Hi all.

This isn't terribly rigorous, but it's still good enough to be surprising.

The missus and I went to Wagga from Sydney this weekend. I was shocked by the poor fuel consumption at the first fill (we nearly ran out), so I thought I do some testing....

Fill 1

After 264km some city riding, but mostly (150km) cruising in 6th at 110kph     6.9 L per 100km

 

Fill 2

After 242km cruising, 6th at 110kph                                                                         6.2L per 100km

 

Fill 3

After 297km cruising, 5th at 100kph                                                                         5.7L per 100km

 

Fill 4

After 291km cruising, 5th at 110kph                                                                           5.2L per 100km

Wow. That's a big difference. It uses less 17% less fuel at 110 in 5th compared to 6th.

Also, it uses less fuel at 110 in 5th than at 100! If this is true, then it means that the engine is A LOT more efficient at only slightly higher revs.

Gonzo.

very fuggin interesting.........let's see what others have found.

or poorly mapped

Forgot to mention. The bike is STOCK. Original airfilter, pipes, mapping.

I wonder if the straight-cut 5th gear contributes anything?

Gonzo.

I haven't done any tests but did have a suspicion of what you have found just from watching my range calculator .....

Interesting figures. I get fuck all and nothing got a mukuni but geez she goes lol.

Across the Nullabor and everywhere else since, only shifted into 6 gear at 120 and beyond. At 120 fuel consumption 304 K's 20.2 litre of fuel. Someone else do the math.

Are you tellin' me I've got a 6th gear???

Yeah Red, but after that it's real handy. I always thought it would be a waste of time, but now I would'nt be without it.

 

Yeah, Peter, unfortunately, above 110 the air resistance gets a lot greater very quickly, and the fuel consumption goes up no matter what gear you're in. PKSHED's effort at 120 yields 6.6 L per 100, and it will only get worse from there. PHSHED must have a big tank too, 'cos with those figures I wouldn't have made it to the servo!

Gonzo

I'll have to get me one of those cycle racing helmets you see at the olympics to cut down the wind resistance.

I'd look a million bucks in one of them at 90kg with a beer gut, can you imagine the chicks I'd pull ?? It wouldn't be fair to them.

Well calculated gonzo,

I found similar results on a stock electra glide over 2000miles last year from vegas to sturgis, hence used 5th most of the time on the interstates. Indeed wonder if this helical cut 5th gear they have in the 2010 models makes any difference.

For comparison I get <6 litres /100 cruising on my Rocket 3 which only has 5th, an extra pot and 44ci!!! Not using 6th much yet on the bones!!

Never really bothered checking mileage , what i do know is mine don't seem to like going into 6th unless its over the speed limit

160-170ks per tank but i get there quick

streetbob i think it holds 17L ? might try 5th for a tank

I found my bike (07 FXST) in stock condition would only realy do well in fifth, found having to continually change down from sixth......But after mods including SE 204 cams the thing changed completely....With the added TQ I can use 6th  over a larger range.....from 100 kmh......The only other draw back in 6th, is when ya hook out in twisties, the bike doesn't slow too well on decel and then ya need to jump on the brakes more.....I seldom use 6th now for reasonably hard riding....

Iv'e found little difference in fuel economy even with more HP and TQ......Anything under 120 is about 6lt/100, anyhting over 130-160 and it gobbles it 8-10lt/100

Bt

You know, in the end I'm not really too fussed about the economy figures I get. It's not the cost. What pisses me off is having to fill up after less than 300K. The low fuel light comes on, and, hey, I better be near a pump! Pity the tank's not bigger.

Gonzo.