Fuel Consumption Averages

[Bootie]

I just finished a 5826 mile trip from Ohio to California (Corbin seat) then to Chicago (Spyder event) and back to Ohio. I pulled a trailer for the entire distance. I kept good records of my fuel consumption using "GasHog" app on my iPhone. I documented EVERY fill-up for the entire trip. The stats are summarized below.

Distance 5826 mi
Total Fuel 212 gal
Average MPG 27.81 mpg
27.43 mpg using 91 Octane
28.64 mpg using 85/87 Octane
Average Fuel Cost
91 Octane $3.04/gal
85/87 Octane $2.81/gal

NOTES: Fuel consumption was essentially the same no matter what Octane was used. Actually 85/87 Octane was a little better though probably not significant. Cost difference at $0.23/gal IS significant. Standard Deviation was 3.55 mpg.
According to BRP (at the Tech tent) the ECU adjusts for lower Octane but he says that the fuel consumption should be about 15% higher. Such is NOT the case.
Max Distance is therefore about 171 miles on 6 gal.
Average MPG before the trip, without the trailer, was 28.72 mpg. so there was a slight increase (28.72mpg > 27.43mpg) in fuel consumption with the trailer.

Hope some of you find this info useful.:lecturef_smilie:

 

[bone crusher]

Great info...thanks...yeah, higher octane doesn't do anything but waste money...plenty of info out there on that and most of it is on the web now. Interesting that you did well with the trailer.

Before the second update, I was up to 33-35mpg...was really happy with that...I think I am quite a bit below that now, after the second update...have to continue to tweak the JB until I get the right fit again...

 

[scudrunner]

Appx 1 mpg better with the lower octane, but cost was 23 cents lower. That is significant when you look at the cost per mile.

 

[canam9]

Nice write up.:2thumbs: :ani29:

 

[pjp623]

:2thumbs: Thanks for the info.
Actually, your mpg is much better than mine and I don't pull a trailer! :dontknow:

 

[fastfraser]

I agree . I don't find a great deal of difference, gas mileage wise when I pull my trailer .

 

[DietitianBill]

Bone crusher is right. There is no performance advantage by using higher octane than you need. I worked at a performance shop for years (carpenterracing.com) and can tell you that we would have guys come in using "race" gas in their bikes all of the time. We would dyno them and then put our gas tank on with pump gas and make an additional 5HP. You're wasting your money by using higher octane causing the bike to run hotter because higher octane burns slower and allowing more deposits to form in the combustion chamber. So not only are you wasting your money but you're doing more harm than good. At most i'd run 89 octane on really hot days and even that's a reach. If it calls for 87 octane run 87 octane. The manufacture wouldn't suggest using a fuel that's going to damage your engine.

 

[Bootie]

Bone crusher is right. There is no performance advantage by using higher octane than you need. I worked at a performance shop for years (carpenterracing.com) and can tell you that we would have guys come in using "race" gas in their bikes all of the time. We would dyno them and then put our gas tank on with pump gas and make an additional 5HP. You're wasting your money by using higher octane causing the bike to run hotter because higher octane burns slower and allowing more deposits to form in the combustion chamber. So not only are you wasting your money but you're doing more harm than good. At most i'd run 89 octane on really hot days and even that's a reach. If it calls for 87 octane run 87 octane. The manufacture wouldn't suggest using a fuel that's going to damage your engine.

The 2010 RT calls for 91 Octane which is what I have been running. The compression ratio is 12.2:1. That's why I was surprised that 87 Octane was fine.

 

[groundeffect]

Great test results - thank you for sharing!!:thumbup:

I am consistently getting between 27-32mpg, city vs. highway ryding.
Seems about average. I burn 87 octane (Regular) fuel.

Cheers,
Dean

I just finished a 5826 mile trip from Ohio to California (Corbin seat) then to Chicago (Spyder event) and back to Ohio. I pulled a trailer for the entire distance. I kept good records of my fuel consumption using "GasHog" app on my iPhone. I documented EVERY fill-up for the entire trip. The stats are summarized below.

Distance 5826 mi
Total Fuel 212 gal
Average MPG 27.81 mpg
27.43 mpg using 91 Octane
28.64 mpg using 85/87 Octane
Average Fuel Cost
91 Octane $3.04/gal
85/87 Octane $2.81/gal

NOTES: Fuel consumption was essentially the same no matter what Octane was used. Actually 85/87 Octane was a little better though probably not significant. Cost difference at $0.23/gal IS significant. Standard Deviation was 3.55 mpg.
According to BRP (at the Tech tent) the ECU adjusts for lower Octane but he says that the fuel consumption should be about 15% higher. Such is NOT the case.
Max Distance is therefore about 171 miles on 6 gal.
Average MPG before the trip, without the trailer, was 28.72 mpg. so there was a slight increase (28.72mpg > 27.43mpg) in fuel consumption with the trailer.

Hope some of you find this info useful.:lecturef_smilie:

 

[Campverdefela]

I average 28-32 mpg. I think 89 octane is a good compromise for the RS as it contains a little more detergents than 87. I know people out their disagree but my years of experience tell me otherwise.

 

[kman]

Thanks for the info.I am getting anywhere from 30 to 34 mpg depending on how hard I ride it and amount of riding 2up.Has anyone noticed a difference in "performance" between 10% ethanol blend and regular gas?I seem to get better gas mileage and performance with regular gas as opposed to the ethanol blend.

 

[irish2themax]

Every time I read about people getting more than 21 mpg, I want to cry

 

[omac546]

Why the low mpg?

A little over 10,000 miles and I am consistently getting between 36 for a daily commute in the city and 40 mpg :2thumbs: when highway riding. Single seat.
I burn 85 octane (Regular) fuel here in Colorado. Most of the Front Range gas stations are 10% Eth regardless of the octane.

The cost differance is what pushes me to the lower octane.

 

[tomvolk]

mileage

Just did first trip with trailer--900 miles round trip . Mostly steady flat highway-- around 68 mph +- 5mph most of the time.


RT only had 600 miles (had service done by dealer) at start of trip.

averaged 22MPG

high 24
low 19 MPG (headwind on Turnpike---4.5 gallons 85 miles!)

used premium

Note: total mileage now just over 1500.

Mileage did not improve between start and end of trip

I sure hope it can get close to the 27MPG reported on the forum at some point soon!!

 

[dave711]

with 2010 rt I am normally getting 30-31 mpg with 2700 miles on the spyder. I started at 24-25 and have been getting better the more miles I put on it.

 

[bone crusher]

I average 28-32 mpg. I think 89 octane is a good compromise for the RS as it contains a little more detergents than 87. I know people out their disagree but my years of experience tell me otherwise.

Do you really think the detergents are doing anything between 89 and 87? And what detergents in 89 affect the vehicle more than the 87? I usually fuel up wherever I am, so I am not loyal to any one brand of gas...or their detergents...

 

[Star Cruiser]

Great write up Bootie.

I have tracked my milage since I got my SE5 in late 2008.
I've found little difference in fuel consumption at all speeds and travel types. Over 40,000km I have averaged 7.342 litres/100km. That works out to 38.31 miles/imp gallon or 30.65 miles per US Gallon.
The lowest I have gotten was 27 mpg (US) and the highest 35 mpg (US).
I ride with the rpms in the powerband (4,500 - 5,500) while cruisin'. Usually shift around 6,000 or 7,000.
I found a little better response with premium grade 91 octane, but no milage improvement. The information about the FI injector/timing adjusting for antiknock might explain the better performance (thanks).
91 octane is 15¢ - 18¢/litre more (that is around 60¢/US gallon) at that rate, am not having a problem using regular grade gasoline

 

[bone crusher]

:cus: Citgo........

Okay, you got me...I don't buy Hugo Chavez's Citgo. He can take his Venezuelan gas and pump it up his :cus:

 

[bone crusher]

question for everyone here...what, exactly, did the second update do to our bikes in regards to 'performance'? I was out for a long ride today and was fiddling with the JB...seems like the bike was either made to run much leaner or with more fuel in....

Let me explain. I was finding that the bike was 'popping' more while coasting, even though I had the settings for 'coasting' lower...I raised them up a bit and I think (not sure though), that the popping decreased. In addition, I found that upping settings 2 and 3 seemed to dial things in a little better...I was losing that great acceleration I had until I did this...

So, until I get my numbers totally dialed in, does anyone know specifically the effect of the second update on the bike? It really changed things a lot...

Thanks...

 

[Desert Spyder]

Every time I read about people getting more than 21 mpg, I want to cry

Are you still towing the trailer Brian?

I just got through figuring out the average cost per mile (fuel only) of a run I did with West Coast Spyder in the Central Calif. wine country, dividing the miles by the total fuel expense rounded off to nearest 0 or 5 in both categories.

I averaged 88 cents a mile (California fuel is more expensive than most states). I figured this could be much lower if we drove like Goldwingers but it gives me a ballpark for future long distance runs and the budget.

Fuel economy don't mean beans if you don't have the $ in the bank to get back home.

I just checked a site <http://gasbuddy.com/GB_Price_List.aspx?cntry=USA> and the mean fuel price in the country is $2.72 a gallon. This might be important info when we do our travels this summer.

If you know your approximate mileage in distance and how much you spend per mile you know what you can splurge on elsewhere.

Won't be souvenirs. No place to put them. Unless you have a trailer.