Is this normal gas mileage?

Re: Is this normal?

How bought a simple solution like one of those radiator caps with a temperature gauge built in?

Re: Is this normal?

I get overall 41mpg with 50/50 driving.

Re: Is this normal?

Ltimb said:

How bought a simple solution like one of those radiator caps with a temperature gauge built in?

Click to expand...

With the plastic on you wouldn't be able to see the radiator cap. Russ. My 06 averaged 50 mpg over the 160,000 miles I owned it. Just think what I would have done if I had Igofared it!!

Re: Is this normal?

Blrfl said:

If they reported the temperature precisely, we'd have three or four threads a year where somebody's freaking out over the fact that the coolant temperature isn't being maintained at exactly 185 when it doesn't work that way.

--Mark

Click to expand...

Dodge Ram, full time analog gauges plus digital info when you want it.

Re: Is this normal?

ardykay54 said:

With the plastic on you wouldn't be able to see the radiator cap. Russ. My 06 averaged 50 mpg over the 160,000 miles I owned it. Just think what I would have done if I had Igofared it!!

Click to expand...

Sounds like you did whisper it! That is what mine averages when I do the math Miles/Gals. The idiot light is just that....
Sounds like you take good care of your steed, and its rewarding you with miles of enjoyment.

Igofar

Re: Is this normal?

When you compare low test with ethanol to pure high test it can very 10-20mph.

dwalby said:

Dodge Ram, full time analog gauges...

Click to expand...

Nothing on that dash is wired to a sensor; the mechanical gauges show what the computer tells them to show. Chrysler can -- and probably does -- put as much hysteresis into the gauges in software as Honda does with the ST.

--Mark

Re: Is this normal?

Blrfl said:

Nothing on that dash is wired to a sensor; the mechanical gauges show what the computer tells them to show. Chrysler can -- and probably does -- put as much hysteresis into the gauges in software as Honda does with the ST.
--Mark

Click to expand...

yeah, but neither the mechanical nor digital display is limited to 70F resolution bar graph increments. Just because you go digital doesn't necessarily mean you have to use insanely coarse resolution in your display technology. The digital sensors are capable of high accuracy and resolution, so why not at least provide meaningful/useful information to the rider/driver on the display?

Re: Is this normal?

I think if it was my bike I would check it a few more times before I tore it apart. You probably just added more gas the last time you filled it. Larry must be pretty slow at putting his gear on if it's at 3 bars when he takes off . Or maybe because it's so hot there? It takes a couple minutes for my rpm's to drop and see one bar, then a couple of miles before it reads three bars. Outside temps from 40-60 mostly. I know I saw a drop in mileage when I added my top box and also when I have my windshield in the full up position. I also started running at lower rpm's than I did with my BMW (use 5th gear more). My mileage is mid to upper 40's secondary roads and low 50's highway if I behave.

Re: Is this normal?

Here is a question and relates to MPG. Does anyone find a difference in MPG if they fill with low grade verses hi octane fuel? I know the ads on TV say it improved mileage so it has to be true haha. I don't find that it effects MPG, and since it comes from the same hose at the pump as the low grade, how much premium fuel are we getting with a small fill anyways?

Re: Is this normal?

Igofar said:

Sounds like you did whisper it! That is what mine averages when I do the math Miles/Gals. The idiot light is just that....
Sounds like you take good care of your steed, and its rewarding you with miles of enjoyment.

Igofar

Click to expand...

What speeds are you guys traveling at? Mine regularly averages 42 mpg. I'm usually running 4.5-5k rpm's, which translates to 85-90 mph on the speedo.

Re: Is this normal?

dwalby said:

yeah, but neither the mechanical nor digital display is limited to 70F resolution bar graph increments. Just because you go digital doesn't necessarily mean you have to use insanely coarse resolution in your display technology. The digital sensors are capable of high accuracy and resolution...

Click to expand...

Not as much as you'd think. Don't assume that just because something is digital and resolves down to a decimal place or two that the information coming out of it is laboratory-precise. The sensors are still analog devices subject to the same limitations they always were and the conversion to digital introduces error, too.

Looking in the ST service manual, the resistance range for the coolant temperature sensor at 68°F is 2.3-2.6Ω. The center of that range is 2.45Ω, which means that what Honda deems correct for the sensor can be off as much as 0.15Ω or about ±6%. This may factor in measurement error; only Honda knows for sure, but let's be generous and lump any error from conversion to digital in with that figure and assume the behavior is linear. At the ST's nominal 185°F operating temperature, 6% error in either direction would put the actual temperature within a range that spans 22°F. If each of the six bars on the gauge represents one of those ranges, the entire gauge covers a span of 132°F, nicely fitting a hypothetical 100-240°F range of temperatures that the rider might like to know about.

The numeric display on your Dodge reads in increments of 1°F. At the indicated 200°F, the entire system (sensor and analog-to-digital converter) would have to be right to within ±0.25% for that small a change to be meaningful. That would be a very tall order even in a laboratory environment. That's not to say it can't be done, but it's expensive. With the number of comments I read about about how "proud" Honda is of its plastic fairing rivets, oil plug sealing washers or the whole bike, I have a hard time believing they'd be able to pry the extra cash for high-precision instrumentation out of buyers' wallets.

...so why not at least provide meaningful/useful information to the rider/driver on the display?

Click to expand...

What meaningful or useful information would you gain from knowing the temperature is 188 vs. 183? Coolant temperature is like fuel economy: there's a raft of factors in normal operation that cause small- and medium-sized variations that don't mean anything has gone wrong. Where you really care is when there's a large change. In situations where knowing what the engine is doing in detail is actually important, it's being sucked out through a diagnostic port and logged for analysis later. The driver's not trying to read the dash and noodle out its meaning on the fly when he should be concentrating on the road.

--Mark

Re: Is this normal?

Blrfl said:

Not as much as you'd think. Don't assume that just because something is digital and resolves down to a decimal place or two that the information coming out of it is laboratory-precise. The sensors are still analog devices subject to the same limitations they always were and the conversion to digital introduces error, too.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I know, I wasn't suggesting that 1 degree F resolution was accurate or even necessary, nobody really needs that kind of resolution. But 70F resolution is too far in the other direction.

Looking in the ST service manual, the resistance range for the coolant temperature sensor at 68°F is 2.3-2.6Ω. The center of that range is 2.45Ω, which means that what Honda deems correct for the sensor can be off as much as 0.15Ω or about ±6%. This may factor in measurement error; only Honda knows for sure, but let's be generous and lump any error from conversion to digital in with that figure and assume the behavior is linear. At the ST's nominal 185°F operating temperature, 6% error in either direction would put the actual temperature within a range that spans 22°F. If each of the six bars on the gauge represents one of those ranges, the entire gauge covers a span of 132°F, nicely fitting a hypothetical 100-240°F range of temperatures that the rider might like to know about.

Click to expand...

I'm going to guess they use a cheap thermistor as the sensor, and they are non-linear so interpolating the resistance percentage error band from low temp up to high temp isn't going to be applicable. There's no way the Honda temp sensing system has a 22F uncertainty range. You can buy a pretty cheap digital thermometer that's accurate to +/- 2F using thermistors, so I'm guessing you could design an automotive temperature sensing system with similar accuracy for very low cost. A reasonably cheap thermocouple takes you to under 1.0F accuracy and doesn't cost a whole lot more (for the sensor, not sure about the electronics).

What meaningful or useful information would you gain from knowing the temperature is 188 vs. 183?

Click to expand...

None, we're in agreement here. My only claim was it would be useful for me to know the temperature was 155 vs. 215, but according to the ST1300 spec both will display 3 bars.

Re: Is this normal?

cdnemsguy said:

Here is a question and relates to MPG. Does anyone find a difference in MPG if they fill with low grade verses hi octane fuel? I know the ads on TV say it improved mileage so it has to be true haha. I don't find that it effects MPG, and since it comes from the same hose at the pump as the low grade, how much premium fuel are we getting with a small fill anyways?

Click to expand...

STmark1300 posted: "When you compare low test with ethanol to pure high test it can very 10-20mph."

I don't know how that would translate to variations in fuel economy, but I believe that engines designed specifically to run on higher octane gas will run most efficiently on the recommended fuel in terms of both performance and economy. I've noticed that some high-performance cars have engines intentionally designed to run on either regular or high octane unleaded, and performance ratings will indicate the torque and HP for both grades of fuel. I don't recall if magazine road tests show the average observed economy for both grades of gas.

Re: Is this normal?

Update:
Just refueled. 21.967 liters. 249.9 kms on the trip meter. which equates to 26.8 mpg US.

I'm going to do some pure highway miles today and see what happens.

Re: Is this normal?

ddemair said:

For what it's worth:
My bike has always taken a couple of minutes to get to 3 bars since the day it was new. I've never timed it, but I know I often pull out of the driveway with less than 3 bars. When it's cold out, it might take several minutes.
Also, I have never gotten anywhere near 56 mpg. The BEST I ever did was a long highway ride in heavy rain where I kept my speed to around 60 mph and I got just about 50 mpg. Usually, it's between 40 and 44 mpg depending on how I ride.

I don't disagree that his gas mileage is terrible... just thought you might be raising his expectations too much.

Click to expand...

58 degrees this morning.
Started my bike the same time I started the timer on my phone.
1 minute and 15 seconds, I got the first bar, 1 minute and 45 seconds, I got the second bar, 2 minutes and 40 seconds I was at three bars.
I filled the tank up to the level bar, and checked the gal vs the mileage = 58 mpg. (been doing a lot of freeway @ 75-80 mpg)
I don't think I'm raising his expectations too much I guess it all just depends what state of tune you accept for your vehicles.

Re: Is this normal?

DavidR8 said:

Update:
Just refueled. 21.967 liters. 249.9 kms on the trip meter. which equates to 26.8 mpg US.

I'm going to do some pure highway miles today and see what happens.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, the trip meter on these read 8-10% higher the same as the speedo. That makes it worse.

Re: Is this normal?

Igofar said:

58 degrees this morning.
Started my bike the same time I started the timer on my phone.
1 minute and 15 seconds, I got the first bar, 1 minute and 45 seconds, I got the second bar, 2 minutes and 40 seconds I was at three bars.
I filled the tank up to the level bar, and checked the gal vs the mileage = 58 mpg. (been doing a lot of freeway @ 75-80 mpg)
I don't think I'm raising his expectations too much I guess it all just depends what state of tune you accept for your vehicles.

Click to expand...

I do have high expectations. Certainly I expect to get better mileage than my old Chev 305 4x4.

Re: Is this normal?

cdnemsguy said:

Unfortunately, the trip meter on these read 8-10% higher the same as the speedo. That makes it worse.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm going to use May My Ride to track my distance today.

Even with a 10% error it's still under 30 mpg. Looking at Fuelly, there are 103 ST1300s reporting over 1.1M miles. I'm among an elite few getting under 30 mpg

Re: Is this normal?

Igofar said:

58 degrees this morning.
Started my bike the same time I started the timer on my phone.
1 minute and 15 seconds, I got the first bar, 1 minute and 45 seconds, I got the second bar, 2 minutes and 40 seconds I was at three bars.
I filled the tank up to the level bar, and checked the gal vs the mileage = 58 mpg. (been doing a lot of freeway @ 75-80 mpg)
I don't think I'm raising his expectations too much I guess it all just depends what state of tune you accept for your vehicles.

Click to expand...

Just think how much it would get if you held it to under 55 mph on flowing roads with few stops and starts. You might get 80 mpg!