45 mpg silverwing 60mpg 650r ninja

Bigger engine andbetter gas mileage how is that possible?

Tank:
Part of the reason that the 650r Ninja can get better fuel economy is the transmission. By design, the CVT on the Swing has a lot of slip which ends up decreasing the fuel efficiency of the engine.

tankyuong wrote:

Bigger engine andbetter gas mileage how is that possible?

http://www.kawasaki.com/Products/product-specifications.aspx?id=429

1 ) The rear wheel is driven by chain.

The SWing CVT belt is less efficient than the chain, so a lot of power and MPG are lost with the CVT.

2) The Ninja is lower profile with less wind resistance.

For the MPG rating, I am sure they were laying on the tank ... on the SWing you would sit more upright and typically with a larger windshield which would create more wind resistance.

3) Gear ratios ?

I have not read any gear ratio numbers for the SWing CVT ... so hypothetically there could be a difference with gear ratios between the two.

4) Technology upgrades?

For automobiles they improved the MPG by increasing the fuel pump pressure and finer misting with the fuel injectors.

The SWing has not been upgraded in 8 years.

Though I do remember reading that the new type SWing was suppose to ( from memory) ~5% increase in MPG.

I think Bill and Scootist hit the nail on the head with their points. A CVT is not as efficient and our Wings are pushing a lot more wind. I notice a difference simply from switching from the GIVI to the stock windshield in MPG of somwhere between 1-2 MPGs (Usually costs 2 MPG at interstate speeds and about 1 MPG at speeds around 45-50). Their is a lady at our church who rides on a 250 ninja and she says she gets about 80 MPG or better if she is really lolligagging it. This is actually a bit better than my Helix. She is pushing less air but also has a gear ratio far superior to the Helix. I could probably match here if I kept it around 45-50, but we now I am not going to do that or not able to do it do to a heavy hand that just wants to twist that throttle. The same is also true with the swing. On my best runs where I've babied the throttle on acceleration and kept it between 45-50 such as riding the Blue Ridge Parkway, I've been able to average 55-56 by myself and 53 riding two up. While you'll never be able to match some bikes in terms of fuel consumption, think about the protection that you get from the elements. Our Swing does a nice job keeping light rain off the rider as well as that cold winter weather. Which of these two bikes would you rather ride in the fall when it is in the 40's and 50's in the mornings? I'll gladly take a small hit in fuel consumption for the extra protection.

ronjr009 wrote:

Which of these two bikes would you rather ride in the fall when it is in the 40's and 50's in the mornings?

A little off topic but I'd kill for morning temps of 40's and 50's in the Fall. I have to deal with 20F-35F most mornings in the Fall if I want to ride into October.

ronjr009 wrote:

...Their is a lady at our church who rides on a 250 ninja and she says she gets about 80 MPG or better if she is really lolligagging it. This is actually a bit better than my Helix. She is pushing less air but also has a gear ratio far superior to the Helix...

I had a Ninja 250 before I got the SWing, and in stock form 70+ mpg is possible (80 sounds a bit optimistic, but not outside the realm of possibility). But the smiles and power are all over 9K RPM (red line at 14K and max hp at 12.5K ), and by the time you add exhaust, K&N filters, and the [now] requisite jet kit, you're back down in the 40-50 mpg range. A lot of fun around town (dare I say, more than the SWing? ) , but definitely not intended for distance riding. And I love having fuel injection now

On the original topic, I wonder how many people riding 650Rs are getting anywhere near 60 mpg?

Breaking in a new engine,keepin it below 4k rpm thats prob another reason

There's no argument that a geared transmission and either a chain or shaft drive is more efficent method of transmitting power to the rear wheel. As already mentioned the CVT is a good bit less efficient and has more drag. Air resistance might be a bit more on the SW but I doubt very much more. Frontal area isn't much larger in the case of the SW. As an older dude I happily pay the extra gasoline for the increased comfort and easier riding qualities of the SW.

I think SilverWing does fine on gas. CVT is actually designed to keep engine operating at the best speed for max economy and and perforance. I think to get 45 mpg with SilverWing you have to have very heavy throttle hand and lots of junk added to bike that either requires lots of wind to push or weight to move.

Yesterday I went from Chattanooga to Barber Bike Display in AL aboug 360 miles, my route maybe 2/3 high speed Freeway and the rest city or busy 2 lane. Up to 80mph used, 100 degree day----56mpg. Quality of gas seems to vary. My bike has add on junk---Baker Air Wings, Givi Box, Clearview Shield, Laminar Lip and some lower foot wind blockers I made----all this requires wind to push.

All this said I have seen below 50 mpg with Silverwing------50 or less with Helix driven wide open from tank to tank---all time record low 18 with HD Sidecar outfit, with winterwindshield driven in to face of winter storm in MN.

Bikes it seems used to get better mileage --My BMW R51/3 got 60 solo and 40 with sidecar driven like idiot in Germany for its 236,000 km life with me. Yamaha YDS-3, 42 mpg with Ceco Fairing, Triumphs did well my 6T Thunderbird and TR5AR did 60 or better most of time. Recent times my Daelim 125 could get 80 plus on gentle trip, but day to day in heavy traffic with lots of wide open could dip below 60.


English singles used to be best---soft riding and always better than 60. I had Indian Woodsman (RE Bullet) and don't remember what it got, but I think good, had stupid smller tank for US market. Between falling apart and fixing I rode pee out of it.


John Grinsel