Another Mileage Question

I have a couple of questions on the swing.

I have been through a number of threads here that state that older swings get poorer mpg in the 40's than newer models that get mileage in the 50's.

Q1. Does anyone know what was changed to improve the mileage and in what year was the change made?

Q2. Do the newer swings have an O2 sensor in the exhaust and what year was that added?

Thank in advance folks!

Ride safe!

The only change I know of is that Honda added an oxygen sensor in 2006 (I think it was) that might have influenced the fuel mileage a bit.
I like your avatar, my first powered two wheeler was a '50 model 54 Cushman.

My 2002 gets better mileage than most people post on here, but I keep the interstate driving to a minimum and normally try not to exceed 60 MPH on highways.

I think the "older models get worse gas mileage" is a myth.

MPG is proportional to the way you ride is my thinking.

Hard and fast - expect lower MPG's. If your riding style is conservative then I think it is fair to assume you will get a better return.

Of course if your machine is feeling a bit worse for wear and hasn't been serviced for an age then that too will ultimately affect mpg.

Don't know where I sit on this one. Sometimes I ride like I stole it, other times I will saunter around, depends on my mood. What I think is that if you buy a big engined scooter and expect phenomenal MPG's from it then you are in for a shock.

My machine is an 07 model although registered as a 09!!!! (UK laws ). It has the 02 sensor and F1 fuel system and I average 52 mpg, have had worse have had better. Either way - it doesn't detract from the ride.

I'm always trying for the elusive 60MPG, but with winter gas and a little too fast riding I usually fall around 55-56 MPG, and that's on a 2002, fairly well maintained, tire pressure checked...etc.

As has been stated before: Keep the RPM below 5000 and you will get the best MPG. From there on up, the MPG decreases in a direct relationship to the power curve. There are other factors which enter into the equation but this is the main one.
It would be interesting to hear what others speed is at 5000 RPM because I know it varies a little from Silverwing to Silverwing.
Old Dave in Western Nebraska

Dave,
I think the relationship has more to do with aerodynamics than the power curve.

Jon

My PC800 got around 35-45, but it spent much of its time at WOT. When the clutch was new, it liked to pick the front wheel up. Thrilling to do with a 650 pound bike.

Mine has 350 miles on the clock now (whoopee!) and I reckon I'm doing 56 mpg (imperial not US). 5,000 rpm relates to about 68-70 mph depending on whether its up hill or down, headwind or tail.

I'm still being gentle until I get that first service out of the way

'Cos ... she's bootiful, and I don't wanna hurt her ...

Nowun wrote:

'Cos ... she's bootiful, and I don't wanna hurt her ...

Get out of it!!!!

I asked if I needed to be gentle when I bought mine from new.

Dealer - Nah - It's a Honda - just ride it.

Roger that!

Roger!

But she's so pretty!

(is that like a 'good rogering'?)

Nowun wrote:

Roger!

But she's so pretty!

(is that like a 'good rogering'?)

If it works for you !

Roger!

Nowun wrote:

Roger!

No - I'm Doug.

Roger's Rogered!!!!

Methinks this could turn into a 'Python' sketch if allowed to run unchecked!

There's a lot of 'mileage' in it.

Nowun wrote:

Methinks this could turn into a 'Python' sketch if allowed to run unchecked!

There's a lot of 'mileage' in it.

I am still trying to find out how much variance in the Silverwings on speed when turning 5000 RPm

Who really spends that much time looking at the rev counter, I've barely glanced at mine since I finished running it in.

Ya gotta have something to do when running those lonesome roads like highway 50 in Nevada.

I normaly average 65-67mpg. As the supermarkets have the cheapest fuel at £131.7 I've been filling up at them ,instead of my usual Shell garage but, my mpg has dropped to 61 -63. I wonder why.?

Meldrew wrote:

Who really spends that much time looking at the rev counter, I've barely glanced at mine since I finished running it in.

Ditto, for such a large gauge it is well under used. (By me).

You don't get hauled in by the police for rev changes but will for MPH changes!!!!!

Old Limey wrote:

I normaly average 65-67mpg. As the supermarkets have the cheapest fuel at £131.7 I've been filling up at them ,instead of my usual Shell garage but, my mpg has dropped to 61 -63. I wonder why.?

I can't answer to that specific question, but I have had bad experience with Esso fuel in my Honda Civic. I usually fill it up with (French) ELF SP95-E10. This will average 43MPG imp. When I don't manage to get to my usual station, I prefer 'supermarket' brands such as Auchan or E.Leclerc. On both SP95 and E10 the MPG stay the same. But whenever I fill it up with Esso, the consumption goes up at least 10%. (= mileage down to 38 MPG imp) I couldn't believe it at first and tried it over and over again, because my previous car (SAAB turbo) made no difference between Esso or other brands (RON98). My only conclusion is that my Civic doesn't like Esso...

b.t.w. I hope you get 100 liters for £131.7

Old Limey wrote:

I normaly average 65-67mpg. As the supermarkets have the cheapest fuel at £131.7 I've been filling up at them ,instead of my usual Shell garage but, my mpg has dropped to 61 -63. I wonder why.?

Here in the states they switch to "winter fuel" when it gets colder.

Quote :

Twice every year in the United States, the fuel supply changes. It's known as the seasonal gasoline transition. This change is the biggest reason for the price hike in summer gasoline. Depending on the time of year, gas stations switch between providing summer-grade fuel and winter-grade fuel. The switch started in 1995 as part of the Reformulated Gasoline Program (RFG), which was established through the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) started the RFG program in order to reduce pollution and smog during the summer ozone season, which occurs from June 1 to Sept. 15 [Source: EPA].

In order to reduce pollution, summer-blend fuels use different oxygenates, or fuel additives. These blends, the EPA claims, burn cleaner and also help compensate for a limited oil supply. The EPA says this practice of using seasonal blends also encourages the development of alternative fuels [Source: EPA].

I never get as good mileage with winter fuel as I do with summer fuel.

[quote="rodenbach"]

Old Limey wrote:

I normaly average 65-67mpg. As the supermarkets have the cheapest fuel at £131.7 I've been filling up at them ,instead of my usual Shell garage but, my mpg has dropped to 61 -63. I wonder why.?

I can't answer to that specific question, but I have had bad experience with Esso fuel in my Honda Civic.

All fuels are not created equal because of additives that are added due to local government requirements.

Here in the US there are many blends of E10. Some are designated for one small area and are called boutique fuels. They may only be required in just one city like LA or one state or area. These additives can reduce the mileage that you would get from the fuel. The Esso fuel may be a blend of gasoline, ethanol and additives that is slightly different than the other stations that you purchase fuel at.

The other possible cause could be the percent of ethanol in the fuel.

Gasoline = 114,000 btu / gallon.
Ethanol = 76,000 btu / gallon.
Gasoline with 10% Ethanol added = 110,000 btu / gallon

If your car got 65 mpg on straight gasoline, it would get about 62 on E10.

Since Ethanol has much less energy per gallon than gasoline if the Esso stations are blending more ethanol than the stated 10% then your mileage would suffer. If the grocery store stations blend less than 10% then your mileage would improve.

Just a thought.

Ride safe!

exavid wrote:

Ya gotta have something to do when running those lonesome roads like highway 50 in Nevada.

Probably my favorite road. Just don't stop when you get to Carson Dry Lake to read the sign that says something to the effect "don't stop here". The low flying jets doing bombing runs over the east end of the lake are really low there. Scared us with the massive amount of noise, then to see the effect of the bombs (missiles?) a couple or more miles away a few seconds later.

:flower:

You sure those weren't UFOs instead of aircraft? You're not all that far from the Little Aly Inn and area 51 out there.

rjdoles, we don't have all this information on petrol in the UK. It would seem though, that there is a differance between the brands of fuel available to us. Some years ago a service station was found to be adding water to the fuel in the pumps after motorists complained about MPG. Shell do claim to have some kind of additive to give better MPG, it seems they could be right in my case.

DuggleBogey wrote:

I never get as good mileage with winter fuel as I do with summer fuel.

They have changed the additives for summer fuel / winter fuel for as long as I can remember.

In the days when everything had a carburetor, they had a different reason for the changes.

In the summer, during a hot soak, such as stopping for 10 minutes to refuel, the hot engine would cause the underhood temperatures to climb and boil the fuel out of the carburetor. (vapor lock) The increased vapor pressure of the boiling fuel would prevent any more fuel from coming into the carburetor to replace what had boiled out until it cooled off a bit. The engine would crank but not start. The refineries changed the process and blended in additives to raise the boiling point of the fuel to minimize the vapor lock problem.

This summer blend never did help my Ford Escort. On hot days, I could drive it across the country with no problem but if I drove to the grocery and came back 10 minutes later, it wouldn't start. Opening the hood and waiting ten minutes usually did the trick. The Ford dealer always told me that it was due to bad gas. That was funny because I always bought gas from the same local station and it worked fine on every other car I had ever owned. After two years, I got a recall notice from Ford. They needed to put a heat shield under the carburetor because some people were experiencing "hot soak" problems.

In the winter, vapor lock wasn't a problem but starting a car at 0 degrees was. The refineries changed the process to lower the boiling point of the fuel and added additives to make the fuel more volatile.

The changes worked pretty well until you had a tank full of winter fuel and encountered an unusually warm day. A lot of cars would experience vapor lock.

The same went for having a tank full of summer fuel and a cold snap. A lot of cars had trouble starting.

Fuel injection, with it's higher fuel pressure, eliminated vapor lock but then the EPA arrived on the scene with their clean air requirements to muddy up the water. The seasonal change in additives does affect the possible mileage from a gallon of fuel.

It seems that we live in a pretty complicated world but looking back on the past 60 years, there is no other time that I would rather live.

Ride safe!

I've had 3 SW's and have consistently gotten only in the 40's mpg. With mixed riding my now 03', I get about 44....

exavid wrote:

You sure those weren't UFOs instead of aircraft? You're not all that far from the Little Aly Inn and area 51 out there.

At least 200 miles as the crow flies. Still, it is my favorite road anywhere. As the big sign in Eureka says "the loneliest town on the loneliest road in America" (about half way between Ely on the east and Austin on the west).

:flower:

It sure was a shame when that vandal cut down the shoe tree.

Greetings. I don't closely monitor my SWing's mileage on a day to day basis. However, I did a 1900 trip into central Oregon and Washington in August and made a point of checking it every tankful. It should be noted that speeds on the highways generally ran between 65-75 mph, with quick spurts up to 90 for passing.

My SWing is a 2002 and has about 28K miles on it. During the trip, I averaged right at 50 mpg on California, Oregon and Washington summer fuel formulations. The 50 mpg figure proved to be a number upon which I could rely and it allowed me to run range out to 150 miles without concern...

That sounds about right running around town here my '02 with 18k is getting right around 45mpg. Thats about 7mpg better than my GL1800 got running around town.

My mileage has varied from 46-53 MPG over six months.

I do ride my Swing like I stole it, up to 100mph. It's well maintained, but I get only 35mpg. Other than riding it hard and FAST, is this what I should expect? It's a 2005.

IF you cruise at between 4000 & 5000 RPMs you can expect much better fuel "efficiency". If you ride hard & fast you can expect 35 - 38 MPG, as you can when you cruise at 85+ MPH.

Also riding hard & fast tends to incur the resentment of a good many gnarly harley riders.

Tim

Thanks Cosmic-Jumper. That's what I thought, but wanted some confirmation.

We don't see that many Harley riders on the UK's roads and they're usually dressed top to toe in HD branded stuff because they like everyone to know they're Harley owners when they're off their hog too. Like Gold Wing owners they stay off the roads during the winter months because they don't want road salt rusting and corroding the chrome bling.

A Harley rider out in the rain is even rarer, and seeing a Harley rider wearing a rain suit is a once in a lifetime experience.

If I was only getting 35 MPG I would change my air filter, and if that didn't help I would try to run through at least one tank of gas cruising no more than 5000 RPMs. If one of those didn't return better mileage I would find out why. If my mileage improved to somewhere close to 50 MPG by riding under 5000 RPMs after running through tank of gas then I would return to riding the way I liked not worry about my mileage. I would want to know why I was only getting 35 MPG. I use the mileage I get to keep track of the health of my scooters, any sudden change and I know something is wrong.

Once you get much above 70mph mileage drops pretty dramatically. Wind resistance rises at the cube of velocity so you need a LOT more power once you get above the speed that the bike was faired for. My GW1800 would lose about five miles per gallon at 80mph vs. 70. Pretty much the same on my GW1500 as well.
One other point is that at higher speeds wind resistance keeps the CVT in a lower range to make more power to compensate for drag. Wind drag at higher speed is much the same as running uphill.

exavid wrote:

Once you get much above 70mph mileage drops pretty dramatically. Wind resistance rises at the cube of velocity so you need a LOT more power once you get above the speed that the bike was faired for. My GW1800 would lose about five miles per gallon at 80mph vs. 70. Pretty much the same on my GW1500 as well.
One other point is that at higher speeds wind resistance keeps the CVT in a lower range to make  more power to compensate for drag. Wind drag at higher speed is much the same as running uphill.

 Spot on, and add a trailer and cross the magic 3000 RPM Wing mark and mileage drops even mote

exavid wrote:

Once you get much above 70mph mileage drops pretty dramatically. Wind resistance rises at the cube of velocity so you need a LOT more power once you get above the speed that the bike was faired for. My GW1800 would lose about five miles per gallon at 80mph vs. 70. Pretty much the same on my GW1500 as well.
One other point is that at higher speeds wind resistance keeps the CVT in a lower range to make  more power to compensate for drag. Wind drag at higher speed is much the same as running uphill.

Woo hoo! Great explainer.

So if the SW is faired for good cruising mileage up to 70 mph it begs the question; if nothing can be done to alter the final drive ratio is there anything that be done to make the SW more aerodynamic at 80 mph?

When I installed my XL Clearview shield, years ago, there was a noticeable drop in fuel economy. Would installing a Givi Air Flow screen change the aerodynamics over that of the solid Clearview, Givi, or OEM windscreen?

On a related note: when I was using a 165/70R-13 Sumitomo rear tire the circumfrence was different enough from a standard 150/70-13 tire to alter the final drive ratio and I got much better fuel economy at cruising speeds --even when factoring in the speedo/odo 'error'. Unfortunately the Sumitomo was notoriously impossible to mount and has since been discontinued.


Tim

There are several things that could greatly increase the mileage of a SW but not really practical. Take a look at some of the small motorcycles with fairings that they run at Bonneville salt flats. Super light weight carbon fiber fairings. None of that would be very practical for normal riding. Small windshields, side fairings to cover the gaps between the front fairing and around the rider, etc. would make a difference but not enough to really do much good.
Changing the variator roller weights could make a small difference but there's no free lunch, gains in mileage usually mean less power of the line. Higher gear ratios really don't help as much as folks think. with higher ratios you need more throttle opening to get up to speed which uses more fuel.
For my money the Honda engineers did a good job on the SW for the speed ranges it was designed to operate.

Paul W. (exavid)

exavid wrote:

<>For my money the Honda engineers did a good job on the SW for the speed ranges it' was designed to operate.

Paul

While I agree with your observation, nevertheless the SW is a "touring class" scooter, not a campus runabout, and the reality is that, in this world, or at least in my world, touring means Interstate cruising at 80 mph lest you become a road kill. So anything that can be done to improve efficiency at that speed would be welcome.

Tim

Generally speaking, I do a pretty aggressive ride. I have the 26g sliders in my 2005 with 48000 smiles plus on the odometer. Over all, my average mpg is about 47mpg. By now most of you know the speedometer is fast by +4 so if you show 60 you are actually doing 56. I have a GPS so usually ride by what it says. Considering that I weigh 222 lbs. plus I have a GIVI top box and carry some tools which could be left at home except I use them to help out the M/C riders. My V light came on the other day on a short trip so removed the covers "checked the tolerance" which was fine. I had already purchased a new belt as thought would need it changed. $150 spent that is hanging in my garage so will have it when it is needed. Don't know what the shelf life is but it is not in any direct light so should last a while. The Silverwing is a magnificant piece of equipment. Honda did good! I try to use good fuel and every so often will put "Seafoam" cleaner in it. Service oil and filter every 5000.

Cosmic_Jumper - Here on the West coast especially in Washington and Oregon traffic on the major freeways for the most part doesn't run at 80mph. Washington's speed limit is 70 and mostly traffic averages 70-75mph. Oregon's max speed at present is 65 and most run 65-70mph. State troopers are out there in both states looking to increase revenue. In CA it does seem that traffic moves closer to 80mph at times but not always in all parts of that state.

DaveR - When I changed the belt on my SW just because of the mileage, 16k it measured the same as the new one I installed. I kept the old belt as an emergency spare. I carried it on longer trips because you an always come up with the tools to change it but could be stranded days waiting on a new belt via UPS. Well worth putting the old one back in to get home again. I wrapped it in plastic to keep my under seat area clean.

When I changed my belt and put in 26 Gram sliders this past winter I vacuum sucked the belt in a Foodsaver bag. I buy my bags on a roll so I can cut off as much as I need. I keep it in the bike also just in case.

My speedo is about 5 mph off also. When I'm reading 65 I'm actually doing 60 according to GPS. Now to try and figure out how to calculate the correct mpg. I know there's got to be a formula or calculator I could use to figure it out but I haven't found it yet. Oh Well.