Suzuki Burgman USA Forum banner

1 - 16 of 16 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
127 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I use Trip B to measure mileage between each fill up and reset it at each fuel stop. I have just let Trip A run continously since it was new and it reads exactly the same as the odometer. While adding up all the miles recorded (recorded to the tenth of a mile) from the fuel stops I noticed the total results in a 1.6% difference in the miles between Trip B and Trip A/ODO? Any ideas why there would be a difference?

FYI mpg:
Lowest 40.64
Highest 57.57
Avg. since new 50.23
Total miles 923
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,278 Posts
Because the figures you're writing down from trip B do not include the values past the second decimal place each time you reset it. While trip A is continuing to add up those thousandths of a mile.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
761 Posts
that still does not make sense.

1.6% of 923 miles is 15 miles. I can't see how you can have a 15 mile difference after only probably 5 fill-ups. (a fillup every 200 miles)


???

At most I could see is only a mile or two difference using that example.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
127 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
I agree with Captain - those trailing decimals shouldn't make that much difference. By the way it is 923.8 for the total of all Trip B recordings and 909 for the ODO.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,278 Posts
No idea then Phil unless you made a mistake recording one of your trip B values.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
127 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
Bill I had thought of that too but it can't be - the miles between B and the others are increasing. Though I have not been watching to see if the % remains constant I will keep track of it and see if I can find a pattern.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,278 Posts
You wouldn't be using a spreadsheet to keep up with these figures would you? If the formula or fields had rounding, it could account for the additional miles.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
127 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
No but keep trying - I am sure something will come to light. It just doesn't make sense.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,411 Posts
PhilW said:
No but keep trying - I am sure something will come to light. It just doesn't make sense.
captainfish said:
Its definitely a good experiment to be undertaken by more than one person.
Phil, could you post (or PM me) all of your figures? That might make it easier to replicate experimentally.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
127 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
Brian here are the numbers. I failed to record what the ODO and Trip A were on earlier dates. Though I had started noticing the difference between the meters a few hundred miles back. I wish now I had written them down and will in the future

____Date_ODO__Trip A__Trip B___Gal
____3/19__102 ____-____102____2.51
____3/31___-______-____124.7__2.624
____4/10___-______-____125.1__2.6
____4/10___-______-____105.9__1.865
____4/17___-______-____146.5__2.897
____4/30___-______-____142.5__2.829
____4/30__909___909.5__177.1__3.076
Totals_____909___909.5__923.8__18.401

923.8/909 = 1.01628 or 1.6%
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,411 Posts
PhilW said:
Brian here are the numbers.
It looks like there may have been an error in recording on the second 4/30 trip.

You were averaging 50.3MPG (not counting the first fill-up or that 4/30 fill-up), which is good but reasonable for highway mileage on the 650s, but on that trip the numbers given -- 177.1 miles and 3.076 gallons would be 57.57MPG, which is very high for a 650. It would be more likely to use 3 gallons in 160 miles, rather than 177.

Keep track for a few more fill-ups, and I suspect that the numbers will match if you exclude that trip. That's to say, the current discrepancy is 14.8 miles, and if the difference stays at 14.8 miles then we'll know.

That still doesn't explain why you started noticing the gap earlier, but it's a start.

HTH.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
127 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
Brian, I agree the most logical explanation is that I recorded something incorrectly earlier. That said, I can hardly believe it but who knows?

The 177.1 was correct though. If you notice I had another run of 56.7 mpg on 4/10 and today I went 158.9 on 2.86 gal or 55.56. All three were similar runs of mostly rural highways (169 and 410) at pretty steady speeds of 45-55mph. I can only guess that is showing the effect of the OD as compared to earlier model years? Since these runs are also up into the mountains makes you wonder what it would be getting on the flat?
By the way did not see any variance in the meters today.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,411 Posts
PhilW said:
...If you notice I had another run of 56.7 mpg on 4/10 and today I went 158.9 on 2.86 gal or 55.56. All three were similar runs of mostly rural highways (169 and 410) at pretty steady speeds of 45-55mph. I can only guess that is showing the effect of the OD as compared to earlier model years? ...
Ah, I forgot about that. I really want an '05 to play with. I'd love to see 55+ MPG on a regular basis.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
761 Posts
You can't. Remember, the trip meter's MPG only calculates up to 50mpg.

heheheheheeeee
jk

I too noticed a better fuel mpg when traveling windy curvy roads averaging about 45 mph but also doing alot of ups and downs with the throttle as compared to straight out highway speeds above 65mph.

I think it is possible for these new 2005 models to get better than 50mpg since my first overall average was 45mpg, but then after my next fillup, the overall trip average was 48mpg. So, I had to get 50mpg or better to raise that overall average up.

But, it sounds like that maybe the OD works better in the low ranges than at the long-term major highway speeds. Dunno.

We are all still experimenting.

Weren't the 2003/04 650 models getting less than 50mpg as an overall average?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,411 Posts
captainfish said:
...Weren't the 2003/04 650 models getting less than 50mpg as an overall average?
In 9,750 miles of ownership, with mostly highway riding, I'm averaging 47MPG. On my trip to Mexico last summer I got 51MPG on one leg of around 200 miles at 65MPH steady.

I forget who, but one '05 owner has reported getting 55+ MPG on a couple of tanks.
 
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
Top