Like the old saying,when you are driving your car it's like watching a movie,when you ride you bike ,You are IN the movie.
we all tend to ride our bikes like we stole them (I know I do).
If you you eased your self away from the lights,slowly get yourself up to the limit (say 55) eased off the throttle a long way off the stop sign,
try to catch timed lights while in town,you will get at least 55 to the gallon

KLX gets mid fifties (uk gallon), pretty good for a pumper carb.

Clive W  

why.  because i ride with a two position throttle.  wot. and closed.

sjaskow - FSO wrote on 07/24/08 at 11:12:45:

In '70-72 I had a '67 Triumph Spitfire, 1300 cc, twin SU carbs.  Drove like a madman, city streets with some freeway, consistently OVER 30 mpg.  In fact, I monitored my MPG and would do a tune up when it did drop below 30.  Got rid of the car after I tore the drivetrain a second time.  (When you go airborne you really should get off the accelerator.)  

Understanding fuel consumption characteristics is beyond a simple posting.

Engines burn a mixture of air and fuel.  So, how much fuel you burn to produce a given horsepower is a function of how much air/fuel is going thru the engine, the mixture setting (rich or lean) and the rpm of the engine.

For instance, in piston airplanes with constant speed props, you can increase power production by either increasing rpm, or what's called "manifold pressure", which is the amount for fuel/air being shoved thru the intake manifold, or by increasing both rpm and manifold pressure.  Throttle controls manifold pressure in such an airplane.

Our bike and car engines don't have a way to control rpm independent of manifold pressure.  So the only things we can do relate to throttle setting and mixture.  We already know that the mixture on a Savage/S40 is too lean to begin with.

Hence, since throttle setting controls rpm, the only practical way to increase mileage is to reduce rpm.  Remember that the engine is burning fuel each time the piston goes down on the power stroke, so we need to reduce the number of power strokes, or rpm, per mile.

You could do that by running at a slower engine speed by running at a slower vehicle speed.  That's why the best mileage is obtained at the minimum speed to run in 5th gear effortlessly, without lugging.
But better, you could reduce rpm by going to higher gearing, so you get more rpm of the rear wheel, and hence more distance traveled, for a given engine rpm.

However, we all know that higher gearing results in poorer acceleration, so gearing ratios are a engineering design compromise (as every machine is) between the desire for acceleration, and efficient engine rpm at cruising speed.  You can't have both at once.

To improve the mileage of any piston powered vehicle, just gear it up (assuming engine displacement remains constant).  Since there is no free lunch, you'll pay for that with slower acceleration.

I agree with Sluggo.  The reason why I get poor gas mileage, used to have to change out a rear tire every other season and had to replace front brake pads frequently had to do with my right wrist and my liking going around corners fast.  Accelerate hard, brake hard.  It is a life-style choice.

Folks who ride 250 Ninjas in Europe have both versions available to them, injected and non-injected, and they ride street and track.

Guess what sort of gas mileage they get on the track --- 30-45 mpg.  This is off a bike that CAN get nearly 90 mpg if ridden "sensibly".

Oldfeller

I think it's the fuel companies controlling vehicle production.

LOL!


One thing I've learned, I noticed it in a couple truck I owned and I've noticed it with bikes... If a vehicle has a "small" motor, but has to carry a heavy load it, it will have to work harder than the same vehicle with a larger motor. For example, I've owned two Dodge Rams, one a 318ci the other a 360ci. The 360 got 2mpg better, and i believe it's because it didn't have to work as hard as the 318 to power the truck along.
Another example, the reference to the 550lb 1700cc chopper... The 1700 V twin is probably barely idling (sarcasm) at highway speeds. If our 650 single was powering that bike I guarentee the bike would get worse mileage than it does with the 1700.
I've noticed the same thing when researching Kawasaki KLR models. The KLR 250 has almost 1/3 or whatever the displacement as the 650, but has to work that much harder than the 650 hence they get almost the same mpg.
I don't know if that makes sense, but it's something that I've kind of figured out over time. It seems like an equal tradeoff, and basically comes down to power to weight ratios. The Savage seems like it's right in the middle, not a ton of power/displacement, but not too little either. I'm happy with it and I think we all should be.

But seriously, I think it is the fuel companies.  

Took a spin from St. John's to Carbonear, Nfld. (and back) to check out the annual Relic Riders MC Show n' Shine today ... combination of highway, and secondary coastal bi-way, very little stop n' go, speeds averaged 60-70kph on a guess ... gassed-up before leaving St. John's and again before returning from Carbonear ... 3.55 liters (0.94 US Gal.) for 101km (62.6mi) = 66.7 mpg! Not bad at all!