Adventure Bike Rider Forum

Zookman wrote:I could get the MPG on my 09 Wee down to the high 50's, but i really had to thrash the arse off it to get it that low.
I was constantly gobsmacked in how frugal on fuel my Wee was, so every fuel up was calculated to make sure i wasn't overcalcualating it, and 63 was the average in the 2 years i owned the bike, with 65 on most tankfulls and the rarely occasional 70.

That is outstanding!

I've always thought the bigger bikes we ride (including 650s) were ridiculously thirsty when comparing to bikes of old ("during the war, etc. etc." :whistle: ). But seriously, look at what a 60's single carb Triumph 650 managed to travel on a gallon.

Suzuki should make more of this in their advertisement blurb. I thought it was only Honda and BMW who were actively setting the trend for better mpg. Believe me, we need it - It's only a matter of time before the environmentalists pick up on the fact that small modern cars use less fuel than most modern larger bikes. We'll be faced with yet another battle on our hands and unless more manufacturers think like this, we won't have a leg to stand on.

Jon

PS Are you listening, KTM?

Would the pillion seat still take a soft bag and you could lift it for refueling?

WOW Minky, you must work for Honda, you've sold it to me. :woohoo:

80 MPG!, I could live with some of that.

jonny955 wrote:

Zookman wrote:I could get the MPG on my 09 Wee down to the high 50's, but i really had to thrash the arse off it to get it that low.
I was constantly gobsmacked in how frugal on fuel my Wee was, so every fuel up was calculated to make sure i wasn't overcalcualating it, and 63 was the average in the 2 years i owned the bike, with 65 on most tankfulls and the rarely occasional 70.

That is outstanding!

I've always thought the bigger bikes we ride (including 650s) were ridiculously thirsty when comparing to bikes of old ("during the war, etc. etc." :whistle: ). But seriously, look at what a 60's single carb Triumph 650 managed to travel on a gallon.

Suzuki should make more of this in their advertisement blurb. I thought it was only Honda and BMW who were actively setting the trend for better mpg. Believe me, we need it - It's only a matter of time before the environmentalists pick up on the fact that small modern cars use less fuel than most modern larger bikes. We'll be faced with yet another battle on our hands and unless more manufacturers think like this, we won't have a leg to stand on.

Jon

PS Are you listening, KTM?

When i road tested the new Wee Strom, the computer was showing me less MPG than my 09 Wee, yet Suzuki claimed the new model with the Gladius engine was more fuel efficient. Of course without living with bike and calculating the fuel manually over months you wouldn't know exactly.
You dont have to ride slow to get good MPG, as a lorry driver i had to attend fuel awareness courses and all the drivers fuel efficiency was constantly monitered. Fuel costs being a huge concern to companies nowadays. Different riders will always get varying MPG figures on the same bike.

Zookman wrote:[You dont have to ride slow to get good MPG, as a lorry driver i had to attend fuel awareness courses and all the drivers fuel efficiency was constantly monitered.

Certainly, at least for petrol engines, an open throttle is more efficient than a closed or nearly-closed one (pumping losses). Some people swear by the method of changing up and lowering the revs whenever you can but this will only work if your engine is tuned to work more efficiently that way.

There is a magic spot on every engine where the frictional losses, pumping losses and gas flow all come together to provide the most fuel-efficient conditions. You just have to find it !

Jon

Its not just getting that optimium power against best fuel consumption with the engine.
Trying to predict traffic lights and either slowing or accelerating, overtaking with room to use the highest gear, rather than dropping a cog or two. Tyre pressures. Keeping momentum in town so you dont stop and get whats known as square wheels.
All these little things are insignificant on their own, but together they can make a huge difference to your fuel consumption.
Of course at times.... like all bikers.... i dont care about any of this and just thrash the arse off my bike. Just because its fun to do.

minkyhead wrote:...... so the honda nc 700 with its 80mpg tag has some appeal for the purpose i want it for .....

Great review MH. Just wondered how you think it would stack up against the Kwaker Versys; Beemer F650GS Twin; Vstrom
Some other mags slagged of the Beemer, but praised the Honda, even though they appear to be aimed at similsr markets and could give similar fuel returns in the real world.

What are people's thoughts on the optional DCT?

I took the NC 700X out for a spin a few weeks back as I was considering it as replacement for my Tenere.

Have to say that coming at it from a thumper probably helps with acceptance as we're already used to an engine that only revs up to that kind of range (the XTZ does go to 7K but I've always felt mechanically unsympathetic taking the revs that high) That said the 660 singe may be slower, but it puts a much bigger smile on my face.

For around town the Honda must be the bike to beat – I've never ridden anything as slow-speed-stable. You can track stand it at junctions and lights for seemingly ages before needing to put a foot down though I have to confess to beeping the horn after every turn (I'm sure you'd quickly get used to that, but less so if you run multiple bikes).

Am I getting one?? – not yet, but given how many my dealer has sold I can't help thinking a lot of people have bought after being seduced by the mpg and till quickly tire of the performance. Wait 12-18 months and the market will be flooded with cheap low-milers – then I'll buy.

Jelly wrote:What are people's thoughts on the optional DCT?

Anyone?