| Author | Message | ||
     Electraglider_1997 |
I'm kind of a tightass and love nothing better than maximizing my mpg in all of my vehicles. What kind of mpg are you ULY owners getting? We have gasahol with 10% alcohol in Nebraska and it is cheaper. Will I be able to use it in the ULY? | ||
| Thunderbox |
In your owners manual it stipulates that gasoline alcohol mix is good as long as it is no more than 10%. Most vehicles made in the last 6 or 7 years actually recommend that type of fuel. I don't know where you live but here it is the same price as regular but has the octane of 91 which is the recommended octane for the Uly. Imagine that. | ||
| Eor |
46 mpg average for me so far. | ||
| Dmcutter |
I've only tanked up 3 times but it's been 45, 46, and 48, the last primarily highway. The trip odometer is showing about 158 right now and the light hasn't come on yet, so looks like this tank is about 48 as well. | ||
| Eor |
At 46 mpg, the range of the Ulysses is 198.3 miles and when the low fuel light comes on you have 38.7 miles to dead engine. | ||
| Dmcutter |
Yes, I am familiar with the epic 38.7 story...I will do my level best not to confirm that number. | ||
| Brotherbuell |
I'm at around 43 mpg. but still in the break in period. (Message edited by brotherbuell on October 23, 2005) | ||
| Bienhoabob |
I'm in the upper 40's to low 50's with almost 2M miles on the odometer. The advertised 63.8 hwy seems doubtful at the moment. Time will tell. | ||
| M2nc |
I'm ranging between 43mpg to 48mpg. Riding to work it is very similar to the M2, but two up touring the M2 gets up into the mid-50s mpg, the Uly hasn't so far. I also like the larger reserve on the M2. The reserve comes on at 3.5 gallons so I have 1.5 gallons to get somewhere, which you sometimes need to get you somewhere in parts of eastern North Carolina. | ||
| Az_m2 |
Looks like I"m averaging the same as everyone else, high 40's. 3,000 miles on the odo. | ||
| Branebanger |
~50 highway ~30+ city the quality of gas and riding type, makes a big difference, my uly is very picky with the gas. just 'cause the station "claims" 93 octane, doesn't mean it is. best mileage I ever got on 93 octane was travelling from reno-san fran, got 200+ miles on a single tank. worst I get has been recently, been commuting to work every day ~17 miles one way, ~34 miles round trip, and my mileage is getting down to about ~30. but it really depends where I get my gas. sometimes it gets up to the ~40 range. this is almost all stop and go, or slow down and go. | ||
| Lovehamr |
Best so far is 42, worst is 36. It seems to be very dependant on how hard I twist the throttle! For instance does it still count as "Highway" mileage if you are at 90+ for substantial periods? LOL | ||
| Rkc00 |
Last few tanks I have gotten 40 MPG around town. The best I have gotten is 47 MPG on the highway. Most of the highway was at 70-85 MPH Range. | ||
| Eor |
Looks like the 51-64 mpg figures in the sales literature is a bit..... optimistic?  | ||
| Blake |
Keep in mind that aerodynamic drag goes up with speed squared. So if you cruise at 65mph, but the EPA hwy test simulates 55mph, the expected fuel efficiency would be roughly 72% of that advertised. Taking 72% of 64mpg yields 46mpg.  You can probably shoot that full of holes if you know the actual EPA test procedure, but the basic premise should remain valid. Mainly the EPA test numbers are to allow comparison between different vehicles, similar to the wear rating on tires. | ||
| Blake |
Also keep in mind that a bigger rider with non-aerodynamic attire will significantly hurt highway type fuel efficiency. Snug fitting leather yields better fuel efficiency than loose fitting fabric. (Message edited by Blake on October 24, 2005) | ||
| Lovehamr |
So Blake, you're saying I'm an overgrown ogre? OK. I got it......no problemo. LOL  | ||
| Thunderbox |
The mileage in the sales brochure is as close as it gets for comparison purposes. Unless you are prepared to ride the bike at 80 kph or 50 mph you probably won't see those kind of figures as thats the speed at which the figures are bases on. Can you say Vespa. | ||
| Bienhoabob |
From the above posted mpg numbers, I think Blake is saying that all of our bodies lack aerodynamic efficiencies. I think I'll go shave my legs. Please don't ask for pictures.  | ||
| Dano_12s |
During break-in 44-46MPG Now 2K showing 52-54 MPG.Noticed that holding the throttle steady helps. | ||
| Dmcutter |
As a long time cyclist, I do shave my legs but am still only getting 46 mpg. But, I do wear pants when I ride the Uly, so the aerodynamic efficiencies of shaving are for naught. | ||
| Chadhargis |
Try this: http://www.learntoride.org/RCBuddy2.jpg | ||
| Lowflyer |
(4) Based on test conducted under lab conditions per U.S. E.P.A. test procedures. Mileage will vary depending on personal riding habits, weather conditions, trip length and vehicle condition. I have yet to ride a motorcycle under lab conditions. Oddly enough, my lab is scared of the bike. My last tank netted 41.25 mpg. I was doing a lot of dirt work to include some gnarly mud-slingin' donuts. My best tank so far has been 48 mpg with mostly all highway riding at 70-80 mph. Given Blake's calculations, that would be roughly 66 dmpg. DMPG = miles per gallon expressed in dog years | ||
| Dr_greg |
Shoot, guys, I know I ride like an old lady, but on my all-day rides in the mountains I've gotten in the high 50s for mpg; One tank 58, another 56... | ||
| Thunderbox |
Liar Liar pants on fire. lmao | ||
| Thunderbox |
You will almost always get better mileage in the Mountains with a fuel injected bike than you do at sea level. Reason is up high you get less air and therefore less fuel and therefore better fuel economy. You will however experience less power for the same reasons. | ||
| Dave |
Your idea would apply to a carb'd bike. Buell's FI should compensate for altitude changes unlike a carb'd bike. DAve | ||
| Thunderbox |
No it applies to fuel injected bikes more so. The ECU will keep the air fuel ratio at a specific ratio 13.8 to 1 and if you have less air like at high altitudes it will supply less fuel to compensate. | ||
| Dave |
... I can't subscribe to that logic though it may be reality somewhere (just not in my mind ) It seems to me that the mechanical action of a carb inserts fuel regardless of air density/abilty to mix efficiently thus resulting in a rich fuel mixture at altitude. You seemed to have defeated your own logic by stating FI delivers a set ratio of 38:1 Less air does mean less fuel which means less fire which means less 'go'. I'm not saying I'm right or your wrong...just saying I don't follow the logic. DAve (Message edited by dave on October 25, 2005) | ||
| Thunderbox |
Air fuel ratios are stated by weight. I said 13.8 to 1 ratio. 13.8 parts of air and 1 part of fuel. If the air weighs 13.8 lbs at sea level then you add 1 lb of fuel. If the same volume of air only weighs 13 lbs at 3000 ft then you only add .94 lbs of fuel. Yes the power goes down but the fuel economy goes up. Can you follow that now. |
