So, let's get this started. Answer the poll with the average gas mileage you are seeing so far on your 2013+ Ninja 300. If it changes over time, you can unvote and choose the updated range.

No games while calculating, no estimating based on how many miles before you fill up, no looking at the fuel gauge and estimating how long it takes to get to half tank. The only reliable way to measure fuel mileage, and the way you should do it for this thread particularly, is below:

- fill up the tank to the top (touching the metal ring, or any other landmark so that you know it's exactly to a repeatable point).
- reset your trip odometer
- go have some fun and burn some gas
- when you next fill up, make sure you fill up to exactly the same point in the tank. make note of the exact amount of fuel it took to fill the tank back up. look at your trip meter, and divide that number of miles by the amount of fuel. voila: there's your average fuel economy

(no, Apple hasn't patented this method yet, so we're good for awhile) :)

((P.S. If you live someplace interesting that uses a strange measure of liquid quantity, please try and convert it to U.S. gallons before answering the poll. Google is your friend, here.))

I put in my poll based on the method outlined. I expect I will be readjusting my poll since my break-in period is about up and I will be all over it for awhile so mileage will surely suffer in the best ways. He he he.....

I voted based on what I would expect if I had one.

I voted based on what I would expect if I had one.

This poll is about factual data not wanna be data.....

This poll is about factual data not wanna be data.....


Damn, I got another one wrong. Believe me I am so sorry. I should have realized that but I didn't. Now I have been shamed to the point of debating whether I should ever answer another poll on the forum. Please, please forgive me. This has been the worse day of posting on the forum.

Damn, I got another one wrong. Believe me I am so sorry. I should have realized that but I didn't. Now I have been shamed to the point of debating whether I should ever answer another poll on the forum. Please, please forgive me. This has been the worse day of posting on the forum.

I am glad the shame has overcome you. Lol

Damn, I got another one wrong. Believe me I am so sorry. I should have realized that but I didn't. Now I have been shamed to the point of debating whether I should ever answer another poll on the forum. Please, please forgive me. This has been the worse day of posting on the forum.

Hahahahahahahah

This has been the worse day of posting on the forum.

It's been a day of infamy for us all. :p

Damn, I got another one wrong. Believe me I am so sorry. I should have realized that but I didn't. Now I have been shamed to the point of debating whether I should ever answer another poll on the forum. Please, please forgive me. This has been the worse day of posting on the forum.

This is tooooo funny!!!

motorcycle-usa.com in their mpg test recently got 50mpg flogging the f*** out of it and 105mpg being very frugal

http://www.motorcycle-usa.com/87507/Motorcycle-Photo-Gallery-Photo/2013-Kawasaki-Ninja-300-First-Ride.aspx

damn you kawi. why do you have to make such great bikes!

So my one vote was closer to the truth (according to the challenge).

I'm feeling pretty factual right now!

So my one vote was closer to the truth (according to the challenge).

I'm feeling pretty factual right now!

Quick! what's the capital of mars!

uranus :D

First tank 73mpg with most of it 2-up!

http://i945.photobucket.com/albums/ad292/ArmyStrongMD/401277F2-C384-47BA-9173-9FB27438C8C8-1005-00000056834E9439.jpg

Here's what I'm seeing:

Tank 1: 37 mpg (eek, hope it starts to break in)
Tank 2: 46 mpg (ok, it's moving in the right direction)
Tank 3: 49 mpg (ok, this is higher than I've ever seen on my 250 under normal use)

That last tank was at a constant 80 mph (actual) from Marin back to home this morning. In the same exact usage, I would get 37-38 mpg on the 250; the new bike is a huge improvement already.

Here's what I'm seeing:

Tank 1: 37 mpg (eek, hope it starts to break in)
Tank 2: 46 mpg (ok, it's moving in the right direction)
Tank 3: 49 mpg (ok, this is higher than I've ever seen on my 250 under normal use)

That last tank was at a constant 80 mph (actual) from Marin back to home this morning. In the same exact usage, I would get 37-38 mpg on the 250; the new bike is a huge improvement already.

You have been rollin this bike already...So much for the max 4-8K rpm limit during break in ha ha ha....

As it breaks in mileage only gets better at least thats what I am seeing which make sense because the motor is seating accordingly. I have been riding very agressively today and love the top end of this bike. I cant wait to see how much a full exhaust with ecu management gains us.

You have been rollin this bike already...So much for the max 4-8K rpm limit during break in ha ha ha....


Breakin is for pussys!

Breakin is for pussys!

I guess I am what I eat. :D

So you're vietnamese then?

Alex, nice job on the hard break-in methods :)

Seeing as you get about the same mileage on tires as me, I think your numbers are able to be compared to the numbers I get from my pregen (which are known for getting a touch better mileage than newgens).

For reference, I have a fuel injected pregen with full intake and exhaust. I see about 54 mpg average, with a mix of spirited riding and commuting. Alex is getting roughly similar mileage. I bet it will keep going up a little as he gets over the throttle response and roll-on acceleration tests that always accompany a new bike :lol:

So you're vietnamese then?

:confused:

:confused:

http://gifsoup.com/webroot/animatedgifs/1050826_o.gif

http://gifsoup.com/webroot/animatedgifs/1050826_o.gif

As long as you get it.

As long as you get it.

Reference to cat eating.

Reference to cat eating.

Ahhhhh..... gotcha

Thank you

((P.S. If you live someplace interesting that uses a strange measure of liquid quantity, please try and convert it to U.S. gallons before answering the poll. Google is your friend, here.))

LOL, that is interesting, since the whole world use the metric system...
you should have said, if you live someplace interesting that uses a normal measure of liquid quantity, other than US strange measure...

Yes, I know. Deal with it. :)

http://themetapicture.com/media/funny-US-vs-world-metric-system-date.jpg

LOL, that is interesting, since the whole world use the metric system...
you should have said, if you live someplace interesting that uses a normal measure of liquid quantity, other than US strange measure...

Nooooo, we live in the U.S. and if everywhere else is different from us, then there is something wrong with you all. There is nothing wrong with the way we do things. It doesn't matter if our language is backwards compared to everyone else; it doesn't matter that everyone else uses metrics besides us; it doesn't matter if we are the fattest country in the world. You are backwards, not us!!

Before you start getting offended and start a war over this post, I was being sarcastic.

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/world-accordign-to-USA.jpg

That was hilarious Alex!!!!
:rotflmao:

kCpjgl2baLs

^ lolz

That was hilarious Alex!!!!
:rotflmao:

That is too effin funny Alex...god u are funny.

The way I see it is as follows:

This cite is based in the US. Use US units if you want to make things easier for the masses. That's what forums are for, making info available to the masses through discussion.

LOL, that is interesting, since the whole world use the metric system...
you should have said, if you live someplace interesting that uses a normal measure of liquid quantity, other than US strange measure...

Frankly most of us in the US don't care. We live in (arguably) the most powerful country in the world. If you want to talk about fuel economy in liters per 100km go create a website for other countries; this one is a US site created by Americans and most of us here are Americans. That's why the website is in English and not Portugese

Boom!

Frankly most of us in the US don't care. We live in (arguably) the most powerful country in the world. If you want to talk about fuel economy in liters per 100km go create a website for other countries; this one is a US site created by Americans and most of us here are Americans. That's why the website is in English and not Portugese

Boom!

False, Alex is a Canadian citizen

I see what you are saying though, the rest of the world needs to get with the times. Inches, feet, miles, quarts, gallons, why the **** would you want to use units that make sense? That's retarded. 100cm in 1 meter? Do you realize how stupid that sounds? We have 12 inches in 1 foot and 3 feet in 1 yard. You can't argue with that.

False, Alex is a Canadian citizen

I see what you are saying though, the rest of the world needs to get with the times. Inches, feet, miles, quarts, gallons, why the **** would you want to use units that make sense? That's retarded. 100cm in 1 meter? Do you realize how stupid that sounds? We have 12 inches in 1 foot and 3 feet in 1 yard. You can't argue with that.

Of course not. If we switch to metric I am fine with it- it makes more sense.

But since this site is mostly Americans why would we discuss fuel economy in foreign terms?

We shouldn't, foreign terms are stupid and sensible

Frankly most of us in the US don't care. We live in (arguably) the most powerful country in the world. If you want to talk about fuel economy in liters per 100km go create a website for other countries; this one is a US site created by Americans and most of us here are Americans. That's why the website is in English and not Portugese

Boom!

why so mad son? I didn't say anything about changing anything or doing anything different. If you speak English.... perhaps some text interpretation classes?!

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/world-accordign-to-USA.jpg

lol... tvs and cameras.... and bikes... \o/

Frankly most of us in the US don't care. We live in (arguably) the most powerful country in the world. If you want to talk about fuel economy in liters per 100km go create a website for other countries; this one is a US site created by Americans and most of us here are Americans. That's why the website is in English and not Portugese

Boom!

Sapper, you are going over the top with this statement. I see you are from Florida - home of over the top crazies that show up in the news.

Sapper, you are going over the top with this statement. I see you are from Florida - home of over the top crazies that show up in the news.

Perhaps. I just find it amusing as I wouldn't go to a German website and act confused when things are discussed using the metric system :confused:

Alex I LOVE that America picture hahahaha we are #1!!!

Here's what I'm seeing:

Tank 1: 37 mpg (eek, hope it starts to break in)
Tank 2: 46 mpg (ok, it's moving in the right direction)
Tank 3: 49 mpg (ok, this is higher than I've ever seen on my 250 under normal use)

That last tank was at a constant 80 mph (actual) from Marin back to home this morning. In the same exact usage, I would get 37-38 mpg on the 250; the new bike is a huge improvement already.

Alex, what RPMs do you normally keep the bike in?

Perhaps. I just find it amusing as I wouldn't go to a German website and act confused when things are discussed using the metric system :confused:

I'm sorry if I offended you somehow. It was not my intention. I was only pointing that out because, to me, he was being ironic or sarcastic... and I tryed to play along. If he wasn't, then I apologise to him too... it was probably my bad English. As you pointed out, I speak portuguese.

I had the impression people here use to joke around and didn't take things that seriously...

to the metric system!
O13luYEu6P0

Alex, I have an idea, before the youtube button can be used a ninjette member will be prompted to take a training course and pass a series of tests. Once the tests have been completed with a 100% success rate then the youtube button will be enabled.

Alex, I have an idea, before the youtube button can be used a ninjette member will be prompted to take a training course and pass a series of tests. Once the tests have been completed with a 100% success rate then the youtube button will be enabled.
I figured it out.... but damn, you are quick!

:D

been seeing a lot of people fail with it lately

Alex, what RPMs do you normally keep the bike in?

I'm running this bike in the 6k to 10k range. It seems happier in these lower ranges compared to the 250, that was really only usable when riding swiftly if you kept it in the 8k - 12k range. I'm finding that the bike seems to have very little engine braking, probably because I am running with the revs a little lower than I used to.

I had the impression people here use to joke around and didn't take things that seriously...

You have the right impression. :thumbup:

Last two tanks now have seen avg of 62-65 mpg since I have commenced flogging tactics. I am sure the mpg will continue to fall at this rate. I have adjusted my vote accordingly.

And it's about time you stopped all this talk about bike made anywhere else but America. Discussions of foreign motorcycles will only confuse real Americans. And what's with all this 250 stuff? What's a cc.? Probably an unAmerican unit of measure that has infiltrated into the lexicon through the devious efforts of linguistic terrorists.

Be afraid. very afraid.

And now, for FoxNews, good night and tune in tomorrow... if were lucky enough to keep the sun revolving round the Earth.

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b276/seanvoight/asdfasdfasdf_zpsfd22cf73.jpg

pic no worky?

pic no worky?

**** well if ****ing ninjette wouldnt ****ing **** **** bleep all the ****ing **** words in ****ing URL's then ****, I wouldn't ****ing be ****ing having these ****ing problems!

Poop!

I'm sorry if I offended you somehow. It was not my intention. I was only pointing that out because, to me, he was being ironic or sarcastic... and I tryed to play along. If he wasn't, then I apologise to him too... it was probably my bad English. As you pointed out, I speak portuguese.

I had the impression people here use to joke around and didn't take things that seriously...

to the metric system!
O13luYEu6P0

I saw Brazil and my best friend is Brazilian so I mentioned Portugese. You would be surprised how many Americans do not know that Brazilians speak Portugese not Spanish.

I saw Brazil and my best friend is Brazilian so I mentioned Portugese. You would be surprised how many Americans do not know that Brazilians speak Portugese not Spanish.

I would not! LOL
I was actually surprised that you knew we speak Portuguese
remember Alex's map?! it's all coffee down here... :P

Tank 1: 37 mpg (eek, hope it starts to break in)
Tank 2: 46 mpg (ok, it's moving in the right direction)
Tank 3: 49 mpg (ok, this is higher than I've ever seen on my 250 under normal use)

Tank 4: 42 mpg
Tank 5: 43 mpg

I would not! LOL
I was actually surprised that you knew we speak Portuguese
remember Alex's map?! it's all coffee down here... :P

Whoops I forgot to be a stupid Amercan. Y'all speak Mexican there don't ya?

I have been to Brazil. I love the women and Senna :)

Tank 4: 42 mpg
Tank 5: 43 mpg

Yikes I had over 70mpg first then over 50 the next two

so no 80mpg?:(

so no 80mpg?:(

:whathesaid:

:(

Anyone out there give me some better news on mpg?

:whathesaid:

:(

Anyone out there give me some better news on mpg?

Not until we stop flogging these things so I guess never....

Not until we stop flogging these things so I guess never....

Haha, srsly. Maybe we could pull it by short shifting and trying to always keep the eco light on, but... really? Not gonna' happen. :D

Although, Alex, I am beginning to wonder if the difference between the CA version and the 49 state version affects mileage numbers. I honestly can't imagine being much harder on the bike than I was (gas wise) that first tank, and it was well over 50 (54.8). Would that be strange, to have the CA version fare worse?

Although, Alex, I am beginning to wonder if the difference between the CA version and the 49 state version affects mileage numbers. I honestly can't imagine being much harder on the bike than I was (gas wise) that first tank, and it was well over 50 (54.8). Would that be strange, to have the CA version fare worse?

Yup I have been pretty hard on the bike and still see 60+....

CA emissions + CA gas do knock it down a few points, but not as much as one might think.

That was hilarious Alex!!!!
:rotflmao:

Sad how close to the truth that is. Still, too funny Alex :thumbup:

CA emissions + CA gas do knock it down a few points, but not as much as one might think.

Best gas you guys get is 91 correct? I do run 93 although 87 is minimum.

Best gas you guys get is 91 correct? I do run 93 although 87 is minimum.

93 gets worse mileage and power than 87

93 gets worse mileage and power than 87

LMAO right.........:crazy::crazy:

:whathesaid:

:(

Anyone out there give me some better news on mpg?

Yeah if you ride it without accelerating hard and cruise around the country at 40-55mph this bike gets closer to 100mpg. I prefer riding the piss out of it and getting 50-55mpg

LMAO right.........:crazy::crazy:

Would a couple dyno runs on a ninja 1000 with both grades of gas satiate your ignorance?

Would a couple dyno runs on a ninja 1000 with both grades of gas satiate your ignorance?

Somebody did not or did not know how to tune your bike correctly if results like that exist. Hope that helps your ignorance. Higher octane only helps things.

Somebody did not or did not know how to tune your bike correctly if results like that exist. Hope that helps your ignorance. Higher octane only helps things.

I have a question for you, what does higher octane do?

I have a question for you, what does higher octane do?

Oh lord here we go....

Increasing octane raises the flashpoint and slows the burning process of gasoline If an engine does not have high enough compression to require higher octane there will be no improvement and it may in fact be harder to start and less effecient. Premium fuel is a waste in an engine that does not require it.

If you have the ability to tune your setup you will be able to run more ign with higher octane levels making for better performance and fuel economy if tuned correctly.

To make a blanket statement that more octane means less performance and fuel economy is ignorant. As stated above if you plan to only add additional octane with no adjustment to the tune then yes you "could" expect to see anywhere from gains, to no gains, to nothing noticeable. All of that depends on the motor setup.

http://imageshack.us/a/img515/157/fastfuriousoctane.jpg

Fantastic! You know what you are talking about yet continue to use 93. Mind boggling.

Here's those stats I promised you for a ninja 1000

93 octane no ethanol
112.6hp and 67.1ft lbs

87 octane 10% ethanol
117.5hp and 71.2ft lbs

Now yes they are different engines with similar compression and they both run on 87 but I'd expect a similar result with the ninja 250. Likely the ninja 300 as well.

Fantastic! You know what you are talking about yet continue to use 93. Mind boggling.

Here's those stats I promised you for a ninja 1000

93 octane no ethanol
112.6hp and 67.1ft lbs

87 octane 10% ethanol
117.5hp and 71.2ft lbs

Now yes they are different engines with similar compression and they both run on 87 but I'd expect a similar result with the ninja 250. Likely the ninja 300 as well.

That's right 93 is perfect! You forget this is a fuel injected bike not carb. The ECU uses a number of factors to adjust AF on a bike. I would hope short and long term fuel trims would be part of that equation on a open loop setup which means the ECU will account for the added octane. You can't expect this to be an instant change after one fill up but the ECU being FI will adjust for 87-93 as long term fuel trims are took into account.

Different engines? I am sure different days, different temps....mods?..... And so on...those stats are worthless sorry.

Making an edit..... I believe your reference to different engines is the 1000 vs 300. If this is the case was the 1000 stats the same bike same day? Or different day...? Temps play a lot with this so seeing that little of margin on a 1000 cc bike is not uncommon. I have run my car on the same Dyno different days but same temps and gotten differences as you have shown. In my opinion it doesn't show a lot although I agree that if the 1000 was not tuned then it "may" make less power but kind of odd it did.

Same bike different day, temperature difference of 5 degrees.

So you're telling me the 5 degree difference killed off 5hp? Das crazy mang :loco:

Also, I'd be very surprised if the ECU was capable of such acute changes without an O2 sensor. How exactly would it know?

Same bike different day, temperature difference of 5 degrees.

So you're telling me the 5 degree difference killed off 5hp? Das crazy mang :loco:

Also, I'd be very surprised if the ECU was capable of such acute changes without an O2 sensor. How exactly would it know?

It depends on how the FI setup is on the bike. Cars do use O2 and Map or Maf for correct AF ratios so if the bike doesn't have an O2 then it must being using a MAF or MAP sensor plus IAT sensor, throttle position, and then the short and long term trims are just calculations from that data. The O2 on the bike is primarily for emissions reasons on the stock ECU to ensure good old 14.7:1 stoichiometric AFR that yields the most complete combustion and thus minimum emissions. The real point is that the ECU doesn't require an O2 sensor to manage AF.

One of the things I am very eager to find out from Area P is what we will actually get to control with the ECU management as I plan to learn and tune my bike as well. I am hopeful this forum will have a specific area for tuning information since it looks like there willbe several company's that provide ECU management. I think it will be important to understand what each offers and how we may benefit from that. of course this is all within the limitations of the bike itself. I come from being able to manage cam angles by rpm, and telling the engine when to go from low to high cam. This bike will be severely limited I am sure but still a hoot to tune.

People think you loose so much control with tuning once you go FI but they actually gain more control and more importantly data to manage their tunes.

The real point is that the ECU doesn't require an O2 sensor to manage AF.


I don't believe that's true, and even if it was possible I don't think a stock ECU would be that sophisticated as to make changes based on information it has received

I don't believe that's true, and even if it was possible I don't think a stock ECU would be that sophisticated as to make changes based on information it has received


LOL go google it then you will learn a lot of neat stuff. It's all just calculations from sensor inputs and a base map.

Yea it can adjust to air temp, that's about it. It can't adjust to octane ratings or lean/rich conditions without information about it

As long as the system has a way of sensing temp/pressure changes, it will be pretty good. For example, your ninja 650 ran fine right? Those don't have O2 sensors.

Yea it can adjust to air temp, that's about it. It can't adjust to octane ratings or lean/rich conditions without information about it

False

And adjust for altitude using map or Maf
And TPS ( throttle position)
And IAT ( intake temp sensor)
And......all of these thing directly affect the AF.

The stock ECU has static tables setup with target AFs
Without an O2 then it's all based off preset kal rather than getting to use the O2 to be able to adjust the kal based off target AF.
So what this means is that the ECU has boundaries on the calculations it can do to meet a target AF but it can still adjust the AF or lean rich conditions using other sensors besides the O2.

Why do you think guys would rather ride Pikes Peak with FI rather than being carburated?

Wouldn't any probable power gains of running higher octane be dependant on whether or not Kawasaki programmed in ignition advance limits?

False

And adjust for altitude using map or Maf
And TPS ( throttle position)
And IAT ( intake temp sensor)
And......all of these thing directly affect the AF.

The stock ECU has static tables setup with target AFs
Without an O2 then it's all based off preset kal rather than getting to use the O2 to be able to adjust the kal based off target AF.
So what this means is that the ECU has boundaries on the calculations it can do to meet a target AF but it can still adjust the AF or lean rich conditions using other sensors besides the O2.

Why do you think guys would rather ride Pikes Peak with FI rather than being carburated?

It's still just an educated guess though. It could be running a 16.0 AFR and have no idea and not adjust. It's simply working off of, mainly, the temperature.

And how does this correlate to your bike running better with 93? It doesn't.

Wouldn't any probable power gains of running higher octane be dependant on whether or not Kawasaki programmed in ignition advance limits?

Yes absolutely all of this is based off the initial map they put together plus the compensation tables values they imputed.

Example intake air temps since jiggles likes that one. In the map there is a IAT compensation table which represents a range of temps. This ensures the bikes runs good from -20 to 120F if those are the values put in. So yes kawasaki would optimize the tune for the best environment and fuel of their choosing which in this case could be 87 octane. The point is that the tune deals with changes from inputs whether it is fueling or IATs, .....

When we get a either piggy back ECU or a replacement one which is programmable we would optimize it for our fuel environment variables. So in the case of temps I would say hey I am in Texas and would narrow my -20F temp for the bottom of the scale to be 0F so when the ECU calculates the Result willbe a closer one. The down side of this is as you narrow the scope of a tune you also have to potentially adjust it more as well to maintain the up in power you have gained like changing jets and such but it's just updating a map or having a few maps for the different times of year. The O2 is must have in my book.

It's still just an educated guess though. It could be running a 16.0 AFR and have no idea and not adjust. It's simply working off of, mainly, the temperature.

And how does this correlate to your bike running better with 93? It doesn't.

As far as the inputs being used to calculate yes it is a guess as I am not familiar with the ECU inputs to be available for the 300 or your 1000 and I never said the 93 would run better, worse, or nothing.

I said the ECU will compensate for 93 with no ill affects and I also said it could gain, loose, or having nothing as results in power or mileage since all of that is dependent on the input variables being used by the ECU.

My point to all of this is that the ECU is equipped to handle 87-93+? Octane no problem. A carbed setup is not as blessed in that regard since it has no inputs\logic or does any calculations to make determinations with.

Many modern performance vehicles are more than capable of sensing the octane rating of supplied fuel, and usually are able to take advantage of higher-octane gasoline by advancing the spark timing and so forth. The end result is more power.

I'm not sure if the new Ninjette has this capability, but it's really not far-fetched...and by the way, FI works just fine without needing to be in closed-loop with an O2 sensor.. I know this first hand from my car, when the rear O2s stopped functioning. Worst thing that happened was that it idled slightly lower.

Like Thomas said, the ECU calculates its input fuel amounts based on its almanac of data maps and using the temperature and throttle position; which, in most cases, lets the engine combust the fuel/air at "close enough" to the ideal stoichiometric ratio.

May need to start a new thread in regards to ECU management and all the different brands that will surely come but I thought the below was interesting and related to how the ECU can use these inputs.

The 300 49 state version seems to have the following that "should" be used by the ECU as inputs.

After reviewing the parts diagram.
IATs - intake air temps
VSS - variable speed sensor
Manifold pressure
TPS - throttle position sensor seems to be part of throttle body sold as a unit but I will have to visually check my bike since there was another sensor there not labeled but TPS seems logical.


I also saw something new to me which was a Damper ECU? Not sure what that is.....

Anyway I hope some of this is helpful and will start a different thread at some point since this thread is about gas mileage and I think we have gone a little off course.

So are there knock sensors in these bikes to adjust the ignition timing if the ECU allows?

So are there knock sensors in these bikes to adjust the ignition timing if the ECU allows?

I looked but didn't see one but wow wouldn't that be sweet to have lean and knock protection on a bike.

Ya I guess maybe they're not as practical in sportbikes probably due to the engine noise these things make.

45 mpg today, on a ride up and over Mt. Hamilton. It's evidently slightly better when I'm not chasing/being chased by Jason. :thumbup:

45 mpg today, on a ride up and over Mt. Hamilton. It's evidently slightly better when I'm not chasing/being chased by Jason. :thumbup:

Man, you must thrash that thing. After two tanks in the 50s, I just filled up and got 61mpg. And that's on a tank that was half stop-n-go commuting, and half winding it out in the country. For folks wanting to keep tabs on mileage, I plan to record every fill-up on fuelly. My dashboard is here: https://www.fuelly.com/driver/tnr4/ninja-300

I was gonna get a 300 to have better gas mileage, power, and fun. But, my 250 with a full system gets around 55 mpg consistently with no babying. Drops down to about high 40s on a track day.

I was gonna get a 300 to have better gas mileage, power, and fun. But, my 250 with a full system gets around 55 mpg consistently with no babying. Drops down to about high 40s on a track day.

Yeah, you certainly don't need the 300 for mileage, then. My impression is that I will need to really concentrate on mileage to get much better than that. My highest tank so far has been 61, and that was without babying it, but it also included a fair amount of flat cruising. I'm sure the 70s are feasible if that's your aim, but it's not mine, so I imagine 50s will be the norm.

Yeah, you certainly don't need the 300 for mileage, then. My impression is that I will need to really concentrate on mileage to get much better than that. My highest tank so far has been 61, and that was without babying it, but it also included a fair amount of flat cruising. I'm sure the 70s are feasible if that's your aim, but it's not mine, so I imagine 50s will be the norm.

I was expecting with some mixed riding and redline trips it would consistently get around 65s. But yeah, I don't really bother trying to get the best mileage its just a little added bonus to have as much fun as you want and still get some good mileage out of it.

Man, you must thrash that thing. After two tanks in the 50s, I just filled up and got 61mpg. And that's on a tank that was half stop-n-go commuting, and half winding it out in the country. For folks wanting to keep tabs on mileage, I plan to record every fill-up on fuelly. My dashboard is here: https://www.fuelly.com/driver/tnr4/ninja-300

Nice fuel tracker :thumbup:

I'm getting around 55 mpg - mostly in town (stop-n-go/slow speed stuff, 95% of riding) and some not twisty at all local backroads. Easy on the revs, eco usually on. Hrmmm...

My experience has been that motorcycles tend to get much better mileage when at higher elevation. Not sure where your local riding takes you in Colorado, but I would assume that you're a little bit closer to extraterrestrial life than we are, and that would help average mileage numbers over time.

True altitude does play a part in the fuel economy, also end up losing a bit of power too because of the altitude. Just didn't think it would give me so much better fuel economy.

I guess I am what I eat. :D

Aways had a hankering for "fish tacos" :rotflmao:

got 62 on my last fill up

Last two tanks: 38 mpg, then 46 mpg.

Alex, I think you should also post up some numbers once Annie starts riding it. You might just be the most throttle-happy rider in our little pole :p

Alex, I think you should also post up some numbers once Annie starts riding it. You might just be the most throttle-happy rider in our little pole :p

Seriously dude! I feel guilty for what I'm putting my baby through, and I haven't dropped below 50. 38!!! :eek: I just spent a whole day out in the country, stopping regularly to practice launches, and redlining the bejessus out of 'er on the 0-60 runs. I'll see what this tank is like, but the gauge is dropping at the same rate as usual. So I just don't know what you do to that thing, lol.

I'm not very aerodynamic. :)

Got another identical 61 MPG today. About to do my break-in service!

I'm not very aerodynamic. :)

You look very aerodynamic in you Avatar... :D

The quietness in here is chilling oooo.

Last fill-up got 67 mpg, don't know if I can beat that on the next fill up :rolleyes:

The quietness in here is chilling oooo.

Last fill-up got 67 mpg, don't know if I can beat that on the next fill up :rolleyes:

Is that highway miles?

Is that highway miles?

Yesterday's fillup was 67 MPG. 7/8 highway.

Got 51 last fillup since putting on my Roso IIs he he he

Next goal is into the 40's, Thomas! :)

Next goal is into the 40's, Thomas! :)

I bet high 40s are there but I need to find some hills or get on a track. Lol!!

What a joy this bike is. I can't wait to get a full exhaust on this thing. It's damned near the perfect bike for my needs. I love being able to use all of it so much yet it's still comfy minus the still hard seat lol.

Is that highway miles?

Sideroads - constant high speeds in the higher gears (about 70% of riding). Speed limit around town is 45mph+, less traffic in the morning on weekends, eco always on (rpms down low). No hwy miles whatsoever. Don't know if my featherweight has anything to do with it...:rolleyes:

Sideroads - constant high speeds in the higher gears (about 70% of riding). Speed limit around town is 45mph+, less traffic in the morning on weekends, eco always on (rpms down low). No hwy miles whatsoever. Don't know if my featherweight has anything to do with it...:rolleyes:

That is actually better than my 250. I was getting 58 in the city on stock gearing.

What??? All you 300 riders quite riding in November?

What??? All you 300 riders quite riding in November?

Not a chance! ;) But my numbers haven't changed. In fact, two fill-ups ago, I got EXACTLY my average mileage, to the tenth of a mpg, lol (55.7). This bike is pretty darned consistent.

Slight dip, 65 mpg last fill up. Don't know if it'll continue falling with the winter blend gas in Cali?

What??? All you 300 riders quite riding in November?

Nope perfect weather around here and same mpg. :)

What??? All you 300 riders quite riding in November?

I'm still riding. My mileage across 740 miles of riding has ranged 50-57 MPG so far. Most of that has been spent in the twisties between 6500-10000 RPM.

bump!

Upper 50's for me so far.

Just did my first full tank of mostly interstate riding. Thought it might go down significantly, since doing 70-80 makes the bike work so hard. But it actually went up (probably just because taking the interstate route meant I wasn't sitting in traffic as much). Average still around 55, but interstate riding was 58.

Last fill up for me was 58.5 mpg in the twisties.

Woo, hit 60 mpg on my last tank of gas!

How many miles do you guys normally ride before it's time for a fill up? I'm just curious about the range on a full tank.

How many miles do you guys normally ride before it's time for a fill up? I'm just curious about the range on a full tank.

230 to 240 miles. I have made it 255 miles once. When the fuel gauge starts blinking it means you have about .9 gallons of gas left. I take note and know I can get 40 more miles easy if I back it down to the posted speed limit.

Is the fuel gauge more accurate than the 250's gauge?

It seems to have less complaints about it; works well enough on mine.

So, who are the dingbats who chose < 20 mpg or > 100 mpg in the poll? :bash:

I seem to be getting 45mpg in the city, 50mpg on the highway.

First tank: 62mpg =)

I'm really happy with that. Most riding was on 35-55mph two lane (one in each direction) roads with minimal stop and go.

I did consciously try to keep the bike in "eco" mode...shifting around 7000 RPM for the most part.

Rode 178 miles. Requiring 2.86 gals of gas. The fuel gauge seems off? I showed 2 bars left.

I decided to fill up because I was in a location I wasn't familiar with. No idea how often I'll see a gas station. Would really hate to run out of gas!

:idunno: I know folks on super sports want my gas mileage

I just filled up again. I think this is my fourth time. First few times were 50s mpg and this time i got 63 mpg. I have yet to get 200+ miles to a tank though... each time I fill up im only putting in 3 gallons too.

Is the fuel gauge more accurate than the 250's gauge?

It seems to have less complaints about it; works well enough on mine.

Mine is kind of annoying, actually; it starts flashing when I've got more than a gallon left in the tank.

Damn, I got another one wrong. Believe me I am so sorry. I should have realized that but I didn't. Now I have been shamed to the point of debating whether I should ever answer another poll on the forum. Please, please forgive me. This has been the worse day of posting on the forum.

http://trinities.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/not-sure-if-serious.jpg

Haha?

----------------------------------
alex.s

I fill y Gsxr up about 2-3 times for every time my gf fills her Ninjette

Therefore - her MPG => 1000mpg . I mean smh and wtf -
She appreciates the frequent leg stretch stops while I pump haha

She Gloats , I pump .

For the month of Sept, I calculated an average of 62.3mpg (if I did my math correctly).

I'm pretty happy with that number. I probably don't ride as hard as you guys do since I normally keep it between 6000 - 8000 RPM. My commute is mostly on 40mph-45mph roads with very little traffic.

wat

/Poll re-opened

Not sure what I voted in the past but my gas mileage is roughly 45mpg at the track. Which means if you're getting significantly lower gas mileage than that there's probably an issue with your bike

For the month of Sept, I calculated an average of 62.3mpg (if I did my math correctly).

I'm pretty happy with that number. I probably don't ride as hard as you guys do since I normally keep it between 6000 - 8000 RPM. My commute is mostly on 40mph-45mph roads with very little traffic.

Update: After putting 12,000 more miles (70 fill ups) on the bike since my last update, my fuel mileage is pretty much the same. Averaging 65MPG. As you can see, I hit 70+ MPG in April. I rode gently because it was still pretty cool out there and my tires don't get warm as quickly as they do in the summer. At the same time, each Spring, I tend to "ease" my way back in riding by taking longer rides in more rural areas with very little traffic.

http://i741.photobucket.com/albums/xx56/_cadd_/Misc1/Screenshot_20160504-144258%20Large%20Medium_zpss6y8pp44.png

Mine's a 2016, I'm the first owner, and I've put 1,700 miles on it since I got it in January. Right now, I'm averaging about 54-56 mpg, almost all highway (80mph) riding. I've put better engine coolant in it, removed every bit of weight I could, swapped for lighter parts, etc. I run 85 octane with ethanol (can't find non-ethanol that isn't premium here, and premium makes the backfiring worse) and a sta-bil anti-ethanol additive.

Honestly, I was hoping to get better mileage out of it than this. I'm still trying to figure out ways to increase it, but I'm having no luck (other than smaller / lighter exhaust, lithium battery, or removing the engine lol)

Drop you cruising speed to the lower 70s and you'll see a fairly marked improvement (to at least over 60 mpg.) That little eco indicator might be silly, but it really does mean something. Don't listen to the people who claim it simply comes on at certain RPMs in certain gears and doesn't indicate anything real, it depends on a number of things (engine speed, wheel speed, throttle opening, etc.)

It seems to me that the eco light is more of a vacuum gauge, well, vacuum light, thats how it acts on mine anyway.

On the top end,aAll I know is that after 72mph, it turns off (roughly 8,000rpm).

Anyone know how that light works? I think it takes throttle position into account.

My wife (and I) has a 2015 300 and she only rides occasionally. We're not too concerned with mileage but I think it looks a lot more aggressive than my 2010 ZX10.
Mileage don't matter...

With 25,800 miles on the odometer, I tracked every single fill up. My 300's average fuel economy is 66MPG.

Have you guys noticed your fuel mileage changing based on temps. I've noticed as temps drop, so does my fuel mileage. Seems like a consistent 15% drop. I don't know if it's the gas (more ethanol in the winter blend) or that the bike has to run richer due to the cold.

Winter of 2014/2015: 59mpg
http://i741.photobucket.com/albums/xx56/_cadd_/Moto/Screenshot_20161204-165952%20Large_zpsnal8lzfi.png



Summer of 2015: 70mpg
http://i741.photobucket.com/albums/xx56/_cadd_/Moto/Screenshot_20161204-170024%20Large_zpsp9kuaon0.png



Winter of 2015/2016: 60mpg
http://i741.photobucket.com/albums/xx56/_cadd_/Moto/Screenshot_20161204-170053%20Large_zpsmznxxeaq.png



Summer of 2016: 72mpg
http://i741.photobucket.com/albums/xx56/_cadd_/Moto/Screenshot_20161204-170130%20Large_zps2tuztgpz.png



Fall of 2016: 64mpg
http://i741.photobucket.com/albums/xx56/_cadd_/Moto/Screenshot_20161204-170150%20Large_zpsbqbrq5nb.png

With 25,800 miles on the odometer, I tracked every single fill up. My 300's average fuel economy is 66MPG.

Have you guys noticed your fuel mileage changing based on temps. I've noticed as temps drop, so does my fuel mileage. Seems like a consistent 15% drop. I don't know if it's the gas (more ethanol in the winter blend) or that the bike has to run richer due to the cold.


I get the same drop, not sure why but I suspect it is a formula change.

I get the same drop, not sure why but I suspect it is a formula change.

That would be interesting since winter-blend fuel is more easily combustible (which should lead to better fuel economy).

That would be interesting since winter-blend fuel is more easily combustible (which should lead to better fuel economy).
Pretty sure it's the other way around.

Winter-blend has less energy that summer-blend, and delivers less economy.

:whathesaid:

Pretty sure it's the other way around.

Winter-blend has less energy that summer-blend, and delivers less economy.

Yep, you're right. After a bit of research, it's the inclusion of butane (and probably some other things) in the winter blend that makes it more volatile, but with a lower energy content.

The more you know!

I am stuck in the city way too much... I average only in the mid 40s per gallon.

I am stuck in the city way too much... I average only in the mid 40s per gallon.

Same experience here. Riding in rural NJ (especially when I do 100+ mile rides), i hit 70mpg often. When I visit friends and stay over in Brooklyn or Queens and we ride out to Manhattan, I'm in the upper 40s or low 50s. Short rides. Tons of stop & go. Kills gas mileage.

Same experience here. Riding in rural NJ (especially when I do 100+ mile rides), i hit 70mpg often. When I visit friends and stay over in Brooklyn or Queens and we ride out to Manhattan, I'm in the upper 40s or low 50s. Short rides. Tons of stop & go. Kills gas mileage.

Yeah, people think it's crazy when I tell them it takes anywhere from 15-25 minutes to cross 2 miles of downtown DC on a motorcycle. Haha. Not very efficient.