:
 
And cooler too..!!

bumpskid helped our milage and helped keep her running cooler. Full coverage under frunk cut wind turbulence and the wings deflect air to the radiators. Great mod...thanks spyderpops..!! :2thumbs:
 
Temp

Chupaca said:
bumpskid helped our milage and helped keep her running cooler. Full coverage under frunk cut wind turbulence and the wings deflect air to the radiators. Great mod...thanks spyderpops..!! :2thumbs:
Click to expand...

I noticed cooler temps on the analog guage today also.
 
ironbuttdean said:
I think it helped, but not the full increase. Probably having a passenger reduces drag off the trunk too.
Click to expand...
Well you didn't mention 2 up riding! The other head acts like a spoiler pushing the back end down, this changes the angle of attack for the bump skid. So where earlier I said the bump skid helped, I was correct, but I acknowledge that credit also goes to noggin number 2 equally. That is my story and I will stick to its tenuous threads for as long as possible.

This is post 704 for me, a number I am fond of and would actually call my favorite.
 
Last edited:
We ryde 2-up almost exclusively on our stock 2012 RT SE5 and have averaged 30.4 for 3900 miles. But we're happy with only 50-60 mph because of wind-lash on neck muscles at higher speeds. The constant winds down here are almost never below 15 and usually 20 or more. But the roads are all flat and straight here in the Valley.
 
cjackg said:
I am on my 2nd RT and 26-28 is the avg mpg on both. I have never seen 31 except for a short run exception...

but then, I never bought a Spyder looking for fuel mileage. When asked the question (often) about mileage. I usually tell them "when you're riding a rocket who cares about mileage!" :thumbup:
Click to expand...

I have an 1800cc 6 cylinder rocket that gets 40-45 MPG... with a running average of 41.4 MPG. It does make you wonder why a 1000cc 2 cylinder gets such poor mileage compared to other trikes which seem to be in the 35 MPG range. I guess the frontal area is more on the Spyder compared to trikes...

JT
 
jthornton said:
I have an 1800cc 6 cylinder rocket that gets 40-45 MPG... with a running average of 41.4 MPG. It does make you wonder why a 1000cc 2 cylinder gets such poor mileage compared to other trikes which seem to be in the 35 MPG range. I guess the frontal area is more on the Spyder compared to trikes...

JT
Click to expand...
It is strictly a matter of aerodynamics. The Spyder not only has more frontal area, it is wide in the front VS the rear for other trikes, and it has exposed suspension, making it aerodynamically very "dirty". Drag is the biggest consumer of power, increasing as an exponential function of the speed. A big frontal area and poor aerodynamics will eat you alive in gas mileage. That being said, I'll take the Spyder as it is. It wouldn't be as neat if it was a skinny, enclosed teardrop shape.
 
NancysToy said:
It is strictly a matter of aerodynamics. The Spyder not only has more frontal area, it is wide in the front VS the rear for other trikes, and it has exposed suspension, making it aerodynamically very "dirty". Drag is the biggest consumer of power, increasing as an exponential function of the speed. A big frontal area and poor aerodynamics will eat you alive in gas mileage. That being said, I'll take the Spyder as it is. It wouldn't be as neat if it was a skinny, enclosed teardrop shape.
Click to expand...

Yea, it would look like a backwards Harley trike then... yuck!

I did notice the wheel base of the RT is much wider than my buddy's Harley trike and now that I think of it it is a nice triangle shape body. I wonder if something could be done with the suspension to make it more aerodynamic? Also I wonder if the NACA vent you see in some windshields will help even though they only follow the cutout shape and don't have the rest of the NACA vent design.

JT
 
I have ranged up 32.4 as my best, that was driving nice and easy, slow starts and stops. The Spyder may have a bit more frontal area but that the gearing has to be the real issue. There are many cars on the road that get far better mileage with 4 wheels, much heavier and larger engines and while they are a bit more streamlined they are also geared for economy. We are geared for snappy acceleration and to avoid hurting the clutch due to the high stall speed. While I did not buy the Spyder just for gas milage it is very disappointing when you first drive it and learn that the salesman that said about 40mpg was slightly more than optimistic. I bought mine for touring (RT SE5) and enjoy it when it is not broken down (that is another story) but I always keep a spare gallon of gas just to be safe.
 
Most seem to be getting in that magic 30 mpg range. I have had 34 as my best to date--but all four :spyder2:'s I have owned have averaged out (after break-in and about 4000 miles or so) at right around 30-31.
 
I'm going to gather up some courage, and cut those air deflectors off of my A-arm covers. :shocked:
Oh! 32.5mpg the last fillup! :thumbup:
 
I am wondering about a Nascar type frontal air dam. Not at the nose but set back towards the A arms (this way if a speed bump is there it would rise with the wheels. Just a thought. My Nissan Altima has a little air dam like this set back from the front under there. By the way, it is a 2013 model and gets the advertised epa mileage of 36, 38 highway at 65 mph. I think it is amazing that a car this size can get that kind of mileage with good performace. I travel a lot for my work and the car now has over 14,000 miles on it. I save about 100.00 a month on my gas bill over my last car, it got 28-30 mph.
Anyway, does anyone think an air dam would help or hurt. I'm going to tinker with it. I like the Spyder but man, if a couple of mpg could be found with a simple add of plastic I'd jump at it.:yikes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top