Fuel econ, efficiency and Power - are we missing out? | GTAMotorcycle.com

Fuel econ, efficiency and Power - are we missing out?

F

flummox

Active member
Forum Sponsor
Are motorcycles being left behind in the fuel economy push?

Take the current 2011 Transport Canada rankings for cars. Removing the hybrids which have a technology we don't have access to and diesels you still see vehicles like these at the top of the list:

Smartfortwo 1000cc engine, 70hp, 5.9/4.8 city/hwy L/100km. 1804lbs
Hyundai Elantra 1800cc, 148hp, 6.8/4.9, 2661lbs, drag - 0.28
Chevy Cruze eco 1400cc, 138hp, 7.2/4.6, 3009lbs, drag - 0.298
Ford Fiesta, 1600cc, 120hp, 6.8/4.9, 2575lbs?

Excluding the Smart we are talking about twice the HP and 4-5 times the loaded weight (ie me on the bike / in the car) of my SV650. And my fuel economy (not driven to gov't standards of course) is in the 5L/100km combined range. Now I could lay off the throttle a little bit but that would save a few tenths, maybe 0.5L at most. I also know moto aero drag sucks a** compared to these cars (we are on par with a hummer) but is this the main factor?

Or are we starting to get left behind in the weight reduction relative to power/efficiency increases as development $ pour into car fuel econ to meet gov't regs?

Do we need to put all our bikes on a weight diet like cars are going on?

I'm not asking this just from a fuel economy perspective though that is one reason why I will commute on a bike when it's only me going somewhere. The flip side of fuel economy is power & efficiency. Look at Hyundai with a 2.0L engine with 274hp and still gets 5.8L on the highway from a "midsize" car. Even 5 years ago getting 100HP/L even with a turbo was pretty rare territory, this one manages 137 and does it on standard 87 octane and with a 5 year powertrain warranty.

And yes I also realize the fun and enjoyment of a moto ride can;t be factored in - the question is are we missing out and will weight saving and engine tech catch up for motos as well?


Sources:
http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/transportation/tools/fuelratings/ratings-results.cfm
http://www.thesmart.ca/smart-fortwo-smart-fortwo-coupé-engineering-engine/e0a1fb03-d93b-

5af7-80ab-7c81f0ff63f2
http://hyundaicanada.com/pages/showroom/Specifications.aspx?model=Elantra
http://www.garyromehyundai.com/Hyundai_Elantra.cfm
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2011/02/20/chevy-cruze-eco-58-mpg-no-hybrid-magic.aspx
http://www.ford.ca/pdf/brochures/11657_en.pdf
http://hyundaicanada.com/pages/showroom/Specifications.aspx?model=Sonata 2.0T
http://www.bgsoflex.com/airdragchart.html
http://www.schultzengineering.us/aero.htm
 
It's difficult to compare the mileage you're seeing on your bike with what the sticker says on new cars. The fuel economy tests are not "real-world" and are meant mostly as a comparison method between vehicles. Most auto testing reviews will give a "real-world" figure which is almost always closer to the city number. And yes bikes have poor aero qualities compared to cars..and they also have much better performance than most cars. Bikes could be made lighter..would you pay more for it? Bikes are discretionary spending for 90% of people who ride them. Mfg's give people what they want..and most people don't complain about a bike's fuel economy.
 
^^ Not necessarily.

my average fuel tank on my Maxima is ABOVE EPA's new MPG rating for the car. its all about how you drive.
 
Auto engines nowadays have a lot of optimization for emissions and fuel consumption put into them.

Motorcycle engines ... don't. The sport bike engines are optimized for power output. I don't know what cruiser engines are optimized for, but it sure isn't for economy.

It was a relatively straightforward exercise with a Power Commander and an air/fuel gauge to get consumption on my ZX10R from 7 L/100 km to around 5.5 L/100 km with no loss in performance (drastically leaning out the part-load mapping - which was waaaayyy too rich). The only issue is that it runs a few degrees warmer while cruising - no big deal. Proper implementation of this at the OEM level could easily be done, and address the tendency to run warmer by further optimizing the ignition timing, injection timing, combustion chamber shape, etc., and probably cut fuel consumption even further. There just isn't the regulatory or consumer motivation to do so.

Motorcycle engines thus far don't have certain other efficiency-boosting technologies, like variable valve timing, direct injection, etc.
 
Red_Liner740 said:
^^ Not necessarily.

my average fuel tank on my Maxima is ABOVE EPA's new MPG rating for the car. its all about how you drive.
Click to expand...

That's my point. The EPA tests are not realistic when compared to how most people drive. And many manufacturers will tailor their vehicles to do well in the EPA tests, and to some degree that helps the real-world number, but it will rarely be what most people see in their daily drive. Are you the guy doing 75kmh on the highway and blocking my commute?!?! :)
 
Brian P said:
Motorcycle engines thus far don't have certain other efficiency-boosting technologies, like variable valve timing, direct injection, etc.
Click to expand...

I've had a chance to drive a few new auto-boxes lately and it's fairly obvious they're tailored for fuel efficiency. I drove a Focus a few days ago with the 6 speed auto..the frickin' thing is in 6th gear at 30kmh..if you need some power it has to downshift through 4 gears to get into the powerband. That's great for mileage but it sure sucks for driving enjoyment. It's like driving an 80's turbo vehicle..lagging when you really need it then getting it all when you're not expecting it! Ugh..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom