[larrystark]

So the 1200 LT is great, I've had mine for about 6 years. It gets very good milage, ranging from 40 to 55+ mpg depending on the ride. So now,, some cars are getting milage that is comparable and they weigh 3 or 4 times as much. So are any bike manufacturers considering milage when the build new bikes, or is it just zero to 60? I don't know what the 2005 LT, zero to 60 time is (5 sec?) but it is fast, I can "out run" my HD friends and they are riding new bikes. What could an LT do with direct injection, turbo, cylinder deactivation, duel clutch transmission and should I say diesel? 80+ MPG? So why is all the technology showing up in cars? So their must not be enough money in bikes for new technology. If I'm going to invest 20 something for a new bike, it needs to be better than the bike I have now.

 

[andres]

I don't think there's any shortage of technology on motorcycles. The new offerings are as advanced and arguably more than cars, but the technology has different objectives. And fuel consumption probably doesn't feature as high on motorcycles as on the typical family sedan, just as it is of lesser concern on performance sedans. One of the biggest if not the most important consideration in fuel economy is aerodynamics. A typical motorcycle is a very inefficient aerodynamic design with many protrusions into the airstream, no spoilers or skirts, no roof or side panels, etc. This causes all kinds of turbulence and vortices leading to inefficiency and increased consumption. But that is why we like motorcycles - feeling the wind and not being in an insulated cage!

 

[LTFan]

Larry - I agree with you. By common sense the newer bikes with more technology should have better MPG. But lets try to compare similar items. Cars reach 50 mpg (driving at 50mph) using a backup battery and a 1.5L engine with 3000lb of weight. The K1200 is a 1.2L engine and does not have a backup battery and weighs 800lb.

Also considering the fact that majority of the bikes still are a second mode of transport and the primary being a car, most owners don't mind the mpg.

As bike owners we still are buying larger engine bikes rather than better mpg bikes.

Amit.

 

[casualemt]

While I agree that the auto industry is slowly advancing their fuel efficiency, in general they are still pretty far from 50+ mpg, and as stated in previous post, motorcycles are more like high performance cars and giant pickup trucks, people drive them because they like them, not for fuel efficiency. If auto manufacturers wanted to produce a car that gets 50 or 60 mpg, they could do it.....Yes I have a 97 geo metro, my best highway mileage was 53, but for the most part people don't want a car that has almost no amenities, stick shift, runs on 3 tiny cylinders, and will do 70 mph all day on the flats...It's all about demand. As far as technology...If you have a KLT, you already have the best technology available on a motorcycle...Enjoy!

 

[billsmith]

Hey the guy did say he was rambling.
Besides if he was that concerned about milage he would not have kept the bike for 6 years. He's not telling the whole truth sooooo much fun. Can we say "fpg" is it in the dictionary.
ride safe :bmw:

 

[Voyager]

So the 1200 LT is great, I've had mine for about 6 years. It gets very good milage, ranging from 40 to 55+ mpg depending on the ride. So now,, some cars are getting milage that is comparable and they weigh 3 or 4 times as much. So are any bike manufacturers considering milage when the build new bikes, or is it just zero to 60? I don't know what the 2005 LT, zero to 60 time is (5 sec?) but it is fast, I can "out run" my HD friends and they are riding new bikes. What could an LT do with direct injection, turbo, cylinder deactivation, duel clutch transmission and should I say diesel? 80+ MPG? So why is all the technology showing up in cars? So their must not be enough money in bikes for new technology. If I'm going to invest 20 something for a new bike, it needs to be better than the bike I have now.

There is certainly additional gain to be had with more efficient engines and drivelines, but the really big difference between cars and bikes is Cd. The best fully faired street bikes have probably twice the drag of the average car. And an unfaired bike probably has 4X the drag, At speeds above 40 MPH or so aero drag is the dominant force to be overcome by the engine. It would be very hard to make a motorcycle as aerodynamically efficient as a car and still retain the characteristics that make motorcycles fun to ride.

http://www.schultzengineering.us/aero.htm

 

[kk610lt]

There is certainly additional gain to be had with more efficient engines and drivelines, but the really big difference between cars and bikes is Cd. The best fully faired street bikes have probably twice the drag of the average car. And an unfaired bike probably has 4X the drag, At speeds above 40 MPH or so aero drag is the dominant force to be overcome by the engine. It would be very hard to make a motorcycle as aerodynamically efficient as a car and still retain the characteristics that make motorcycles fun to ride.

http://www.schultzengineering.us/aero.htm

That is very true. Not to mention M/C engines have higher rpm's than cars at crusing speed.

 

[hallzee]

All I know about gas mileage is that I generally get much better mileage when my wife is on the bike....

And for some reason, I get really crappy mileage when I ride with Hoss (shoswell)...

 

[katnapinn]

All I know about gas mileage is that I generally get much better mileage when my wife is on the bike....

And for some reason, I get really crappy mileage when I ride with Hoss (shoswell)...

Plus a butt load more of fun.

 

[mwlong]

This is my first reply to any thread on any website. Sorry in advance if I goof it up. I have a 2008 LT. On the slab I average 52 mpg. In town it's about 45 mpg. Bike runs very good on 89 octane.

 

[billsmith]

This is my first reply to any thread on any website. Sorry in advance if I goof it up. I have a 2008 LT. On the slab I average 52 mpg. In town it's about 45 mpg. Bike runs very good on 89 octane.

Are we still rambling :rotf:
What slab do you ride on. I wish I could get 50+. What speed are we talking about. I use premium octane always. HOw did you get those figures computer or manual calculations
ride safe :bmw:

 

[gary45]

This is my first reply to any thread on any website. Sorry in advance if I goof it up. I have a 2008 LT. On the slab I average 52 mpg. In town it's about 45 mpg. Bike runs very good on 89 octane.

these bikes do not have knock sensors which protect the engine from predetonation that cannot be detected by human senses - as well Shell 91 does not have alcohol in it at least in Canada

 

[mwlong]

In northern MN I ride on I-94 and I-35. I generally set the cruise at 4 to 5 over posted limit. When I check mpg I will see what the BC tells me then check it with pen and paper. They are usually pretty close. Up here most the roads are posted at 55. So I will set the cuise at 58 to 60.Temps up here are cooler, perhaps that figures into it. 88 or 89 octane is all I run in the tank. Mobil 1 in everything.

 

[billsmith]

OK your speed explains a lot.
That's good but on the advice of many on the forum who are much wiser than me the brew to feed the LT's thirst is premium. And some of the expert wrenchers here who have peered into the combustion chamber have pretty much all agreed. Get away with it now and pay the cost later. Scan the forum you might save a lot later.
ride safe :bmw:

 

[deputy5211]

All I know about gas mileage is that I generally get much better mileage when my wife is on the bike....

And for some reason, I get really crappy mileage when I ride with Hoss (shoswell)...

Plus a butt load more of fun.

Geez, Stevie, that seems a bit personal...