Bike vs Car fuel economy - help please

[yorkie_chris]

Originally Posted by ogden

RGV250, 27mpg + oil & pistons.

Wouldn't have it any other way!

Can tell its a stroker when cost of pistons and rings is considered in cost-per-mile

I commute daily and get 55(ish) mpg, and thats a mixture of filtering, city riding and spirited sprints in between!
On the other hand, both my Land Rovers only manage 15-18 mpg driving aroung country lanes etc. The one plus is that my Landy is dirt cheap to fix (I do it all mostly), insure (£120 a year), fuel (LPG @45p/l), and tax (Free!).
If you factor in other things like traffic jam time, wasting time looking for parking spaces etc then the bike wins hands down every time. And it's warmer than the Landy!

Originally Posted by Well Oiled

aye, but that's power density, which is not a measure of efficiency / fuel economy. In fact the reverse - it's because they are tuned to give such high power that they are generally pants on fuel economy.

That was my point . For the capacity and the weight pulled they arnt very ecconomical vs car engines but then you look at power and it all makes sense.

I did a whole load of checks on this a few years ago and wrong about it on my blog. I also covered the debate of Super unleaded v unleaded and store fuels. If you go on to my bikers view blog and search for fuel you will see loads, but on the whole I got 50-55 mpg.

Linky...

I do the same commute in car (8 year old berlingo 1.9D) and bike (k6 sv650S). I use a fulltank in car every fortninght costs approx 50, with the bike its one tank every 4 working days (use car at weekends for short shopping trips). Car costs around 50 per fortnight, bike 24 ish.

Originally Posted by ThEGr33k

That was my point . For the capacity and the weight pulled they arnt very ecconomical vs car engines but then you look at power and it all makes sense.

Oh I see what ya mean.

The other thing is that even with good fairings aerodynamics on bikes are poor.

Originally Posted by Well Oiled

Oh I see what ya mean.

The other thing is that even with good fairings aerodynamics on bikes are poor.

Mostly down to the front wheel I think. If you covered that in Fairing its be much more efficient.

Originally Posted by ThEGr33k

Im really wondering what i was doing to get such good MPG out of mine... I seem to be getting better MPG out of the aprilia than some of you do with your SV's.

The only thing I can think of is I have an SV thou snorkel, race can and remap done.

Also, the RSV and Falco may share the same lump, but I'm pretty sure the RSV is in a higher state of tune. Now I've got the damn thing working, I'll be looking into fuel economy.

[the_lone_wolf]

Originally Posted by ThEGr33k

Mostly down to the front wheel I think. If you covered that in Fairing its be much more efficient.

a bike+rider, with or without faired wheels, is still a very poor aerodynamic shape, however it is also a much smaller frontal profile than a car, so overall it can be more efficient

Originally Posted by Flamin_Squirrel

The only thing I can think of is I have an SV thou snorkel, race can and remap done.

Also, the RSV and Falco may share the same lump, but I'm pretty sure the RSV is in a higher state of tune. Now I've got the damn thing working, I'll be looking into fuel economy.

All the internals are the same. The RSV got a revised engine in 2001 with slightly bigger headers, only difference till they got to the 2004 models. RSV (2001-2003) produces around 5BHP more at the top end (at the crank) but the falco has more midrange. 2004 has around 15BHP at crank more but has terrable mid range (in comparrison...).

Which model/year do you have?

Also what wasnt working^^?