Kawasaki Ninja 1000 Forum banner

1 - 20 of 39 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
64 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
On a 2015 model, would I expect better fuel consumption at Low power setting compared to Full power?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,754 Posts
From the looks of my 2012 it looks like its going to be a guzzler at low speeds
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
258 Posts
I have a 2015 with about 5500 miles on it and I've kept very careful records since day one (Fuleio App). I found no difference when ridden consistently. I rode an entire tank in both modes and both were very close to my avg 43.06 MPG. Now if you do plenty of full throttle runs then of coarse it will save some gas if the bike is actually reigning in your throttle hand. I find my throttle hand makes all the difference in mpg. I get about 38mpg when full on flogging and about 47 if I'm trying to get the most mileage.

Of course, Your Mileage may Very!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
828 Posts
You mileage numbers are almost the exact one as mine. I do ride mostly in California though and that seems to hurt my mileage compared to my other bikes when I compare their mileage here to other states. I did notice my mileage has gone up a bit after Ivan's tune. I know that almost no matter what (except pure track) I can get 160 miles on a tank. Considering the performance of the bike I am pretty happy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
370 Posts
My year-old 2015 N1K (17,500 miles on the clock) is approaching a sprocket/chain replacement. I have noticed the fuel mileage is dropping. It began to drop after the dealer service about 6 weeks ago. My theory is because of additional driveline friction from the worn chain/sprockets and perhaps the colder temps at this time of year. Last summer, I saw about 42-50 mpg, depending on throttle activity. Now it is hovering around 37-39 mpg, with essentially the same kind of riding. Anyone else experiencing this?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
37 Posts
On my commute to work each day (172km / 106.9mile round-trip) I'm achieving 19.1 km/Ltr (44.9mpg) travelling at the speed-limit of 110km/hr (68.4mph). The highway along my route is mostly undulated and/or level with no significant hills to encounter.

Upon filling the tank, the indicated range is about 350km (217.5miles). With only one fuel contents bar remaining, the range usually indicates approximately 170km to travel. I usually refuel around this point and haven't pushed it to see how far I'd travel before running out of fuel. But this range distance seems a little optimistic and I'm not overly convinced of it's accuracy?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
828 Posts
The range indicator isn't accurate BUT it gives me more granularity regarding the fuel left than the miserable tank gauge.

I immediately subtract 40km (25 miles) from whatever it says toward the end. That puts me at about where I'll be when the tank is bone dry. With fuel injected anything, I never like to run the tank dry. So once I am down to where it says 50km/30 mile left, I better be in sight of a gas/petrol station.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,754 Posts
Also keep in mind that most gas companies are putting out there winter blend gas and that will yield lower mpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: GaryK

·
Registered
Joined
·
258 Posts
Day Trippin... Thanks for the info on Ivans ECU flash Mileage. You are one of the only peeps on the web giving clear info on the before and after mileage. I'm looking forward to Ivanizing mine with Akro headers and stock mufflers after I finish saving and collection all the bits for the KQR Saddlebag Setup.

I have run mine out of gas two times... Once on purpose with a quart of fuel in the tankbag and once by accident getting lost. When I tested it on purpose I found the range indicator to be spot on. It goes blank when it passes 30 miles remaining and I went 37 miles before sucking air. I got about 47mpg on that tank (I was taking it easy to test best mpg) and went 233 miles on that tank! My tank holds almost exactly 5.05 gallons. It re-started immediately after I put the quart of fuel in the tank, no hesitation at all.

I was getting too optimistic and found I was often filling up real close to 5 gals, but I've had several runs over 220 miles. I've dialed it back and fill up right around 200 miles so I don't end up pushing it home...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
462 Posts
Strange. I think I'm the only one with bad mileage, but I do not ride it gingerly as well.

My fuel mileage on Full power is an average of 36mpg (5 full tanks)
On Low (Tested on maybe 8 tanks), it's 43.

I always consume 1 full tank per weekend ride.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
258 Posts
Angelo...

Did you get your bike new? My mileage improved by several mpg after the first 1500 to 2000 miles. 36 mpg does not sound strange to me. I'm old and have been off a bike for about 8 years so its gingerly I go as I get my bike legs back under me. Plus my back road adventures are very tight and twisty, with tons of blind corners and rises. Depending on the roads (lots of fast, pour it on sweepers) that sounds pretty normal. I've heard of low to mid 20's on trackdays.

Your 43 on low power mode sound about right, and is exactly my average. Sounds like you are using it right and having a good time.

Keep it up and be safe!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
462 Posts
Angelo...

Did you get your bike new? My mileage improved by several mpg after the first 1500 to 2000 miles. 36 mpg does not sound strange to me. I'm old and have been off a bike for about 8 years so its gingerly I go as I get my bike legs back under me. Plus my back road adventures are very tight and twisty, with tons of blind corners and rises. Depending on the roads (lots of fast, pour it on sweepers) that sounds pretty normal. I've heard of low to mid 20's on trackdays.

Your 43 on low power mode sound about right, and is exactly my average. Sounds like you are using it right and having a good time.

Keep it up and be safe!
Yup. I got it brand new, Broken in on the dyno, it now has 4.5k miles. It has an akrapovic slip-on but no tune yet. Nels Byersdorf is gonna be tuning it in March, so hopefully I get better fuel mileage after that.

Roads I ride on are all mountain or forest roads, it's going uphill almost all the time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
229 Posts
With my ’13 N1K, I don’t have the performance modes like the newer models but, I too, have kept diligent records of my fuel consumption. I was going thru my log last week and was reflecting on my trips made this past summer.

Made two separate 500+ mile (one way) trips thru N Dakota/Minnesota plus I have a ½ hr commute to work where I take it once a week. On my long trips, I was pretty much averaging Interstate speeds (65 – 70 mph or 105 – 113 kph) with the odd ‘push’ here and there. And in my work commutes, I’d average 60 mph or 100 kph.

So, my yearly average for hwy riding came out to 48 mpg with a few higher logins btw 50 and 52 and a few btw 43 and 46 mpg. I had a one time HIGH of 56 mpg (decent tail wind) and a LOW of 33 mpg (v strong head/crosswinds of 40 mph winds .. no fun !).

Keep in mind, my mpg are in Imperial gallons so my friends to the south that use US gallons, your numbers will be slightly smaller. Using a factor of 1.2 will generally give you the equivalents. Ie. 48 (Imp) mpg divide by 1.2 = 40 (US) mpg

And as far as tank capacity and total miles per tank, I’ve never gone the distance. If on the road, I’m generally looking to stop and refuel around the 175 – 200 km range (100 – 125 miles). This is generally around 1-1/2 hrs+ on the saddle which is about the time my rear is saying it needs a 5 – 10 min break.

All in all, I’m very pleased with Ninja-based performance bike that can give a 50 yr old some thrills every now and then that will put a wide grin on my face YET give me some upright riding comfort over longer hauls every now and then which was my hope all along when purchasing this bike.

With the winter weather we have now, all I can do is read about different ride reports in various rider/bike forums and daydream of doing similar runs this coming riding season and we’ll see how the mileage is again for this season !
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
828 Posts
I use a great program for my Android phone to track mileage, maintenance, etc. It is called aCar. I use it to track all my vehicles. I didn't do much with the Ninja at first to track it but I just pulled up the info. Worst tank 33.2 and best 50.6 US mpg. Overall average is 40.1.

This if for over 4,000 miles and is running almost entirely on crappy California gas. This normally kills my mileage 10-15% on other bikes. My mileage has been trending up since the Ivan tune, bigger countershaft and taller rear tire. Most of my highway cruising is from 80-100 mph (so 130-160kph). I almost always have the factory luggage on it and I have a taller windscreen. I am not a petite guy so that doesn't help either.

I tend to ride pretty aggressively but not WFO all the time. I almost never use the low power mode except in extreme rain. So for my mileage purposes, 98% of traveled miles have been full power mode. Also included in my mileage is some horrendous traffic in and around LA and San Francisco for many hours. When I am totally in the city, my mileage is in the mid 30's as it is a lot of stop and go, and typically in the lower gears. Even splitting traffic I can't go that fast a lot of times. Safety is my concern there rather than getting somewhere quickly.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
30 Posts
I have similar fuel economy to Coach on a '14. On touring trips I am ranging between 5.1 to 5.4 L/100km (52 to 56 Imperial mpg). I had one tank at 4.7 (60.6 mpg) in southern BC where construction was keeping the speed between 45 and 60 mph and the roads were fairly flat. In spring and fall when the gas formulation changes and you are pushing colder heavier air it will drop to 47 or 48 mpg. Then there are some shorter trips where the revs may have been averaging somewhat higher and fuel economy had a significant drop.

Using a factory gel seat I can tolerate 275 to 300 km before fuel stops. I am not saying the last 75 km are very comfortable. Took the original stock seat into a local shop that does bike seats. The owner looked at the gel seat and said the gel was about half the thickness she uses, but I might be better to have the original shaped. She trimmed some foam from the sides and then made hollows for my pelvic bones to sit in the foam. Sort of like a shaped wooden chair seat versus a flat. I will try it in the spring and see if it is better than the gel.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
64 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
Thanks for all the responses. My interest in starting the thread is to know whether there is a significant difference in fuel consumption between the "L" and "F" settings.

If "L" gives only 75% power of "F", isn't it logical to expect better fuel mileage over "F" too? HoloQuest has found no significant difference.

I'm not sure whether anyone else has anyone done extensive runs on both "L" and "F." It is reasonable to assume that when a rider chooses a setting, he will continue to use that setting unless the road conditions change significantly over the course of a ride (e.g. sudden thunderstorm, bad road) after which he returns back to his chosen setting. This makes a direct comparison between the two settings difficult.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
828 Posts
I can't see any difference. You still need a certain amount of HP to go a given speed. So to go 75 mph will still take about 30 HP (just a guess) whether it is in full power or boring mode. The Ninja isn't the Road Runner and can defy physics.

If you it makes you to ride less aggressively then you might get some benefit but at steady state cruising I can't see where it would make any difference UNLESS it changes the air fuel ratio and leans it out for the engine to be more economical.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
30 Posts
Thanks for all the responses. My interest in starting the thread is to know whether there is a significant difference in fuel consumption between the "L" and "F" settings.

If "L" gives only 75% power of "F", isn't it logical to expect better fuel mileage over "F" too? HoloQuest has found no significant difference.

I'm not sure whether anyone else has anyone done extensive runs on both "L" and "F." It is reasonable to assume that when a rider chooses a setting, he will continue to use that setting unless the road conditions change significantly over the course of a ride (e.g. sudden thunderstorm, bad road) after which he returns back to his chosen setting. This makes a direct comparison between the two settings difficult.
In the early spring I ran at L power and level 3 traction control for awhile due to dust and pea gravel at intersections. The fuel economy was in the 46 to 48 mpg Imp. The gas would still be coming off winter formulation so economy is down. In the fall on full power ran similar numbers. Trips were shorter in the 100 to 175 mile range. Ran full power once all the gravel in the spring disappeared and mileage improved. The fuel economy is more a function of how hard you accelerate from a stop and how often you push the bike above 130 kph. Steady running in the 110 to 125 range (68 to 78 mph) with the odd burst to mubbledy mumbledy for passing will result in fuel economy in the low 50's mpg Imp (45+ US).
 
1 - 20 of 39 Posts
Top