tsladden wrote:
Road_Hawg wrote:
I would like to comment to all who have posted that MPG is not a concern to them. There have been a couple or more. If you would think it through, MPG is more than it appears. It is an indication of how the engine is running. I am concerned about MPG because it tells me if the fuel mixture is adjusted correctly. If everyone is getting 40 to 50 MPG and I am getting 18 MPG, yes, that is a concern for me. Something is very different there, and I want to know why. As it turns out, it appears my low fuel mileage was due to the fact my bike was new. As mileage increased and it got broken in, fuel mileage increased.

Due to engine milage, actual curb weight, riding conditions and rider habits, going by what other get MPG wise isn't necessarily a very good barometer. I keep a loose track on what I am getting in case it changes drastically. I guess I missed where you were getting 18 mpg. I think the lowest I saw you post was about 24-28 mpg, and on the worst tank it appears you ran a new/tight eingine over 100 mph, so all bets are off. IMHO

I have been a mechanic for 30 years. Tight engine? No, they are not tight. That is a common misconception. A thinking in the obsolete way of doing things. In the old days, yes, engines were tight because they were not machined with the tolerances that they are today. The break in actually finished the machining process. In reality, the engine of today is machined with much closer tolerances and additionally has already undergone break in running. A few short full throttle applications done at certain intervals on a new bike or anything with an engine will actually help the rings to seat better and the engine to run stronger and faster throughout it's life. And the 18 MPG was on the first tank. It progressively got better after I ran it to over 100 MPH a few times. The fuel mileage data you see in this thread was actually started on my third or fourth tank of gas.

BREAKIN SECRETS