None that I've seen, although there is an "accelerator pump" utility for some models. Still, the stock ECU programming usually has tip-in and deceleration compensation, and the PC just adds or subtracts on top of that. On the ZX10R, I found the stock transient compensation to work fine in conjunction with my "lean cruise" map.
|
|
|
Ok fuel milage one more time.
- Thread starter itinkle
- Start date
I know eh. There needs to be Brian P sticky in each forum, and/or a Brian P forum!
I have an '02 K2 and the first bar starts blinking at 230Km or so. That doesn't tel you anything, does it?
How about "I get 350Km on a tank"? Not much better, is it?
"I have an '02 Bandit 1200s and it's average fuel consumption for the last 100L in 50/50 city/highway solo riding is 5.3L/100Km" tells you everything you need to know, doesn't it?
How lazy and/or innumerate can you be?
How about "I get 350Km on a tank"? Not much better, is it?
"I have an '02 Bandit 1200s and it's average fuel consumption for the last 100L in 50/50 city/highway solo riding is 5.3L/100Km" tells you everything you need to know, doesn't it?
How lazy and/or innumerate can you be?
strictlye
Well-known member
Brian P - great information but what about getting the poor fuel economy with the stock ecu like a few of use are having on our gsxr's. Anythoughts? Oh and mine has pretty much always gotten this mpg. A little more when it was new and I wasn't pushing it as hard. But I have new air filters and plugs.......do you really think this is an issue or stardard with these bikes?
I never thought stock ECU programming/mapping could be so lousy, either ... until I put my air/fuel ratio gauge on it and saw for myself.
Stock '04 ZX10R, stock exhaust, stock air filter, stock cams, engine never opened, stock stock stock. Cruising at a constant 90 km/h in top gear had it running at 11:1 air/fuel ratio, which is *obnoxious*. Full throttle was OK, but it's as if they mapped it for full throttle and gave up for part load.
These bikes have a reputation for being thirsty, and mine sure was ... normally around 7 to 7.5 L/100 km. Very careful remapping has cut that to 5 - 5.5 L/100 km with no loss in power and that's despite shortening the final drive gearing drastically in the process of making it a better drag bike.
It appears that the GSXR600's have the same situation.
My old '94 ZX9R was fantastic on fuel consumption, and that was a carbureted engine. Normal riding 5.5 L/100 km and no signs of running rich like the ZX10R always has had. On long trips with steady riding without high speeds, that bike could be coaxed to use less than 4.5 L/100 km and would easily go 280 - 300 km before having to change to reserve. Fuel injection made them move backwards. It boggles my mind why the manufacturers would do this, in this day and age. The car manufacturers spend thousands of hours on calibration to eke out every possible bit of fuel consumption and emissions reduction - because they have to.
When I owned a diesel I got used to great fuel economy and then always heard ads (I think from Honda) saying that a good reason to get a bike was their great fuel economy. This was one (a small one) of the factors that got me interested in getting a bike. Even better fuel economy than my Jetta in a vehicle that looks way cooler and is way more fun and runs on cheaper fuel (diesel was more expensive than gas at the time... seems like that has switched back again this year), sold! Then I actually started doing some research and was pretty surprised how bad some bikes are. Many get the same or worse than my Jetta. Even my current bike which is supposed to be more of a gas sipper than a SS only gets 3-5 MPG than the Jetta did. I was very confused as to why they could build something like an Echo (I'll use this instead of the Jetta because the Echo is gas and the Jetta was diesel which isn't fair comparison for fuel economy discussion) which, if driven carefully, can get around 40 MPG (slightly worse than my Jetta got when I drove the snot out of it) but something that weighs almost 1/10th of the weight gets the same or worse. Anyone I talked to either said the reason was probably that sport bike manufacturers have never been bothered to design for optimum fuel efficiency or that there must be some extra technology on cars that bikes don't have the space for. Looks like most of it is just that they've been too lazy to design economy in.
my daily driver gets much better fuel mileage than any of the bikes I ride.
With the massive improvements Brian has found on his bike (approaching 30% from his published #s), it makes me wonder what can be done on a small displacement FI engine - say a honda cbr125/250r.
Im inclined to say the gains would not be as substantial. Only one way to find out...
Brian have you ever had your AFR gauge on the 125? I will volunteer an 02 bung and the tig welding if you get that itch.
Im inclined to say the gains would not be as substantial. Only one way to find out...
Brian have you ever had your AFR gauge on the 125? I will volunteer an 02 bung and the tig welding if you get that itch.
I've done it; there's not much to be found. That engine runs closed-loop at part load. Full throttle with the stock bike is a bit too rich, and it's too eager to go out of closed-loop mode into the rich open-loop mode, but a few tweaks to make it breathe better took care of that and more. But, that's a bike that already only uses 3.0 - 3.3 L/100 km.
Honda is claiming that the 2011 model uses less fuel than the old one. They've probably just tweaked it so that it stays in closed loop over a greater set of conditions.
What about an SV650? haha. I think I'm getting 4.4l/100km or so.
|
|
|
|
|