View Single Post
Old 03-10-2011, 08:46 PM   #28 (permalink)
Frank Lee
(:
 
Frank Lee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: up north
Posts: 12,762

Blue - '93 Ford Tempo
Last 3: 27.29 mpg (US)

F150 - '94 Ford F150 XLT 4x4
90 day: 18.5 mpg (US)

Sport Coupe - '92 Ford Tempo GL
Last 3: 69.62 mpg (US)

ShWing! - '82 honda gold wing Interstate
90 day: 33.65 mpg (US)

Moon Unit - '98 Mercury Sable LX Wagon
90 day: 21.24 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,585
Thanked 3,555 Times in 2,218 Posts
Because it is a bit pricey! Don't forget adding an ECU, pressurized fuel system, etc. And I can go as lean as I want via cheap lil ol skool jets.

One reason fe is poor on my Wing is a suspected rich-running carb. They're kinda a bugger to remove and service, and parts are rape-me expensive. Remember, Honda hates their customers.

Besides the shaft drive being less efficient than chain or belt and gearing not as tall as it could be, I don't think there's a fundamental (architectural) reason for the 1100 to be so inefficient. The carburetion is poor on mine but the ignition and exhaust systems should be good for effient fe. I think it's probable that a cam profile more biased to lower rpm operations would help along with intake system resizing (smaller, longer tubes).
__________________



Last edited by Frank Lee; 03-10-2011 at 09:17 PM..
  Reply With Quote