Does Fuel Mileage Matter?

[Bob_Defly]

I always see bikers say that mileage doesn't really matter on a bike, and whilst I generally agree, I'm not seeing significant differences between a bike and an efficient car?

For example my old golf diesel would get about 50mpg, and my Triumph Tiger gets about the same. So taking the bike doesn't result in any fuel saving at all. Obviously riding for fun is different than commuting.

So does everyone say this because they are talking about fun rides? Or are they comparing to more thirsty cars for commuting?

[MrGman]

I hate to say this but to me it does, my old R1 (16) and MT10, were bloody awful if you like to make progress, I like to ride my bikes and could easily do £50 a weekend in fuel, that’s over £200 a month, my current bike will do double the mpg so over a month that’s a hefty saving, and more importantly I don’t feel like I need to cut rides short.
That’s obviously for fun rides.

I currently have a golf tdi so I don’t really ever use the bike to commute on as it’s more hassle and isn’t much of a saving to be had.

Edited by MrGman on Wednesday 13th October 21:26

[hiccy18]

Range matters and fuel costs I keep an eye on, obviously both are linked. Comparing a boggo hatch to a larger bike is a bit unfair as the performance available is very different; speed costs ya know?

We've got an M135i, and turbo'd six's have never been more frugal, but mid to high 30's is the norm on a run, maybe low 40's if I'm very gentle. The R1200RS gets mid-50's to low-60's solo, or a surprisingly consistent 58mpg two up with luggage; for our recent NC500-ish run I reckon we needed a little more than half the fuel the car would've used.

My SV650 used to get 60+mpg around town and something like a Z250 can get 80+mpg.

Anyway bikes are more fun.

[CoreyDog]

I suppose to depends on what you are comparing to.

My GSF1200 is averaging about 41mpg, I do a mix of fun rides and commuting. Im delighted with that!

Our car averages 22mpg so comparing the car next to that, I'm saving a good chunk of money, saving time and having more fun.

[Kawasicki]

I‘ve owned a few bikes and I‘m always fairly surprised at how good their fuel economy was… especially because I didn’t think I was hanging about.

My last tour where I was not expecting police (but also didn’t want to end up in hospital) led to a 50mpg average over a few tankfuls. That’s with a 90’s tech carb-fed 1100cc naked bike. I think that’s pretty decent.

[bogie]

For a weekend toy that does a few thousand miles per year, its not really an issue. If it were a daily commuter doing 50 miles a day then I would want something fairly efficient.

Other than cost, its about tank range, even on a weekend bike I wouldn't want something with less than say 100 miles range.

[Jazoli]

It doesn't really come into it for me as I don't really do enough miles to worry about it, I never get close to the official mpg figures either, I guess I need to stop riding like a tt.

[Mr Tidy]

It wouldn't matter now, but back in the 70s when most garages were closed on Sundays getting to Brighton and back was a bit of a challenge on an RD Yamaha when you rode it like you stole it - I believe!

[bolidemichael]

I've never really considered mpg on bikes a benefit, more like a feature. Mind you, I take the same approach to my cars, as well

The thing that does matter to me is tank range. Even if not on a long ride (my 954 blade only got 120/130 miles and my Fazer 180/200 miles), is the frequency with which I have to fill up.

[jjones]

bolidemichael said:

The thing that does matter to me is tank range. Even if not on a long ride (my 954 blade only got 120/130 miles and my Fazer 180/200 miles), is the frequency with which I have to fill up.

This, I don't care about MPG but I don't want to be filling up every 80 miles.

[SAS Tom]

I don’t really do many miles anymore for it to make a difference but the cost of fuel more recently has caught my attention. Having a bike from the 80’s means filling with super unleaded for the reduced ethanol content. The last couple of tanks has been around £25 for about 16 litres which is a lot in my eyes, I’ve never spent so much on fuel for a bike.

The saving grace for me is that the bike does 45-50 mpg and both my cars struggle to get 30mpg so it’s still cheaper to take the bike.

[black-k1]

I think comparing to a car is completely missing the point. The difference in available performance is not comparable and likewise, the difference in carrying capacity (people or goods) is not comparable.

That said, both mpg and range on a motorbike has importance for me. I see no point in paying twice as much for fuel as another bike that offers the same performance and "fit" to my requirements. I also don't want to be stopping for fuel too often.

[Pothole]

10000 miles a year, yes indeed it matters! The Burgman seems a bit juicier than Nerys, but that may be down to knakered exhaust and carb needing dialled in. I'll have a fiddle once exhaust is sorted and we'll see how it goes.

[Steve Bass]

For commuting, I'd guess do.
For me, bikes are a play thing so nope, it's part of the game.
80miles range from the RSV4 under "spirited" riding conditions would see me filling up 2 or even 3 times on a Sunday run.... worth every single penny....

[black-k1]

Steve Bass said:

For commuting, I'd guess do.
For me, bikes are a play thing so nope, it's part of the game.
80miles range from the RSV4 under "spirited" riding conditions would see me filling up 2 or even 3 times on a Sunday run.... worth every single penny....

I think it depends on where and how you play. My recent week doing the passes in the Alps would have been a real pain if tank range was 80 miles. It was easily possible to do a good 25 miles plus without seeing a petrol station so fill ups would have been every 50 miles "just to be safe", or routes would have to have been on "less fun" roads to ensure a ready supply of fuel. Neither option adds to riding enjoyment for me.

[fastbikes76]

As above, range before mpg for me. b-king does around 40mpg riding with a pillion reasonably spiritedly, I would imagine a lot less solo. The biggest pain is the range, about 120-140miles tops, often much less. When I want to take it out I find it’s usual low from last ride out so first stop is fuel before heading off. Do a 60-80 mile jaunt means I won’t have enough juice for the trip home, so top up before leaving. Get back home and have done 80 miles since top up meaning next time I want to take the bike out….yup, needs fuel.

Pain in the ass ! Luckily I have a Tesco just over a mile from my house so it’s not that painful , but enough to be the standing joke with fellow riders when going out and pulling into every other garage

[KTMsm]

Depends how low it goes

My KTM 950 when ridden hard gives 30mpg which I think is appalling given my cars average 20 when doing similar

It doesn't put me off riding it for fun but I was thinking that I'd buy something more sensible to take on a European trip - I bought an F800 GT which gave almost double the mpg and zero enjoyment so that was soon sold

I was surprised that on an IAM lesson the light hadn't come on at 120 miles, I assumed it had broken and I was on fumes, I only managed to get 10 litres in it - turns out if you ride it sensibly it's surprisingly economical - who knew ?

To answer the question, yes it matters but only a little as I don't cover that many miles and they are still more economical then my cars

[Krikkit]

jjones said:

bolidemichael said:

The thing that does matter to me is tank range. Even if not on a long ride (my 954 blade only got 120/130 miles and my Fazer 180/200 miles), is the frequency with which I have to fill up.

This, I don't care about MPG but I don't want to be filling up every 80 miles.

Same here! This is what partly puts me off a bigger, thirstier bike like an RSV4 - my Monster does about 40mpg, with a 16 litre tank it means I need a break before the range is done.

My neighbour has a Z1000 and it'll only do 80 miles between fuel stops, which means on my usual afternoon mooching loop I'd have to stop half way through, not so easy in North Wales where fuel stops are limited on the good bits.

[Freakuk]

Completely irrelevant to me, I ride my bikes for fun and possibly the occasion commute. Tank size/range is far more important over how much fuel I'm burning.

Performance vs Cost makes the bike a much more economical prospect, my current KTM 1290SDR will return 50mpg if ridden sensibly with a reported range of 190 miles, twist the throttle a bit and that will drop to 130-140, but the smiles for miles outweighs the negligible cost increase.

[Crudeoink]

Agree with the general consensus that fuel range is more important. Having to fill up 3 times when out with a mate for the morning is a pain. I only every really ride the bike for fun, so the fact I can burn £60 in a morning just in fuel doesn't really matter. But it stops me taking the bike to work because its an 80 mile round trip and I'd have to fill up every day.