Ah, but we CAnucks use the imperial gallon, not the US gallon. When I keep it under 110 km/ hour (approx 65 mph), if I'n not packing a lot and not big wind, I will get 3.1 litres per 100 or 75 mpg imperial. That would reduce a fair bit as there are 3.78 litres per US Gallon and 4.54 litres per imperial gallon.80mph? That’ll do it right there, no question. If you can bring yourself to do it, run a tank @55mph on the interstate I’m sure you’ll be amazed.
I regularly get 70+mpg.
I can follow any system, but the litre per 100 km is newer and few people can relate to is, unlike the mpg (where the difference between a US gallon and an imperial one can be significant.I have no issue with the metric system, but the litres per 100 km has always seemed odd to me.
I check my gas mileage every fillup and I get at least 80 mpg or above US gallon,but I work at it!jasperjI can follow any system, but the litre per 100 km is newer and few people can relate to is, unlike the mpg (where the difference between a US gallon and an imperial one can be significant.
Several people have noted how they record and monitor all fuel consumption and mileage. Looking at overall all mileage and fuel purchase over a 3-6 month period will really give a good indication of real mileage rates.
Me, I'm bilingual: metric and imperial. Being a child of the 60's, I still understand temperature more precisely in imperial (hey , when it is -30C, it still damn cold.... trivial point> both celcius and fahrenheit read the same at -40). For woodworking, I do a mixture. Dimensional wood are still nominally imperial ( 2 x 4 ) but plywood is mostly gone metric.I suppose so, Canada changed to the metric system in the late 70s, and a lot of people never converted from what they were taught in school. So if you’re 60+ you’re still dealing in mpg, using inches and feet and Fahrenheit. My father still uses imperial everything.
It MUST affect the milage for the simple reason that it is more weight, just like an automobile. It might save gas also, by shifting to the most efficient gearing sooner than a rider would.Only tangentially related, but I wonder if the DCT affects the mileage? Back in the "olden days," when many cars were available with a manual or automatic transmission, it seemed the manual was always 1 or 2 mpg better. Having ridden motorcycles since 1967, I continue to be impressed with how good the DCT is on this bike. I thought using Drive Mode would result in better fuel mileage, but after putting 5,000+ miles on this bike in the past 4 months, I am finding no significant difference in mileage, regardless of the Mode, as long as I am not running continuous at high highway speeds. The worst mileage I've seen with the CTX was 64, almost all of that tank at highway speeds. But, it seems to have settled into 70 to 74 mpg pretty consistently the last half dozen fill-ups with what I'd call "sporting" riding conditions.
Thanks for the response, JamminJames. That C3 Pro fits my head.It MUST affect the milage for the simple reason that it is more weight, just like an automobile. It might save gas also, by shifting to the most efficient gearing sooner than a rider would.
Nice Schuberth, btw. I have the C3 Pro.
I keep checking gas mileage on all my vehicles,if drops then I can figure I might have a problem and will investgate if I have some drops in a row.jasperjI'm uploading a screenshot of my MPG spreadsheet. I write down odometer on every fuel receipt then punch that and gallons into this sheet. Notice that I have an average column for the last 7 tanks to reduce over and under fills. I also make notes about what I was doing... The TN trip had the bike loaded heavy and running high speed to and from, While there (Day 2-6) the speed was much slower with a group and a lots of twisties as well as traffic. I've done this for years with most of the vehicles I've owned - it clues me in when mileage starts slipping that the vehicle probably has a problem and I need to pay closer attention to it when next I do maintenance. View attachment 89857