Rider Magazine tests two-wheeled fuel efficiency
Rider Magazine recently gathered up a group of small-displacement motorcycles with a view to finding accurate real-world fuel mileage numbers. Scooters, which often score significantly higher in efficiency, were not included in this test. Many seasoned cycle riders claim that larger bikes are necessary for real enjoyment, and though we don't necessarily agree, we're glad to see some mid-sized bikes included for comparison's sake. Take a look at the full results here. The moral: getting 70 miles per gallon is possible, but compromises are needed.
[Source: Rider Magazine]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Jeremy B 10:21PM (9/16/2008)
Kudos to "Rider" for testing middle-weight bikes as well. There have been plenty of comparos of small bikes, featuring the honda rebel and ninja 250. But Rider gives some real world figures on nice middle-sized bikes. The Kawasaki Versys is my favorite and returns a respectable 55 mpg.
Reply
Donnie Mac 10:32PM (9/16/2008)
They missed out on an excellent one: the KLR 250! The little 249cc single returned a low of 58 mpg, an average of 63 mpg, and a high of 67 mpg. Seems to me like it meets their criteria.
OTOH, I'm glad they tested the Versys. I'm still not sure how they managed 55 mpg other than some reeeeeeal conservative riding, because typically I'm averaging 50 mpg.
Reply
MikeInNC 8:43AM (9/17/2008)
Would have liked to see the Ninja 500R reviewed as well but overall a great job. Big fan of the Versys but, if I had my choice, I'd have the Ducati Multistrada 620. I don't think you could go wrong with either bike though.
Reply
killroy 10:05AM (9/17/2008)
I use to drive my yr 2000 Yamaha R6 on long trips to save gas. It would do ~155 MPG and 55 mpg, but now I take my Honda Insight at 70 MPG. Not as fun, but more comfortable and carrys a lot more.
Reply
jim 11:42AM (9/17/2008)
The MC press and blogs have been all over themselves touting the MPG potential of motorcycles, largely since they and the motorcycle industry is staring into a demographically defined abyss.
Baby boomers are aging and the motorcycle market they fostered is shrinking. The post boom generation is small and subsequent generations have not adopted motorcycling as a hobby in the way earlier generations did.
The let's get them out of cars and onto motorcycles cause they get good MPG, ignores that the cost of fuel is only a component of motorcycle ownership and when you separate out that cost from maintenance, insurance etc, cars are cheaper per mile to operate. Plus a motorcycle seldom replaces a car in an owners driveway.
Time to go for a ride.
Reply
Donnie Mac 1:20PM (9/17/2008)
Insurance on my truck, per year, costs almost double what it costs me on my bike. I pay $600/year for my bike whereas my truck is almost $1000/year.
I put 4400 miles on my motorcycle and will put even more on it. I ride in the rain, in the cold, in the heat, almost all the time. Full tank of fuel will get me 200 miles and only costs me $15 - $18.
Maintenance is really not that bad. My engine uses 2 quarts of oil and two spark plugs instead of 4 quarts of oil and 4 spark plugs; two tires cost me ~$300-$400; I could go on.
A motorcycle is an excellent, fun, exciting, and economical
replacement for a car. My bike returns 50 mpg and I can zip around
town, having way more fun than the Prius I used to drive. Sure, no trunk, but I can use saddlebags; no seat belt, but I wear full leathers and a helmet for protection.
I can go on and on about motorcycles, honestly. You can deny it all day long, up one side and down the other, but let's face it: motorcycles are increasing in popularity.
And honestly, I'd rather have my motorcycle over a hybrid any day: At least motorcyclists wave to each other!
Reply
Knick@Knight 3:29AM (6/21/2009)
What about the new gen of consumer aimed 250cc supermoto style bikes:
- Yamaha WR250X
- Kawasaki KLX250sf
- Honda CRF230m
They all get 70+ mpg, low-maintenance, cheap on gas and insurance, and way more fun hooligan bikes in city traffic than a big 1000cc sportbike.
Reply