Fuel consumption

I am very close to buying a Terra, my original enthusiasm was based mainly on the reported low fuel consumption. However, after reading a lot of comments on various sites by TR650 owners it seems that 80 mpg is a bit of an exaggeration.

I'm in the UK so gallons here are slightly different than in the US. But I'm reading that people are getting 48-55/60 mpg at around 60 mph, which is not good enough as far as I am concerned. I can live with 70 mpg at 60 mph, perhaps even 65 mpg, but the low 50s or high 40s is not within my comfort zone.

I currently ride a KLX250 and regularly get around 85 mpg with speeds 45-65 mph. I want a TR650 to improve acceleration to make sharing roads with cagers slightly safer, as well as being able to haul a trailer with more ease (I do not yet have a trailer). But I don't want to pay for it by massively increasing my fuel consumption.

So, what are real-world fuel consumption values? Please post your experiences here, for various riding scenarios - different speeds, etc. And, what can be done to the Terra to improve fuel efficiency? Maybe different sized sprockets, messing with the mapping, or anything else?

I was 90 % certain I would buy a Terra just a few hours ago, before I read that someone was barely getting 50 mpg at 55 mph! I'm now around 40-50 % certain, but looking to improve upon that with your help!

Thanks.

Considering the power output for mileage returned, the TR is tough to beat.
If the mileage figures aren't good enough because they don't touch a KLX250S.... you're leaving a lot on the table for a bit of economy.

I consistently average 61 mpg, and last weekend saw a tank deliver 65.2 mpg.
I live at 6,100' asl, and ride above that for the most part - my mileage is typically better than average.

I get a very consistent 56-58MPG and that doesn't really change regardless whether I'm riding at 100kph on the highway or 50kph on a dirt road, or whether I've got my panniers fitted with my camping gear, or if I'm just riding around with no luggage.

62 mpg up and down a mountain to work. 30 miles each way. 1000ft to 5600ft elevation. Max speed 75 mph highway.

A lot of fuel consumption depends on the rider, both the rider's riding style and his physical composition. When you compare these numbers, you have to take that into account. I'm 5'9" and 174lbs, and naturally I'll get better fuel economy than my 6'3" 240lb friend.

Also, you can't compare a KLX250 to any 650 class dual sport. They are just two totally different machines. What you gain at power, comfort, and carrying capacity come at the expense of weight and fuel economy. It is just the way it is with motorcycles.

Thank you all for your replies.

This is not good. This bike seems to burn fuel like a car, according to most reports. The best thing for me to do would be to test ride one and see for myself how much fuel it burns. ideally a real-time MPG meter would be used, but I don't think the Terra has one (which would be a failure on the manufacturer's part if so). I consider a MPG meter essential equipment. I recently found out about such a gauge that can be added to cars, but will it connect to the TR650 easily? Easily enough to add it to a demo bike before a test ride (with the dealer's permission to take a few parts off the bike in order to access the electrics)? Here's the link:

http://www.ultra-gauge.com/ultragauge/index.htm

I ride in a high gear most of the time to minimise fuel consumption. I also don't often accelerate hard, so hopefully that will make a difference in my case. But can the TR650 be re-programmed to burn less fuel?

Pacificus, it really sounds like you're asking for a Porsche to perform like a Prius. The TR650 is a single built with performance in mind, not fuel economy. The only other 650 that out-performs the TR650 is the KTM, and dyno results show them neck and neck. Any attempt to make the TR650 more fuel-efficient is going to come at the expense of the performance, in which case, you have to ask why you'd even buy the TR650 in the first place.

If fuel economy is your goal, you'll need to stick with a 250 or below. Better yet, check out the Zero line of electric motorcycles.

Constant speed cruising fuel consumption perhaps takes priority. At a constant speed there should not be much more fuel consumption compared with my 250. I remember reading years ago in the motorcycle press that ZZR1100 owners reported some 60-70 mpg at a constant 80 mph. I test rode an F800 GS a while ago and found, using it's on-board fuel computer, that average fuel consumption was 60 mpg. It's real-time best was in triple figures (not coasting) and worst, riding at 100 mph against the wind with the back seat loaded with fruits and vegetables (sure, I collected my food order during the test ride! Why not?) was 37 mpg.

I only learned of the existence of the TR650 Terra a couple of days ago when I heard about the current discounted price. The bike seems the most suitable bike available today for me - one of the few that meets my needs. But that was before I learned the real-life fuel consumption values, after a dealer initially told me 80 mpg. My KLX250 during its breaking in period did better than 115 mpg, but that was at 30-40 mph.

An electric bike would be better, but first the roads would need to be fitted with inductive energy transfer cables to keep it powered.

There is too much emphasis on hooning around on the roads - high-speed and recreation, rather than practical, sensible transport. It is the latter i am concerned with; every trip is a gamble with one's life thanks to the inordinate mindless cagers out there, who also have impractical vehicles designed to look a certain way and accelerate a certain way rather than public safety in mind or practical function. It's lamentable. I would be safer on a TR650 than my current bike I'm sure, but I don't want to near double my fuel consumption to pay for it.

Looking at my consumption figures the worst I've had is 4.7 l per 100 km best is 4.4. This equates to US 50 mpg and UK 60 mpg to US 53.45 mpg and UK 62.2.

My riding area has winding, undulating bitumen and similar dirt/gravel. Quite frankly I am delighted with the fuel economy.

From my point of view, selecting a motorcycle based solely on fuel consumption is silly. You need to consider a multitude of factors to determine the true cost of owership. Depreciation, maintenance costs, insurance costs, personal safety, braking capability, comfort and horn are just a few vaiables that should be considered.

10 to 15 miles per gallon difference is realatively a small expense in comparison to other costs.

At 10,000 miles a year, how much would you actually save on fuel getting 75 mpg over 60 mpg?
In the UK I don't even think you would drive 10K a year would you?
In the USA that would result in a savings of a whopping $140 a year at $4.25 gl.

Think about the cost of a visit to the ER (emergency room) because a 250 cc bike would not accelerate quick enough or stop fast enough to avoid an accident. That $140 saving a year would seam trivial after the ER visit and the potential to have your lower leg missing. Think about the
cost of missing work for several weeks while in injured status..

What about the cheap tires the 250 is delivered with and the cost to purchase replacement tires that are not sub-standard? I'm sure that is more than $140.

Whats the alternative to the terra? The KLR650? I have never seen 50 mpg in my life no matter how slow i rode.
http://www.klr650.net/forums/showthread.php?t=106956
My 2011 KLR drank 1 litre of oil for every 2000km on the highway, in the city it was fine. Do the math thats 4 extra litters for every 10k over and above regular oil changes.
The Terra has 20 more rear wheel HP.
Its a no brainer

No offence Pacificus, but so far you only seem to have found a multitude of things about the TR650 that you don't like, and a number of things about the bike which don't meet your requirements, so I am curious why it's even on your radar. Not to say that you shouldn't buy one. I reckon it's a great bike that ticks many boxes, but the features you want only seem to be available as the result of throwing a lot of money at something, and the TR definitely is not the result of a lot of money being thrown at anything.

I would venture to guess different sprockets would gain some mpg, but the Terra is geared fairly tall as is. I'm 6'2", and weigh 230 lbs out of the shower. When commuting to work, it's a 60 mile round trip, and I average 54-55 mpg at mostly freeway speeds up to 75mph. If mega fuel mileage is a concern stick with the 250. How many miles do you commute per year?

On motorcycles wind resistance is a major factor getting good fuel mileage. If you are looking for high fuel mileage I suggest you look at faired bikes like the Honda CBR250 or 500, or one of the faired BMW 800's (like the F800ST). You want small tire x-sections with slippery fairings.

Dual sports will never get the highest MPGs due to their lack of slick aerodynamics.

I'm 165lbs and my riding consists of everything from two-track to city stop-and-go to 25-miles shots of freeway at 75/80 mph. For the first 600 miles I was always in the mid-60mpg range; the first tank after the first oil change, I got 69mpg. I don't ride it gently (anymore!).

And make sure you stock up on wax and bug removing wash to keep that thing super slippery.

I'm approximately 6ft and 187lb. I've only just started breaking my bike in, first tank done, and I got about 4.5L/100km, (52.3mpgUS, 62.8mpgUK). Riding along at the speed limit at say, 60km per hour, I find I'm in 3rd most of the time. Any higher gear to save fuel and I'd have to drop it down to accelerate with any authority. I feel this is a safer gear to be in to be able to do this in a timely manner. Add on a trailer, and the mpg is going to go down even more. I have not as yet been on a long motorway/freeway/highway run at constant speed, everything has been a variety of town, highway, back roads, dirt roads, and tracks.

If I babied the bike along, staying in higher gears to save fuel, with the bike run in, maybe I'd get to the claimed 3.5L/100km / 67mpgUS / 80mpgUK, (Why won't everyone convert to the metric system? AAAAAARGH ) but I wouldn't have fun doing it, and I wouldn't necessarily feel safer either. I ride to have fun. I drive a car to get to work. Each to their own. Take one for a test ride before you dismiss the bike solely on people's reported consumption. If you're the sensible practical type you claim to be you'd no doubt be able to get much better consumption out of the TR than most people

Possibly BMW G650GS gets better mileage (~70mpg US). With obvious deficiencies in power/torque vs Terra.