Suzuki Burgman USA Forum banner

1 - 20 of 41 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
126 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I thought I would mention this since I just took two refresher trips on the Burgman. I bought it just over a year ago, rode it for a short time, started falling out of love, and then a friend rode up on a little Rebel. I then got a Rebel too and rode it. The Rebel is a fun little bike. Anywho - I'm now riding them both and will get rid of whichever I throw a leg over the least over the next few months to a year.

This past weekend I rode to my dad's house. While riding, I notated (in my mind while riding, and recorded in my smartphone both ways when I stopped) the trip meter miles when a bar would disappear. I stared at the speedometer a lot, because I was doing my best to hold it as close to 72 mph (79 on the speedometer) as I could. Because I wanted an apples-to-apples comparison of the Burgman mpg compared to the Rebel mpg at the same speed. 72 mph is the Rebel's top speed (gps verified, ~75 mph on its speedometer).

These ranges are the average of the trip there and the trip back. Using no ethanol 87 octane, topping off as I was leaving, and topping off again at a gas station near mine and my dad's house.

5 bars: From full to 46 miles
4 bars: 46 miles range (from 46 to 92 miles on the trip meter)
3 bars: 28 miles range (from 92 to 120 miles on the trip meter)
2 bars: 22 miles range (from 120 to 142 miles on the trip meter)
1 bar, fuel emblem blinking): I only went as high as 155 miles and refilled, due to the logistics of the trip (meaning, I was where I was going). So I can't say the range on 1 bar.

Maybe some time I'll have the opportunity to go on down to 0 bars, in order to get a range on 1 bar.

Based on my fill amounts, I "theoretically" would have run out of gas somewhere between 203 and 206 miles. Of course this is all 72 mph. If a person wants to ride farther than ~205 miles on one tank of fuel, they're going to have to go slower.

FWIW


7milesout
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
106 Posts
I'm not sure if it makes a difference to the gas mileage but we never put anything lower than 93 octane in our bikes, I know that's the highest octane available. Anything less and we notice they don't run as well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,119 Posts
I always laugh when I read these "fuel mileage" threads, and there sure seem to be a lot of them. Do people do nothing else but sit around wondering how far their Burgman will go, or how miraculous their mileage figures are?

The number of kilometres (miles) per bar of a fuel gauge is so inconsistent as to be useless. It's clear the first "bar" will always be more because there not only is fuel in the tank, but whatever volume of fuel is also contained in the filler tube. That's why the first bar takes a long time to go off, but the others are quicker.

And this talk of 200+ miles (320 km per tank? Well in real-world riding I've NEVER seen such a figure or even been close. Best I've ever done is around 260 km (161 miles) and that was riding real slow trying to stretch my fuel to the next stop. I was down to 80 kph (50 mph) at most because when you're riding the roads north of Lake Superior, it's a long way to walk if you don't make the next fuel stop.

So much depends on the bike itself and the roads. I've got the big Givi windscreen, side cases, topcase, and weigh around 230 lbs. And even with the same configuration, so much depends on speed.

With my big side cases (33 liter) and running a true 135 kph (84 mph) I can burn thru a whole tank in 150-160 km (94-100 miles), but same configuration slowed down to 90 kph (56 mph) and I jump up to around 200 - 225 km (125-140 miles), but that's about it for range.

So for me, and because of the touring type riding I like to do, I always figure my fuel stops at around 170-200 kilimeters apart (105-124 miles) which generally is about 2 hours riding, or time for a coffee and bladder break.

All I really care about is smiles per mile!
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
18,190 Posts
I have not really gotten into the "Fuel Range Anxiety" thing too often. I mostly just gas up at the flashing Gas Pump on the dash. That has been 165 miles most times. By all accounts I have another 30 miles but then the Anxiety kicks in...

The misnomer is that 93 octane will make a Burgman run better. A few members will swear that it does. But you can not get them to do some real back to back testing.
The Burgman, all models, are designed to run on the whole worlds worst grade of low octane. Does not matter if you're in the middle of Walla Walla Washington or Timbuktu Africa. Between 85 and 87 octane is fine.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
2,286 Posts
I've run the bike to fumes a couple times, once not far from your place Dave, so I have tracked MPG quite a bit (via fuelly mostly).
For the octane obsessed I've run two of them almost exclusively on 87 octane, but have tried higher octanes and only found a benefit once after I got a bad tank of gas.
Oddly I do find it's a hair smoother on shell, but no real MPG gain, so I fuel at costco, local groc store etc. as much as anywhere.
Since my experience with closed gas stations at inopportune times I have a 2 gallon can that lives on the back seat when taking trips that go to places a bit off the beaten path.
If I can't find fuel in the 80-100 miles after using that I'm probably on the wrong bike.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
126 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
Steve - Don't take my topic the wrong way. I added the mpg data in there, I guess because I find it interesting, but also because it gives a reference to the range per bar. For example, if one's mpg is lower, the range per bar would be somewhat less.

But the point to the whole topic was, I was interested in knowing actual data of the kind of distance that each bar represents. And I was also curious if the range per bar was linear. Which it is not. You made a point about the first bar being longer because fuel up in the fill tube. However, my data showed the first 2 bars to be close to equal. I say close to equal because even though they are both 46 in my post, that was their average of the 2 different interstate rides. The granular data is too … well, granular. As well, the average doesn't come from enough data … but that's all I have to date.

I was not trying to make any mpg claims or do any chest thumping. I guess it interests me because I would prefer an analog gauge, instead of clunky bars … at least for accuracy. A little hard to explain the clunky bars statement but I'll try. With a true analog gauge, it steadily moves toward E as fuel is consumed. So it tends to give a relevant reading at all times. Where as with the clunky bars, the tank is 100% full one moment, when a moment later it is at 80% (1 bar down). That's what I mean by clunky. Maybe chunky is better. So I found the range per bar interesting.

However, I will add one thing. Even though the bars I consider clunky and chunky (:)), I still like them and the whole digital display, even though I'm an analog gauge guy. I like the display because it reminds me of early 80's arcade games, it's kind of nostalgic … to me. If I were racing the Burgman, the display would be inadequate. But since I'm only fun riding it, I find the arcade look of it fun as well.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,026 Posts
I love these fuel posts, my father was a wonderful man, I know this is true because he didn't kill me as I was growing up, and he stuck with my mother until he died. He (rarely) was a little bit of a prankster and his antics were memorable when they occurred. He worked with a man who bought a small car and was obsessed with the mileage and reliability. My father and his friends would wait till the owner was really busy, and either add more or subtract some gas , a gallon or 2, in the vehicle. Then sit around the break room and listen to the owner talk about getting 70 miles per gallon one week and 15 the next.
They also picked up the car and placed blocks under the axles, so the wheels barely touched the ground, when owner tried to drive, car wouldn't move cause wheels didn't have grip, when owner went inside to call wife to come get him, they took out blocks, Owner returns, one of his workmates says , Lemme try, car works fine. Much foul language follows from owner. He never found out.
Thanks for helping me remember my father.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
98 Posts
With my 2013, I get the last, bottom bar after the bike was parked leaning left on the kickstand with somewhat low fuel. It will usually go back to 2 bars, after leaning in a good right hand turn. It’ll drop back to 1 bar after about 20 miles. It’ll usually repeat this one more time before it stays on one bar. That’s when it’s time for a fill up.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
2,286 Posts
Changes going up and down hills/mountains as well. Kinda why I watch miles in addition to the fuel gauge.

With my 2013, I get the last, bottom bar after the bike was parked leaning left on the kickstand with somewhat low fuel. It will usually go back to 2 bars, after leaning in a good right hand turn. It’ll drop back to 1 bar after about 20 miles. It’ll usually repeat this one more time before it stays on one bar. That’s when it’s time for a fill up.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,386 Posts
I'm not sure if it makes a difference to the gas mileage but we never put anything lower than 93 octane in our bikes, I know that's the highest octane available. Anything less and we notice they don't run as well.
I run the highest available (usually 93) octane -- though I'm almost certain it doesn't matter -- because at 45+ MPG, it doesn't cost that much extra so why not? :)

I just assume I need to refuel at 160 miles. That usually works out to "last bar, flashing". At 160 miles, I figure I have at least a 20 mile reserve if I lay off the throttle. Haven't yet run out of gas.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
97 Posts
I just assume I need to refuel at 160 miles. That usually works out to "last bar, flashing". At 160 miles, I figure I have at least a 20 mile reserve if I lay off the throttle. Haven't yet run out of gas.
Me thinks that the first 4 bars are divided up over the first 3 gallons and the last bar you still have a full gallon based upon when I fill up. Just as the last bar starts the pump flashing, I can only fill with <=3 gallons of fuel.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,386 Posts
Me thinks that the first 4 bars are divided up over the first 3 gallons and the last bar you still have a full gallon based upon when I fill up. Just as the last bar starts the pump flashing, I can only fill with <=3 gallons of fuel.
That's about right.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
39 Posts
I always laugh when I read these "fuel mileage" threads, and there sure seem to be a lot of them. Do people do nothing else but sit around wondering how far their Burgman will go, or how miraculous their mileage figures are?

The number of kilometres (miles) per bar of a fuel gauge is so inconsistent as to be useless. It's clear the first "bar" will always be more because there not only is fuel in the tank, but whatever volume of fuel is also contained in the filler tube. That's why the first bar takes a long time to go off, but the others are quicker.

And this talk of 200+ miles (320 km per tank? Well in real-world riding I've NEVER seen such a figure or even been close. Best I've ever done is around 260 km (161 miles) and that was riding real slow trying to stretch my fuel to the next stop. I was down to 80 kph (50 mph) at most because when you're riding the roads north of Lake Superior, it's a long way to walk if you don't make the next fuel stop.

So much depends on the bike itself and the roads. I've got the big Givi windscreen, side cases, topcase, and weigh around 230 lbs. And even with the same configuration, so much depends on speed.

With my big side cases (33 liter) and running a true 135 kph (84 mph) I can burn thru a whole tank in 150-160 km (94-100 miles), but same configuration slowed down to 90 kph (56 mph) and I jump up to around 200 - 225 km (125-140 miles), but that's about it for range.

So for me, and because of the touring type riding I like to do, I always figure my fuel stops at around 170-200 kilimeters apart (105-124 miles) which generally is about 2 hours riding, or time for a coffee and bladder break.

All I really care about is smiles per mile!
On average I stop about every 140 - 150 miles. I ride about 75 mph so about 68 real world. I never try to press it down to last drop. I usually refuel at the first blink of the gauge. I use 87 octane 93 octane doesn’t make any difference so I use 87 most of the time. My behind is usually ready for a break by then anyway.......
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
374 Posts
I've been tracking my mileage on Fuelly since I bought the bike new. My thought is that if the mileage starts to drop suddenly, then I can start looking for a problem before it leaves me stranded by the road. And, I admit, I'm a bit curious on how it will evolve over time. Anyway, I always run 87 octane - no reason to run the more expensive stuff since the Burgman's motor doesn't have high enough compression to justify higher octane. I've averaged about 55 mpg so far, with the majority of the miles being commuting to and from work. That ride is about 50/50 highway and surface streets, with speeds of around 70 on the freeway and 30-35 on the street. I'm not a speed demon - that's what you need to run to avoid being dinged from behind. My worst mileage is from a return trip from Columbus OH back to Minneapolis, through high winds/storms (moving West into the wind) on the Interstate, which was in the mid 40's (mpg). My best mileage was during a trip to the Black Hills of SD, where the speed limit on all the scenic drives is 35 mph. There, I got 65 mpg, meaning I could have theoretically broken 250 miles of range. The key to higher mileage seems to be staying at or below 3,000 rpm, although air temps do seem to play a role as well. Cold temps (down to 32 F) get worse mileage, while higher temps tend to return better results. So, for me, and 80 F day with a speed of 35 or less would result in the maximum MPG.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,119 Posts
........The key to higher mileage seems to be staying at or below 3,000 rpm, although air temps do seem to play a role as well. Cold temps (down to 32 F) get worse mileage, while higher temps tend to return better results.
Yup, and the newer models (post 2013) even have an "eco-light" that shines a pretty green (occasionally :ROFLMAO: ) if you're running easy enough on the throttle.

As to air temperature. Well air temperature directly affects horsepower due to air density.
Have a look at the charts I copied below. At 80F, you're effectively getting 98.2% of your horsepower, but at 32F you're getting 105.6% of your horsepower. This is because the of the air density.
Back to school boys.....
The stoichiometric mixture for a gasoline engine is the ideal ratio of air to fuel that burns all fuel with no excess air. For gasoline fuel, the stoichiometric air–fuel mixture is about 14.7:1 i.e. for every one gram of fuel, 14.7 grams of air are required.
So denser/colder air will give you more horsepower, but at the expense of using more fuel. Warm air is "thinner" so you get less horsepower (less fuel used) and also as the air is thinner, you also get less air resistance by a few percentage points.

Want to play with some numbers yourself, here's the link.
For those who live at higher altitudes, you can also play around with that. I used my height MSL for home as a constant and also humidity and air pressure. Knock yourselves out!

90749
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
98 Posts
Cold air, also means thicker lubricants in the spur gears, and engine housing which means more friction resistance. Also lower tire pressure .,..And for those of us in the northeast US seasonal additions of butane to the gasoline, which results in less btu’s per gallon.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
126 Posts
Discussion Starter #19
Steve - While most of what you say is factually correct, I personally believe the difference noted in mpg between cold seasons and warm seasons, is indirectly related to temperatures. I personally believe it is a difference in the fuel. Stuff (and I can't recite exactly what "the stuff" is without copying it from some website) is added to fuel for winter time. And that "stuff" reduces the amount of energy available in gasoline. Not significantly, but enough to notice mathematically. It can be noticed in accurate mpg records, and if one took their Burg to the drag strip regularly, it would be noticed in the drag strip data. Might not feel a difference via the hiney gauge, but the drag strip lights could distinguish it.

As for AFR's. I have an old Plymouth Scamp that I was having all kind of trouble starting because I was flooding it. When I replaced the entire exhaust, I decided to add a couple bungs to the exhaust (one on the left and one on the right) and run an AFR gauge so I could tune without guessing. Boy, what a smart move. I found out, I wasn't flooding the car at all. I was starving it. That old LA 360 just loves gas. I have tuned like a son of a gun, I built my own AFR spreadsheet. I'm now an Edelbrock tuning son of a gun. Anywho, the point I'm eventually getting to is, the AFR values varies all over the place dynamically depending on so many factors. No vehicle that I'm aware of is able to hold an AFR at 14.7. And there are circumstances that it is not ideal to hold it at that AFR. Finally, here is the point: Whatever the AFR is during the summer, the winter AFR (all else being equal except in this example the air temps are colder) is not going to be exactly the same. I seriously doubt the Burgman's ECU compensates for temperature. It selects a value from a "map" based on the conditions it does monitor and fuels at said map's data point. The AFR is whatever results from the data selected. The AFR will NOT vary all that much warm season versus cold season (all else being the same except temperature), but it will be slightly different even though the chosen data is the same (again, all else being equal except temp … because I doubt the ECU varies the fuel map based on temp).

You touched a chord with me on AFR's. I love tuning so much, that I tore the exhaust off my brand new Rebel and put a bung in there too. My AFR gauge is currently on the Rebel. I'm tuning that thing like a son of a gun too. I'm tuning the wide open throttle for optimum performance AFR. Because it only has 16 - 18 horsepower. So it can use all the optimizing it can take. I have its WOT condition set well. But now the around town cruising is a bit lean. I love carburetors and AFR gauges! My Scamp runs like a 1972 Camry. Had a shop doing an alignment and when they were done and handed me the keys they said, "boy that old Scamp sure runs good!" And I said, "yup" with a grin like a mule eating briars. Since I have taken ownership of the Scamp, I have improved the power to the rear tires by ~33% while improving the fuel mileage ~13%.

I would slap the AFR gauge on the Burgman, but I don't know how to tune electronic systems. Nor do I think I should. The Burgman seems to run perfectly. It doesn't need more power … could use more mpg maybe.


7milesout
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
98 Posts
If your burger has a MAF, and an O2, sensor, then it is adjusting the fuel to compensate for dense cold air. The only time it wouldn’t be in this close loop mode, would be on cold starts, and WOT, when the program runs in open loop control mode. In those 2 conditions , it should revert to a stored factory preset table, which may be be right on, at the time or a bit too rich or lean, for ideal.
Some will notice with some vehicles, a tad more power by backing off WOT a tiny bit. This is the case where getting back in closed loop feedback gives a bit more power, despite the throttle plate being a bit from full open. ( or your throttle stop is incorrect)
 
1 - 20 of 41 Posts
Top