Contact Overland Solutions for all your custom modifications and setup for overland travel.

Go Back   Horizons Unlimited - The HUBB > Technical, Bike forums > Suzuki Tech
DL650: realistic fuel consumption: experiences DL650: realistic fuel consumption: experiences
Register FAQ Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Suzuki Tech Suzuki Tech Forum - For Questions specific and of interest to Suzuki riders only. Questions comparing which bike is best etc go in the "Which Bike" forum.
With more than 58 destinations worldwide, Edelweiss Bike Travel is Number 1 in guided motorcycle tours!

Reply
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #16  
Old 29 Jul 2010
Contributing Member
Veteran HUBBer
  
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Rockhampton, Australia
Posts: 836
Quote:
Originally Posted by farqhuar View Post
No worries, I think the confusion is because I didn't state whether I meant imperial or US gallons. I meant imperial gallons, and 60mpg = 21km/l so that sounds pretty consistent with your good day numbers on a DL1000. Given I'm looking at the DL650 I'm pretty confident fuel consumption should be a little better.

I believe the tanks size is identical on both DLs so fuel range should also be
at least 400km (250 miles).
I have only ever had the 650, never a 1000
__________________
www.travellingstrom.com
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 29 Jul 2010
Registered Users
Veteran HUBBer
  
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Helsinki
Posts: 1,432
Quote:
Originally Posted by chris reid View Post
BUT... when riding fast, say around 110mph for long distances (full tank fulls) the economy was down to 38-40 MPG.
That is a surprising figure for a K7-model, you sure it is the twinspark version? If yes, then you must really be hammering it hard, because I´ve never got it to use so much. Not even 2-up on the German autobahn, where I normally keep 140-150 kms per hour (87-93 mph)on the meter, feels to me, with our load, that´s about the highest speed the engine is happy with (unless you alter gearing).

I believe it is possible the consumption could jump, if you really went 110mph, because that´s very close to its top speed, and this type of bike is not very aerodynamic, with a lot of luggage it is even less so.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 29 Jul 2010
farqhuar's Avatar
Registered Users
Veteran HUBBer
  
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Oztralia
Posts: 555
Quote:
Originally Posted by TravellingStrom View Post
I have only ever had the 650, never a 1000
Bloody hell, when I saw your Strom in Mitta Mitta I felt sure it was a 1000, but of course with your panniers obscuring the capacity stickers and the pipe rack acting as a pseudo second exhaust I now see why.

Thanks,
__________________
Garry from Oz - powered by Burgman
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 29 Jul 2010
Stormboy's Avatar
Registered Users
HUBB regular
  
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Tanah Merah QLD Australia.
Posts: 48
I've kept my records up to date on the ipod touch (App: Roadtrip Lite) , since I bought the bike new 6 months ago.

After 14,000 klms my average is 22.5 klms/litre.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 29 Jul 2010
ozhanu's Avatar
Contributing Member
Veteran HUBBer
  
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: New Haven, CT
Posts: 799
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warthog View Post
That works out at about 58-59 mpg (UK). Perhaps the earlier quotes were not far off, after all....

Karlsruhe:
I was riding past there last Thursday in hooooorrible weather on my way from Besancon to Rostock.

Thursday sucked...
it is still raining here. wishing to see the sun soon. drop me a line for a next time.
__________________
ozhan u.
website under construction
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 29 Jul 2010
Gold Member
Veteran HUBBer
  
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: London, England
Posts: 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warthog View Post
However, the few figures I've found suggest about the same consumtion as mine, but being submitted by American owners it might be the 3.79 litre US gallon, not the UK 4.5 litre gallon.
Corrected.
__________________
http://bigben.to/ London to....? The big bike annual rally.
http://www.mongolbikers.com 125cc London -> Mongolia.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 29 Jul 2010
Registered Users
Veteran HUBBer
  
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,400
Think I will stick to my Enfield. at 50-65mph I get 100Km per 3 litres which is 96MPG imperial

I have a 22 litre tank to fit sometime soon.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 30 Jul 2010
Contributing Vendor
Veteran HUBBer
  
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Tallinn, Estonia
Posts: 973
Quote:
Originally Posted by farqhuar View Post
I don't think its at odds at all. The primary reason cars have so much better fuel consumption, despite their increased weight and engine capacity, comes down to aerodynamics.

Even a fully faired bike has a much higher cd than even the least aerodynamic car. Combined with the generally higher state of tune of bike engines we will never be able to achieve comparable consumption per load figures.
It is not so much that bikes do badly compared to cars (although I still find it surprising, regardless of aerodynamics that an engine half the size and a chassis a 6th of the weight can't produce significanntly better consumption...), but rather bikes doing badly compared to bikes.

Modern bikes are not, on the whole, returning a good economy as they should given the improvements made in technology, efficiency within the engine etc...
__________________
Adventure: it's an experience, not a style!
(so ride what you like, but ride it somewhere new!)
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 31 Jul 2010
Contributing Member
Veteran HUBBer
  
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Rockhampton, Australia
Posts: 836
Quote:
Originally Posted by pecha72 View Post
That is a surprising figure for a K7-model, you sure it is the twinspark version? If yes, then you must really be hammering it hard, because I´ve never got it to use so much. Not even 2-up on the German autobahn, where I normally keep 140-150 kms per hour (87-93 mph)on the meter, feels to me, with our load, that´s about the highest speed the engine is happy with (unless you alter gearing).

I believe it is possible the consumption could jump, if you really went 110mph, because that´s very close to its top speed, and this type of bike is not very aerodynamic, with a lot of luggage it is even less so.

Yep, it is the twin spark, but I am usually heavily loaded and for some reason I always seem to ride with a headwind, no matter which way I go. It may be a combination of factors on top of that, including fuel quality and right hand grip
__________________
www.travellingstrom.com
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 2 Aug 2010
Registered Users
HUBB regular
  
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: aberdeen
Posts: 43
No, mine must be one of the last single spark strom's. But it will sit at 110mph all day if you want (appart from up hill of course) and I have had it down below 40mpg on more than one occasion, not that often though as I dont want to kill the bike or loose my licence!
Sitting at 90MPH it normally does 48mpg... this is all on long motorway journeys and I would be suprised if many bikes were much better on fuel on that kind of journey... ??
__________________
www.mainlyduesouth.com in support of the Colin McRae Vision
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 20 Aug 2010
adrian74's Avatar
Registered Users
Veteran HUBBer
  
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: U.K.
Posts: 120
Coming back from Ireland to UK a couple of years ago I pulled in to refuel after 250 mainly motorway miles (75-80 mph) because the last bar on the fuel gauge had been flashing for about 15 miles.
I was very surprised that it only took 17 liters to fill her up, especially as it has a 22 liter tank!
__________________
My trip to Millau (France) and back 2009.http://www.horizonsunlimited.com/hub...u-france-43474
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 21 Aug 2010
Registered Users
Veteran HUBBer
  
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,400
Quote:
Originally Posted by adrian74 View Post
Coming back from Ireland to UK a couple of years ago I pulled in to refuel after 250 mainly motorway miles (75-80 mph) because the last bar on the fuel gauge had been flashing for about 15 miles.
I was very surprised that it only took 17 liters to fill her up, especially as it has a 22 liter tank!
It has been my experience that fuel tanks lie.
My last BME supposedly had a 22 litre tank, but I could never put more than 18 litres in it with a fair bit of running in reserve,
My Enfield forces me to switch to reserve at about 230 miles and even after some miles of reserve I have yet to put 12 litres in the tank.

The odd thing is an 18 litre refill on the BMW does not get me any further than 10 litres on the Enfield
Last edited by oldbmw; 22 Aug 2010 at 13:34.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 22 Aug 2010
Registered Users
Veteran HUBBer
  
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 434
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warthog View Post
It is not so much that bikes do badly compared to cars (although I still find it surprising, regardless of aerodynamics that an engine half the size and a chassis a 6th of the weight can't produce significanntly better consumption...), but rather bikes doing badly compared to bikes.

Modern bikes are not, on the whole, returning a good economy as they should given the improvements made in technology, efficiency within the engine etc...
I think there are several reasons for this:

1. Aerodynamics as mentioned
2. Higher revving engine
3. Higher power to weight ratio often encourages uneconomical riding styles e.g. rapid acceleration-deceleration and hard braking...

On a pure efficiency measure, then engines are probably on a par with petrol car engines, less a bit for the higher revs...
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 23 Aug 2010
Registered Users
New on the HUBB
  
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Rochester, UK
Posts: 1
my DL650 '08 (twin spark)
Is about 10% more fuel efficient than my '05 in everyday use.

I last checked the '08 in France, solo, with luggage, over 1000 miles, and got 70.5 MPG (UK figs).

very happy with that.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 1 Sep 2010
GordYukon's Avatar
Gold Member
New on the HUBB
  
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Alberta, Canada
Posts: 7
fuel burn
ride a DL650 AK8 - 40K kms. mostly loaded to 90% GVW. 22litre tank.
87 or 91 octane fuel

4-5k rpm (70-90km/h) burning 4.2 - 5.2 litres/100km +- 15% of ride
5-6k rpm (90-110km/h) burning 5.2 - 6.7 litres/100km +- 65%
6-7k rpm (110-130km/h) burning 6.7 - 7.2 litres/100km 20%

rode the Dempster hwy in Aug. first 363km=16.2 litres = 4.5l/100km
magnificient ride! no rain, no traffic, no problems. world class scenery!
Reply With Quote
Reply
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 2 (0 Registered Users and/or Members and 2 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
LC fuel consumption gren_t Toyota Overland Tech 12 7 Jun 2011 10:06
DL650 real world fuel consumption Gipper Suzuki Tech 7 14 May 2010 20:47
fuel consumption spiro 4WD Overland Tech 10 10 Mar 2010 19:29
Fuel Consumption highway Yamaha Tech 2 22 Dec 2003 17:50
Fuel consumption mudlark Yamaha Tech 1 5 Dec 2002 21:24


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 22:14.

Contact Us - Horizons Unlimited Motorcycle Travellers Website - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top