Page 1 of 1

Noob question: MPG Stella vs Buddy

Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 4:21 am
by Swordsman
Okay, riddle me this: HOW in the world does the 150cc Stella achieve a claimed 140 mpg vs the 150cc Buddy only getting 90 mpg???? Engine is the same size...?

~SM

Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 5:01 am
by viney266
Simple. 4 speed with a clutch versus a CVT.

I have heard of guys actually getting 100MPG real world with the 4t stellas

Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 5:10 am
by ericalm
140MPG on a Stella in real world riding is unlikely. 100 is definitely possible. When I bothered keeping track, I was getting around 100. Now, probably less as I ride a bit harder.

90MPG is possible on a Buddy 125. A bit lower is more common.

It's not all manual vs. CVT. The Stella also has lower emissions. But a stock Stella doesn't perform like a Buddy. All of the Stella's settings are dialed in for maximum fuel efficiency. It'll be slower off the line and have lower top speed.

Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 1:17 pm
by Rail 50
I can agree with Eric.. I am getting 107 mpg with the Stella and my Chinascoot is faster. However, I get more positive comments about the Stella.

Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 1:48 pm
by Swordsman
ericalm wrote:140MPG on a Stella in real world riding is unlikely. 100 is definitely possible. When I bothered keeping track, I was getting around 100. Now, probably less as I ride a bit harder.

90MPG is possible on a Buddy 125. A bit lower is more common.

It's not all manual vs. CVT. The Stella also has lower emissions. But a stock Stella doesn't perform like a Buddy. All of the Stella's settings are dialed in for maximum fuel efficiency. It'll be slower off the line and have lower top speed.
Ah, I wondered if that might be the case. Thanks for the info!
A fellow Uralista that lives near me has a red 2 stroke Stella. I've sat on it and fired it up... neat little machines! I love the hidden spare tire. :lol:

~SM

Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2012 8:14 pm
by SkutiJo
Keep in mind, too, guys - the EPA testing is done in fixed gears, with almost no loss.

Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2012 11:43 pm
by ericalm
Indeed. EPA for cars is also going to be much different than real-world.

I've always wondered why CVTs are less fuel efficient than same-displacement manuals. That seems counterintuitive to me. You "waste" a lot of revs—and, it would seem to me, fuel—on a shifty, especially in stop-start city riding. There is a lot of lost power in a CVT, though, so you may need more fuel to get an equivalent amount of power output. Wait, I may have just explained this to myself…

Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2012 12:47 am
by Spiffy
I was getting 120 mpg on my 2012 Stella when I was riding super easy on it during the break-in period... with the crappy stock spark plug...

now that I ride it like it wants to be rode I only get about 80-90 mpg out of it...

and it's always been a mix of city and highway...

Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2012 4:16 am
by viney266
ericalm wrote: Wait, I may have just explained this to myself…

^^^ Yeah, I do that sometimes,too ! :oops: