JeremyZ (guest)  |
| Fri Jun 27, 2008 10:01 am |
| I think Timo's right |
If these are truly only getting in the 50s mpg range, most of the point of the bike has been missed.
I had a '94 Ninja 250 and was disappointed that it was only getting in the 70s for mpg. I got about 72 mpg average.
I had a '94 Nighthawk 250, which was torquier in the low revs and air-cooled, and it got at least 82 mpg all the time.
My 2007 Suzuki Burgman 400 gets between 55 and 67 mpg. 55 is only in a lot of stop & go or on the expressway when I'm going faster than 75 mph.
My 2005 Yamaha FJR 1300 gets 45 mpg. (fuel-injected inline 4)
While it is true that nothing handles like a Ninja 250, I believe it should get at least 70 mpg to be a viable choice. Otherwise, why not get the 500 and have a lot more power when necessary? I'm sure it handles *nearly* as well.
I've been considering a new KLR 650, and decided against it because it only gets around 55-60 mpg and I'm already getting that on my Burgman.
I don't care about posing or image. That is just childish. I don't care how I appear to these twerps who are so concerned about it. But if I'm going to have a small bike with no power, I am damn-well going to get awesome fuel economy.
For reference, I also had a Buddy 125 scooter which got in the 90s for mpg. I had a Honda Metropolitan scooter, which always got over 100 mpg.
1960s vintage Honda Cubs (50cc motorcycles) would get well over 150 mpg.
|
|
|
Re: I still see no good arguments disputing what I said — Timo, Fri May 30, 2008 7:35 pm -
Re: I still see no good arguments disputing what I said — michaelingeorgia, Sat Jul 05, 2008 10:40 am
-
I think Timo's right — JeremyZ, Fri Jun 27, 2008 10:01 am
-
Re: I still see no good arguments disputing what I said — capt_bugaloo, Fri May 30, 2008 8:43 pm
-
Re: I still see no good arguments disputing what I said — SpeedSouth, Fri May 30, 2008 10:04 pm
-
Re: I still see no good arguments disputing what I said — Nard77, Sun Jun 29, 2008 12:36 am