I was looking for the MPG of a 1975 Honda CB360T (thinking about buying one for $600 as a rat bike for city use) and i found this list. The Ducati 1098 is listed as one of the worst mileage bikes along with Triumphs Big 1200cc cruisers, i cant believe the triumph rocket isnt on there, it might be even lower on the list.
http://hubpages.com/hub/MPG-Guide-The-700-Top-Selling-Motorcycles
60mpg for the 360T! Can anyone verify this?
Interesting... [coffee]
The CB360 was the first road bike I owned. Not sure whether mine was a "T", but yes, a parallel twin. I think a 74 or 75 model, bought it second hand in late '76 for - strangely enough - $600.
Can't remember the fuel consumption rate but it certainly wasn't 60mpg in US gals. In fact I'm pretty sure it did less than that in Oz gals, which means less than 50mpg US. Had a range I seem to remember of about 200km (125 miles). Ran out of fuel on the highway a couple of times. Consumption rate increased dramatically with speed.
Can't say I'd recommend one. Front end just didn't want to stick. Carburation with early CVs pretty weird. But could work as a rate bike I suppose.
Good luck.
I took a look at the list and the numbers comport pretty well with everything I've seen in my experience with the listed bikes.
That includes the less than stellar mileage all Ducatis get.
I said it the other day, considering the $600 it takes to even get a "Ducati Mech" to just take a look at one, the gazillion $$$$ mods, the way my bike eats $150 tires like I eat potatoe chips and the generally poor gas mileage, one doesn't ride a Ducati for the economy of it.
That said, I could ride anything else, but don't.
LA
I just saw a 2003 Monster 620 Dark that had been in the local ad paper for $4500. The kid had run the wheels right off of it and droped it about half a dozen times. He had the decemal point in the wrong place as it was worth about $450. I'll have to keep looking ofr an afordable Duck! [moto]
I had a Honda 350 twin way back when and I remember being realy pissed off when the 360 came out and it got way better milage, so I think that website is close to rigth. If you check they have pages for each bike and all of the bikes are their with a range for each. The Trump Rocket gets 36.
Their numbers are way off on the Ducatis I have ridden. I get 50 mpg on the 2000 M900, 48-50 mpg out of the ST4, and 47 mpg out of the S4R. The 1098 is close at 33 mpg but I have gotten as high as 42 mpg.
Quote from: BizarroBob on July 19, 2008, 12:32:50 PM
Their numbers are way off on the Ducatis I have ridden. I get 50 mpg on the 2000 M900, 48-50 mpg out of the ST4, and 47 mpg out of the S4R. The 1098 is close at 33 mpg but I have gotten as high as 42 mpg.
I agree that the numbers seem to be off, as they list the 2006 S2R-1000 at 35-39mpg and I have no problem getting 50 when riding it easy, and even after a hard day off riding twisties I'm usually at 40mpg.
I think the mileage is a combination of city/hwy. so its more of a realistic avg, than a high or low. With dirty urban riding, and 40% freeway, i get about 35-40mpg. on straight highway cruise full tuck, i rencetly acheived 54mpg. And i bet i could do more if i wasnt going on and off on the gas.
It lists the Monster 695 at 40 to 45 mpg. I've been consistantly getting 49 to 52 mpg since I've had it... the first few takes riding very conservatively and recently have been getting on the throttle a whole lot more.
I think it is off too. My S2R never got worse than 42MPG in the year I owned it with all kinds of riding and my 848 has never gotten worse than 40. While I do not spend all my time above 7K RPM, I certainly do not baby my bikes so I am probably representative of a good cross of city and highway.
That list is wacked, I constantly get 48 to 56 mpg on my ST2.
Do you think the owners of the other brands are also complaining that their real-life millage is better than represented? I wouldn't be surprised if the conservative numbers were common to all marques.
The numbers seems pretty accurate to me, all three of my bikes fell within their mpg category.