Author Topic: MPG (Read 34524 times)

JZS 600 · « **Reply #25 on:** 30 March 2012, 07:17:33 pm »

trying desperately to remember why a higher petrol RON rating for a motorbike was a waste of time and the relationship to engine knock,,,,

JZS 600 · « **Reply #26 on:** 30 March 2012, 07:25:49 pm »

"quote"!

One of our users commented that using higher octane fuel than your engine requires actually gives no benefit and may be a waste of money. This is because virtually NO engines require 98 RON over 95, and the market for ‘super’ fuels seems to be based on people’s misunderstanding of octane ratings and the placebo effect of filling up with ‘more powerful’ fuel – making motorists think their engine is running better in some way.
What do the fuel companies say then, to justify the “increased power” claims for the super grade fuels? Some companies say that while all fuels contain cleaning additives, ‘super’ fuels contain more or better detergents to keep the injectors cleaner than standard fuel. Others say the fuel is a few percent denser which gives slightly more power per litre. These benefits may be marginal though in comparison to the extra cost involved so it is worth ensuring that your engine will actually benefit before filling up.
Some engines actually do need higher octane fuel, such as race engines with very high compression and some turbocharged engines, such as the import version of the Nissan Skyline. Also, a few vehicles, such as the new BMW K1200R motorbike, can sense knock and adjust their engine tuning to take advantage of higher grade fuels. Another user commented that the 2004 BMW 330 also does this, according to the driver’s handbook it makes 231 BHP on 98 octane and 221 BHP on 95. This ability is apparently widespread amongst German performance cars using Bosch / Siemens electronic engine controls.

Robfzs · « **Reply #27 on:** 30 March 2012, 09:13:24 pm »

got a stubby end can and k&n air filter and get 60+ every time

but vary rarely go above 6k and usually cruise around 4k

poor student

but then,went cat and fiddle the other weekend and got 103 miles off a tenner,wern't hanging about lol

Dead Eye · « **Reply #28 on:** 30 March 2012, 11:08:57 pm »

Quote from: JZS 600 on 30 March 2012, 07:25:49 pm

"quote"!

One of our users commented that using higher octane fuel than your engine requires actually gives no benefit and may be a waste of money. This is because virtually NO engines require 98 RON over 95, and the market for ‘super’ fuels seems to be based on people’s misunderstanding of octane ratings and the placebo effect of filling up with ‘more powerful’ fuel – making motorists think their engine is running better in some way.
What do the fuel companies say then, to justify the “increased power” claims for the super grade fuels? Some companies say that while all fuels contain cleaning additives, ‘super’ fuels contain more or better detergents to keep the injectors cleaner than standard fuel. Others say the fuel is a few percent denser which gives slightly more power per litre. These benefits may be marginal though in comparison to the extra cost involved so it is worth ensuring that your engine will actually benefit before filling up.
Some engines actually do need higher octane fuel, such as race engines with very high compression and some turbocharged engines, such as the import version of the Nissan Skyline. Also, a few vehicles, such as the new BMW K1200R motorbike, can sense knock and adjust their engine tuning to take advantage of higher grade fuels. Another user commented that the 2004 BMW 330 also does this, according to the driver’s handbook it makes 231 BHP on 98 octane and 221 BHP on 95. This ability is apparently widespread amongst German performance cars using Bosch / Siemens electronic engine controls.

It all makes sense, but at the end of the day it boiled down to trial and error for me :P Was simply curious if others had found the same results and if it was because of any specific modifications. As I said before, the bike didnt really seem to like the higher octane fuel but it still got me where I needed to go

The car on the other hand (until it died) loved the higher octane fuel, it was smoother and felt slightly more powerful. Just for the sake of making sure it wasnt a placebo I had my friend fill up my car randomly with with either just as an experiment :P But having said that, even a different car of the same make, model and engine will perform differently... hence returning to my curiosity with the bike

FuZzBoM · « **Reply #29 on:** 31 March 2012, 12:02:15 am »

I think some of it does depend on the engine setup. if it is a modern engine with a decent injection system and knock sensors and variable valve timing etc. higher octane fuel will give a benefit. if the engine has a better burn the ecu will pick this up and account for it. hence why i say my car does feel as though it benefits from it.

thinking about it i have a mate who had an imported EVO 5 and wondered why it really hesitated before the turbo kicked in. it turned out he was running on 95 ron. when he switched to V-power this 'fault' he had me trying to figure out went away and ran perfect from then on.

For me its mainly my mechanical sympathy and thinking i am doing the right thing for the engine

edc · « **Reply #30 on:** 10 April 2012, 01:29:29 pm »

52mpg last check. And that was after a three hour advanced riding lesson blasting through the country roads...

110% · « **Reply #31 on:** 10 April 2012, 03:56:47 pm »

I'm normally getting 55mpg from mine.

Theoretically the optimum MPG is achieved when the engine is running at it's peak torque in top gear. Apparently for an FZS600 peak torque is at 9,500rpm. I tested this out today to see what speed I would have to be travelling to achieve 9,500rpm in top gear. Put it this way - I'm glad I wasn't caught by the police whilst testing it out!!

john 087 · « **Reply #32 on:** 10 April 2012, 09:27:10 pm »

average about 50 mpg plus around town, on a long drive can get 60 mpg

Fazer Jake · « **Reply #33 on:** 10 April 2012, 09:48:15 pm »

Quote from: john 087 on 10 April 2012, 09:27:10 pm

average about 50 mpg plus around town, on a long drive can get 60 mpg

Drive a bike?

Ride

rjd1 · « **Reply #34 on:** 11 April 2012, 05:03:57 am »

96 mile to a tank full, from light on to light on

redman · « **Reply #35 on:** 11 April 2012, 10:24:27 am »

LOL at 96 miles to a tank you must redline it everywhere

im averaging 55 mpg with a K&n Air Filter will changing my end can to a Beowulf affect the mpg in anyway??

Dead Eye · « **Reply #36 on:** 12 April 2012, 11:29:21 am »

I've put a K&N Air Filter on mine plus a Beowulf Warrior end can and havent noticed any appreciable decline in the MPG - i've just started using Fuelly to try and get a better idea of how much I actually spend on fuel etc.

JZS 600 · « **Reply #37 on:** 12 April 2012, 06:32:19 pm »

Well, thrapped mine last weekend, high revs in country lanes and high speed (at least 3 figures) on motorways and got 58 MPG, 185 miles ridden including 2 commutes equating to 14.29L of petrol, which I think ain't half bad!

Anyone tried Iridium plugs?

peteski · « **Reply #38 on:** 12 April 2012, 10:44:15 pm »

Quote

people say the fazer over fuels so is it just a waste of money?

They do but octane rating has no relation to air-fuel ratio.

Quote

the general thinking with higher octane is a more pure burn

Really? I don't think it is.

FuZzBoM · « **Reply #39 on:** 13 April 2012, 08:31:56 am »

Quote from: peteski on 12 April 2012, 10:44:15 pm

Quote
the general thinking with higher octane is a more pure burn

Really? I don't think it is.

All i said was the general thinking i didn't say it was correct or not

Higher octane fuels tend to give a power increase if the engine is designed or setup to run them.
Best example of this was the spitfire. They managed to get more power out of it when they set it up to run on 100 octane fuel. i think it increased the top speed by about 30mph. OK don't sound much but i would like that little extra trying to out maneuver someone in a dog fight

Fazer Jake · « **Reply #40 on:** 13 April 2012, 01:46:56 pm »

These people getting the high 50s/60s are you sure your doing the calculation right?
the fomulae is
(Miles) Divided (Litres in fuel) x 4.54 (Litres in a gallon)

At the absolute best i've achieved 54mpg since fitting aftermarket downpipes, K &N and a racing exhaust its dropped to 45-50

Major Rant · « **Reply #41 on:** 13 April 2012, 11:52:12 pm »

Quote

pretty sure the americans have their own gallon... the point of this I do not understand

The problem is not with the US Gallon ... It is the UK Pint .
In the US, A pint of water weighs a pound (16 oz) ... simples!

In the UK , A pint of water weighs 1,1/4 pounds (20 oz) ... for some Godforsaken reason

In both countries there are 8 pints to a Gallon ...

Petrol now costs over a Guinea* per US Gallon.
(* generally, but not always, 21 Shillings or £1.05)

Major Rant · « **Reply #42 on:** 14 April 2012, 12:07:26 am »

Quote

trying desperately to remember why a higher petrol RON rating for a motorbike was a waste of time and the relationship to engine knock,,,,

Its because the sportsbike engine is designed to run with a 12:1 compression ratio and if you try and run it with a "stochiometric mix" (ie just enough fuel so that ALL the oxygen gets consumed) then the 'ignition temperature' is below the 'compression temperature' and the charge will ignite before the spark happens and your engine will run badly and eventually destroy itself. Adding fuel to the mix makes the charge more reluctant to ignite - hence the spark happens first and the charge goes 'bang' at the right time but the extra fuel gets thrown away down the exhaust pipe. (Which is why a Honda 90 does 120MPG but a Fazer does 45MPG) Some car engines (maybe 'most' by now) have knock-detectors that adjust the mix and frig about with the ignition-timing depending on what grade of gasoline you are using. (all of the above is based on 10yr old knowledge when bikes had carbs, cheap cars had crude ECUs and posh cars had proper engine management systems. Its probably changed by now .) (By the way ... The new Ford 3 cylinder 1 litre engine is a wonder to behold ... check it out! http://www.ford.co.uk/FordFleet/NewsAndReviews/FordForBusiness/2012/January/Ecoboost-Engine)

Freddie · « **Reply #43 on:** 14 April 2012, 03:27:37 pm »

Last 2 fill Ups were 55.37mpg and 64.55 mpg, and definitely correct with the maths.

redman · « **Reply #44 on:** 14 April 2012, 04:09:09 pm »

Went for a 5 hour blast through Snowdonia and around north Wales last night got 57mpg and we werent goin slow according to the plod

sorry mr officer blah blah.

Fazer Jake · « **Reply #45 on:** 14 April 2012, 09:30:18 pm »

was Frugal with the throttle and managed 56mpg

still was doing 80ish mind

JZS 600 · « **Reply #46 on:** 15 April 2012, 10:14:30 am »

(By the way ... The new Ford 3 cylinder 1 litre engine is a wonder to behold ... check it out!

Know what, these greedy b@$t@£ds could have done this years ago!

born to be mild · « **Reply #47 on:** 15 April 2012, 07:10:10 pm »

heres a thought, im sure that my fazer has a very optimistic speedo, would that also equate to the odometer? if so the MPG figures might not be quite as good. No idea if this is true, Im just old,crabby and cynical.

fazernigel · « **Reply #48 on:** 30 April 2012, 12:16:39 pm »

I decided to see what my Fazer was doing Miles Per Gallon and carried out a very scientific test to find out.

I rode from my house in Wiltshire to Blackpool to watch a football match which was 214 miles but when i did this i kept to the speed limit. This journey was 44 miles on fast A roads. The rest was all on motorway.

When i got to Blackpool i filled up and the managed to squeeze 14 litres in which was an average of 69.49mpg.

Later that day i rode home but this time i rode at 85mph all the way down the motorway as there was little traffic and then for the last 44 miles went for it a bit on the A roads.

Filled up and this time the bike took 18 litres which worked out at 54 mpg.

Just proves that the Fazer will return good mpg when ridden with a fairly heavy right hand and excellent mpg when riding with common sense.

JZS 600 · « **Reply #49 on:** 30 April 2012, 01:43:55 pm »

Sounds about right to me on the commute vs thrap scale of MPG.