4 banger vs twins

[pwillikers]

The SV engine is over-square (i.e. the cylinder bore is larger than the piston stroke) so it is built for power not efficiency. I've had two 1st gens, still own one. I consistently get 47MPG. With some relatively mild suspension and brake upgrades (which are entirely unnecessary for the "normal" rider) it is a fantastically capable and fun bike to ride. And as mentioned, they are cheap and plentiful.

[renault_megane_dci]

I'd love to own an injected SV to try my atkinsoning of a bike engine project.
But I'd also love to ride it as is ...

And above all, I'm only 2 miles from work which is a blessing but does not leave room for a motorbike ... :-(

[hfbmw]

Great to see all these posts! Yep, I ride for my health, ride long distances too. It is the best way to see the country. I smile when seeing the sign of Scenic Over Look, thinking that if people would ride motorcycles that they would not need to pull over for that scenery! The best scenic over look is on Hwy 50 in Kansas... Best due to what people are looking at.. Cows.. a stock yard of cattle! Too funny!

I wrote an E book. The title is "100,000 BMW Prayer Miles " by Timothy Lindstrom. You can find it at Apple on line stores. I rode this BMW 100 K in 5 years. Doing an average of 20,000 miles. People would come up to me who don't look seriously at motorcycles and say, "I don't put that kind of miles on my car!"

You are correct! I enjoy the ride, figuring out what the cage people are intending to do. The challenge of riding long distances to riding in snow storms or even ice storms.

I have often thought about taking a Ninja 250 across the fruited plain. A few of my friends have Goldwings with car tires on the rear. They also have extra gas tanks in the saddle bags. I had asked, where do you have your gear? Receiver hitch and one of those wire grid plates inserted with a plastic tub for the clothes!

Thanks!
Tim Lindstrom

[PaulB2]

I had a 1999 Triumph Adventurer (885 cc) that I think was tuned more for torque than most Triumphs at the time. A triple cylinder, of course. I averaged 51mpg US with a mixed riding style (half "spirited, half conservative). I now have a Kawasaki Super Sherpa (250 cc single) that is ridden more on the "spirited" end (to get any performance at all, heh) and I average 77mpg with it.

I also had a Buell Blast that is supposed to be one of those mileage kings but I didn't ride much because it was just too weird for my taste. The long stroke engine cried out for a wide ratio gearbox but as far as I could tell it was narrow ratio and annoying. Seemed like it always needed shifting. Or something. Anyway it didn't suit me.

I have been drooling over those Honda 500 twins and the 300 cbr but I will stick with the Sherpa for a while because it just begs to please...

Technically I like a twin with a single carb or fuel injection body. Not too many of those around, I guess. NC700 and a Guzzi Quota (I had one of the latter too). Can't think of any others...

BTW it is interesting how closely the NC700 matches the old Norton 750 Commando. Undersquare twin, about 60 hp, redline around 7000. My Commando was no slouch; I wonder what the NC700 is like to ride. The article I'm reading says it gets the same mileage as the cbr250r!
http://driving.ca/honda/nc700x/revie...onda-nc700-x-2

[sendler]

Originally Posted by PaulB2

I wonder what the NC700 is like to ride. The article I'm reading says it gets the same mileage as the cbr250r!

Not quite as good. But close. The 80 mpg the article mentions is UK gallons. The NC700 and the CBR500R are about 65 mpgUS on fuelly and the CBR250R is around 68. Any of theses can be hypermiled to get much more. My lifetime with the 250R is over 90 mpgUS and I have seen commuters getting 75 with the NC.

[The Atomic Ass]

Originally Posted by hfbmw

The Fitch is claimed to upgrade the fuel in the tank. Putting in regular will raise the octane to the middle grade. I try to use premium fuel with the main gas stations I use is BP. However the fuel changes for winter and of course the mileage drops due to the change as well as the engine doesn't warm up.

Engines, in my experience, perform better (performance and economy) running the octane they were designed for, not higher or lower.

[PaulB2]

It strikes me how close to the perfect recipe the old Brit AJS and Matchless thumpers were (350 and 500 cc lonnng-stroke singles). The Royal Enfield Bullet has a 70mm bore for the 350 and 84mm for the 500, both engines have a 90mm stroke (I don't know if this still applies to the new unit construction engine). I think the 350 Bullet would be about the ideal bike for a high mpg gas motorcycle. Now I wonder how to get my hands on one. Buy a 500 and import a cylinder and piston, and swap it out?

(later)
Woops, the Yam XV250 also is undersquare, bore 49mm, stroke 66mm. And it does better than anything on fuelly in the 250 class and up, as far as I can tell. The cruiser style and low seat probably keeps the rider out of the wind better.

[sendler]

I only see 3 XV250's on Fuelly and they have an average of about 64 mpgUS.
.
Any of the Honda CBR250/ 300, CBR500, CTX700 will get better than that. The Honda CBR125R is undersquare and is showing 87 mpg for a sample of 71 bikes but it can only reach a top speed of 70 mph if you tuck. The cheap air cooled 150's in India top out at 50 mph and return 120 mpgUS.
.
Hypermiling works real good on motorcycles. My last two tanks on my CBR250R were 95.8 and 95.9 mpgUS on my 80% highway commute at 68 mph.

[D.O.G.]

Originally Posted by sendler

I only see 3 XV250's on Fuelly and they have an average of about 64 mpgUS

In typical Fuelly fashion, there are multiple name entries for what are basically the same bike.
XV 250, Virago 250, XV 250 Virago, XV 250 V Star 250, V Star 250 and XVS 250.
32 bikes with an average in the low 70's.

Originally Posted by PaulB2

the Yam XV250 also is undersquare, bore 49mm, stroke 66mm. And it does better than anything on fuelly in the 250 class and up, as far as I can tell. The cruiser style and low seat probably keeps the rider out of the wind better.

Yes, some riders can get these into the 90's, but that's the rider's skill not the bike's design.

In general, cruiser styling results in poor aero, compared to a sports bike. This is a huge handicap that the rider has to overcome if high mpg's are the goal.

This styling can be somewhat compensated for with aftermarket screens, etc, but many cruiser riders think this ruins the appeal of a cruiser.
My son (XVS 650 rider) won't even consider a screen for his bike.

[sendler]

A cruiser position with it's low seat height is a much better starting point for a Vetter style streamliner. They have a new V-Star 250 on the floor at my dealer for $3,000. My family would hate me if I brought home yet another brand new bike. And then tore it all apart to add radical bodywork.