-
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.
High RPMs
- Thread starter odd
- Start date
Pampurrs
Pragmatic Member
I average 35 MPG when I tool around the city, but when I go long, high speed interstate rides, it drops to 28 MPG due to the high RPM needed to maintain speed. This is one of the faults I find with this engine (1330), it flies in the face of common wisdom in which you get better gas mileage on the road than you do in the city. Oh well, I still enjoy the Spyder. I didn't choose it for fuel efficiency.
Pam
Pam
2010 RT-S 998
Highwayman2013
New member
The 998 is an old sport bike engine and likes higher rpm's. Keep it around 5,000 and it will be happy.
It's all about what revs the engine & driveline are most efficient at!!
Run with your revs too low & the engine isn't running as efficiently as it could be AND the gearing/driveline means the Spyder is not getting as many tire revolutions/distance travelled from each engine rev as it could..... Similarly, run with your revs too high & you go to the other end of the scale. But if you spend most of your time with the engine revving in its 'most efficient' rev range & your gear selection giving you the best number of revolutions of the drive tire it can at that speed/in that efficient engine rev range, then you'll get better mpg than you would anywhere outside that most efficient engine rev range/gear selection for a given road speed.
Running a fuel injected engine slowly doesn't necessarily mean it uses less fuel like it generally does on a carb fueled engine, nor does it necessarily mean the engine is running efficiently; low engine revs don't always give you the best power/torque output for the fuel that's being burnt nor does it mean that all the fuel delivered into the cylinders is being used at its greatest efficiency; compounding that with an incorrect gear selection for your chosen road speed can load up the engine in a way that makes the fuel usage even worse - eg if you get the engine lugging due to too low engine revs &/or too high a gear selection, the computer can try to inject more fuel into the cylinders in an effort to increase the power/torque output so the engine won't stall, but you still don't necessarily get to go any further for each rev of the engine even tho you are burning more fuel..... And similarly if you rev the engine beyond its efficient power/torque output range, you can end up burning more fuel than you need to burn in order to get the most efficient revs of the drive tire/distanced travelled for each rev of the engine...
Keeping your engine revs in the efficient range (which on small petrol engines is usually within a thousand revs or so either side of the revs where the power & torque delivery curves meet) and selecting the gear that gives you your chosen road speed while keeping your revs in that 'most efficient' range will give you better mpg than riding outside any of those parameters. Of course, there are a whole range of other things that can have an impact on the actual mpg numbers too: things like running the right tire pressures to give you the least rolling resistance on that road surface while still providing sufficient traction that you aren't spinning your drive tire to maintain speed; or running engine revs sufficiently high to make sure the centrifugal clutch is not slipping & wasting 'drive' & therefore fuel; and a whole heap more....
The 998 V-Twin motors run at their 'most efficient' by delivering their optimum balance of power & torque around 3800-5500 rpm, while many other motors, including the 1330 ACE motor, deliver more torque earlier in their rev range, so their 'most efficient' revs & rev range is correspondingly lower. Add a 'less slippy' clutch & another 'over-drive' gear too, & that means the 1330 can deliver their best mpg without revving as hard as the 998, which needs to be revved harder to deliver their best. Clear as, isn't it?!
:thumbup:
Run with your revs too low & the engine isn't running as efficiently as it could be AND the gearing/driveline means the Spyder is not getting as many tire revolutions/distance travelled from each engine rev as it could..... Similarly, run with your revs too high & you go to the other end of the scale. But if you spend most of your time with the engine revving in its 'most efficient' rev range & your gear selection giving you the best number of revolutions of the drive tire it can at that speed/in that efficient engine rev range, then you'll get better mpg than you would anywhere outside that most efficient engine rev range/gear selection for a given road speed.
Running a fuel injected engine slowly doesn't necessarily mean it uses less fuel like it generally does on a carb fueled engine, nor does it necessarily mean the engine is running efficiently; low engine revs don't always give you the best power/torque output for the fuel that's being burnt nor does it mean that all the fuel delivered into the cylinders is being used at its greatest efficiency; compounding that with an incorrect gear selection for your chosen road speed can load up the engine in a way that makes the fuel usage even worse - eg if you get the engine lugging due to too low engine revs &/or too high a gear selection, the computer can try to inject more fuel into the cylinders in an effort to increase the power/torque output so the engine won't stall, but you still don't necessarily get to go any further for each rev of the engine even tho you are burning more fuel..... And similarly if you rev the engine beyond its efficient power/torque output range, you can end up burning more fuel than you need to burn in order to get the most efficient revs of the drive tire/distanced travelled for each rev of the engine...
Keeping your engine revs in the efficient range (which on small petrol engines is usually within a thousand revs or so either side of the revs where the power & torque delivery curves meet) and selecting the gear that gives you your chosen road speed while keeping your revs in that 'most efficient' range will give you better mpg than riding outside any of those parameters. Of course, there are a whole range of other things that can have an impact on the actual mpg numbers too: things like running the right tire pressures to give you the least rolling resistance on that road surface while still providing sufficient traction that you aren't spinning your drive tire to maintain speed; or running engine revs sufficiently high to make sure the centrifugal clutch is not slipping & wasting 'drive' & therefore fuel; and a whole heap more....
The 998 V-Twin motors run at their 'most efficient' by delivering their optimum balance of power & torque around 3800-5500 rpm, while many other motors, including the 1330 ACE motor, deliver more torque earlier in their rev range, so their 'most efficient' revs & rev range is correspondingly lower. Add a 'less slippy' clutch & another 'over-drive' gear too, & that means the 1330 can deliver their best mpg without revving as hard as the 998, which needs to be revved harder to deliver their best. Clear as, isn't it?!
:thumbup:
SpyderAnn01
Active member
Pam, I know you are not a fan of EcoMode, but I get 30+Mpg at 80 mph towing my heavily loaded trailer using EcoMode.
Bob Denman
New member
odd,
:congrats: on this discovery! But what sort of fuel mileage numbers are we talking about? :dontknow:
:congrats: on this discovery! But what sort of fuel mileage numbers are we talking about? :dontknow:
25-28
Highwayman2013
New member
Our 2012 with the 998 gets 28-32.
oldguyinTX
New member
Same with my 2013 RT LTD.
jroberts650
New member
Mine is a 998 also but I find that I get about the same regardless no matter if it's city or highway. I get a consistent 31-32 MPG. I tend to stay in the same RPM range so that probably is the factor of why it is so consistent.
I had though about trading up to the 1330 but not a lot of used models out there. But even though the 1330 gets better mileage around town and less on the highway, the average would be very close to a 998. Going by what the OP said.
I had though about trading up to the 1330 but not a lot of used models out there. But even though the 1330 gets better mileage around town and less on the highway, the average would be very close to a 998. Going by what the OP said.
ARtraveler
R.I.P. Dwayne
The explanations above have you covered.
When driving the 998, the high revs (5000 - 5500) do seem to make the engine perform better as well as giving the best gas mileage.
It was hard to wrap my mind around that, but once I did, it works. I came from many bikes that were high revving at about 2300 or so. So, it seemed high to me at first.
When driving the 998, the high revs (5000 - 5500) do seem to make the engine perform better as well as giving the best gas mileage.
It was hard to wrap my mind around that, but once I did, it works. I came from many bikes that were high revving at about 2300 or so. So, it seemed high to me at first.
Mazo EMS2
Active member
Ditto: I came from a Honda ST1300, and revving that up meant in the upper 3000 range..LOL. I've also got the 2010, 998, and it took me a bit to get used to the higher rpm's. But, as mentioned, 5000-5500 seems to be the sweet spot. I don't get into 5th gear unless I'm going 70mph or faster. Give it a whirl, you'll feel the difference in the way the bike is "working". Give it time. My mileage is typically in the upper 20's/low 30's on normal 55mph speed limit roads.
robmorg
New member
Question for Peter Aawen
Peter,
Thanks for that easy-to-follow explanation above. Now, if you would be so kind, can you offer an explanation for this question....
Why did the 2013 RT gain a 20% improvement on fuel efficiency when they switched from a return fuel system to a returnless system during the 2015 recall? Intuitively, one would think the opposite would be the case. Before the recall, I had already eliminated the "boiling fuel problem", for the most part, and I was averaging only about 22.5 mpg. Since the recall I've averaged about 27 mpg, and I've been wondering about it ever since. Can you think of a plausible explanation?
Peter,
Thanks for that easy-to-follow explanation above. Now, if you would be so kind, can you offer an explanation for this question....
Why did the 2013 RT gain a 20% improvement on fuel efficiency when they switched from a return fuel system to a returnless system during the 2015 recall? Intuitively, one would think the opposite would be the case. Before the recall, I had already eliminated the "boiling fuel problem", for the most part, and I was averaging only about 22.5 mpg. Since the recall I've averaged about 27 mpg, and I've been wondering about it ever since. Can you think of a plausible explanation?
Last edited:
^^ I got the same sort of results robmorg, a measurable & reasonably significant improvement in fuel economy from my 2013 RT Ltd after the heat alleviation work was done; altho I never had anywhere near the same sort of heat issues to start with!!
Can I think of a plausible explanation for the improvement?!? Not really........ There are a few 'out there' ideas floating around, but nothing I can see that really fits in with what we've been told the recall work did to the fuel system & the ECU tune.... Still, it's obviously made a difference & the fuel economy gain is not something I would like to give up or even mess up thru playing with things trying to work out how it's happened!! So maybe I'll hold off on digging further until next time all the tupperware is off & I've got ready access to the fuel plumbing & plugs, leads, etc.
In the meantime, I'm going to abide by that old saying...... Equi donati dentes non inspiciuntur :thumbup:
Can I think of a plausible explanation for the improvement?!? Not really........ There are a few 'out there' ideas floating around, but nothing I can see that really fits in with what we've been told the recall work did to the fuel system & the ECU tune.... Still, it's obviously made a difference & the fuel economy gain is not something I would like to give up or even mess up thru playing with things trying to work out how it's happened!! So maybe I'll hold off on digging further until next time all the tupperware is off & I've got ready access to the fuel plumbing & plugs, leads, etc.
In the meantime, I'm going to abide by that old saying...... Equi donati dentes non inspiciuntur :thumbup:
AeroPilot
Member
Not a fan of Horsebreath but...
On a overall evaluation, the Law of Conservation of Energy might explain the increase in mpg since
Total Energy in must equal Total Energy Out.
And since the energy input is the Energy of Each gal of Gasoline, and the Energy out is the Mechanical Energy of Motion (force times distance, or work done) plus any Heat Energy, Light Energy, Sound Energy released (all wave energy forms), so with less Heat released, more Energy is conserved and converted to Mechanical Energy ergo MPG.
Might also explain why running AC, using lots of extra Lighting, Sound Energy whether high Amped audio, or Loud pipes all theoretically reduce your MPG!!!:roflblack::roflblack:
I knew that my frugal pockets hated loud pipes for some reason
On a overall evaluation, the Law of Conservation of Energy might explain the increase in mpg since
Total Energy in must equal Total Energy Out.
And since the energy input is the Energy of Each gal of Gasoline, and the Energy out is the Mechanical Energy of Motion (force times distance, or work done) plus any Heat Energy, Light Energy, Sound Energy released (all wave energy forms), so with less Heat released, more Energy is conserved and converted to Mechanical Energy ergo MPG.
Might also explain why running AC, using lots of extra Lighting, Sound Energy whether high Amped audio, or Loud pipes all theoretically reduce your MPG!!!:roflblack::roflblack:
I knew that my frugal pockets hated loud pipes for some reason
Similar threads
