• Welcome, Guest! We hope you enjoy the excellent technical knowledge, event information and discussions that the BMW MOA forum provides. Some forum content will be hidden from you if you remain logged out. If you want to view all content, please click the 'Log in' button above and enter your BMW MOA username and password.

    If you are not an MOA member, why not take the time to join the club, so you can enjoy posting on the forum, the BMW Owners News magazine, and all of the discounts and benefits the BMW MOA offers?

MPG's and BMW?

"Come on, motorcycling is just a fun hobby" - that's baloney for some of us. My Beemers have always served the purpose of basic transportation and urban commuting. When the weekend comes, it gets parked, as I've had enough of riding all week. They've never been a toy to me - they've been a useful tool. I get 48 average in winter, and 50 in the summer.

Useful tool? Not by my math. if you commute on a motorcycle to save money, it is a no win situation. MPG is just one aspect of bike commuting. On a typical full size motorcycle, If you add in just the tire expense, along with the gas, the modern econo car wins hands down. Add in tune ups and repairs over 100k miles and the car has left the full size motorcycle in the dust. There was a time the motorcycle won in regards to having a lower initial purchase cost; however, often times now the econo car cost less to purchase than the bike.

OK, it does cost me much less to commute on a couple of my bikes, than my cars.
i-JZVT6CV-M.jpg
 
I never stated that I commute on the bike to save money...certainly, that's not the reason. Like, today: It's going to storm. I have a better vision of the road on the bike than however fast my wipers can wipe in a car. It floods quite a bit around here, and I can ford deeper with my bike. It's fast, highly maneuverable, etc., etc.

The initial poster was talking about gas mileage. I was responding to how another poster assumed that people used motorcycles as, perhaps, a toy, or hobby. While that may be true for most, that's not why the rest of the world uses motorcycles.

But, all for all: yes, it's not cheap to own and maintain a modern BMW, especially as compared to my old airhead. However, for bang for the buck, and the fact that I can commute all year 'round here in Virginia, then it is a very useful tool and, over time, it works out. My last beemer, a CLC clocked 86,000 miles, of which about 80,000 miles was commuting, before it got totalled in a rear-end collision. While the RT or CLC probably is not considered a commuter, they have served well in this capacity.
 
But motorcycles have also been increasing size during the time along with power. Look even just at BMW. The "big" motor 40 years ago was 750cc. Now we have 1600cc. Nowadays the smallest we have is 650cc.

In cars, typically the reverse has happened. More cars today are smaller size engines than before. It stands to reason that fuel economy is improved as a result.

Total Motorcycle reports the 1972 R75/5 as 49.5 average MPG with a 50HP engine. I get about 46MPG from my R1200R, which is a much larger engine with 109HP. Considering it has double the power & an extra 30 pounds of weight, the "modern" R1200R is pretty good in economy considering. Looking at a power-equivalent bike, perhaps a G650GS, fuel economy on that is much better than the 49.5 from the 72 /5. I've seen many reports of 60-70MPG.

I think we have much better fuel economy in modern bikes, but our appetite for power makes it feel like we haven't seen much progress as most manufacturers are targeting the power market vs the economy market. Look at scooters & you'll see the reverse.

Good thoughts, I see what you're saying, but I don't think HP necessarily has to affect MPG very much IMHO. I agree that car engines have gotten smaller, in general, and they make more HP than the larger engines of yesterday.

Cars have gotten heavier and more powerful since the 1960s but today they get far better MPG ... big increase.

M/cycles have gotten a little heavier and a lot more powerful since the 1960s and they have improved their MPGs due mainly to EFI, but they have not gained the high % of increase in MPG as cars have.

I know these are generalizations, but I think the're valid.

As I mentioned above, I think it's because they haven't adopted some of the strategies that cars have in their zealous quest for MPG. My RT turns about 4000 RPM @ 76 MPH while my car turns less than 2000 RPM at the same speed, barely above idle (while a similar sports car of 1967 would turn about 3200 RPM). My modern car computer aggressively goes lean of peak EGT at light throttle settings ... not sure about the RT but I doubt it gets as aggressive as the car because BMW and other manufacturers aren't mandated to improve their MPGs like cars are.

... but they will improve. Time, and maybe some pressure from us and the governments.
 
Last edited:
My motorcycles have been very useful tools in my transportation mix. Where they have ranked has varied over the years given a variety of factors.

In one work setting MC riders were offered free parking in a secured ramp. The savings in parking more than off set the annual maintenance expense for the bike I owned at the time. My office was relocated to a different location with a very different set of transportation variables. Even factoring in the subjective fun factor the motorcycle went from very high on the list to almost rock bottom, .

When our daughters still lived with us we were able to live in a very nice home with an attached garage rather than a large garage with an attached home in small part because we had an motorcycles in our transportation option mix. Different time, different needs resulting in different transportation mix and ranking for a motorcycle.

I would consider a econo cage replacement for my current cage. Given the Roadster's role in the my transportation system it would never come to mind. A sports or GT car would have to take its place. The math isn't there (even with a liberal fun variable calculated in) to justify that. My major transportation purchases in March will be a new pair of shoes and monthly bus/rail pass; also part of my multi-modal transportation mix.
 
I was responding to how another poster assumed that people used motorcycles as, perhaps, a toy, or hobby.

That was probably me and I don't consider it an assumption but rather fact. At least here in the USA. For the most part, I think those that protest otherwise are mostly just in denial.

Others have nicely detailed how there's no economic advantage (the basis of this thread, in fact) and there's for sure a safety disadvantage. "I can see the road better in rain" -- give me a break.

Given no economic advantage and a significant safety disadvantage, what's left but just the fun of it? No need to be defensive, as I'm in favor of fun. Personally don't see fun in commuting, however--I've done it and got over it.
 
I never stated that I commute on the bike to save money...certainly, that's not the reason. Like, today: It's going to storm. I have a better vision of the road on the bike than however fast my wipers can wipe in a car. It floods quite a bit around here, and I can ford deeper with my bike. It's fast, highly maneuverable, etc., etc.

The initial poster was talking about gas mileage. I was responding to how another poster assumed that people used motorcycles as, perhaps, a toy, or hobby. While that may be true for most, that's not why the rest of the world uses motorcycles.

But, all for all: yes, it's not cheap to own and maintain a modern BMW, especially as compared to my old airhead. However, for bang for the buck, and the fact that I can commute all year 'round here in Virginia, then it is a very useful tool and, over time, it works out. My last beemer, a CLC clocked 86,000 miles, of which about 80,000 miles was commuting, before it got totalled in a rear-end collision. While the RT or CLC probably is not considered a commuter, they have served well in this capacity.

Makes sense
 
From the looks of things we are getting to an absolutist point in the discussion.

I have the day off from my bricks and mortar job. I am working with some clients on the freelance side of my work life by telecommuting. Don't need no stinking wheels of any kind just slippers comfortable cloths, coffee and a decent internet connection. Nice because there is around 4" of new wet snow outside.

I have yet to see one of these threads convince me one way or the other about the commuting, motorcycle mileage being good or bad and all the rest. However, I do find how you come to your brilliant conclusions worth the price of admission.
:laugh

Have to go put on a shirt, tie and jacket. Skype conference call with a client at 1:30 Fly-Over-Land time.
:bolt
 
"I can see the road better in rain" -- give me a break.

However, it's true. On my RT, in heavy rain, most of it goes over the top of my helmet. The cars can't see and poke along. I just move out ahead, with a pretty darn good clear view of the road.

That's my experience. Think what you like...
 
I've commuted so long on the bike...it started out with being a single income family up in Detroit. Every March or April, depending on the weather, I'd flip the car keys to my wife and tell her the car was hers until Thanksgiving. That was about the extent of the mc commuting window in Detroit. My commute has always been about 70 miles round trip. Fun? Somewhat. Scary? You betcha, depending on the traffic conditions. Exciting? Always! Now, in Virginia, I am blessed with the fact that it really doesn't get that cold compared to up North. My commute is still aprox. 70 miles. It's a nice ride. The bike gets warmed up, fairly. I do, and have always loved riding in the rain. Gotta have good tires, though, of course. No offense taken at any comments, just pointing out that we ride for different reasons. Mostly, I just park the bike on the weekends - always have. So, ultimately, the bike is a tool, and I choose to ride, what I believe, are dependable and technically advanced BMW's. And, certainly - to each their own riding - may you enjoy it however you do it.
 
I am an attorney. I ride quite a bit when heading to file stuff at the main courthouse simply because it is fun, and much, much easier to find parking. In fact, I usually park under a large oak tree directly behind the courthouse buildings, to the chagrin of my fellow attorneys :laugh

More to the point, I am generating billable hours riding around on my Beemer :clap
 
Personally don't see fun in commuting, however--I've done it and got over it.

Zipping to work in the car pool lane of a Los Angeles freeway on my bike is infinitely more fun than sitting in my cage, stopped, watching the other bikes go by. And since I don't have much weekend time for rides, it is often the only riding time I get. :burnout
 
Not estimated. I saw it all through Texas, and a few other states going from AZ to Tn in 2009. Using 93, I get much better fuel economy. My range is 250-300 miles not the 200 that I get on 91.

If that's the case, your ignition timing is way, way off. Octane is a measure of uniformity in combustion speed, not energy content. All gasoline has similar energy content regardless of octane rating. Too low of octane will cause knock, but only minor variations in efficiency.
 
If that's the case, your ignition timing is way, way off. Octane is a measure of uniformity in combustion speed, not energy content. All gasoline, except those diluted with ethanol, has similar energy content regardless of octane rating. Too low of octane will cause knock, but only minor variations in efficiency.

fify
 
So driving around on "lower than supposed to use" octane fuel does not retard ignition timing? What I think my increased mpg with 93 RON fuel shows is an engine running at efficiency. You can't make a 122 HP 1200 engine efficient with 91 RON fuel. The damn ring on my fuel cap calls for 93 RON and I cannot get it here.

You may have forgotten I have a different version of engine then most 1200's here. I know the HP2 Sport gets much better fuel economy on 93 as well.
 
Wonder where BMW MC program came OFF the track? About a dozen cars/suvs now get better gas mileage than my Beemer cycle, which I still love:). BUT, Even the BMW X5 Turbo Diesel gets 35mpg's, I have a friend bought one and drove it cross country. 35mpg average! My current GSA1200 is at 36-38mpg's. How poor:(. Of course many smaller and even the giant KLT get a lot better, but com'on BMW, step up and make something happen again!!! That X5 sled gets almost identical as my GSA????? Bad picture in my book. Many are talking now, even VW's are on top of the world regarding this. I WANT BMWMC to step UP to the plate and make a FULL SIZE bike with the same spunk as the VWs and BMW SUVs,etc...My GSA1200 should be at least ahead of the above heavy vehicles! The smaller 650-800BMWMCs do get a lot better, but why not a 1200, if the cages are doing it???Randy

I agree with Polarbear 100 percent. If I could purchase a high MPG bike I would seriously consider it. I have been looking at diesel MCs that get as much as 140 MPG. I would probably buy one if they were made by a major manufacturer and sold at a reliable dealership.
http://www.suckindiesel.com/?page_id=2061
 
You may have forgotten I have a different version of engine then most 1200's here. I know the HP2 Sport gets much better fuel economy on 93 as well.

We have one and luckily we have 93...even though most places has corn syrup in it. I tried to run 89 the other day as they were out of Super...it just didn't care for it on hard throttle roll on.
The GSA will do OK, but not the S
 
Steve (henzilla) wait until you see how fast that fuel goes. An engine made to run on 93 burns 89 ugly and dumps it kinda fast, as well.
 
Steve (henzilla) wait until you see how fast that fuel goes. An engine made to run on 93 burns 89 ugly and dumps it kinda fast, as well.

I noticed...thought it was my spirited riding, but kinda figured it wasn't. :laughThe fuel icon came on really soon that afternoon.
The K12S slurps it up as well...maybe 45MPG when at Warp 5. The 11S is prob the thriftiest at 49. 200 miles and you better have a plan on any of the S's.

My GSA averages 39, but I have 9 gallons to manage.
 
Back
Top