|Topic Review (Newest First)|
|Apr 27th, 2008 2:29 pm|
Re: MPG, older versus newer
My '06 is getting 40 mpg. Period. On premium, but it does have 10% ethanol in it. In CA all gas has ethanol.
|Apr 27th, 2008 9:36 am|
Re: MPG, older versus newer
My 2000 is getting 46 to 54 mpg. A lot of that is commuting. Put about 700 miles on it last weekend in North Carolina/Tennessee, up and down the mountains and averaged about 51.
|Dec 22nd, 2005 12:11 am|
My 2001 will get between 40 and 55 depending on my driving attitude that day. Up high the milage goes up to about 55. Running 80 to 90 mph near the coast and it's closer to 40. I can set it on about 72 - 75 mph (GPS) and get over 300 miles out of a tank. It's scary though. I had the light come on outside of Texarkana recently, rode less than 10 miles after that and put 6.4 gallons in the tank. That blurb in the manual about having a gallon left when the light comes on, ain't always true.
|Dec 21st, 2005 8:42 pm|
My 2000 gets an average of 45 to 48 riding two up, @ 40 to 42 with the trailer in tow.
Up high 8K + have got 55 mpg with tanks lasting 300+ miles with fill up of @ +/- @5.5 gallons.
|Dec 21st, 2005 7:36 pm|
Older is better
The older bikes get better gas milage. My 2000 would get in the low 40s and my 2005 is in the mid 30s for milage. I blame the 500 extra rpms at cruising speed.
|Dec 21st, 2005 2:11 am|
The Age Old question - MPG
Like Joe said there are a lot of variables. I usually drive 80 - 85 mph (on the GSP) in NV & CA. I get anywhere from 36 - 41 mpg. I that a good average compared to others? I have never gotten 50+ mpg even if I am drive 55 for miles and miles. What are other getting at this speed? THX Tvguy
|Dec 20th, 2005 8:10 am|
|ATFLT||The 05's should get a little less mileage because of the extra power but probably not a lot less. The early LT's had the higher gearing and can get some excellent mileage but then it depends on riding style and such. I have heard of early LT's only getting in the mid 40's.|
|Dec 19th, 2005 6:45 pm|
Like Joe said, there are many variables. My 2000 delivered better mileage than my 2003. The rear gear ratio change made a 500 RPM change at cruising speeds. I have a european windshield and used it on both bikes and think I ride them about the same. My Y2K bike was between 48 and 50 and that was based on 46,000 miles of experience. My 2003 after 36,000 miles is delivering between 46 and 48.
Jim in GA
|Dec 19th, 2005 6:44 pm|
|TimVipond||I think the older models (1999 and 2000) have the more fuel efficient "over drive" gear ratios. The newer bikes were given sportier ratios to keep up with the Gold Wings.|
|Dec 19th, 2005 6:01 pm|
The '05s are going to tend to get less mileage due to the simple fact of having a few more ponies...sure. But the mileage LT's get tends to be related to several other factors:
|Dec 19th, 2005 5:10 pm|
MPG, older versus newer
Fellow LT members:
I was wondering if there was any noticeable differences in the MPG for the various years. My 2000 give me a fairly consistent 55 mpg. Do the newer models with more HP do as well?
TIA, Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.