I'm asking because I truly don't know if it's decent mileage or not. Bought a '04 RK back in Feb. It got ~41mpg. I never really got comfortable on the RK so I traded for the EG. Not that mpg matters much. I'm a FNG & I was just wondering why the huge difference.

 

at a steady 65~70 mph on level roads with little head/tail wind I can count on 43 MPG.

2009 FLHTC I weigh about 235 with gear and assume 30# of crap in the bags- weight matters

the fuel available here is generally 10% ethanol which will reduce mpg by about 3% and I use 89 octane for the most part- a lower octane like 87 or 85 will not allow as advanced spark timing and may result in lesser mpg.

My 96" has hi flow intake, tuned supertrapp mufllers on a stock no-cat header and nightrider.com xieds adding about 8% more fuel.

when bone stock I was seeing 44 mpg under same conditions- bike was stock first 5000 miles.

I list all this because there are so many variables

Mike

 

Is the EG stock or has it been modified? I found that a simple slip on exhaust didn't make too much difference, but an improper tune or a stage 1 without a tuning device sure can make the mileage horrible. Also, the longer the ride, the better the mileage is for me. Short trips of 100 miles or so aren't a true test of what it's doing.

 

not unheard of and is probably right on

 

I'm 260ish. Bags empty. It does have Rinehart true duals and something called Thunder Max tuner? There's some kind of module on top of the battery and a disc with the same name in my tour pac. Forgive me for not knowing the mechanical chit. I'm a nurse; not a mechanic. I can check the oil and I can fill it up with gas. All I know is it's loud and it's fast and the bike fits like a f'ing glove when I saddle up.

 

Fast? Harley? lol -

My buddies on their newer bikes get 40-ish, as I do on my 2002 Ultra Classic. I do lots of trips of 300-500 miles, and like the 40 MPG.

 

Try getting a retune on the Thundermax. You should be able to do better than ~36mpg.

My motor is a stock 103 with Rush mufflers. Just got back from a weekend trip with the wife and am getting 44mpg at 70-75 highway speeds via GPS. A little better when riding solo.

 

It's all relative, bro. Don't forget, I've been riding for 6 months and I just got off a bone stock '04 RK.

 

hmm

I'd suggest that the true duals are generally known to produce better power at a higher rpm range- and the trade off is they don;t make as good power at lower rpms.

there is an rpm range that gives peak efficiency on any motor ( and on my '74 Kawasaki 900 that is listed in the manual- 42 mpg at 72 mph about 4600 rpms)

and you may be riding outside of that range or the pipes reduce that efficiency

so that is the physical aspect

the thundermax is known to be a great and very flexible tuner- it does use the data from the o2 sensors to adjust mixture- and that is a good thing.

it could be that your o2 sensors are a little sooted up- or it could be that the tune is optimized for use with premium high octane gas...try some high test

I'd get in some measurements over a few tankfuls to determine what the mpg really is, and pay attention to the octane and the ethanol levels listed on the pump

mike

 

Thanks for all the input guys. I appreciate it. Probably gonna drop the EG off with my pop's mechanic tomorrow so he can run through it. Got a 4 day weekend coming up Friday and I plan on using all 4 days! Close enough to the Blue Ridge and Smoky Mountains, I see a few curvy miles in my very near future.