| Author | Message | ||
     Zpyro |
I get about 110-115 miles per tank, that's completely full til when the gas light comes on (~3 gallons) | ||
| Thepod |
I get the same as Zypro. 2008 scg, I love the bike, but I don't love the mileage right now, especially with the price of gas | ||
| Zpyro |
say what? 40mpg isn't good mileage? these aren't Blasts ya know... | ||
| Thepod |
No, 40mpg isn't good gas mileage. Not when you're getting popping and backfiring, and not when the bike is listed as getting between 48-65 in the specs. I'm going to give it to the 1000 service and then see if anything can be done. I have 500 miles on it now. Hopefully it will start to get better. | ||
| Azxb9r |
40 mpg would not be bad if the bike was advertised as getting 40-45 mpg, but when it is advertised at 48-65, then 40 is not good. My 07 regularly gets 50-60 mpg. If I do a lot of short trips, it can dip into the low 40s, but on highway trips it can get as high as 65-70 mpg. If you are only getting 110-115 miles per tank, that is lower than it should be capable of. | ||
| Arctic_firebolt |
I am new here and this is my first post in a relentless effort to find out what is going wrong. Three weeks ago I purchased a 2008 XB12R. Now my fourth consecutive Harley-Davidson product,'95 883, '99FatBoy, '03 Night Train, I picked the Buell for several reasons over a Triumph Speed Triple. MPG was ONE of those reasons. The posted MPG for this bike was 48/65 after reading countless posts and articles online I felt I would see over 50MPG for my conservative riding habits and 70% Hwy 30% City. Not So Much!!! I am getting 38 - 42 MAX!!! I am quite unhappy. Is this mis-representation? I just finished break-in and took the bike to the dealer I bought it from and had the 1K service done and went with synthetic oil and Primary chaincase lube. I explained the low mileage and got, IMHO, a very poor explanation. average the city and hwy and multiply by 80% for real world MPG. Really? None of my cars give me those numbers. My 2003 Night Train does 43MPG religiously on the same exact trip same Premium unleaded 93 Octane fuel with K&N Filter, SuperTrapp Mean Mother Drags and according to the the dealer that sold it to me, re-mapped FI to match the components they installed. So why the low MPG on the Buell? Mine is 100% stock at the moment and I broke it in like every other bike I have owned, GENTLY! One thing I am hell bent on finding out is that all of you 2006 and some 2007 owners are boasting numbers well over 50MPG. What has changed that I don't know about? | ||
| Werewulf |
if your 08 runs good, be happy.. many of them dont.. i would gladly trade my 45 mpg, if it didnt run like crap in traffic... | ||
| Arctic_firebolt |
So you think I should simply settle as long as it runs? I think I can get that from almost any manufacturer. Go after them dude! Don't put up with that! There is a Lemon Law you know. I have had a few issues in traffic as well. I just figured, new bike, break-in time, etc. Now that the 1K is done I will follow up on anything that doesn't work right. 23 years in Customer Service I can be the worst customer that ever lived. | ||
| Jaimec |
From what I understand, in '08 Buell went with a new FI system; different from previous years. This MPG complaint is also common on the 1125r board (uses the same system). | ||
| Thepod |
Has anyone spoke with a Buell rep about a FI remap? Something needs to be done. Who has an inside connection? | ||
| Bikertrash05 |
My '08 runs good, gets good mileage, HOWEVER, the speedo/odo is about 7-8% slow. Does the reflash cover a speed recalibration? | ||
| Arctic_firebolt |
Correct. I did read that the the re-mappped FI was one thing that changed for 2008. The bike has the same torque, same HP and still posts the same MPG. Is that possible? I wonder what the benefits of the changed mapping were? Being new to Buell I have no idea or past reference. I did however find some additional info here: http://forums.prophecy.co.za/f69/2008-buell-thurderstorm-engine-changes-38473/ (Message edited by Arctic_Firebolt on July 05, 2008) (Message edited by Arctic_Firebolt on July 05, 2008) | ||
| Zpyro |
"40 mpg would not be bad if the bike was advertised as getting 40-45 mpg, but when it is advertised at 48-65, then 40 is not good." you guys do realize that the EPA advertised MPG ratings are pretty much NEVER accurate, right? they aren't accurate for cars, and they aren't accurate for bikes. it also completely depends on your riding/driving habits. my ~40mpg is pretty much all city riding, lots of idling at stoplights, lots of short trips around town, lots of riding in the hills hauling ass. I haven't taken any long trips where I went the speed limit to maximize my MPG (my highway trips average 80mph), so I don't know how much the true, absolute best highway mileage is. but considering the city rating is 48mpg and I get 40mpg with a bunch of riding habits that should make my mileage much less, I've got no complaints. I also can't complain when it costs ~$15 to completely fill the tank, and it would cost closer to $60 to fill up my car's tank (and it gets half the mpg the bike does) (Message edited by zpyro on July 05, 2008) | ||
| Arctic_firebolt |
Well Zpyro I respectfully disagree. Both of our cars get within 5 MPG of the posted numbers. I do keep mileage logs on my VW Diesel and track it constantly. Also, if this bike was advertised as 40 -45 MPG I probably would have kept on walking because my 2003 Night Train gets 43 MPG consistently. So, you can see how I was thinking 55 MPG would be real world on the Buell, with it's posted numbers. Also, I am using mine to commute to work at 84 miles round trip I need gas every one and half trips and that's pathetic. My low fuel light comes on at 105 - 110 miles. Also, I have tried to run this bike at the speed limit and below specifically to check the MPG and then compared it to riding approx 75 MPH with results of 38 - 42 MPG. Here in Florida my commute is a rather flat, straight and boring. There's something wrong with the bike or Buell is Full of S%$T!!! | ||
| Mesozoic |
Does the reflash cover a speed recalibration? I'm not convinced that anyone with an '08 that's had their bike reflashed knows exactly what it did. I've noticed that my engine runs a bit smoother at low RPMs for sure. I'm not sure it fixed anything with regards to fuel economy, although I seem to be getting closer to 40mpg now than I was previously. For the record, I used ECMSpy 1.12.1 to pull the tune off before the flash and I could read everything. After the dealership flashed the bike, the tune is not legible. | ||
| Werewulf |
believe me, if my states lemon law covered motorcycles, i would be all over it...my dealer is excellent, but out of options for a fix and the factory customer service rep was a joke...i knew i would get the old "weve never heard of that problem" line... i keep waiting for someone to come up with a fix...from about 3k rpm up, it runs fine and gets pretty good gas mileage... around town, its a pain in the Ashe, to have to slip the clutch, just to take off from a traffic signal.... some days it runs better than others..my lowly S-3 is an all around better performer on the street.. when its 90 degrees outside, it should not cough and stall when i start it up and take off from my driveway... (Message edited by werewulf on July 05, 2008) (Message edited by werewulf on July 05, 2008) | ||
| Mesozoic |
If you folks are complaining about roughness under 3K, that's because of the cam, I believe. I think it's a really lumpy camshaft that makes the bike run pretty poorly in the lower RPM ranges, but that's how it manages to make big power up top. I'm used to this on some of my cars too. | ||
| Werewulf |
the cam has nothing to do with its inability to function in normal traffic, its a map issue...a cam doesnt cause it to cough and surge when cold... you shouldnt have to burn your clutch to take off in traffic... i had an 03 xb with 23k miles on it and it never missed a beat...you could fire it up at any temperature and ride... i rode my buds 06 xb and it runs flawlessly... | ||
| Mesozoic |
All I know is that I've run some very aggressive cams in my Mustangs over the past 15 years and I know how difficult they are in low speed situations. You're right, perhaps your engine has a problem with it, but radical cams do surge a lot. A radical cam is simply not designed to run at peak efficiency in the lower RPM ranges, so that's why it has a very lumpy idle, tip in is sort of weak, and you have to rev it up a bit to get it rolling. If you haven't had the reflash done to your '08, do it. I had to ask them to hook it up to the Digital Tech, specifically. They will not do this themselves... you have to ask. This resolved my low speed driveability coughing issues a lot. Also, the older XB engines are quite a bit different. Cam profile, crankshaft, oil system, many aspects have been upgraded. The '08 is the first year of the new powertrain so I'm sure it will take a year or so to work out the kinks. | ||
| Zpyro |
new powertrain? or just updated FI system..? | ||
| Mesozoic |
The '08's got transmission updates, crankshaft updates (pin went from 1.25 to 1.50"), camshaft changes, oil system upgrades to feed the larger crankpin, and quite a bit more. So it's a considerably updated version of the XB powertrain in addition to the evolution of DDFI from 2 to 3. | ||
| Arctic_firebolt |
Well from all the additional information here it seems that there were enough changes in 2008 to warrant possible problems as the drive train has been somewhat reconfigured. My bike seems to run fine but I do need to raise the RPM's a little before I take off at a light. I have managed to stall it twice not doing so. What should we do? MY dealer tells me everything is normal too. Does anyone here work for Buell? Perhaps he or she could open a door for us. It's already July. The '09's should be here within 2 months. Hopefully that will shed a little light on the subject. I sure hope 2008 doesn't turn out to be the bad apple of the bunch. Meanwhile I will just keep watching my dollars fly out the exhaust. | ||
| Werewulf |
im getting ready to install an xb9 primary gear, to try and mask the P poor performance... its just a band-aid, but im ticked and out of options...there are days when the off line bog isnt that bad, but on hot days, it seems worse..it ran better for a while after the reflash and the plug wires were replaced, but its back to its old self. (Message edited by werewulf on July 05, 2008) | ||
| Joenuclear |
"Meanwhile I will just keep watching my dollars fly out the exhaust." You should really just sell the bike. Or you could, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unkIVvjZc9Y | ||
| Arctic_firebolt |
Sell it Joenuclear? It's not even 4 weeks old yet. I dread the thought of how much I would lose on it as well. I sure hope it doesn't come to that......but it could. But the video was funny! and I plan to Harden the F%$K up, with the Buell dealer. LOL! On another note, hey Werewulf I think we Floridians are victim of some really bad gas. I read we should be gassing up in the morning when it is cooler and the fuel is more dense. I also, tried 89 Octane the middle grade stuff tonight for the first time. Nothing. No difference what so ever. I have about 50+ miles on it already and that is almost 1/2 tank for me. I don't hear any pinging and performance seems the same. After I burn it through I will try regular 87 Octane. Currently I am convinced our so-called-Premium here in Florida is garbage! What's worse is few people buy it so who knows what we're really getting or how old it is. I think the Ethanol content is higher than 10% too. 1100 miles and this was the first tank I did not fill with Premium fuel. (Message edited by arctic_firebolt on July 06, 2008) | ||
| Werewulf |
i got 45 mpg today and can live with that...if i could just get rid of the off idle bog i would be happy.. | ||
| Mesozoic |
Man, I've run that 10% ethanol crap in my truck before and besides being environmentally UNFRIENDLY since it consumes more resources to produce that crap, I got the worst fuel economy I've ever seen my truck get. Definitely stay away from that stuff. I refuse to go anywhere but Chevron for fuel for my bike. Second choice would be 76. | ||
| Joenuclear |
+1 on ethanol giving less MPG. When I can find 93 octane it usually has no ethanol and is good for 2-3 mpg better than 91 octane with the corn juice. Several states jumped on the Green wagon and passed laws requiring 10% ethanol. With record rains in the corn belt the price of corn is at an all time high. Expect fuel prices in those states to reflect the rising cost of corn. Once again we will pay the price for "feel good " legislation. BTW, I'm consistently getting 44-45 MPG on my XT with the latest reflash. | ||
| Mesozoic |
Once again we will pay the price for "feel good " legislation. Slightly off topic, but it still baffles me as to how the legislature passed grain biofuel as an environmentally feasible alternative. | ||
| Thespive |
What is the complaint? I have a 2006 XB9SX I bought new and regularly see 45mpg, I have had some tanks more, some takes less. I have seen over 50 only once and I am not mad. i thought that was normal. --Sean |
