| Author | Message | ||
     Mueller |
I am curious as to what you guys think the cause is and if anyone else has had a similar experience... Prior to the 10,000 service, my XB12Ss would get low to mid 40 MPG in town and about the same ripping around the back roads. It would get 53-56 MPG on the highway with 91 or 93 octane respectively. Then, I did the 10,000 mile service. The things I think might be important are: Both holes switched from Harley oil to Amsoil! New tires New wheel bearings (they were stiff and starting to get a little rough) Exhaust actuator replaced (since it only was going 1/3 of its travel) Correct heat plugs installed (not sure why, but it had the hotter plugs in it) TPS reset AFV reset to 100% (was 93.7%) BTW, the bike is bone stock. The first tank of fuel was 80% ripping around on the back roads, 20% in town. The bike got almost 49 MPG. I checked the AFV afterwards and it was still at 100% Today I did a nice 180 mile run, about 95% main and back roads roads (no highway) and 5% in town. The bike got 54 MPG on 91 octane. I checked the AFV afterwards and it was back to 93.4% I am thinking it is mostly the Amsoil. Two tanks can't be a fluke. What do you guys think? | ||
| Froggy |
There you go. TPS might of helped too, as if it wasn't correct it wouldn't be fueling correctly. Tires will have a huge impact on your fuel economy, which tires did you have before, what do you have now? The biggest factor is tire pressure, if you were low on pressure, it increases rolling resistance and as result lowers fuel economy. A good 50-55PSI will give you a nice fuel economy boost. Also, if your wheelbearings are stiff, they are providing more rolling resistance and friction, which also robs power and fuel economy. The oil change itself would only have a minimal effect on fuel economy, assuming the oil was worn out and not providing proper lubrication, as result more friction and power loss. | ||
| Mueller |
The last set of tires were the battlax BT-021. They were replaced with BT-023 since the 21s were discontinued. I always keep the tires at whatever it says on the frame, don't remember off the top of my head. I'd buy the wheel bearings making a difference, but friction-wise that would seem negligible to me relative to all the extra friction possible in the engine with lack of proper lubrication. I know there are huge differences in oil relative to friction. I know amsoil makes some damn good oil and I have never heard anything good about standard harley oil. I was just running it since that's what the dealer put in. The other thing leading me to believe it is oil related is that the bike seems to be running cooler. It is 86F here today. When I stopped to fill up, the fan didn't even kick on. That never happens. Less friction, less heat, right? Or I could just be biased to the oil since I work in hydraulics??? | ||
| Syonyk |
I've claimed fuel economy improvements with Amsoil as well, and pretty much got shouted down... at the time, I was riding the same route, in the same traffic, every day, and was seeing long term improvements. *shrug* It's your bike, attribute it to what you want to. You did a bunch of stuff that should help improve fuel economy, so in aggregate, they apparently helped. | ||
| Froggy |
I monitor my fuel economy religiously due to my hypermiling. I have never seen a measurable difference in fuel economy due to oil, and I've run Syn3, Amsoil, Harley dino oil, Mobile 1, and Royal Purple. For what its worth, my XB got 75MPG on Syn3, and my 1125R was also running Syn3 when it got 54MPG last fall. If the oil does make a difference, I haven't seen it on 4 different bikes and 50,000 combined miles that have logs for nearly every single tank of gas. | ||
| Mueller |
Was just curious. Looks like at least one other person has had a similar experience. Hard to argue with the hypermileage numbers though Froggy. Maybe only us regular mileagers might see a difference? I check fuel mileage every tank in everything I own. I am usually consistent within 1-1.5 MPG in cages and 2-3 MPG on the bike in similar circumstances. The only variance is usually when we switch to and from winter blend fuel, when I come across a bad gas station, or if something is starting to go wrong. This change in the bike doesn't fit any of those. I recently switched to Amsoil in my little Pontiac G5. That thing is always very consistent. I guess we'll see... | ||
| Spacecapsule1 |
Hey froggy.... what speed u usually run to get the best mileage? | ||
| Froggy |
The XB12 does best at 55-60mph in 5th gear based on my testing. In general that is about how fast I normally travel on all vehicles, as it is a good compromise between speed and fuel economy. Every vehicle has its sweet spot depending on the engine and the gearing, but in general its somewhere in the 50MPH range. My 1125R does better at 65MPH than 55, while the 1125CR likes it better at 55. My Blast seems to like 50MPH the best. (Message edited by Froggy on July 04, 2011) | ||
| Spacecapsule1 |
.........how about octane? I don't seem to notice any fuel mileage difference between 87 and 93 octane gas. Have you? | ||
| Froggy |
All my bikes are tuned for 91 minimum so I don't run 87. A few years ago there was a gas shortage in the south, all you could get was 87, I ran my XB on it, it seemed fine with no pinging, but that was before I started recording fuel economy so I don't have any numbers for you. I'll give it a shot for a few tanks and see what happens, I've read on hypermiling forums that if you run 93 on a car meant for 87 you will get lower fuel economy due to the gas being harder to burn, but if you run 87 in a car designed for 93 you will get lower fuel economy due to the knock sensors retarding the engine timing to prevent damage. No Buell has a knock sensor, so I'll give it a try and see if I notice any pinging or any changes in fuel economy. | ||
| Spacecapsule1 |
thanks. I've tried it and didn't notice any difference other than normal tank to tank variation. Hey i remember waiting in LONG lines to get gas during that fuel shortage. the ol' network would go out in search of fuel during odd hours and call back to the rest of the crew to come get in line. usually 87 was out and we could only get the expensive stuff though. makes you realize how dependent we are on the stuff!  | ||
| Syonyk |
If you have fixed ignition timing (the Buells do), you will get best fuel economy on the lowest octane that doesn't ping. My old CX500 was much happier on 87 than on 91 - it didn't ping on 87, made better power, and ran better in general. If you can run the XB on 87 without pinging, it should improve fuel economy slightly - lower octane fuel burns faster. My major concern would be temperature - just because it doesn't ping normally doesn't mean it might not get into detonation territory if you're stuck in traffic on a hot day and then get on it. Just be gentle on the engine if it's really hot and you've got low octane in. | ||
| Greg_e |
You would need to retard the ignition to make the lower rated fuel work reliably without ping. If you are just cruising this would be fine but for performance you would lose a lot of horsepower. Cut maximum ignition advance back to about 20 degrees and give it a try, maybe start at 10 and go farther from there. | ||
| Mueller |
I don't know, apparently my bike defies the octane game too. Like I said above, I religiously check fuel mileage. Highway is the only time I experimented with different octane ranges, so very consistent 70ish MPH. Here are the results: With 91, I get 53 +/- .5 With 93, I get 56 +/- .5 With 93 10% ethanol, I am back to 53 +/- .5 This is with 2-3 tanks each. Is my sample size just too small? | ||
| Deanh8 |
"The XB12 does best at 55-60mph in 5th gear based on my testing. In general that is about how fast I normally travel on all vehicles, as it is a good compromise between speed and fuel economy. Every vehicle has its sweet spot depending on the engine and the gearing, but in general its somewhere in the 50MPH range. My 1125R does better at 65MPH than 55, while the 1125CR likes it better at 55. My Blast seems to like 50MPH the best. " what RPM's are we talking for those of us who dont have stock gearing... | ||
| Spacecapsule1 |
Buell's don't have knock sensors so they can't take advantage of various octanes. If you're using 93 you're wasting money in my opinion unless you have your ECM tuned that way. I've run 87-93 with my stock and Erik Buell Racing ecm and there's no difference in performance or economy that I can tell during the 11.5k miles that i've tracked. | ||
| Natexlh1000 |
At sea level, I can get away with 89 so long as it's not too hot and I'm not hauling passenger. I haven't tried 87 yet since 89 is close to "the edge" of my bike's envelope. BTW, My X1 will ping off the line on 92octane on a cold day and has ever since new. Every production engine is just a little different. | ||
| Blake |
What grade was the Harley oil and what grade is the new Amsoil? That is likely the reason. Lower viscosity oil is a huge boost to overall engine efficiency. It takes a lot more HP to pump thicker oil than it does thin oil. Think of sucking water versus honey through a straw. | ||
| Mueller |
They were both 20W50, but the amsoil seemed much less tar-like than the harley standard oil. | ||
| Spacecapsule1 |
Froggy has it been a few weeks yet? Me tinks so..... | ||
| Froggy |
Whoops! I did one (1) tank on my 1125R with regular, it didn't like it (pinged when getting on it, not even WOT) so I ended my testing after that. Fuel economy on that tank was 45.1MPG. My average over the last 3 months has been 43.4MPG, so I can't come to any conclusive answers based on one tank.
Won't matter, as with different gearing your sweet spot is different. Anyway, about 2500-3000RPM. | ||
| Spacecapsule1 |
I've run 4 tanks of 93. Mileage was down to 41 avg from the 45avg of the 87 octane. | ||
| Dhays1775 |
i don't really track mileage too often on my 12r. i use it to commute to work and rip on out in the foot hills. when i do keep track, i usually average 45-49 usually going 70-80 on the freeway. if i milk it (driving like a wuss) i can get between 65 and 69. but i'd prefer to have smiles when i ride. oh yeah, and i have the 9 gearing as well. | ||
| Terrys1980 |
So your saying its possible to get 200 miles between fill ups on a 12? | ||
| Froggy |
Yes, I've gone 240 miles before seeing the gas light, and even then it was doing the flicker on and off every minute thing. That is on a 4.4 gallon frame though. | ||
| Terrys1980 |
On a Lightning long, yes but not a R. I was questioning Dhays on the 65-69 mpg on his 12R. Ever since I got my 9R the gas light would come on around 135-140 miles but the last few times I went up to 150 without the light coming on. I hope I don't have to pull the fuel pump and swap the low fuel level sensor. | ||
| Froggy |
Fuel light comes on at 3.3 gallons on the 3.8 gallon frame correct? 3.3 times 60mpg should net you 198 miles before seeing the light come on. At 140 miles before the light, you would be getting 42.42mpg | ||
| Terrys1980 |
Well next time I'll run it until it dies and see what I come up with. New tires can't make that much of a difference. | ||
| Spacecapsule1 |
ok now i'm on a mission to reach the coveted 200 mile mark. never once in 33k miles has it been done my 12. only problem is i'm afraid i'll get run down if i'm below 70 around here... | ||
| Xmxracer |
Space, ain't that the truth. Im in the OC and if I'm under 75mph I will get run over. BTW: I got 57mpg last tank. I think if I tuck in while riding and keep it at 65mph I could maybe get 60mpg or so. (Message edited by xmxracer on August 07, 2011) |
