BMW R1200RT/R1250RT Forum

DaygloDavid wrote: As above, normally get around 10 miles per litre, struggled today with the wind, only returned 42 MPG.

That's using up the worlds reserve of fossil fuel far too fast. Quick, swap to an LC and save 25%. , 

I'm surprised that your only getting 45 (or less) mpg out of your TC. I've worked out my mpg on the LC over 3 tank fulls & its returning 57mpg which is very impressive considering I've caned it a couple of times. I'm intrigued to see what it'll do when I'm touring. Speaking of fuel- for the first time ever, I tried to put unleaded into my diesel Rangey earlier this week:-( fortunately the fuel spout on the car has a sensor of some sort & block it. Phew! That could have been a very costly mistake that wouldn't be covered under warranty.
not

Chad wrote:I'm surprised that your only getting 45 (or less) mpg out of your TC. I've worked out my mpg on the LC over 3 tank fulls & its returning 57mpg which is very impressive considering I've caned it a couple of times. I'm intrigued to see what it'll do when I'm touring.

DaygloDavid wrote:Riding style & loading can clearly effect MPG, I've covered over 300 miles on a tank full, returning around the 55 MPG mark, when cruising on a motorway.

The new (used) 2012 RT has only done just over 3,000 miles, won't be run-in yet.

My LC has been doing a minimum of 55 mpg ever since it go out if its box. Loading or riding style seems to have no effect on it.  We shall see if some sustained fully loaded autobahn riding will increase its consumption next month. I suspect not.     

Chad wrote: I'm surprised that your only getting 45 (or less) mpg out of your TC. I've worked out my mpg on the LC over 3 tank fulls & its returning 57mpg which is very impressive considering I've caned it a couple of times. I'm intrigued to see what it'll do when I'm touring. Speaking of fuel- for the first time ever, I tried to put unleaded into my diesel Rangey earlier this week:-( fortunately the fuel spout on the car has a sensor of some sort & block it. Phew! That could have been a very costly mistake that wouldn't be covered under warranty.
not

Lucky you.
Last year I did stick 45l of petrol into my diesel.
12 miles later I arrived home and realised what I'd done.
£500 later it's fixed, new fuel pump and seals......... :nervous:
I've now bought an audible device fitted into the fuel flap that says "warning, diesel"!!!!
Arrrgghhh

When travelling at speed on the autobahn with no pillion (on my TC), the top box acted like a sail, causing buffeting & weaving (100+mph) but when I took my wife on the same roads, there was absolutely no buffeting, no weaving, nothing even at 130mph. And there was no significant reduction in fuel consumption. (Obviously what I gained on the roundabouts I'll have lost on the swings!) I just hope the LC gives the same level of comfort & stability under these circumstances.

DaygloDavid wrote:Normally get around 10 miles per litre, struggled today with the wind, only returned 42 MPG.

Had a potter around today which included some town work & cruising, returned a healthy 53 MPG.

Covered 236 miles today, returning 52.2 MPG.

At a steady 95mph fully loaded, the bike is telling me i'm getting 48mpg.


The best i've seen when cruising A roads is 55mpg.


Not done enough miles on varied roads yet, to assess how the new remap is effecting economy.

Would a remap be any use on a new bike?

stayingupright wrote: Would a remap be any use on a new bike?

Absolutely....


Our engines run very lean, to comply with all the various emission laws etc.


[size=13px]Without getting too technical.... A lean burning engine will run very hot, causing tolerances to decrease, basically tightening the engine and causing more friction and wear.[/size][size=13px][size=13px]Adding the correct fuel mixture reduces engine temperature. [/size][size=13px]Therefore keeping the engine loose, so more HP and better economy.[/size]

Covered 290 miles today, returning 56.8 MPG, (BC = 57.6).

For the U.S. folks, note that the 50 mpg referred to is in imperial gallons, about 1.2 U.S. gallons.  This works out to about 41.6 MPG. U.S.  When I first heard here about the 50 mpg figure, I thought something was wrong with my bike!!  I do recall perhaps my first case of consumer shock and outrage in 1971, having just filled up my new Triumph Bonnie  in London and discovering that petrol was about (O for those days now!) $1 a gallon!!!  It was about a quarter of that in the U.S.  My outrage was somewhat tempered when I learned the imperial gallon was larger. 


BTW, the converted fuel consumption works out about right for my 2009 RT cruising at about 75 mph. Strangely, it seems to go up in very hot conditions (around 100 degrees F).

Over the 9K miles since I bought it, mine has averaged almost 60 mpg (Imperial).


One day I must work out where the throttle thing is!

Dee Dub wrote: Over the 9K miles since I bought it, mine has averaged almost 60 mpg (Imperial).


One day I must work out where the throttle thing is!

Always ride two up and I get round about same.