[LanghamP]

Since I have a daily very regular route sans traffic, I decided to burn through two tanks of gas with the utmost fuel efficiency.
--2016 GSXS1000F.
--Clean and waxed bike and helmet.
--No going above 62 mph (indicated) highway.
--I estimate about 40 mph on twisties, no brakes, tiny amount of throttle, 6th gear.
--Granny starts from lights.
--Engine off at long lights.
--I weight roughly 250 pounds with equipment, tank bag, tail bag, Aerostich suit, boots, gloves, etc...
--Used Google Maps to go exactly from one destination to another every day. Hence, this estimation is the worst (ie shortest) possible.

Result: about 58 mpg, so just missed 60 mpg.

It's pretty funny having a long line of cars backed up behind me because I was going exactly the speed limit, and having every single driver beat me from stoplights. On the last day I even had a full-rig Harley follow me before passing me with a WTF gesture. Of course, I was scrunched up behind the windshield, so yes I looked ridiculous.

58 mpg is not very efficient for a motorcycle under the best case driving but I don't think this would surprise anyone. 1000cc engines will never be particularly efficient engines.

Some notes: to my surprise, the GSXS is quite difficult to ride at such low throttle openings with low rpms. I think the bike stalled in 6th gear @40 mph not just a few times but many times. Every Japanese bike, including this one, I get the impression the engines are imperturbable sewing machines but apparently low rpms at tiny throttle openings seems pure misery for the engine. I'm wondering if those cut-offs and stumblings might have negatively impacted fuel economy.

Interestingly, I next got about 48-52 mpg riding "normally", or doing about 70 mph on the highway and between 40 to 100+ mph on twisties, and relatively high rpms with fairly large throttle openings out of turns. But still not "sport bike riding".

What does all this mean? I'm not absolutely sure, but it seems you have to go way slower with way less acceleration to eek out just 15% more fuel efficiency. Or maybe sport bike engines are just really efficient at high rpms. Or maybe there's some hard line in fuel efficiency whereby when the bike is turned on then it will use a minimal amount of fuel.

Regardless, riding a sport bike as a granny bike is quite painful. I do this all the time with my car and it's just fine to get ludicrous gas mileage but trundling along on a bike at or below the speed limit is quite boring. And also, the aforementioned throttle issues made it surprisingly difficult and challenging to do. So you're going slow but it requires a lot of concentration to keep the bike at a precise speed.

 

[pilninggas]

Last summer on the way back from the Harz/Berlin I rode from Essen - via Brussels which included a stop-start in brussels and finding parking etc - to Dunkirk on one tank. over 240 miles!!

I was babying it on the autobahn and a roads (100kmh) max, but when i stopped on at the filling station [the range --- had been flashing for dozen miles, but i knew it had fuel] it still had at least 1/2 litre left.

This is about 67mpg-uk or about 56mpg-us.

Utterly amazing and if i had swerved Brussels (I wish I had a terrorist attack happened in front of me) I reckon 70mpg-uk would have been possible.

Suzuki's choice of longer stroke [still short stroke by most measures] than the others results in much higher efficiency. MT10s are abysmal with 120mile tank ranges - i love Yams, but calling the version with soft panniers the touring version is a joke.

Best mpg-uk on my NC700 =105mpg and on my 300cc scooter 100mpg.

 

[pilninggas]

To add, the 'stall at 40mph' is likely fuel-cut if your bike is not mapped. Mine is flashed and doesnt have fuel cut, so cruising with a hair of throttle is not harsh or difficult. Mine still has operational lambda [not deleted in the flash] so was probably running at bang on stoich most of the time.

 

[Supercharger]

Nice work. I can't ride my bike to work (wish I could!) but it would be nice to see what MPG it is capable of. I however, could simply never have the throttle discipline you demonstrated. I have tried to gauge my mileage after my flash but it doesn't take me long to forget what I was trying to achieve. It usually just takes a stretch of long, clear road in front of me...and it almost an auto reflex to twist the throttle.

 

[Dead Nuts]

I have the same year/model GSXS and have been really impressed with the fuel mileage in the past 6 years I've owned it. I get high 40's without the slightest care about riding for economy... have hit 50+ a couple times on state routes with 55-65 mph speed limits. This would be with a set of sw-motech saddlebags mounted which stay on the bike 24/7. My old '06 Z750S got worse mileage despite having a full 50 less hp and running a +1 tooth countershaft sprocket.

I almost bought a leftover 2nd gen FZ1 for $7K a couple years before I got the suzuki and the main reason I passed was because of the pathetic fuel mileage: mid 30's is pretty typical. Apparently the "new" FZ/MT-10 is even worse as noted above. Funny enough the old carb'd 1st gen FZ got waaay better mileage than either.

Small concern for most people eyeing a liter-class sport-standard I guess but having to fill-up every 120 miles on long trips really sucks.

 

[Popkat]

With reference to the FZ/MT10, the mileage you state is not true, I owned an MT10 for four and a half years and the best i got on a long run was 171 miles to the 17 litre fuel tank, even then it took just over 16 litres to fill. around twisty roads i would regularly get 120 miles to tank riding fast. My old FZ1s had same size tank but best i ever got was 140 to the tank. So MT10 better than FZ1s and not as bad as some make out.

 

[My Name Is Jeff]

I get 20ks to 22 ks per litre just riding normal like fast slow hard acceleration etc.
That's with woolich tune.
My z125 does 42ks per litre on country roads riding between 80 and 100 kph lol..

 

[871JZ]

I typically average in the mid 40's for MPG. I certainly don't beat on my bike, but admittedly, a large percentage of my riding is spirited. I'm sure I could bump that MPG up to the mid 50's if I was trying, and while it can be interesting to see what kind of fuel economy is possible, I don't worry with it. I didn't buy a GSX-S to concern myself with conserving fuel, especially when I'm not commuting on it. The whole purpose of the bike and many of the performance modifications I've made is to enjoy the seemingly endless supply of 1000cc power and have a blast twisting that throttle whenever possible!

 

[pilninggas]

With reference to the FZ/MT10, the mileage you state is not true, I owned an MT10 for four and a half years and the best i got on a long run was 171 miles to the 17 litre fuel tank, even then it took just over 16 litres to fill. around twisty roads i would regularly get 120 miles to tank riding fast. My old FZ1s had same size tank but best i ever got was 140 to the tank. So MT10 better than FZ1s and not as bad as some make out.

I had an FZ1S and got 155-165 to a tank with a small margin. I genuinely considered an MT10 (I prefer Yams to Suzukis), but the dire range from owners on the forum put me off. If I am touring 180miles between fill-ups is right in the ballpark for me.

Presumably you were kinder to the throttle than a lot of other people who own them. Yamaha's very short stroke generates good power but at the loss of thermal efficiency.

 

[Popkat]

I had an FZ1S and got 155-165 to a tank with a small margin. I genuinely considered an MT10 (I prefer Yams to Suzukis), but the dire range from owners on the forum put me off. If I am touring 180miles between fill-ups is right in the ballpark for me.

Presumably you were kinder to the throttle than a lot of other people who own them. Yamaha's very short stroke generates good power but at the loss of thermal efficiency.

My MT10 had leo vince decat pipe and was woolich flashed by Junction33, when I got the best mileage is was in the softest power mode mainly on the motorway and using cruise control where possible, speed set at 80mph.
Riding on the twisty A roads riding fast (I wasn't hanging about) using the power and not thinking of fuel consumption, I generally get about 120 miles.
There are many on the FB pages that report good fuel mileage but everyone picks up on the ones who say it's crap, I think they must be stuck in 2nd gear or reporting track day mileage 😆
It must be difficult though with many different opinions on a bikes tank range, the Gsxs seems to be fairly consistant and good on fuel, I have a Katana as well as the GT and that has a 12 litre tank but still gets 120-130 miles ridden normally. My GT has managed over 200 mile to a tank.

 

[871JZ]

My MT10 had leo vince decat pipe and was woolich flashed by Junction33, when I got the best mileage is was in the softest power mode mainly on the motorway and using cruise control where possible, speed set at 80mph.
Riding on the twisty A roads riding fast (I wasn't hanging about) using the power and not thinking of fuel consumption, I generally get about 120 miles.
There are many on the FB pages that report good fuel mileage but everyone picks up on the ones who say it's crap, I think they must be stuck in 2nd gear or reporting track day mileage 😆
It must be difficult though with many different opinions on a bikes tank range, the Gsxs seems to be fairly consistant and good on fuel, I have a Katana as well as the GT and that has a 12 litre tank but still gets 120-130 miles ridden normally. My GT has managed over 200 mile to a tank.

The 120 miles to a tank that you're reporting is pretty bad, IMO. I think the MT-10 has a 4.5 gallon tank and I doubt you're bone dry when you fill up each time, so you get 120 miles using about four gallons of gas. That means you were getting roughly 30 miles per gallon, which is pretty terrible.

My GSX-S has a five gallon tank. I typically refuel after riding about 180 miles and it normally takes about four gallons to refill the tank, meaning I still had a gallon left. Using four gallons of gas to go 180 miles equals 45 miles per gallon, which is 50% better than your MT-10. That's a huge difference considering they're very similar bikes with the same sized 1000cc engine.

As you mentioned, I'm not easy on the throttle, either, so our riding styles are similar which makes this a pretty fair comparison. If my mileage dropped from 45 to 30 miles per gallon, I'd be complaining about it like many of the other MT-10 owners. I'll keep my 200+ mile per tank range like you get with your GT.

 

[LanghamP]

The 120 miles to a tank that you're reporting is pretty bad, IMO. I think the MT-10 has a 4.5 gallon tank and I doubt you're bone dry when you fill up each time, so you get 120 miles using about four gallons of gas. That means you were getting roughly 30 miles per gallon, which is pretty terrible.

My GSX-S has a five gallon tank. I typically refuel after riding about 180 miles and it normally takes about four gallons to refill the tank, meaning I still had a gallon left. Using four gallons of gas to go 180 miles equals 45 miles per gallon, which is 50% better than your MT-10. That's a huge difference considering they're very similar bikes with the same sized 1000cc engine.

This link says about 30 mph. 2022 Yamaha MT-10 | First Ride Review | Rider Magazine

A slightly taller rear sprocket (42 teeth vs. 43 before) contributes to smoother response at small throttle openings and better fuel economy, which Yamaha says has increased from a dismal 30 mpg to a more palatable 36 mpg.

while this Yamaha MT-10 MPG - Actual MPG from 7 Yamaha MT-10 owners for a 2016 says under 30 mpg but mid 30 mpg for post 2016 MT10.

Meanwhile, the GSXS1000 trundles along in 38 to 42 mpg in all its forms but if you drive the bike instead of ride the bike, it gets substantially better gas mileage.

 

[871JZ]

This link says about 30 mph. 2022 Yamaha MT-10 | First Ride Review | Rider Magazine


while this Yamaha MT-10 MPG - Actual MPG from 7 Yamaha MT-10 owners for a 2016 says under 30 mpg but mid 30 mpg for post 2016 MT10.

Meanwhile, the GSXS1000 trundles along in 38 to 42 mpg in all its forms but if you drive the bike instead of ride the bike, it gets substantially better gas mileage.

Not sure I believe dropping just one tooth on the rear sprocket increased fuel economy by 6 MPG. When you're only getting 30 MPG, gaining 6 MPG is a huge percentage increase and its going to take more than that to do it. Either way, it seems like Yamaha was acknowledging that high fuel consumption was an issue and it needed to be addressed, even if it was half-heartedly done.

 

[Uncle]

I tell people that I burn fossil fuel for fun ... as a hobby.
I am happy that the bike has a fuel gauge and also shows distance still to travel.
I fill the tank with 98 octane petrol and ride and fill the tank with 98 octane petrol and ride again.... it’s fun.

As a kid we talked in miles and gallons but these days I think in litres and kilometres which is lucky because my bike does too.

Ride on and stay safe wherever you are.

 

[Supercharger]

If MPG is important WTF did you buy a liter bike? You guys are weird. 🎅

 

[871JZ]

If MPG is important WTF did you buy a liter bike? You guys are weird. 🎅

This is pretty much how I look at it. Sure, it's fun to do a test now and then to see what kind of mileage you can get, but 99% of the time I could care less how much fuel I'm using. I'm just out there twisting that throttle as much as possible. 😎

 

[Uncle]

You guys are weird.

Thanks

 

[trevor]

Touring loaded with luggage I can squeeze 350kms out of a tank on my GT

 

[LanghamP]

Not sure I believe dropping just one tooth on the rear sprocket increased fuel economy by 6 MPG. When you're only getting 30 MPG, gaining 6 MPG is a huge percentage increase and its going to take more than that to do it. Either way, it seems like Yamaha was acknowledging that high fuel consumption was an issue and it needed to be addressed, even if it was half-heartedly done.

Getting 30 mpg for a motorcycle regardless of size seems really bad efficiency. I mean, once we into the mid 30's mpg we're already getting double the average automobiles in the US (light trucks dominate in the US).

It could also be these are mostly non-stock motorcycles. If we're messing with those emissions and sensors then who knows what mileage or power we're really getting.

I did recently price a gsxs1000 stock muffler; it's $1100. I don't think that even included the catalytic converter. Like if you crashed a GSXS and magically damaged only the headers and pipe, you'd be looking at more than $2000...

 

[871JZ]

Getting 30 mpg for a motorcycle regardless of size seems really bad efficiency. I mean, once we into the mid 30's mpg we're already getting double the average automobiles in the US (light trucks dominate in the US).

It could also be these are mostly non-stock motorcycles. If we're messing with those emissions and sensors then who knows what mileage or power we're really getting.

I did recently price a gsxs1000 stock muffler; it's $1100. I don't think that even included the catalytic converter. Like if you crashed a GSXS and magically damaged only the headers and pipe, you'd be looking at more than $2000...

I don't know what huge bikes like the Honda Goldwing with it's six cylinder engine, or those heavy 900 pound Harley Davidson baggers get for fuel economy, but I would certainly agree that 30 miles per gallon is pretty poor for sport bikes or naked bikes like the GSX-S and MT-10.

My fuel economy dropped after installing a full exhaust and having the ECU flashed, but only because I've been riding more aggressively since then. I did a couple maximum MPG tests when the bike was brand new and completely unmodified and I've also done the same tests after the modifications, and the results are essentially identical. The modifications didn't increase the engine's fuel consumption, only my desire to ride more aggressively, which has led to increased consumption. I did install a 190/55 rear tire, which is slightly taller than the original 190/50 rear tire, so that lessened fuel consumption a hair by lowering engine RPM at any given speed.

As for the high $1100 price tag for the GSX-S exhaust, that includes the whole system from the header all the way back to the slip-on muffler at the very rear, which is another $300. You'll also have to buy the clamps, gaskets, and heat shield separately, so there's another couple hundred dollars. If you were in need of a complete replacement exhaust, it wouldn't make any sense to buy a factory system unless you sourced a used one. A new aftermarket system can be purchased for a third of the price of a new factory system and also provides several performance advantages.