|
MPG
May 25, 2015 12:49:39 GMT -5
Post by kanonkopdrinker on May 25, 2015 12:49:39 GMT -5
Just back from the 2015 'Wankeltreffen' in Germany, one of around five RE5s to make it - but the only one from the UK.
Interesting MPG figures .....
MY RE5M has a SU carb fitted and, using the bike's trip odometer, and reeckoning 4.546 litres per one imperial gallon, the worst fuel consumption I got was 38mpg .... and the best two lots I got were 45 and 47 mpg which came on two consecutive fill-ups. These two refuels were on Belgian and German autobahns - and came after my riding companion (on his Norton Commander) asked if we could keep the speeds down to 60 - 65 mph as he was having cooling problems. (Hitherto we had been going 75 - 80mph)
I am pretty pleased by these - and put it down to a gentle right wrist and the SU conversion.
The oil tank was brim full on leaving the UK and, 950 miles later, has still not been topped up. I am using Shell Rotella DD+40 in the metering tank - as per Norton rotaries.
Fuel on all occasions was Euro 95 unleaded; I have avoided the E10 because of the (supposed?) risks with ethanol.
Sump oil remained at its usual level and did not need adding to. Castrol GTX is in here.
How do these compare with others?
David
|
|
|
MPG
May 25, 2015 18:24:54 GMT -5
Post by h2e Al In Aus on May 25, 2015 18:24:54 GMT -5
Hi David I'm checking my fuel consumption country NSW Aus hilly and flat, around 40mls gal , 60 to 70 mph , my M model uses a bit of sump oil 1/2 lt for 700mls , oil tank seams pritty good , my A gets about the same economy on fuel now but had a 102.5 primary main when I got it after cleaning and setting up carby I have it down to 87.5 now and running well , it doesnt seam to use much sump oil and oil tank consumption same as M hope that helps ,. urs Al
|
|
|
MPG
May 25, 2015 19:19:51 GMT -5
Post by wayne on May 25, 2015 19:19:51 GMT -5
David, I generally get the low 40's per imperial gallon. Similarly, the worst readings would be around the same as yours, 37, 38 mpg. I'd say at your speeds, I'd be getting the same with the stock carb. However, I do notice that some people on the board seem to be using a lot more.
I did a dedicated economy run some years ago. Stuck to the speed limit and very gentle on accelerations etc. All on country roads so I was doing between 50 and 63 mph on undulating curvy terrain. I ran to 278 klm on the odometer before running out and this converted to 48 mpg. The tyres on that test made the speedo over read by about 4% which is better than the K81's I had which were around 7% over reading. Consumption figures are just based on the odo. Not corrected.
|
|
|
MPG
May 25, 2015 20:17:08 GMT -5
Post by timpa136 on May 25, 2015 20:17:08 GMT -5
Wayne, I'm glad you brought up correction error. I've been using an A model gear and it is pretty spot on with the tires I have been using. I just checked and I think it is still available. 54600-08C00 ! BOX ASSY,SPEEDO | M,A $106.00
|
|
|
MPG
May 26, 2015 2:44:16 GMT -5
Post by wayne on May 26, 2015 2:44:16 GMT -5
Hi Tim, My parts book gives the same number for both M and A as you note for your quoted part number. Do you think that there was a difference between M and A boxes when you swapped ?
I see the GT750 part is different only in the last digit (54600-34000 vs 54600-34001).
Interestingly, a friend and I rode both my GT750M and RE5M on a trip and zeroed the odos at the same refuelling stop. At the next refuel, note the difference in distance (and I throw in the fuel use for interest). Both bikes used K81 front tyres of the same size. The GT figure is actually higher than the actual distance but the RE was even worse. I guess that there's a difference in speedo calibration and/or gearing.
RE5 9.64/146.0 GT 8.77/141.6
Last week, I rode 3 GSX1100's (16 valve GS1100's for the US). It was impossible to compare what was going on with the speedos and tachos as all three bikes using the same front wheels/tyres and same speedo assemblies had different speed readings for a given tacho rpm. So not sure where the faults are.
4000 rpm = 103 kph on one, = 106 kph on another and 96 kph on the one that had non standard higher gearing.
Whoever did the calibrations was probably the same guy doing QC across the paint colours as well.
|
|
|
MPG
May 26, 2015 10:32:49 GMT -5
Post by timpa136 on May 26, 2015 10:32:49 GMT -5
Hi Tim,
You are right Wayne,
I went back and looked and the part numbers are superseded. I remember discussion in 1976 and later about the change in calibration and it is in the gear box. The difference is dramatic with switching gear boxes on the M model and vice versa. I do not know how the superseded boxes are calibrated. I like the accurate readings for sure.
|
|
|
MPG
May 26, 2015 10:46:58 GMT -5
Post by tom93gts on May 26, 2015 10:46:58 GMT -5
I'm jealous, mine still won't go above 22-25 miles per gallon. Maybe it's because we only have E10 in Phoenix, probably not but would be nice to have a good excuse for poor mileage.
|
|
|
MPG
May 26, 2015 11:56:28 GMT -5
Post by mike500 on May 26, 2015 11:56:28 GMT -5
I get low to mid 40's imperial gallons on my re5 riding about 70mph and my Norton rotary averages about 50 mpg
|
|
|
MPG
May 26, 2015 18:54:44 GMT -5
Post by wayne on May 26, 2015 18:54:44 GMT -5
The difference is dramatic with switching gear boxes on the M model and vice versa. I do not know how the superseded boxes are calibrated. I like the accurate readings for sure. Thanks very much for that. Next US parts order I do I'll add one of the new part numbers into it, I like the idea of more realistic readings. I've been thinking about replacing that drive anyway just because I don't have the tools to rebuild the old one.
|
|
|
MPG
May 27, 2015 1:16:59 GMT -5
Post by h2e Al In Aus on May 27, 2015 1:16:59 GMT -5
Ha Wayne when you mention K81s what size were they ?, and gear box for speed is there a differance in models ?,
|
|
|
MPG
May 27, 2015 2:18:36 GMT -5
Post by wayne on May 27, 2015 2:18:36 GMT -5
Al, 4.25/85 rear, 3.60/19 front. I get about 5 to 6000 klm on the rear solo, forever on the front.
I changed to Metzeler Lasertechs. Like the front, don't like the rear at all. They do about 8,000 on the rear and give you a bit more ground clearance due higher profile and go some way to correcting the speedo error mentioned above, down from around 7% with K81 to about 4%.
Next change I'm going to Bridgestone Battleaxe. Have gone through 2 sets on the GSX and very happy with them, around 8,000 klm rear and the front is so close to worn I change both anyway.
There is a difference in gears between an M and a genuine A (are there any actual A's in Australia ?). They changed 2nd and 3rd gears but what they did was simply to beef them up. The number of teeth have been lowered. As they've made them heavier and lowered teeth numbers on both drive and driven, the ratios are almost identical (2nd 19:33 became 18:32 and 3rd 22:30 became 21:29).
|
|
|
MPG
May 27, 2015 17:03:13 GMT -5
Post by h2e Al In Aus on May 27, 2015 17:03:13 GMT -5
thanks Wayne I have used Battleaxes on my H2 and found them good , I run the larger K81 100/90/19 , use to use 410/19 in the old days and found it very good on H2
|
|
|
MPG
May 28, 2015 19:58:14 GMT -5
Post by timpa136 on May 28, 2015 19:58:14 GMT -5
I'm jealous, mine still won't go above 22-25 miles per gallon. Maybe it's because we only have E10 in Phoenix, probably not but would be nice to have a good excuse for poor mileage. Tom, next time I'm in Phoenix lets have a look at your bike. Just for grins I will check my gas mileage and average it while at the rally and let you guys know, in US gallons. The big fairings pull a lot out of the gas mileage.
|
|
|
MPG
May 28, 2015 22:03:52 GMT -5
Post by wayne on May 28, 2015 22:03:52 GMT -5
The big fairings pull a lot out of the gas mileage. Glad you mentioned fairings Tim................I probably should have noted that all those gas mileages I've mentioned are for a fully faired bike with bags, large carrier rack and usually with topbox. And my bags are home made copies of the original, they're considerably heavier as I found the stock bags a bit flimsy. I've often wondered if the fairing may actually improve gas mileage. It's a pretty "dirty" motorcycle aerodynamically.
|
|
|
MPG
May 30, 2015 11:41:58 GMT -5
Post by tom93gts on May 30, 2015 11:41:58 GMT -5
I'm jealous, mine still won't go above 22-25 miles per gallon. Maybe it's because we only have E10 in Phoenix, probably not but would be nice to have a good excuse for poor mileage. Tom, next time I'm in Phoenix lets have a look at your bike. Just for grins I will check my gas mileage and average it while at the rally and let you guys know, in US gallons. The big fairings pull a lot out of the gas mileage. That would be awesome! It seems to run flawlessly aside from that. Maybe a bit stinky but no hesitation and pulls very strong.
|
|