Fuel consumption

The only issue I have with the fuel consumption, isn't with the fuel consumption, but with the warning light. It comes on too late. The specs say it has a 2.5 litre reserve, which should give about 60km (35 miles) warning, but I find that pretty consistently my fuel warning only shows when there is 1.5-2 litres left, giving 40km/25 miles warning.

Realistically, given that it has no fuel gauge, and it's not always convenient to monitor the consumption on the dash, I'd really prefer if the warning erred was closer to 3 litres than 1.5

Funny, I thought I read that it was supposed to come on at about 3 Litres. Better go check that...
I got to 266km and the light came on, and I thought, Whoa, that can't be right? But then I did the sums, and realised I don't have the 23L tanker on the XT. Haven't refilled yet to confirm actual top up amount.

Pacificus, my experience so far, after 4.000km riding is: between 4.7l and 4.0l /100km. riding 90km/h and 130km/h.. So that, the range match what Tazzierob say..
tha total autonomie it has to be between 320km-350km one tank. It suppose to be a very high range considering 60bhp output .

I am getting consistently 4.5 litre-100 km making no effort to ride efficiently - this includes mountain riding, motorway and some off- road.

3 tanks and 51.1 to 52.8 mpg with mostly highway cruising with a 6'4" 260 pound rider.

I match your opinions about fuel.. highway cruising at 120km/h the rate between 4.0l and 4.7l /100km, two passengers

so that, the fuel reserve 2.5l will be enought to do aproximately 56km.... empty tank.

A motorcycle's main priority should be:
1. enough power to get out of the way from getting run over by car drivers talking on cell phones and smoking cigarettes.

All else is secondary if you want to live (in USA anyway). As far as mileage goes, it would take a moped to beat a Terra soundly.

IF you don't turn the throttle, optimized engines will perform as well as possible and this is an optimized engine that gets great gas mileage in top gear at high mph (or kph). So IF mileage is your main goal, and you are not human enough to turn the throttle excessively, then you will get the mileage you seek. Of course you may get run over, lol, on one of the hottest single cylinders made.

Do you feel lucky? Well do you? Seriously though, good luck.

Thank you everyone for your comments here. Everything said has been noted.

The fuel consumption issue is more to do with my desire to use as little as possible, and maximise efficiency, than with money. It's based on a frugal – or somewhat obsessive – mentality. Czar, I currently only ride some 5000-miles per year but am intending to travel Europe and Morocco at some point soon so expect to increase annual miles. It's been tough with the KLX250 because it doesn't have enough power to overtake on the motorways fast enough to dodge the selfish cager scumbags that taint the UK, who inevitably, driving at 100 mph, catch-up with me half-way through passing a truck and glue themselves to my rear wheel. There is mass-psychosis on UK roads, and I say that without hyperbole.

Much of the post below I have also added to a certain other forum, but not all of it.

I test-rode a TR650 a few days ago, and this is my report:

There was only a Strada available for demo rides, no Terras unfortunately.

There is a cavity in the steering pivot waiting to fill with rainwater and dirt; that will need a cap or something to cover it. The nasty plastic cargo rack is a liability and needs to be replaced immediately. The indicator switch is located where the horn should be located, and vice versa. (Do Husqvarna riders need their horns more than their indicators?) I also don't like the high-beam switch, which is a slider switch as opposed to a rocker-type (which is probably faster to use). The hazard lights switch would ideally be located on the handlebars for faster access (I intend to use it when tailgated, which is inevitable even with a much faster bike than my current KLX250 – because the TR650 is a road vehicle and not an aeroplane). The ABS warning light, irritatingly, flashes for a period upon switching the bike on. The TR650 should have a three-way light switch (off, parking light (or whatever the lesser beam is called), and main-beam on). The 'neutral' warning light was slow to come on upon putting the TR into neutral gear.

On accelerating, I found it sluggish at first before it picked-up and really went. Although I have a tendency to ride in high gears – to save fuel – I did read that someone else had this issue but resolved it by attaching an after-market electronic gizmo(s). Any thoughts on this?

The side-stand (on the Terra, which I had a look at as there was a non-demo bike in the showroom for sale) was clearly the same one used on the Strada, and as such the Terra had a long way to go before side-stand met floor (fully loaded with cargo that is a potential problem). And of course the TR desperately needs a sump guard – one that will protect the insanely positioned oil line).

Electrics on the (rider's) right-hand engine side were exposed and vulnerable – an aluminium guard is a good idea in order to protect them.

The LCD display does not show enough information simultaneously and needs to be switched between display modes using a rather stiff little dash-mounted button.

I was only given 30-minutes for the test ride, and only took two fuel consumption readings throughout. The first one saw 0.2 l burned over 3-miles, which equates to 15 miles per liter and 68.25 mpg (English units); the second reading saw 0.6 l burned over 8.8-miles, which works-out as 14.6667 miles per liter and thus 66.733.

I am satisfied with those readings and can easily see great potential for even better fuel consumption – as well as much worse – where ridden so as not to maximise acceleration! I can live with a fuel burn in the mid- to high-60s but still require a real-time mpg monitor, so any suggestions to that end – any device currently sold that can be connected to the electronics of the fuel injector (to measure fuel used) and the speed sensor of the TR – please post a reply.

Last point: gear changing was so smooth I found it difficult to tell which gear I was in! I suppose I'll get used to that after having owned one for a while. I think I'll miss having a six-speed gearbox.

That was about it. I didn't really get the opportunity to test the suspension on bumps, or other such things. If I think of anything else to add I'll post again.

I am now 99 % sure I'll buy one, but it all depends on the price I'll get for my KLX250 trade-in from the dealer. My bike is mechanically sound but cosmetically not so much so!

Why not get a TE449 or TE511 and put 17" wheels on it? change rear sprocket, a Bit of a pain getting it sorted but once it is, Get about 85/90 miles before fuel light comes, I think that will go up a little once the engine is a little more run in, goes pretty dam well up to 85 MPH, handles well too, I am really pleased with it.

Got about 56mpg today on a pretty brisk mostly canyon ride.

Just got back from a 3 day, 2 night camping trip with full gear: got 67.5 from one tank and 64.5 from the second! 300lb rider! These tanks were 2 lane roads in eastern Utah - my usual mpg is 51-53 commuting - never seen those sort of numbers. Returned to reality with a 54 on the way home on super slab with a strong headwind ---

Because it's made of plastic and will break easily. I regularly load the cargo rack of my KLX250 with around 30 kg (~60 lb) of cargo, with even more bungeed to the pillion seat. I would not feel confident loading a plastic rack with such a load, especially after seeing pictures of a TR650 plastic rack which failed on a bumpy dirt track with just a gallon or so of fuel attached to it.

I've seen one or two pictures of metal cargo racks for the TR650, but no web pages advertising them for sale or actually selling them. Are there any yet? Otherwise I will either have to make my own or commission one, which could jeopardize summer camping trips and even cause difficulties with hauling my food the 30-miles home from my supplier. I currently use my motorcycle almost exclusively for hauling my food home around once every two weeks, and I ride a bicycle the rest of the time. So a strong and reliable rack is critical.

Are you an accountant?

Apparently, I'm offensive. So, I'll try to re-write it to keep it friendly. Logic is friendly, no?

Your expectations are unrealistic. You're wanting a bike that has 650 torque and hp, which the TR650 has. But you want it to have the fuel economy of a 250. At 260% the displacement of the 250, you should not expect the 650 to get that kind of economy. At 50-60 mpg (I'm seeing 55 mpg and I ride pretty aggressively).

The load that you anticipate hauling regularly, over 120lbs, would need to be well thought out how it was loaded to make for your safety. 60 lbs shifting mid turn will not end well. The extra weight is going to both hurt your fuel economy and the safety factor you're wanting in a larger bike. So, you might want to start with re-thinking the amount of load you want to carry.

That rack that broke was on a bike that was ridden more aggressively and over more rugged terrain than most TRs will ever been ridden in their life time. Refer to his ride report here: http://advrider.com/forums/showthread.php?t=872817 and his reports of a long commute over rough terrain daily in various threads on here. It shouldn't be expected for a stock rack to handle extreme conditions indefinitely. For the price, it should be assumed that it is built for the majority of the target buyers rather than the extremes. That's what aftermarket is for, they just need to catch up. The bike has not been in market too terribly long.

One other thing I want to point out, is that a motorcycle for fuel economy is really just an excuse to give the wife. This maintenance costs behind a motorcycle are significantly higher than a car. Even at 5000 miles a year, you will be looking at 1 set of tires per year. Probably 2 sets of brake pads, oil, filters, chain, sprockets, bearings, grips, etc, etc. The costs of the consumables will add up beyond the price of the fuel savings very quickly. Throw in the higher insurance costs, and you really can't say that you're riding it for fuel savings. So, try not to get hung up on that part. It is a reasonable bike, that should be very dependable and last a lot of miles. You might want to give that more weight than the fuel economy numbers alone if you want to think reasonable.

How was it you came to the conclusion on the KLX250? It fits the fuel economy, but it for sure wasn't intended for that kind of weight on the tail either.