Fuel economy? .....go fetch a bike

The last time, we were talking about how people judge the value of a motorcycle on the basis of fuel economy. While there are scores of possible questions to ask about a bike, the most frequently asked question is about the mpg. Anything which delivers less than 50 km per litre these days is run down as mindlessly wasteful to run.

There has been some feedback on the subject, which makes me want to lead the discussion further along. As any vehicle owner (regardless of the number of wheels his vehicle has) knows, fuel consumption is an exceedingly difficult subject even under the best of circumstances - and those cease to exist the moment the vehicle leaves the manufacturer's test track.

The last time, I think we conclusively discussed the subject of 50 mpg cars vs 50 mpg motorcycles. Any drive further than to the in-laws in the suburbs in a 50 mpg car would be pretty uncomfortable, to say the least (there are always exceptions to this rule. At least, there used to be. The Peugeot 104 compact of the 1970s was one of those. But we are talking about the norm. Any compact capable of ferrying you and family in reasonable comfort for longer distances wouldn't do over 40 mpg, and much less in city traffic).

Back to bikes now. What is a 50 mpg bike like? Comparisons of the fuel consumption figures of bikes of various capacity classes makes fascinating reading. While some 125ccs would get 10-15 km per litre at most, some 650s, 750s and even bigger bikes would get you as much, sometimes even more.

There are quite a few four strokes in the higher capacity classes which deliver up to 50 mpg. Obviously, your have to leave the sports bikes out. But this doesn't mean that the above-mentioned 750s etc. are niggardly when it comes to performance. They have top speeds of 150 kmh at least, and have respectable zero to 60 mph acceleration for the most part.

The amazing thing is that these days some 250s, 350s (no longer a fashionable capacity class) or 400s can be as economical as the average, non-sporting 125cc. What we have to realise is that the mass of motorcycles made in Japan and in Western Europe are made for the developed world, and therefore buyers rarely have fuel consumption as the primary factor when buying a motorcycle (though this may change somewhat now that the era of cheap fuel is gone in the West. Even so, sales of big, fast, fuel-guzzling bikes haven't suffered noticeably due to recent fuel price hikes).

It's the third world bike manufacturers who have recently begun to dominate third world markets, such as India and China, who make fuel consumption a priority because that's the average buyer's primary concern. It is interesting to note that Indian and Chinese motorcycles sell very poorly in Western countries despite their impressive fuel economy figures. Korean makes have a better market, but they too, are still far below the Japanese in sales.

Anyway, back to our fuel consumption figures. Let's take a few 125cc Japanese bikes (the figures I quote are from a British bike magazine, and presumably taken from brand new machines). All these makes (with one or two exceptions) would be familiar to Sri Lankan motorcyclists.

Honda CM 125 - 80 mpg. Honda NSR 125R - 55 mpg, Honda XL 125V Varadero - 45 mpg, Honda CB 125T - 75-90 mpg, Honda CG 125 - 125 mpg. Kawasaki KE100 - 70 mpg, 25 mpg. Kawasaki KE100 - 70 mpg, 25 mpg. Kawasaki KE100 - 70 mpg, Kawasaki EL125 Eliminator (55 mpg), Kawasaki KMX125 (50 mpg). Yamaha RD125LC - 70 mpg. YamahaTZR125, 49 mpg, Yamaha DT125R - 75 mpg, Yamaha YBR125 - 65 mpg. Suzuki GN/GS125 - 90 mpg.Suzuki DR125 100 mpg.

As you can see, given fuel consumption figures differ widely. The most economical is the evergreen Honda CG125, which sells well in the West (like most Japanese bikes, it has out priced itself from our market). But the Yamaha YBR125, another four-stroke single which is Yamaha's answer to the CG, has much poorer fuel consumption figures. The Kawasakis mentioned are all two-strokes, hence have relatively poor consumption figures. But if you take the Yamaha RD and TZR, which fall into the sports bike category, you can see a wide difference between consumption figures. Fuel economy in motorcycles is indeed a mysterious thing.

It gets even more mysterious when you compare these with some bigger machines. Some 70 mpg is quoted for the Yamaha four-stroke XT350 trail bike, while 75 mpg is given is for the 4-stroke XT125 and the 2-stroke DT125R. The Kawasaki KLR 250, which is a four-stroke trail bike, offers 65 mpg, much better than Kawasaki's 125cc 2-stroke trail bikes.

What about bigger machines? Honda VT600 Shadow - 50 mpg. Honda ST1100 Pan-European - 40 mpg. Both are cruisers. Honda CBR650RR -- 45 mpg (outright sports bike). Kawasaki GPX600 - 45 mpg (sportster). Kawasaki ZX-7R Ninja - 35 mpg (sports bike).Kawasaki GPZ900R - 45 mpg. Suzuki GSX 400F - 60 mpg. Suzuki RG500 - 30 mpg. Suzuki GSX1000/1100 Katana - 40 mpg. Yamaha RD350 YPVS - 45 mpg. Yamaha XJ550 - 50 mpg. Yamaha FZR 1000 - 35 mpg. Triumph 900 Daytona - 35 mpg. Ural 650 -- 55 mpg. BMW R1100S - 40 mpg. Ducati Monster 600 - 50 mpg. Laverda 1000 - 45 mpg. Harley Davidson Dyna Glide 1340/1450cc - 45 mpg.

That's should give a fairly good idea of the fuel consumption figures of various capacity classes. Much depends, obviously, on what kind of bike it is - roadster or sportster - and also how it's ridden. The above-mentioned figures have been obtained under optimum conditions. When any machine is given hard, these figures can be reduced by one third or more.

So, why do people pay so much to buy a motorcycle with 40 or 50 mpg figures, when the same money can get them a decent car? That's the way some people are, and that's fine by me.