VTR1000.ORG

I worry when tony stick fuel in his bike!!!!!!!!!!


as he sometimes forgets and we have to stop at the roadside and syphon fuel out of other bikes

Yeah but I nearly sorted it for him with a fag end!

I only bought the SP2 as it comes with a 19ltr tank....

tony.mon wrote:I only bought the SP2 as it comes with a 19ltr tank....

Picked the wrong bike mate, should have bought a Honda X-11 comes with a 22 ltr tank.

tony.mon wrote:I only bought the SP2 as it comes with a 19ltr tank....

I dont know if thats any bigger than the SP1s but the SP1s thirst and fuel tank range cost my friend 130 euro when he run out of gas one Sunday evening on the autoroute.

[url]

My GSXR was low but I could have made the next fuel stop.

We have done many European trips over the years, my friend is a Honda fan and has done it on a selection of Blades, both FI and carb'd, a VFR800 and this SP1.

All of them have cost 3-5 euro more at the pumps at the same speed as my Suzukis(Busa, a couple of GSXR750s and 2 x 1000s), the Busa infact is barely turning over at 100-120MPH and was vastly more fuel efficient at these speeds than the 929cc Blade he took one year.

Honda deffo have the worse fuel consumption from what ive seen.

That's the thing, I am the one out of my mates who has bought Honda's and my mates have always bought Yamaha's or Kawasaki and they have always been much more fuel efficient that any of my Honda's.

I usually get 100 miles out of a tank, but by then my knees need a stretch anyway. You pay your money and take your choice - All that instant torque has to come from somewhere

I find it hard to ride at a constant throttle on the 'storm. Its too much fun giving it a handful - Maybe this is part of the bike's poor reputation with economy?

VTR_Dude wrote:I usually get 100 miles out of a tank, but by then my knees need a stretch anyway. You pay your money and take your choice - All that instant torque has to come from somewhere

I find it hard to ride at a constant throttle on the 'storm. Its too much fun giving it a handful - Maybe this is part of the bike's poor reputation with economy?

I don't know, my mate used to rag the crap outta his Z1000 and got better fuel economy than my Hornet 900, even his R6 made my bikes look like heavy drinkers.

My X11 drinks fuel, especially when used for work, the fuel light comes on from around 110 miles.

I have an old R6 (year 2000) and even ragging it (which is the only way it can be ridden) it gets well over 50 mpg. I'm pleased to get 38 from the Storm. But, hey, "the largest carburetors ever fitted to a production motorcycle" so I've read. If you wany fuel economy you're doing it all wrong.

I'm guessing words like "economy" when it comes to fuel consumption where not high on the list when it comes to bikes with "R" or "Sports" in the name/title

Chris.

sirch345 wrote:I'm guessing words like "economy" when it comes to fuel consumption where not high on the list when it comes to bikes with "R" or "Sports" in the name/title

Chris.

yes and no, if its bought for playing with during the summer at weekends, then I wouldn't care less, but when your touring I would say yes, just because it has "R" and "sports" in the title it doesn't mean it has to be thirsty beyond belief, just as other manufacturers have proven.

While not known for economy I believe the VTR is on par with other liter sport twins though some of the numbers posted to seem pretty low, unless you guys are constantly wringing the bikes neck every time you ride.
Then again I have also seen some numbers that appear exceptionally high and wonder how they do it.

In my experience, with a VTR, the fuel economy is tied directly to how high you rev the engine and what your shift points are.
Putter around and they get pretty good mileage, give them the beans and they suck fuel but you really should never get less than 30mpg

A big contributor to the "bad fuel mileage" reputation is due to the fact that it is very easy to get these bikes too rich, IMHO.
They run surprising well in this condition but also can use an amazing amount of fuel.

8541Hawk wrote:
A big contributor to the "bad fuel mileage" reputation is due to the fact that it is very easy to get these bikes too rich, IMHO.
They run surprising well in this condition but also can use an amazing amount of fuel.

A valid point but when you look at my post above, taking into account thousands of miles , ridden at the same/simialr speed everywhere, autoroute to N roads, with various Hondas of a similar era and cc, all taking several euros more to fill up at exactly the same time, the evidence is pretty clear to me, they do use more fuel.

You wouldnt normally notice it blatting around in the UK ( I certainly wpouldnt) but after many, many fuel stops , back to back, it does highlight it, not that it would (or has) put me off buying one.