Suzuki Burgman USA Forum banner

MPG Question (Lot higher then expected...)

10K views 67 replies 33 participants last post by  Charro 
#1 ·
I just got done with a 171 mile ride over an okay mountain pass and was averaging about 55 mph the entire time. I just filled up and only put in 2.666 gallons in my 2016 Burgman 650 which puts me at 64 mpg.

Does this seem odd to anyone else?

Also, my fuel guage was at the last bar blinking with the fuel icon, but would sometimes bump back to having 2 icons. And finally my digital display was indicating 53 mpg; I know these are always wrong, but 10 mpg wrong....

Don't get me wrong, that is an amazing MPG but it just seems so far off from everything else. Comments/suggestions?
 
#2 ·
I take my usual 44 mile ride out in the 'country' here in NJ. With a lot of stop signs every couple of miles on my route and going 60-70+ on my 2017 I always get in the low 50's mpg so far with about 900 mile on it. Continuous cruising will boost your mpg most likely to what you observed.
 
#5 ·
How high was the pass. When I was riding my 07 650 in the high mountains of Colorado I got 63 mpg on one tank full. That particular day the elevation was 10,000+ feet all day long. Normal for my 07 is closer to 50 mpg. Have seen as low as 38 riding at 75+ into a strong headwind.
 
#10 ·
Based on this it doesn't seem like it was out of the question, just was expecting the 50ish that I keep hearing. But as for the route; the first 60 miles were fairly flat at 250 but then over the next 80 miles I was slowly going up until I hit 4,800 feet.

The more I think about it the more it makes sense as i was basically going 55-60 the entire way, so just around 3,500 to just under 4,000 RPM the entire way, plus I was trailing my wife who was towing one of those smaller enclosed Uhaul traliers, but that might have added more turbulance to my ride anyway.
 
#6 ·
I agree with most about high 40's to mid 50's. But the 2013 and up have a different computer sitting on the CVT so they get a bit better gas mileage. My best in the Cascade mountain passes has been 58 MPG doing between 85 MPH and 60 MPH.
 
#9 ·
Adding to this comment. I have done about the same trip at the same speeds in about the same weather, once on my 2008 @ 58 MPG and my 2003 @ 55 MPG. The main difference is the 2003 has only a 5th gear manual and the 08 has a 6th OD. The RPM's are about 200 less when locked in 6th OD. So, 3 MPG better. I'd love to do that trip on a 2017 650....
 
#7 ·
First thing is Welcome.
My best was 61.4 a year ago riding two up over the Going to the Sun Road in Glacier NP. I average 52.4 with my 09 650 over the past 33k+ miles I've had mine.
As Dave said 2013 650 & newer get better MPG then the older models.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dave_J
#36 ·
The mileage display on the instrument panel is wildly inaccurate, and the odometer can be off by a couple of percent. The amount of gas that it takes to "fill" the tank is somewhat variable, depending on the pump's shutoff mechanism and the temperature and the tilt of the bike. So a one-tank mileage calculation is going to be noisy at best.
I calibrated my odometer by GPS and also by Garden State Parkway mileposts (which occur every 0.1 miles). Then I kept a record of gallons and miles over a year. The MPG for individual tankfulls is fairly noisy, but a 5-tank moving average is smooth (with strong seasonal variation).
 
#18 ·
#11 ·
Thank you for the warm welcome as this is my first Burgman and really my first anything like this. Also that was my first long trip on it as well, everything else has been around 50 miles or less.

Any thoughts on why the Digital MPG guage part was SOOO far off? I know in all my cars the MPG estimate is exactly that and usually about 2 MPG better, but we are talking that the Burgman was showing 10 MPG worse, just strange to me.
 
#25 ·
Same here on my new '16 650 (that is on the road since May). My on board computer always reads about 0.5 l/100 km negative. That is about a 6 MPG US difference, consistently on every thank since new and I have 2500 km. I reset it at every fillup BTW. First time I hear of negative on board computer as most tend to be the other way...

BTW, my best tankfull is 59.4 MPG US and my worst 53.25. Mileage tanks rapidly when facing high winds and if speeds are much above 60 MPH. For example, on a good calm morning, I can go 75 MPH with the Eco light ON all the time. OTOH, facing a good headwind, it won't even show its green color at 60.
 
#15 ·
Yep, Suzuki thinking FOR us again. NO THANK YOU Suzuki, I can think for myself just fine without your help..... Its like the speedo being 10% under, to keep us from speeding. But what happens is now you have a whole bunch of cars that have good speedo's tailgating you and getting very MAD that you are doing 52 MPH in a 60 zone.
Might as well drive a Buick. :devil
 
  • Like
Reactions: swissarmyroy
#13 ·
Even a small difference in the amount of fill in the tank can make a big difference in your single-tank calculated MPG. Filling it a quart short from where it was when you first took off, you'd be 10% off on your calculation. You would need to average it over a few tanks, and I'll bet the average will get very close to the average on the dash gauge.

Also, drafting a trailer can really do wonders for your MPG.
 
#14 ·
Thank you all for you input it makes me feel a little less crazy about it all.

I plan on doing a little over 100 mile ride on Friday that will take me up to another moutain, but this time without drafting a trailer the entire way. This should give me a better idea of my MPG (then I plan on doing the exact same ride again when my new Windscreen comes!). Either way it sounds like the consensus is high 40's low 50's is the common number.
 
#16 ·
What's wrong with me?

Makes me wonder what my problem is. I have a 2006 650 executive, and my average economy is around 40, my best is 45. I'm an old guy and a conservative, gentle rider. I live around a thousand feet above sea level. Hmmm... Maybe I should check that air filter! Sounds like something's wrong.
 
#17 ·
Dan, when I first got my second 2008 it had only 305 miles on it. The previous owner was the wife of a Cherry farmer down in the Columbia River basin.She could not ride it off road to have lunch with hubby so he got her a KLR650.

I rode t for about a week before I finally was able to do some maintenance on it, I found about 2 hand fulls of cherry pits and such piled up on top of the air filter. Mice had a nest built in the air chamber, a COMMON issue by the way. It ran OK before but gas mileage was bad.
 
#19 ·
On my 2007 Executive, I always averaged over 50 MPG, however, almost always under 50 MPH.:wink
 
#20 ·
I've been tracking my 2013 on Fuelly, and it gets 55 mpg pretty consistently, with a few lower weeks dependent on temps and wind conditions. That's a 38 mile round-trip commute, about 50% highway and 50% surface streets. It's actually dropped a bit recently as there is a ton of road construction and I've had to spend some time idling in traffic. The on board computer seems to register that at 49 mpg or so.
 
#22 ·
I consistently get 37 mpg on my 06' 650. on the road I might get up to 47.
 
  • Like
Reactions: captainfish
#24 ·
  • Like
Reactions: Mochi
#23 · (Edited)
TMI (too much information)

Just got back from my annual road trip. (This year clocked in at 1900 miles). Here are two legs of the trip.

2014 650, 2-up, Givi top case, Cortech saddlebags.

Fill-up in Oakhurst, CA at 2300 feet in the Sierra foothills. Ride up to Yosemite Glacier Point (7200 ft) then descend 3300 ft into Yosemite Valley and then reverse course back to Oakhurst. This was about 130 miles of mountain twisties at an average speed of 30 mph. The final 50 miles was a 2000 ft descent to Fresno averaging 50-55 mph. Filled up with 179 miles on the trip odo, 2.651 gallons on the gas pump for an MPG of 67.5

The next leg was 151 highway miles at 70 mph on the flat Central Valley floor in 105 degree temps: MPG 50.9

In its 12,700 mile life, the 650 is averaging 54.8 MPG. It has performed flawlessly. WHAT A BIKE! :grin
 
#33 ·
71 imperial mpg to 59.12 US mpg same as I have once achieved along a stretch of I-70 through Utah on my '09 years ago. In my case it was probably a combination of things, better fuel out of California, moderate speed, and maybe a bit of drafting behind a friends Jeep. On both my '06 and '03 I have achieved 54.8 mpg at the highest at least for the miles I have tracked on Fuelly.com (both have more miles that aren't recorded).
 
#34 · (Edited)
Yes 71 MPG Imperial is real good but not stellar. :smile

Years ago I was on a turbo diesel forum and a member from England had a VW Polo 3 cylinder turbo diesel and reported 100 Miles per gallon.
Most did not know that it was 100 Miles Per "Imperial" Gallon. :eek

One metric liter is a Liter no matter where in the world. But the US Gallon has 3.78541 (3.8 ) Liters and the Imperial Gallon is 4.54609 (4.55) Liters. About 17% bigger. Now if the Euro Burgman 650 had a 4 Imperial gallon tank, I'd buy one and replace my US 4 gallon one.
Apples Vs Oranges maybe but.... BIG difference!!! :grin
 
  • Like
Reactions: swissarmyroy
#37 ·
Third fillup today below 4L/100 km. I did 310 km and put 12.33 liters = 3.98 L/100 km = 71 MPG Imp = 59 MPG US.

That was a mix of highway, secondary roads with plenty of hills but either wind in the back or not very windy. Speeds were in the 60-70 MPH (corrected) range and temperatures from 15 to 25C.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top