Ya, it's the speed
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
Last edited by narly; 11 Aug 2006 at 03:19.
|