| Author | Message | ||
     Onebuell |
With all you Buelligans talking race pipe this and tfi that and distance travelled the other thing. It's time to take a look at the old adage of Miles Per Gallon. On a hot summer day in Ohio temperature around 90 or so, I ran 167.4 miles. The fuel light went on at 150 miles. I filled up (the same way when I had started out) and it took 2.801 gallons. Mind you the Buell fuel framer takes 3.7 gallons according to the book. I had it filled right to the gills both when I started out and when I refilled. When I started adding numbers in my head I figure I had used 3 gallons at the 150 mile mark and was impressed. Since the book says reserve is .7 gallons. When I got home I broke out the ol' trusty Casio calcookculator, and determined my actual mileage was 59.764 miles per gallon. I had .899 gallons of fuel left in the tank when I went to fill-up so that brings the total TOPPED OFF tank to DRY TANK miles per tank to a respectable 221.12783 miles. I know I can do 200 miles on a topped-off to the gills dyna tank (4.9 gallons) and have about 20 miles left in the tank before that fuel gauge needle gets scary. Now, for the rider and riding. I'm 6' 4". 200lbs or so. Secondary roads and not much traffic, and some 70 MPH highway cruising speed back up north a ways. So approximately half was secondarys going south and half was highway going north. Stock XB9S. Stock exhaust. Conclusion: the Buell is best left alone if one seeks ultimate in fuel efficiency. The Buell 2004 info rates the XB9S it a 50 city / 65 Highway miles per gallon. I have a 2003, and the books says (get this) 47 city / 51.2 highway. Why the discrepencies I have no idea. Perhaps} I should write Buell himself to inquire. The 2005 info is on a CD and no books were published (which I for one miss) since they aiming at techy crowd, but I like the convenience of a book to carry and refer to without having to run a pc. Next time I will TRY to improve that 59.764 miles per gall to 60 or better. Since on this trip I didn't aim to get maximum mileage, so I should be able to get in the 60's miles per gallon. | ||
| Dagwood |
I was a little suspicious that my CityX wasn't getting the fuel efficiency claimed. I've run the bike completely out of gas before (on an Indian Reservation in Southern Arizona) and when I filled the tank from bone dry the meter read only 3.2 gallons. I haven't done any modifications to the bike. I wonder if the 3.7 gallon tank claim is actually true. | ||
| Cruisin |
From what I've gathered from previous posts everybody's fuel light comes on at 2.7 gallons... | ||
| Dagwood |
The day I ran out of fuel, I got exactly 40 miles from the time my fuel light came on. I maintained a constant 75 mph. If its true that the light comes on at 2.7 and the capacity is 3.7 then I'm only getting 40 mpg on the highway! My old Honda Civic got better mileage than that! | ||
| Spike |
You've got me beat. My XB12R with a drummer, TFI and "race" air cleaner turned in 54mpg out of it's last tank. That tank was mostly interstate highway, some secondary road travel, and a little bit of city traffic. The interesting thing is that the mileage drops off significantly just above "interstate" speeds. While on our trip to Daytona with the C3 group we averaged 80-85mph on the first two tanks and my 12R turned in about 45mpg. On the 3rd leg we kept the speeds down to 70-75mph while cruising and only went above 80mph for short bursts while passing and mileage jumped up to 52mpg. Mike L. | ||
| Tpoppa |
The fuel capacity on my XB9S (basically stock) is 3.4 gallons, my reserve comes on at 2.7 gallons. I usually ride backroads, with a little hwy. I get anywhere from 48-54 mpg. | ||
| Reepicheep |
I hit 45 mpg pretty regularly. Note that the XB12, being a long stroke engine, will probably get better fuel economy then the XB9, which is a more oversquare engine. I had an old Honda CRX, probably one of the most fuel efficient non hybrids Honda ever made. I saw 50 mpg once, driving at a near constant 35 MPH on snow covered roads to Snowshoe WV on a ski trip. It was the proverbial "egg between your foot and the accelerator". For like 6 hours  Other then that, I could count on a pretty constant 33 to 38 mpg, at least the way I rung that little cars neck. Fun little thing to throw around the road. If I could ever actually behave my self on my 9sx for a full tank of gas, I *might* be able to hit 50+ mpg. But I doubt that will ever happen... it's just too much fun to open the thing up and wind that motor out... | ||
| Ingemar |
Dunno man. I do a 100 mls before the light goes on. I can then do another 18-or-so. | ||
| Brax4444 |
I get a consistent 54.5 MPG with my 2004 XB-12S. It's not all easy miles either. :-) | ||
| Fullpower |
stock XB12. highway mileage runs 52 to 56 miles per gallon, depending on speeds. twice had 60 miles per gallon following some female beginner riders on highway, average 55-60 mph, not passing much. an air cooled long stroke twin is has a great potentioal for efficiency, and cannot be matched by a 4 cyl, short stroke watercooled machine of even half the displacement. what i mean is that my 1203 cc buell will always get better fuel economy than any of the 600 cc racer-replica, or even the water cooled 650 twins. the higher cylinder head temperature of an air cooled engine is INHERENTLY more efficient than any water pumper. the longer stroke is also conducive to gaining the most net torque from the expanding combustion gasses. | ||
| Dungood |
I usually do 95-100 miles in the city, and 110-120 miles on the twisties till the light goes on, but I am not saving fuel when riding, and passing hundreds of those freakin' Germans on their shiny BMW bikes, cruising at 65mph  | ||
| Djkaplan |
Odd that such an old engine design is so fuel efficient, even (or especially) when compared to modern engines. Harley engines (even during the old Iron AMF days), were always noted for their fuel efficiency. | ||
| Tpoppa |
2 valves per cylinder=fuel efficient | ||
| Tomzweifel |
Running up to Laconia last weekend I was getting consistently between 138 to 150 miles per tank and taking between 2.7 to 2.8 to fill it up. Over the past 2,000 miles I've been getting an unwavering 52 MPG. That's for a 9R with a D&D, race ECM and air filter. I'm 6'nuthin at 180 stripped / 195 equipped. I don't know where the published fuel efficiency figures come from, but I'm sure if the EPA has anything to do with it the numbers are arbitrary at best. I, for one, have no idea how a V-Rod can have the same sized tank and get only a published 35 MPG. What were they thinking? | ||
| Phantom5oh |
Yeah, I've been getting about 50 mpg on my stock XB12Scg in everything from rush hour traffic and 80 mph on the highway. | ||
| Fullpower |
vrod is water cooled, short stroke, and a 4 valve head. all of these traits are good for peak horsepower and each one of them is detrimental to lower rpm part throttle cruise economy. look at it this way, for a given displacement engine, the smaller the bore (long stroke) the LESS piston ring circumference bears on cylinder walls. sliding friction ie piston ring breakaway force is greater than the windage or bearing load from a long stroke a high rpm 4 valve head is great for peak flow/ peak horsepower, but not the greatest design for part throttle cruise mixture flow velocity. two valve heads just work better for peak fuel economy. and to repeat my earlier statement: a higher cylinder head temperature makes for higher combustion efficiency. all other factors equal, ie compression ratio, cam timing, bore and stroke the same, an engine with a cylinder head temperature of 220 degrees F (water cooled ) will use significantly MORE fuel than an engine with 350 degree cylinder head temp (air cooled), my observation suggest a difference of around 20 percent fuel economy advantage with an air cooled engine versus a water pumper. | ||
| Ted |
i've calculated mileage a couple of times. For the 9S, mixed highwy/city- 62 mpg (of course thats an imperial gallon!) | ||
| Tomzweifel |
Fullpower, I understand why it is, I'm just not understanding how Harley could make a bike - a cruiser none the less - that barely even gets 100 miles to a tank! The Street Rod is how the bike should have been from day one. | ||
| Blake |
How would one come to assume that the cylinder head in an air-cooled engine always runs hotter than that on a liquid cooled engine? The cooling medium does not govern that scenario. The efficiency and design of the cooling system overall, and especially around the cylinder head would be what would govern cylinder head temperature, especially at easy cruising speeds. I believe that what most benefits fuel efficiency in our Buell engines is... 1. Low operational engine speed/long stroke (more efficient combustion, cause there's more time for it to take place). 2. Roller bearings (much much more efficient that journal bearings). 3. Air-cooling (no water pump to power or radiator to push through the air.) Great stuff. Cutting edge technology really. | ||
| Prof_stack |
Different riders and riding styles: My XB9S has averaged 53 mpg over 8300 miles. 57 mpg yesterday. Two fillups showed 60 mpg. | ||
| Chainsaw |
66mpg best ever, stock XB9R 55mpg average for spirited riding. I was getting over 60mpg on my 883 2 weeks ago on a little 600 mile jaunt in the mountains. Best ever for it, and consistantly over 60mpg. | ||
| Craigster |
I used to get around 45 on my old carbureted Cyclone. Now even with hotter cams, bigger valves and port work it still does well. Last check put it at 49 mpg. I think it can be credited to EFI, since it can be configured to add what is required for fuel and can figure enrichments for accel, and warm up with out the stone axe technology of a a carb sloshing in a bucket of fuel every time the grip is twisted, regardless of twist velocity. And a choke that riders like to leave on way to long to get around the EPA mandated lean jetting. I'm not too surprised to see that the latest of Buell motors are getting good mpg. I think it was Cycle world that rated a 12 at 65 mpg as well. EFI is great when it's well sorted. | ||
| Bikertrash05 |
I regularly get around 55mpg with my CityX, and that is mostly 60-70mph, 1 hour at a time. | ||
| Onebuell |
WOW ! thanks for all the interesting buelli arteefacts. Regardless if the tank is 3.7 er whatever... I still to my amazement averaged 59.764 Miles per gallon. Where I got the claimed fuel efficiency numbers? I thought I was clear about that in my message. I got them from the BUELL catalogs for the 2003 and 2004 bikes. Right there for your reading pleasure. Like I said there is a descrepancy between 2003 and 2004 Lightning gas mileage; I have the 2003 and got more like the 2005 mileage ratings. I know that Harley uses a 180 lb. rider to do their mileage tests and I think they use 60 miles per hour to do the test. If you don't believe my numbers on that short little trip then, oh well. I know what and where I gassed that level to. And it was right up to the point just before it goes to overflow. 60 and 60 + mileage is possible then I see from other XB Buelligans | ||
| Joele |
I get at least 550 mile to the tank....In my Prius  | ||
| Doughnut |
I know that I am on an "old school" S2, but my last tank gave me 52.8 average, most city. Pretty stock. | ||
| Blake |
Carburetors are no less efficient if properly tuned than EFI. I achieved 73 MPG two tank fulls in a row on my stock '97 Cyclone. The thin air of Colorada made a big difference. I would average around 55 mpg at home closer to sea level. Now with the carb tuned to the rich side for track days, and after some performance work on the top end netting a strong 100 RWHP, I still easily break 50 mpg down near sea level. If I tuned my Cyclone's carb to achieve more EPA-like mixtures, I have no doubt the bike would be pushing close to 60 mpg. Brian Nallin, ADBA champion tuner and owner of Revolution Performance once explained to me that a good well-integrated, well-matched performance top end would indeed improve fuel mileage with the only caveat that the cams must not be too aggressive and thus not suited for optimum performance at lower engine speeds. In other words, a 1250cc top end kit along with some expert head porting will not only improve power output; it will also improve fuel efficiency, especially if you keep the stock cams. He also clarified that Nicasil lined all-aluminum cylinders help reduce parasitic losses as they provide a better more consistent oil holding lubricative surface, and yes, he told me this long before, years before having any affiliation with Millenium Technologies. This discussion sure does give me some interesting ideas for an unconventional motorcycle performance competition, like an endurance race for 600cc and larger machines that is very strictly fuel limited, like provide only ten gallons per team for an eight hour race. Disconnect the acceleration pumps! Could be fun. Anyone up for organizing such an event? | ||
| Bbstacker |
I'm not too sure about consistency. I don't figure my mileage with every fill up. Usually just when I'm going on a more-than-one-tank ride. Yesterday I took Route 66 from San Bernardino to Barstow. Jumped on the 58 E to I-15 S and back home. Total mileage 144.3. The fuel light never came on. I was getting a little worried because my idiot light comes on about 135 miles almost without fail, but that's a weeks worth of mixed city, highway, and lane-splitting in heavy traffic. Anyway the light came on on the way into work today. I filled up on the way home at 166.1 miles. The bike took 3.05 gals. giving me an avg. of 54.459 mpg. Not too shabby. BTW 03 XB9R with Race pipe, Race ECM, K&N filter. The weather was hot and dry (low to mid 90s) with a fairly stiff head wind as I was heading south on I-15 On edit...Speeds on Route 66 were from 60 to 70. On I-15 between 80 and 85 except for the south end of Victorville where traffic was heavy. (Message edited by Bbstacker on June 28, 2005) | ||
| Johnnylunchbox |
FWIW ...On a 125 mile run (approximately) I got about 10% better gas mileage on my 2004 XB12R than my buddy's 2003 Suzuki SV650S. | ||
| Buellj79 |
I averaged between 143 to 150 before light came on. | ||
| Phantom5oh |
Good point Johnnylunchboz, on my trip to Laconia, I was getting the best mpg out of my group. I was paying about $6 a fill while they were paying between $8-$10. The most thirsty bike was a 2004 RC51, then 2004 919, a 2005 CBR 600RR and the least thirsty was the Buell XB12S! | ||
| Opto |
The XB's get very good mpg because they run the O2 sensor in closed loop with the ecm in cruise, giving the motor just enough fuel to run properly and keep emissions to a minimum. There are very few bikes that have an O2 sensor with EFI and have air-cooled long-stroke 2-valve motors. | ||
| Cactus |
The worst I've gotten was 48 The best was 72 average over two tanks on xb9sx | ||
| Brucelee |
Never below 50. Usually 53-56 | ||
| Oldroadtoad |
Greetings! This is good news indeed. Since last I posted, I purchased a 2004 Roadking Classic. A nice enough bike, but BIG. Mileage on my bike is not too bad. Usually 40 to 50 mpg. The Toad | ||
| Sparky |
If memory serves me correctly, back in the Eighties Craig Vetter ran a series of High Mileage events coinciding with the Superbike races at laguna Seca. But these were specially built ultra lightweight, streamlined street legal machines that could achieve 300 to 600 mpg with 125 cc engines or less. Still, the idea of promoting a high mileage contest is admirable and has practical ramifications. Personally I could be interested in aerodynamically efficient wind cheating bodywork for my Firebolt. If that alone could boost mpg to say mid-80's, it might eventually pay for itself. Sparky |
