Economic two up tourer with luggage

[Peter Phoenix]

Hello Eveyone

I currently have a GS1200R and while this in my opinion is a fine touring bike able to carry the kitchen sink and a passenger the running costs specifically the MPG are in todays high priced fuel world high, With a maximum of 50 and and average of 40 mpg being the norm

Can anyone recommend a similar bike be it enduro or road that would fill the role of my GS while being a little kinder to my pocket?

[jkrijt]

A maximum of 50 and and average of 40 mpg for riding two up with luggage is not bad at all. I doubt if you could find a similar bike that could do it more fuel efficient.
The F650GS I used to ride did between 50 and 60 mpg when riding solo and I guess an XT600 or DR650 would do the same but those bikes are a lot smaller and for two up and luggage, I would prefer the R1200GS.

[pecha72]

DL650 2012 version, which is even more economic than previous one (tank size went from 22 to 20 liters, but range has remained more or less the same). I've got both 2007 and 2012. The new one also has other small improvents here and there.

A new, REALLY economic engine seems to be the Honda NC700, that's on different type of bikes, and the NC700X looks like it could do some 2-up riding. But that's only a guess, because I've yet to ride that bike myself. Its tank size is only 14L, but some reports claim it can still do a range of more than 400 kms (probably tested 1-up though).

[Peter Phoenix]

Perhaps its just me wanting more from the bike, when you think that an average 1200 cc car will do much more than the 50 mpg I am getting. I am not so fixated on speed at my age, not that I ever was and I am willing to trade this to go further

I have looked at a few bikes however the blurb does not really give an accurate picture of how the bike performs in this specilised area:confused1:

[Threewheelbonnie]

Google fuelly, people record their MPG figures so you get a good picture.

I'm getting about 65mpg from a left over old style DL650. I hear BMW F800's do well.

The R1200's first issue is weight. Components designed to handle 100 HP are simply bigger than those designed for 70. I did however have an R1100 I put a sidecar on. 100 mph three up and it did 41 mpg exactly as it had solo, rider only, going with the traffic flow. An engine tuner told me this was simply because in 1990 when they'd written the software economy on bikes was a minor issue compared to getting the press to like them and a simple way to get smooth, fast acceleration was to over fuel all through the rev range. If this is leftover in the R1200 software you could try getting it remapped. Good luck though, you only get one tuner who can do economy instead of just noise.

If you like flat twins wait for the watercooled one, they'll have to go with the times and improve the fuel use.

Andy

[Magnon]

Originally Posted by Peter Phoenix

Perhaps its just me wanting more from the bike, when you think that an average 1200 cc car will do much more than the 50 mpg I am getting. I am not so fixated on speed at my age, not that I ever was and I am willing to trade this to go further

I have looked at a few bikes however the blurb does not really give an accurate picture of how the bike performs in this specilised area:confused1:

1200cc cars aren't generally giving 100bhp and they are more aerodynamic at motorway speeds. they are also tuned and geared to give their best fuel economy at whatever the test speed is (56/62mph?).

As TWB suggests you could find someone to remap it to give good fuel economy rather than best performance. Bear in mind that my old airhead with carbs only does about 45mpg.

It's hard to find a better bike than the R1200GS for 2 up comfort apart from maybe another 1200. I think you'd find a single or even a 800GS a bit cramped after the 1200.

[Peter Phoenix]

Thanks everyone, I thought this may be the case but needed to check as I plan to do a long haul for me trip on the GS Africa to UK with luck

[Bigdon]

I've had bikes from a Honda Goldwing gl1800 to a Yamaha WR 250R. With me riding and the bikes loaded I will get anywhere from 38-45 mpg while running highway speeds. The BMW 650 XChallenge and the 800 GS are just a little better but not much.

Speed kills fuel mileage! If you will run 50- 55( I can't seem to do that) mph the BMW's will get great mileage. At 75-80 they all use too much fuel.

[*Touring Ted*]

Yup.. The V-strom 650 is very economical. I got almost 300 miles out of my 2004, 22 litre tank version. And that was all city commuting.

Bit of a dull machine though.

And sell the GS before it breaks down. That will save your years worth of petrol money for a start


Like people have said, slow down too. You will save a heap of petrol.

[Wheelie]

Consider choice of tires, air pressure, what you can do to improve aerodynamics (including riders clothes and position), the weight you carry and how you ride the bike. Also, service costs, depreciation, it all adds up.

There are far cheaper bikes than yours, in every aspect. Then again, you got a really good bike with few direct competitors... And really, how much money would you expect to actually be able to save on fuel alone???

[backofbeyond]

Originally Posted by Wheelie

Consider choice of tires, air pressure, what you can do to improve aerodynamics (including riders clothes and position), the weight you carry and how you ride the bike. Also, service costs, depreciation, it all adds up.

Particularly aerodynamics - my Rotax engined CCM generally gives me around 60mpg over something like a 1500 mile round trip to the Alps but if I have panniers on the bike it drops to just over 50mpg. That's cruising around 65-70mph. On my old XR600 Honda I got much the same - 50(ish)mpg at the same sort of speed but drop the speed down to 40-45mph and the economy went way up - 80+mpg. OK, cruising down the motorway at 40mph isn't good for your sanity or your life expectancy but it just goes to show what a difference air resistance makes.

[barothi]

I use an app on my phone to track the costs to run my bike and it's interesting to see that petrol cost is not really where I could save money. On a big bike like yours tyres, brake pads wear faster and cost much more than on a smaller one. Not to mention more expensive parts like a drive shaft, clutch, valves, gearbox, electrics, etc.
I think that a 6-700cc bike is the most I would use for long term touring even two up. Did it on my GS500.. it wasn't fast but it could still do 160kph and it never missed a beat. The DL650 has much more space for two people and is even more economical. Worth a test drive at least. Parts are cheap for them, too.

[rusty max]

Ted,

You are dead right, driving defensibly I can easily do 400 km on a tank filling with my DL 650.
Don't care much about dull looking bike, only got to look in a mirror, to see a dull looking men.

Slowing down never hurts when you are riding on your own, as there is no one to impress.

Cheers

RM

[Wayne Jarvis]

I would agree with pretty much all that's been said above. It's a bit swings and roundabouts. If you have a large engine you'll be comfy and the be less stressed (generally). If you get a smaller bike, the running costs are less, but you work the bike harder, so I've always found that running any bike, fuel wise is roughly the same. Only some bikes stand out as thirsty in my experience. Honda Firestorm & Suzuki TL1000, although I'm sure some would argue against that.
Would you consider a smaller bike ?
I find singles struggle to much 2 up for any length of time, but something like a Honda Transalp or Deauville 700 I have found to be easy bikes to travel 2 up on and a good compromise on fuel, tyres, performance etc.
Just my opinion, and, yep, slow down you'll see a lot more :-)

[djorob]

Not particularly a two up machine but the GS650 serato appears to give good mpg.
Dave.