Simple question.
Why do motorcycles with 1/6 the weight and 1/4 the engine size of a car only get 2x the MPG?
Two answers.
MPG under 50 mph largely depends on weight and engine efficiency. Hence a scooter can get 100-120 mpg.
MPG over 50 mph largely depends on drag. No easy answers for lowering drag on motorcycles, especially the tires. (Although the new Honda CBR500 boasts 71mpg).
Source:
Motorcycle Fuel Economy - Fuel For Thought
How To
From the May, 2009 issue of Motorcycle Cruiser
Illustrators: Motorcycle Deisgn and Technology
ericalm wrote:Why are we still discussing MPG when it's a poor measure of, well, anything other than how far you can go on a tank?
Cost per Mile is where it's at!
Fully agree. There are just too many variables to quantify. For me the main one is probably riding style. Trying to get better mpg is usually the last thing on my mind and I'm not going to change how I ride...ok...I prety much don't think about it at all.
Fuel economy is an interesting topic for some none the less. What I've observed is the more the HP is coming from torque (longer stroke), the better the fuel economy. In other words, the more cylinders per displacement, the higher the HP and lower the fuel economy. Most scooters are single cylinder, where most motorcycles are not. In the case of the CBR250R, it's a 350lb single that does indeed get 70mpg, however, it only makes 22hp (just like the Vespa GTS). The Honda NC700X, while 670cc, makes 50hp and still manages 64mpg due to it's unusually long stroke and low redline. Supersport bikes, while only 600cc, are 4-cylinder machines that rev to insanely high redlines (16,000rpm) to make 100hp+ and turn about 40mpg. Scooters will almost always have the low speed fuel economy advantage because the amount of power needed to travel at those speeds is well within the capability of their relatively small single cylinder engines.
Rusty Shackleford wrote:What I've observed is the more the HP is coming from torque (longer stroke), the better the fuel economy. In other words, the more cylinders per displacement, the higher the HP and lower the fuel economy. Most scooters are single cylinder, where most motorcycles are not. In the case of the CBR250R, it's a 350lb single that does indeed get 70mpg, however, it only makes 22hp (just like the Vespa GTS).
To add to your discussion, the Piaggio BV350 (actual 330cc water-cooled FI single) develops 33 hp and is capable of 70 mpg.
ericalm wrote:Why are we still discussing MPG when it's a poor measure of, well, anything other than how far you can go on a tank?
Cost per Mile is where it's at!
Fully agree. There are just too many variables to quantify. For me the main one is probably riding style. Trying to get better mpg is usually the last thing on my mind and I'm not going to change how I ride...ok...I prety much don't think about it at all.
Fuel economy is extremely important. How else would I have convinced my wife to allow me to get a Stella? (Or any motorized 2-wheeler for that matter)
Right now my 20 mile round trip commute isn't so far that I'm saving that much on gas or polluting that much less on the scooter (our main car is a Honda Fit). I actually place more value on wear and tear.... it's cheaper overall to fix and maintain a scooter vs a car, in general. There are a lot of mechanical things on my scoot I can tackle myself. Not so much with my car. (I had a '65 Ford Falcon at one point, and I could do almost everything on that myself.... but that car is long gone..... and for the better, actually.)
misterbrackets wrote:I actually place more value on wear and tear.... it's cheaper overall to fix and maintain a scooter vs a car, in general.
This one isn't really that simple. Scooters go through tires and belts at a fairly high rate and it adds significantly to their actual cost per mile.
Especially if you don't do your own service. I would say its easier to maintain a scooter than a car. My saturn SL the was around $.22 mile with fuel. Not including residual value. My scooter is a toy for me. Its currently about $.60-.70 per mile.
ericalm wrote:Why are we still discussing MPG when it's a poor measure of, well, anything other than how far you can go on a tank?
Cost per Mile is where it's at!
Fully agree. There are just too many variables to quantify. For me the main one is probably riding style. Trying to get better mpg is usually the last thing on my mind and I'm not going to change how I ride...ok...I prety much don't think about it at all.
Tru'dat...I've been keeping track of the Stella and my jeep liberty on fully. With over 90% of everything I do all city driving... the liberty... $0.3768 per mile, the Stella... $0.0047 per mile
Even factoring in the mental component that I'm trying to rebuild my confidence for riding after all the crap I've endured... .it's a no brainier.
EvilNerdLord wrote: the liberty... $0.3768 per mile, the Stella... $0.0047 per mile
This must be only gas and not actual cost per mile. And at $4.70/thousand miles for the Stella, you will have a hard time paying for tires (let alone gas - must be a decimal point error) .
EvilNerdLord wrote:Only gas as logged using fully, then there's the $460 for tires, the $65 for insurance each month compare to Stella's $20 for the same amounts.
$0.0047 per mile is $4.70 per thousand miles, or about 1,000 miler per gallon. As I said, must be a decimal point error.
.