MPG

[Taz]

What sort of MPG does the 2003+ Vara get compared to the @?

[africajim]

Ok, I believe the EFI model is better on fuel, with injection and six speed bound to be. My 51 model, 5 speed with carbs, averaged around 40mpg, touring around speed limits 45mpg, but hard thrashing could bring it down well into the thirties.

I've tried the 04 EFI model, I reckon it would be quicker top end but I felt the carb model had more grunt. Possibly the gearing is slightly higher on the newer models, hence more economy less acceleration. The one I tested would not lift the front wheel off the throttle. But it did pass the 135mph that stuck the old one on the rev limiter :twisted:

[Taz]

Thanks for more info than I expected! :)

Ok, I believe the EFI model is better on fuel, with injection and six speed bound to be. My 51 model, 5 speed with carbs, averaged around 40mpg, touring around speed limits 45mpg, but hard thrashing could bring it down well into the thirties.
So, I presume that the 2003+ models have a fuel consumption of around 50mpg, and more like 40mpg if thrashed?

I've tried the 04 EFI model, I reckon it would be quicker top end but I felt the carb model had more grunt. Possibly the gearing is slightly higher on the newer models, hence more economy less acceleration. The one I tested would not lift the front wheel off the throttle. But it did pass the 135mph that stuck the old one on the rev limiter :twisted:
Over 135mph?! :shock: Seeing that the Vara is lacking aerodynamics somewhat, I think that's quite incredible performance! So, would you say the Vara's limit is about 140mph?

[africajim]

I'll let the owners of EFI's fill in the blanks for you mate, I was only test riding one, I knew the 51 model I had would pull to the rev limiter in top, most owners will agree, the rev limiter comes in and holds it around 135. The 04 I had out kept pulling above that but I was running out of road. In my opinion, like the @T got breathless at 80mph the Vara starts at 110mph, long climb over that.

Better set up than my Triumph, I hit the rev limiter the other day in low gear and it almost threw me over the bars! It's like the old RS Turbo Escort, hits the limiter and instead of lowering power it shuts off the injection! I'll try it again some time, I would have expected a stutter, not complete dead, I simply changed up a gear! I like my Tiger and think it's the nicest sounding bike I've owned but the Varadero is one of the best bikes on the road today. For all round use there's nothing like it, well, as there's no new @T! I'll decide whether to continue with Triumph after the Stella Alpina, although, like the @T Triumph have decided to discontinue the Tiger in it's current set up, otherwise, back to the Varadero!

[Dee Duble Yuh]

Obviously fuel consumption varies depending on riding style, traffic density, ambient temperature, blah, blah, blah. My '04 EFI was returning only about 40 mpg when new and commuting in cold weather. It's averaging more like 45 mpg now (and I usually get slightly better mileage than most riders). Although the EFI is better than a carbed version, it's not much better.

Aren't there previous posts about this?

[Taz]

Aren't there previous posts about this?
I saw it mentioned about fuel consumption somewhere on this site (along with other sites), but my question goes a little further, as in comparisons with the @. I also wanted to have the full info here right now rather than having to search hundreds of threads for where it was mentioned.

[Cie]

Ahhhh! So you want someone else to do the work?

[Taz]

Ahhhh! So you want someone else to do the work?
Yep! :P But seriously, all I need is the info from the guys who've got the bikes, especially those who've had both the @ and the Vara. From what I can gather, the @ has a fuel consumption of between 45 and 50mpg and the 2003+ Vara has between 40 and 45mpg, am I right?

[McVicar]

I have no idea what my fuel consumption is but considering you are going to change the fairing,wheels,ride height etc surely the fuel consumption of a standard Vara will be of no consequence.

[africajim]

I would agree with those figures, I reckon 45 to 50 for my @T's and 40 to 45 for my 51 Vara. We're not talking precise figures so I don't think it would make much difference changing the plastics, wheels etc, both bikes can devour fuel if thrashed to death! but I would say those figures would be average if you were riding sensible. The changes you mention would only make a difference of a few MPG very little as the weight would be much the same also aero dynamics little change as still has a fairing. Hope this helps?

I would have thought the EFI would have a decent margin of difference though, I expected 50mpg taking your time, my Tiger does better, on three tripped runs average was 52mpg. It's a 955i.

[Dee Duble Yuh]

I would agree with those figures, I reckon 45 to 50 for my @T's and 40 to 45 for my 51 Vara...

I would have thought the EFI would have a decent margin of difference though, I expected 50mpg taking your time, my Tiger does better, on three tripped runs average was 52mpg. It's a 955i.On a day out I can get 50 mpg. For example, on Sunday's club ride around Wales I got over 51 mpg. However, commuting in January (15 miles each way) can return as little as 39 mpg. My VA4's average over the first 5700 miles is 45 mpg.

God I sound nerdy.

[africajim]

Thanks Dave, that's what I wanted to hear, if I'm not settled with the Triumph I reckoned I would fall back on the Varadero. The carb model was a tad thirsty (160 miles to the light on autobahn) and I do notice the difference with the Tiger.

The Vara getting almost the same as the @T and Tiger sounds damned good to me. Of course economy wasn't my main reason for change. I still yearn for the all round ability of the @T. The Vara's a lot of bike, I thought the Tiger would possibly be closer to the @T in weight and fun, so far, it is. Touring's the next step, next month will prove it's worth. If I'm not convinced I will return to the Honda.

As a second bike I'm now considering this kind of project with a Vara, I could keep either the Tiger or a new Vara as my good bike and build one of these Hybrids for a work, fun, commuter. I cover between 12 and 15,000 miles a year on my bikes so two splits the miles.

I think this kind of post shows this sites worth to it's full potential. Very inspiring! :D

[Taz]

I would agree with those figures, I reckon 45 to 50 for my @T's and 40 to 45 for my 51 Vara. We're not talking precise figures so I don't think it would make much difference changing the plastics, wheels etc, both bikes can devour fuel if thrashed to death! but I would say those figures would be average if you were riding sensible. The changes you mention would only make a difference of a few MPG very little as the weight would be much the same also aero dynamics little change as still has a fairing. Hope this helps?

On a day out I can get 50 mpg. For example, on Sunday's club ride around Wales I got over 51 mpg. However, commuting in January (15 miles each way) can return as little as 39 mpg. My VA4's average over the first 5700 miles is 45 mpg.
Thanks, you've both been A LOT of help! :)

The Vara getting almost the same as the @T and Tiger sounds damned good to me.
To me too! Yes, I'm very happy with that info indeed! :D

[Shep]

I have the RD04 Africa Twin and i get about 47mpg. Yesterday we took the new Vara for a 200+ mile blast, i was very pleased with the consumption. I put in £10 at 97.9p a litre so i bought 10.21 litres. I then completed 101 miles from fuel light on to fuel light back on again. there are 4.63 litres in a gallon so 10.21 litres divided by 4.63 = 2.20 gallons.

101 divided by 2.20 = 45.9 mpg my Vara is a carbed 2000 model and the run yesterday was 2 up in town, A roads,and motorway 80 to 90mph . I thought it was very good considering the Vara has a reputation for bad fuel consumption

[Dee Duble Yuh]

The Vara's fuel consumption is very responsive to gearing. Being in a high gear produces a big improvement in consumption. My fuel-injected Vara can be more economical at 55 mph (in sixth gear) than at 28 mph (in third)! That's why long runs on A and B roads at modest but constant speeds returns high mpg.

[Chad]

The Vara's fuel consumption is very responsive to gearing. Being in a high gear produces a big improvement in consumption. My fuel-injected Vara can be more economical at 55 mph (in sixth gear) than at 28 mph (in third)! That's why long runs on A and B roads at modest but constant speeds returns high mpg.

and the weight of your wrist action with the smooth creamy power of that lump it must be really hard to not wind the throttle round to the stop :D :D and thats most likely the reason for the bad fuel rep :roll:

if you compared it to other big twins , ducati,millis,firestorms,sv's etc you will probably find theres not a lot of difference and they've all got tiddly tanks :D