Last visit was: Mon Oct 23, 2017 7:16 am It is currently Mon Oct 23, 2017 7:16 am

All times are UTC+01:00




 [ 23 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1 2
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Nov 25, 2016 2:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 7:27 pm
Posts: 664
Bonzo wrote:
rik wrote:
The above conversation is etched in my memory from being with my Father in our Vauxhall 101 deLuxe when he refuelled each Saturday morning... :old:


Assuming the Vauxhall 101 deluxe didn't have a 2 stroke engine, what were the shots :?:

RedEx.

_________________
Try this on yer fueller...........


Top
   
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 25, 2016 2:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 8:57 pm
Posts: 304
Current ride: 1125CR & HD Hardtail
Location: London.
rik wrote:
They weren't an economical car to run, Ferris, so count your blessings. lOl


Hey, anything is better than my V6 and V8 yank tanks, but still, I'm not complainign about the number, I'm curious as to whether I have a problem as it is so low in comparison.

I guess I'll just take it for a motorway ride and see if I can get the 180 miles out of a tank, see if it can do what I expect of it, and then just put it to 'not being as good in traffic'.

Bonzo wrote:
I can only get litres

For you Bonzo, my XB9 got 45mpg (15.9303km/litre) round town and could get 60mpg (21.2404km/litre) on a long haul. I still buy my petrol in litres, but my Buells always have a converter fitted, so it turns the litres into gallons for me (pretty good conversion rate) so I work it out in mpg, rather than km/l, y'know, cos I'm English, not a modern European.

_________________
Life moves pretty fast. If you don't stop and look around once in a while, you could miss it.


Top
   
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 25, 2016 2:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 1:55 pm
Posts: 4337
Current ride: 98 S1W
Location: Perth, not the Scottish one
FerrisBueller wrote:
cos I'm English, not a modern European.


Well bugger me, we thought you were a septic :o


Top
   
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 25, 2016 3:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 8:57 pm
Posts: 304
Current ride: 1125CR & HD Hardtail
Location: London.
Bonzo wrote:
Well bugger me, we thought you were a septic :o



I'm not septic
Image

_________________
Life moves pretty fast. If you don't stop and look around once in a while, you could miss it.


Top
   
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 25, 2016 4:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 7:42 pm
Posts: 2651
Current ride: M2 Razorback
Location: Mouth of the Port in the Shire of Hamp
03 wrote:
Bonzo wrote:
rik wrote:
The above conversation is etched in my memory from being with my Father in our Vauxhall 101 deLuxe when he refuelled each Saturday morning... :old:


Assuming the Vauxhall 101 deluxe didn't have a 2 stroke engine, what were the shots :?:

RedEx*.

*Other brands of Upper Cylinder Lubricant are (or were) available ;)

_________________
'98 M2 Razorback, it's a keeper.


Top
   
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 10, 2016 11:20 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 1:13 pm
Posts: 1978
Current ride: XB9SX
My theory on this is that good mpg is a matter of optimising supply to match the minimum required demand. ;) .....obviously, but that the design of some machines is better optimised towards this than others in terms of torque available on part throttle to make good progress. As it happens longish stroke motors with only 2 valves turning slowly are quite good in this area. Multi valve motors give larger influx of mixture at initial valve opening due to a greater total valve circumference so can in theory give a greater charge at low revs, but it is all to easy to over gas it, while longer strokes give higher piston ring speed for a given rpm and automatically have an enhanced compression process at lower revs for whatever mixture has entered the cylinder. The bigger crank throw in a long stroke motor can also provide a better turning moment for a given amount of cylinder charge, hence can be significantly more frugal than your sportier short stroke motor when mixing it in commuter traffic. This is also providing the long stroke machine is not too heavy and has an optimum set of gears to make the best of torque multiplication. Out on the open road at legal cruising speeds the differences between engines is less and the long stroke designs can be noticeably more thirsty when driven faster as they become less efficient at wide open throttle. In my experience. Better explanations or notes to the contrary by those more qualified are welcome as my head is now hurting. ;)


Top
   
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 10, 2016 1:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2011 7:10 pm
Posts: 1849
Current ride: Buell ulysses
Location: Telford
:yt:
Different horses for different courses :yup:
You can buy a 500 BHP car that will get you from A to B quickly
You can also buy a HGV lorry with 500 BHP that can pull 44 tonnes .
Although in this instance when being worked hard , each probably only returning a couple of miles to a gallon :yup:

_________________
Buell Ulysses XB12X 06/08
CCM R30 (650cc) 02
Norton Dominators ( in bits on going projects ) old


Top
   
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 10, 2016 8:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 1:13 pm
Posts: 1978
Current ride: XB9SX
Having said all that, Despite being of a similar displacement, weight, and overall gearing, a friends KTM 990 on a longish run still seems to guzzle the gas 20 percent faster than my XB no matter how smoothly you ride it. :? ''Tis fast though! ;)


Top
   
 
 [ 23 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1 2

All times are UTC+01:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot] and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited