35mpg on an "05 KLR 650?!!!

**distancerider** · #1 18 Jul 2006

I'm 160lbs. 5'5" ride with about 30lbs of add-ons and with about 60lbs of luggage. Average speed is about 70mph and my mpg SUCKS!!! Even when I first got it and had no extras or luggage, I still never got any better then 38-42mpg. I had the first service at about 1000miles and was told that it did not need the valves adjusted. Everything else has been done religiously (oil/filter, air filter, spark plug, coolant change, 91 octane) And I'm still getting lousy MPG what else can I do? It's now it's creeping up to 13k miles and nothing has changed. I'm seriously thinking of getting rid of it and buying the F 650. But I hear so many of you guys are getting as much as 55mpg...what's wrong with my bike?!

Thanx ahead 4 any advice,

Greg

**AndyT** · #2 19 Jul 2006

My '00, loaded up at Interstate speed, get low to mid 40's mpg. Putting around town I have got as much as 60. Speed is expensive.

**PatOnTrip** · #3 20 Jul 2006

Hi Greg!

I also get 55mpg with my bike fully loaded. I have 2 big alu box and a bag on the back (more then 100lbs). But I ride at 90km/h. One thing I have done is that I raised the needle slightly.

Pat

**Simon Kennedy** · #4 20 Jul 2006

Yeah it is the speed. All the guys I met on KLRs stuck at 60mph religiously on the highway. Single trailies aren't made for highways really. They can do it, but 70mph is a bit on the fast side. That poor piston is bashing away something rotton.

Having said that, fully laden, as you are, my Transalp twin is the same for fuel efficiency as your KLR. I can hear/feel the main jet in the carb taking up the squirting job in earnest once I hit 93 km/h, and then the reality of one pound a litre becomes all the more real for me.

Fuel injection bikes are different though.

Simon

**JonStobbs** · #5 21 Jul 2006

I'm not very "au-fait" with KLR's but are the later ones fitted with cat exhausts?If they are then the first thing i'd do is to weigh the damn cat in for scrap! I know for other bikes and cars that a de-cat exhaust will give a marked improvement in MPG and performance.Silly isn't it....a cat is supposed to make the vehicle "cleaner" but uses more fuel!

**distancerider** · #6 21 Jul 2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonStobbs

I'm not very "au-fait" with KLR's but are the later ones fitted with cat exhausts?If they are then the first thing i'd do is to weigh the damn cat in for scrap! I know for other bikes and cars that a de-cat exhaust will give a marked improvement in MPG and performance.Silly isn't it....a cat is supposed to make the vehicle "cleaner" but uses more fuel!

Excuse my ignorance, just making sure I understood you JonStobbs...

Thanks again!

**JonStobbs** · #7 21 Jul 2006

Yes the same....something to do with our funny language over here! Cat exhaust = catalytic converter

**narly** · #8 11 Aug 2006

For what it's worth, I rode from calgary to Port Renfrew. More than 3000k in 6 days over a variety of terrian and speeds. Here's the result. Carrying me at 6 feet 3 inches and 180 lb, with all travel gear the 2003 klr did as follows:
Traveling through mountains at 90 to 100k (55 to 60 mph) gave 4.7 to 4.3 liters per 100k (50 to 52 miles per us gallon).
Running at 110 to 120k (roughly 70 mph) over a high mountain pass in cold weather, used 7.4 liter/ 100k (that's 32.2 mpg US.)
As you can see, up to 60 mph, the klr is good on gas. Upward of that, you pay for the time you gain.
This is the point of a dual purpose. You can go down trails or superslab, but there still is no free lunch. If I expected to do primarly highway, I would look for a fuel effecient multi-cylinder.
I like the overall ability of a klr, not any specific aspect.

Peace,

Narly