High fuel consumption?

Since I began riding my 2003 Silverwing (by the end of sept 2012) I keep a logbook, where I record distance, where and when I fill 'her' up with what brand of petrol, etc.

Over 1146 kms (712.1 Miles) my SW has consumed 66.79 Liters of fuel. (17.64 US Gallon or 14.7 Imp Gallon), with new spark plugs, oils and filters.

That equals to 48.4 MPG (UK) or 40.4 MPG (US) No city traffic, just touring on open road and some motorway use, at moderate speeds.

I.m.h.o. nothing to brag about, since my 1997 Honda Civic automatic (with airco) delivers only slightly worse (42 MPG UK - 35 MPG US)

On this forum, some owners claim (well) over 50MPG, with the odd 60+MPG (US)!

Since I bought the SW with about 12000 Miles on the clock, and the air cleaner element turned out to be really, really dirty, I was wondering if I could improve the mileage by cleaning the injectors with a fuel additive. All suggestions welcome!

Another idea is to change the rollers -that I presume are still OEM - by aftermarket ones, such as Dr. Pulley. On their website, they claim smooter and faster acceleration ànd milleage improvement. What roller weight is best for good mileage? Anyone here with experience? Thanks in advance!

My SWing is a 2011 model, I have done just over 8000miles of mixed riding including long days out with my IAM group. We are returning a pretty consistent 12/13 miles per litre on a brimful to brimful basis. I probably could do a lot better but it would spoil the fun !

I've no complaints about my 2010 model either, but Rodenbach's riding a 2003 Silver Wing and the earlier models are well known and have been much criticised for their heavy fuel consumption.

Mine ..2001 ; 42 MPG US. --- 5.6 l/100 km

40 MPG is normal.

Important...

Keep below 4500 rpm.
Highway cost more fuel ... airresistance.
Keep tyre pression right.

I put 25K kl +this year,95% Hway. At 95 klph in good weather flat roads , I average 68 to69 mph at 4500 rpm , at 5500 rpm I get 64 mpg all in warm wether riding 110 klph, same belt and rollers. Now I don't want to start a debate , 10k kl ago I installed a 155 70 13 tire and at 4500 klph,an 95 klph i got 72 to 74 mpg. Now cold weather riding at 110 klph I get 62 to 64 mpg.

I'm getting between 42 and low 50's mpg (imp). The norm is the low 40's.

Gotta say if the mpg bothers folk, easy answer. Buy a smaller engined machine. The fun is worth the high fuel consumption.

I ride at an INDICATED 75 to 85 MPH (120 to 135 KPH) to stay up with traffic here in California. The true speed is less than indicated.
Low to mid-40's is the norm. My Prius uses about the same fuel at the same speeds. Can't complain because the Swing is: More fun, inexpensive to purchase and horrible aerodynamics. The Swing is not an econoride in the strict sense because maintenance and wear items are not particularly long lived (tires, drive belt, etc.).
Ride SLOW and get better fuel consumption figures. Not a great idea in the traffic here for safety reasons.
Love riding and the bike for reasons other than economy.

Here Hway speed Is 90 klph , The police tolerates 10 to15 kl over the speed limit. at 140 klph the fin is about $15 per kl over the speed limit depends on his mood. The second dairy Hways are 80 klph . Then you have 3 years of insurance hike and hikes will go to the roof if you speed some more . Under 25 years old some are paying $8K for insurance ,and some cant be insured.

Taller windshields also a mpg killer

I've been monitoring my fuel consumption from way back in the seventies. (in those days no fuel gauges, so one had to calculate the fuel range)

I remember my first motorbike, a 1974 Suzuki T500, getting around 36 MPG (us) / 43 MPG (imp). In fact most of my bikes, two and four stroke, from 250 to 1000 cc turned out this kind of mileage. Only my Gilera Arcore 125 was a lot more economical, with well over 100 MPG (us) / 125 MPG (imp).

So my 2003 Silverwing is about as 'economical' as a seventies 1000cc automatic Moto Guzzi Idroconvert, than had air cooling, twin carbs, points ignition, large windscreen and torque converter...

I find it a bit sad that modern technology, with liquid cooling, fuel injection and digital ignition, don't improve the SW's mileage...

( but I do agree with Waspie, that fun comes with it's own pricetag)

I have put 4200 miles on my 2012 since May. Lowest tank was 48.6 while the highest is 59.2 (all US miles). BUT I have only had two tanks in the 40's, everything has been in the mid to high 50's for an overall average of 55 MPG. I don't baby my ride either but I do check the tire pressure frequently. Upon purchase I expect 46-52 for a range due to the CVT and comments I saw on here. Not sure if improvements were made to the 2012 or if I just got lucky? Anyway no complaints here.

In the pass leaded gas was much better then the crap gas we get today.

tinman wrote:

In the pass leaded gas was much better then the crap gas we get today.

I agree but that said the automobile/motorcycle industry has had since the 1970's to adjust their products to the different fuel formulas... In Brazil all gasoline has at LEAST 25% ethanol and 90% of their cars can run on a 95% ethanol fuel...

TEL (lead) is without doubt a very dangerous chemical to release into the air we all breath. I'm extremely happy to see it go.
Great mileage is a function of low speed. Aero drag is by far the largest load on vehicle power.
The good old days and great mileage was all about low horsepower and RPM. If we'd accept low horsepower and low RPM we could far outstrip old engines in fuel mileage. The problem is that no one wants to go back to low horsepower vehicles.
Love my Swing and it's compromise of HP/RPM, but the aero drag is the real issue with making it more fuel efficient.

Power Commander 3 and a personalized map, the best way to gain power and to decrease consumption
If you already have PC3 then I can give you my best map.

And increase pollution!

If you want the best fuel economy, take a bicycle or walk I'm waiting for the day when someone does a maxi-scooter on batteries (no gas). Of course, you can see my mileage below...

A complete combustion of gasoline without residues do not pollute!
My exhaust pipe is clean, the original is black who pollute more?

Do you really think that Honda doesn't know how to get the balance of power/fuel efficiency/emmisions right and that you with a PC can do better?
I like the LOOKS of your pipe as well but do not think that I can balance the above three items better than Honda. Better power and higher fuel efficiency would indicate that you're running lean in some RPM range. Lean conditions create higher combustion temperatures. Higher combustion temperatures create higher nitrogen oxide emmisions.

The only time I ever got below 50MPG on a tankful was the one time I followed a bunch of bikers from Louisville to Nashville on the interstate the whole time doing 70-75mph. I ordinarily do not ride on the interstate more than I absolutely have to and if I ever get less than 55MPG I would be very shocked.

The difference between riding 55-60MPH and 70-75MPG is the entire difference. The fuel efficiency absolutely drops off a cliff over 60PMH.

Apologies, I edit to say this is a 2002 Model Silverwing, so I dispute the claim that the earlier models got poorer MPG.

Yes, aero drag increases as the square of speed. And the aftermarket Givi on my bike feels like it adds a bit of drag as well. The disclaimer is this is by "feel" and no back up data, therefore GIGO.

SCTLVR wrote:

Do you really think that Honda doesn't know how to get the balance of power/fuel efficiency/emmisions right and that you with a PC can do better?
I like the LOOKS of your pipe as well but do not think that I can balance the above three items better than Honda. Better power and higher fuel efficiency would indicate that you're running lean in some RPM range. Lean conditions create higher combustion temperatures. Higher combustion temperatures create higher nitrogen oxide emmisions.

Okay, you know better!
Related to pollution:
In 10 years of running my Silver Wing and maybe then I'll be on equal how polluted, last plane you flying
Just for information, my consumption:
Average consumption 4,3 l/100 Km

I have a 2003, and have ridden about 23000 miles on it.

Typically my miles per gallon is just below 50 (US MPG). I avoid Interstates, and usually ride country backroads at 50-70 miles per hour indicated.

I had a J Costa variator for about 16,000 miles and got the same MPG (48-50) until the last 2000 miles or so, when MPG went to the low 40's. I switched to Dr Pulley sliders, starting with 24 gram, and got 55 MPG on a 250 mile day trip. Acceleration felt too sluggish, so I switched to 21 gram sliders. I get about 46-48 mpg with the 21g sliders. Recently, I switched to four 21g sliders and four 24g sliders and MPG has increased to a consistent 48-50.

To the OP, it seems that your MPG is just too low. What kind of fuel do they sell over there? I agree with many of the replies - RPMs over 5000 tend to use much more fuel.

My 2003 SW runs 5000 rpm @ 100 kph (indicated). or 62 MPH.
Another variator or different rollers won't affect that, I suppose?

I tend to be heavy on the throttle when accelerating, and my scoot runs at slightly higher highway RPMs than yours (62 mph will be 5200-5300 RPMs). I get the feeling that your scooter is not malfunctioning.

Perhaps you have to put up with more congested roads than I have to deal with. Lots of start/stop and idling would hurt your fuel consumption. I live 20 miles out of town and avoid going into town as much as possible. Usually, I find two lane back roads and cruise. I will also go to the Appalachian mountains area and ride up and down the hillsides, curve after curve.

Do you do a lot of urban riding?

@Buddy19520:
I guess you could call it a mixture of country lanes, motorway and start-stop traffic. I'm not saying the Wing is malfunctioning, but I tend to be gentle on the throttle and manage very nice fuel mileage when on four wheels.

Tick-over is fine too, around 1200 rpm, smooth as silk. So I'm not blaming it on dirty injectors, or WHY.

Perhaps the fact that I'm quite tall (6ft5) makes me produce some extra wind resistance?

My riding is similar, but with less stop-start.

Perhaps your height does work against you. I am 6' tall, but have added padding and an AirHawk cushion that sits me up a little higher than average.

Maybe the scooters sold in Europe have a different fuel mapping than the US models.

I have a 2005 Silverwing and really like the way it runs. Now have over 32000 smiles on it and has been a pretty trouble free machine so far. I have the Givi wind screen which was cut down about 2.5 inches, Dr. Sliders #22, which gives me excellent performance. My range of altitudes generally is around the 4000 to 7000. If I keep the "RPM" at or below 5000, I will get 50 plus miles to the gallon U.S. "If" I run over 5000 RPM the mileage will go "down." For example, at 75 to 80 on the GPS, my fuel consumption will go down to about 42 MPG. I have run at speeds of 90 to 100 for a little while and know it will go to as low as 39 to 40 MPG. Anyway, that is how your fuel consumption will range on a Silverwing. It is a great "all around" bike and I would rather have it than a Motor Cycle. The best MPG will be when you keep it at 5000 RPM or below.

Old Dave In Western Nebraska U.S.A.

Philip, You might be right with the idea that the fuel mapping is different 'over here': I once bought an imported 1970's USA-spec Guzzi Idro Convert and had a piston seizing up due to an over-lean mixture @ a steady (mmm) 'ton'...

My mecanic told me that US-bikes weren't meant to ride faster than 55MPH... (in those days?) Where as in Europe the speeds limits are/were a lot higher.

That cost me a few bob to replace the jets with bigger ones...
and a 'fist full' of money to buy new cylinders and pistons...

My MPG dropped from 50+ to the 30's after I got my front tire changed. Took me a tank to figure it out...

The shop left the parking break partly deployed.

i.e. not enough to stop the scooter from rolling or being pushed in the parking lot but enough to add a lot of drag. It did roll easier after I released the parking break.

However, my MPG is now down into the mid 40's - lots of 75 mph riding (and I have a tall Givi 214D ) and I have gotten heavy on the throttle. It's good I don't have more HP. I have not calculated since changing my belt but the old belt was a 1mm narrower.

Nothing wrong with the parking brake: I fixed that when waiting for the registration.
I have to admit that I often find myself riding faster than I ought to. The SW is very light on the throttle, and when overtaking with a twist of the wrist, the Wing tends to accellerate quite vividly...
Ow, heck: that extra bit of fuel is the price one has to pay for fun and comfort...

I've just given my new Swing it's first long trip. Over 270 miles, with three top-up refuelling stops, it delivered an average of 66 mpg(uk). The best was 69.3mpg!!!

That was one up with a pack on the back seat and a big Givi box on the back.

A mixture of highway (M)/main road (A), small road (B); plus some country lanes.


I must enjoy it whilst I can. I reckon that if the road surfaces in the UK get much worse, our government will have to consider banning motorcycling, as it will soon be too dangerous!!!

So much effort has to go into looking out for pot holes, that one can't keep an eye out for the idiots in cars, vans, or on bicycles, let alone a decent line through a bend.



(Note to non UK readers: Our politicians have a tendency to ban, tax or restrict everything at every opportunity)

Too true about them roads Colin,terrible.

To get that kind of mpg you must not of went over 60 mph and been very carefull

You're right about the speeds and riding style, goofy. Mostly along on back roads going, with a couple of bursts of speed on decent roads coming home.

Great consumption figures, Colin!

Rodenbach wrote:

My 2003 SW runs 5000 rpm @ 100 kph (indicated). or 62 MPH.
Another variator or different rollers won't affect that, I suppose?
 
In another thread, you mentioned that the mileage of your Swing was in the 40's.

When I bought my 05 Swing last year, it had 16,000 miles on it. When I changed the drive belt, I also replaced the rollers with Dr Pulley 28g sliders. 

The profile of the sliders is supposed to increase the range of the variator on both the low and high ends (lower first gear for better accelleration and higher top gear for lower cruising rpm).

The 28 g sliders had the following effect:
During light accelleration, my variator unwinds at 4000 rpm. The rpm remains at about 4000 rpm from 30 mph to 50 mph and then the rpm begins to increase. 
During heavier accelleration, my variator unwinds at about 4500 rpm or a little higher. 
Cruising At 70 mph the rpm is 5000 rpm. 

The windshield is a Cee Bailey that is taller and wider than standard. We took a trip this past weekend that was mostly cruising at 50 mph. On return I filled up and calculated that I got 56 mpg U.S.

Maybe the taller gearing that the sliders provide would improve your mileage.

at 55 mph my 2004 swing gets about 55 mpg , at 60 plus mph it gets low 40's mpg , jack rabbit starts and stops decrease mileage greatly , I ride easy and steady for best fuel economy , and its just reassuring to know the power and speed is there if I need it ...

I forgot to add , that the quality of the gas has a lot to do with mileage , the more alcohol in the gas = worse economy , using a quality fuel additive in alkygas dose improve it somewhat ...

While I do agree that the quality of the fuel effects fuel economy (mpg/kpl) I was recently able to get a tankful of non-ethanol fuel. Under the same riding circumstances as usual --a mix of freeway and local stop & go roads I noticed only a slight improvement in economy --maybe 1 mpg, Certainly not enough to warrant the $1 more per gallon than I usually pay for 10% ethanol blend fuel.

If I were operating an outboard motor, farm equipment, or a two stroke engine then the cost of the ethanol-free fuel would be justified by saving the fuel system & carbs from the corrosive effect of ethanol.

That said, I do find a big difference in fuel economy when using fuel available during the warmer months vs the winter-blend fuels (still 10%) which are mandated in this area during the cold months. Perhaps as much as 5-6 mpg difference. And I do get the best mpg's when I riding with a steady throttle hand between 4000 and 5000 rpms and it's between 80 - 85*F outside.

There are some "discount" stations in this area which offer fuel at 3 to 5 cents cheaper than the going rate. Inevitably the fuel pumps at those stations do not display the "Up To 10% Ethanol Added"  sticker as the national brand fuel retailers do. And predictably I get much worse fuel economy if I resort to using that 'discount crap'. So my guess is that they are adding a larger amount of ethanol or other stuff which 'waters down the fuel'

So less ethanol doesn't necessarily mean better fuel economy, but more ethanol can equal poorer quality fuel and poorer quality fuel will equal poor economy.

Tim

Heat energy determines how much power and mileage a gallon of fuel contains.
U.S. summer gasoline has a heat content of 114,500 btu / gallon.
Ethanol has a lower heat content of 76,000 btu / gallon.  

FYI, Diesel fuel has 129,500 btu / gallon which is one of the reasons why a diesel vehicle would get better mileage than an equivalent gasoline vehicle. 

If you mix 90% gasoline with 10% Ethanol, you end up with a gallon of E10. Summer E10 has a heat content of 110,650 btu. 

Winter gasoline has a lower btu / gallon of 112,500 so winter E10 would have an even lower btu / gallon of 108,850.

Summer E10 would have 96 % of the energy per gallon of 100% summer gasoline. You would probably see a corresponding 4% drop in mileage using summer E10 over straight gasoline. 

Winter E10 would have 95% of the energy per gallon of a 100% gasoline summer gallon. You would probably see a corresponding 5% drop in mileage using winter E10 over straight summer gasoline.

Those percentages mean that you would lose 3 or 4 mpg on a Silverwing which is not all that bad. Since E10 is the same price as straight gasoline, on a passenger car, it means that when you pay for a 20 gallon fill-up of E10 you get the range you previously got with a 19 gallon fill-up with gasoline. We are subsidizing Ethanol whether we know it or not.

I don't know what checks are done to confirm that the E10 fuel that we get from the storage tank at a service station is actually 90% gasoline and not 88, 87 or 86 % gasoline which would make the mileage even worse. 

As mentioned, there are a few places such as boat docks that sell straight gasoline but the price is much higher than E10 at a service station.

With all the new Ethanol plants going on line now, the government is considering revising all stations to E15. That is going to make our mileage a little worse.

I recently bought a low mileage 2010 model. I am riding it for my daily commute which is 35 miles return in mixed commuter traffic & 60mph highway (short stretches) and I'm averaging 55-60mpg. My previous 2001 model managed 50mpg tops in the same traffic mix. So there is definitely a difference between earlier and later models. I also find that, despite how much fun it is to take off at warp speed from stationary, a bit more discipline of the wrist reaps big rewards in economy. But like others, I don't necessarily hang around either!

2005 swing 15k. I get 100 km on 6l in town and 100km on 5 l on the highway with speeds 85 - 129 km....... That's after a recent tire change before it was
100 km / 5 l in town and 100/ 4.5 l on the hwy.