Suzuki Burgman USA Forum banner

1 - 17 of 17 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
127 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Intresting note on the new meter - per the owner's manual
Fuel comsumption meter displays fuel consumption ratio of trip A and trip B. The fuel consumption meter ranges from 0.1 to 50.0 mile/gal. The meter locks at 50.0. The fuel consumption meter indicates "--.-" when the trip meter indicates 0.0
I wonder why the meter locks at 50? Doesn't seem to make sense.

Phil
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,363 Posts
PhilW said:
Intresting note on the new meter - per the owner's manual
Fuel comsumption meter displays fuel consumption ratio of trip A and trip B. The fuel consumption meter ranges from 0.1 to 50.0 mile/gal. The meter locks at 50.0. The fuel consumption meter indicates "--.-" when the trip meter indicates 0.0
I wonder why the meter locks at 50? Doesn't seem to make sense.

Phil
I have absolutely no clue. I can see tracking miles traveled on a tank of gas on one trip meter. But what could you track on the other trip meter that would be pertinent to fuel consumption?

I generally use the 1st trip meter to record miles ridden for the day, and the 2nd to record miles travelled on a tank of gas. So if I start the day with a partial tank, trip 1 will be reset to zero, and trip 2 might have 70 miles on it (since last fill up). If I ride 80 miles & stop for gas, now trip 1 reads 80, and trip 2 will be reset to zero.

The mileage formula is miles traveled divided by gallons used. I see no possible way to compute fuel mileage from the ratio between two trip meters. Obviously "fuel consumption" means something totally different to Suzuki than mpg. As for the limit of 50, I'd have to understand what they mean by "fuel consumption" first. Whatever that is, 50 still sounds like an artificial limit. If it IS mpg, the '05 with overdrive should be able to get better than 50 mpg at times (I've done 51 mpg with a '03 once or twice).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
127 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Pauljo the quote while straight out of the book as shown - it is misleading. It does not compute a ratio between Trip A and Trip B. It has a fuel comsumption reading for Trip A and a seperate one for Trip B (per the diagram in the manual). Which still leaves us with the question why the limit of 50mpg?
Phil
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
761 Posts
Maybe Suzuki was thinking of Pauljo when they designed this....

Trip A can have a gas tank MPG,
and
Trip B can have a total trip MPG....

maybe...??

but...
then that assumes the bike knows how many gallons you put in a bike, doesn't it?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,411 Posts
I know why it shows "--.-" when you reset the trip meter; to show that it hasn't got any data to calculate yet.

No clue why it locks at 50.0, since I've got 51 on mine a few times and I don't even have overdrive.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,323 Posts
What the computer may be doing is keeping track of how much fuel has flowed during the amount of miles tallied on each trip meter. I would guess that there's some sort of flow meter in the gas line somewhere, feeding information to the computer. Just as the computer tallies the number of miles differently between the A and B trip meters, it could be keeping track of fuel flow separately as well. It would divide A miles by A fuel flow in those given miles to get the mileage number. It would seem that it's just duplicated because there are 2 trip meters, and the Suzuki engineers found that setting that function up on 2 just as easy as setting it up for one. They probably just did it because they could, not because it's really useful to have 2 separate mileage readings. Or, it was more of a bother for them to have 2 separate programs for the 2 trip meters, one with and one without the mileage gage, when they were otherwise identical.

Still doesn't answer the question of why it's limited to 50mpg, though. :?:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,411 Posts
captainfish said:
...but...
then that assumes the bike knows how many gallons you put in a bike, doesn't it?
No, I think there's an actual fuel flow meter that measures fuel consumption on an instantaneous basis (probably via the fuel injection computers), and then averages the readings based on the miles travelled as recorded on the trip meters.

[Edit: Dean beat me to it...and was more detailed as well.]
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,008 Posts
PhilW said:
I wonder why the meter locks at 50? Doesn't seem to make sense.Phil
Maybe after 3 years of production, Suzuki determined 50 mpg is what they "expect" the 650 to average in mpg.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
761 Posts
Awwww, geez.
And I was all prepared to think these bikes were super smart, knowing how much gas I put in. You know, so that it could adjust its ride handling capabilities to match the load, (not me of course), and would clearly announce when I was approaching the low fuel mark based on MPG and then let me know where the were some nearby gas stations. Gas stations that were still functional and would take the cards I was carrying that day.


There I go again,, dreaming...
:arrow: Exit, stage right !
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
128 Posts
05 Fuel Consumption

That lock out at 50 mpg would not do for me or my wife because we normaly get 48 to 52 mpg and have both gotten as high as 56 when on a group ride.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
127 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
Assuming Dean and Brian are correct (makes sense) and assuming it is measuring an average rather than something like the last sample point then on the first 141.6 miles I got 45.6 mpg.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
128 Posts
Fuel Consumption

Yes you are correct about the spedo error. Yes the milage we get is correct the wife is an accountant and knows how to calculate milage. Now on to your error the spedo reading is in deed about 10% off but check the odometer some time and you will find it just about as correct as it can be.
That shows me that the manufacture could correct this error with a little talk to the CPU.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,363 Posts
Anything calculated from wheel rotation will deviate slightly with tire wear. But I think you are looking at 1 percent or so. Disregarding the tire wear factor, it appears that the odometer/trip meter was designed to be spot on, and the speedometer was designed to be 10% high.

I wish the speedometer was more accurate. Going to a dealer and demanding a warranty repair for that will be like peeing into the wind. It will not likely bring satisfying results. But I think voicing displeasure at this irritating speedometer design is something we should all do. If the dealerships hear it often enough, they might press the manufacturers to change their design philosophy. It is long overdue. I'd guess that most riders have just been accepting it for years rather than voicing their dissatisfaction.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
127 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
I got home early enough today and the weather cooperated so I was able to get out a little this evening. I reset Trip B to zero before leaving and put a little over 22 miles riding around in light traffic. After it was over the Trip A fuel meter which still had all the previous miles on it showed a decrease in mpg of about 1mpg to 44.4. The Trip B meter which only had the 22 miles showed an average of 40.6. So I think that pretty well confirms the earlier speculation about some kind of instantaneous measuring of the actual fuel consumption.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
329 Posts
The National Higway Traffic Adminstration will penalize manufacturers for pessimistic speedometers and require recall for repair/replacement. There is no penalty for optimistic readings. Hence, the induced type 1 error to avoid the costly type 2 error. This planned error applies to automobiles, as well, but to a smaller degree.
 
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
Top