poldark wrote:

Data wrote:Just got it I think. The figures are calculated on US gallons...3.6 litres per gallon. Reckon that's it as it seems to fit nearer to what some might get to the gallon. Stephen, where did you get the figs from?

Nope these are from a French scooter website and quoted in litres per 100km (62 miles), which is standard European fuel measure. It's common that normal users achieve far higher actual mpg than journo test levels, if that's what these are.

The actual quoted consumption is less the issue than the relative differences between the different models listed, assuming the level of inaccuracy is consistent this at least suggests the new 350 does deliver 10-20% better mpg.

Yeah - what he said.

The performance figures are tested ones, not claimed, and the poor mpg comes as a result from the poor things being flogged half to death during the testing.

Good sources of info, only in foreign:

http://www.scooter-infos.com/actualites.html
http://www.scooter-station.com/
http://www.cyberscooter.it/

Oh, and don't forget that your fuel consumption calculation will be as exagerrated as your speedo reading (ie, around +10% on most scooters).

Here are some real world fuel economy figures for the Burgman 400.
Looks like it averages 70mpg or thereabouts.

http://www.fuelly.com/motorcycle/suzuki/burgman%20400
http://www.spritmonitor.de/en/overview/ ... owerunit=2

And a handy calculator to get foreign into proper British Imperial: http://www.euronet.nl/users/grantm/frans/fuel.html

Very interesting. I don't have to go into town too much these days as much of my work is from home. Although I do still work PT in local gov'mt which involves rush hour in the evenings most days at the moment. I average around 75mpg during the week and on a run (mixed running at national speed limits) it varies between 77-85mpg depending just how much motorway is involved which does drive the figure down a bit at 70mph or above. A passenger also has that detrimental effect too as you would expect. Still, can't help thinking that 55 or so mpg from a 400 Burgman is way too low but there are so many things that could have affected it as we all know.

StephenC wrote:

poldark wrote:

Data wrote:Just got it I think. The figures are calculated on US gallons...3.6 litres per gallon. Reckon that's it as it seems to fit nearer to what some might get to the gallon. Stephen, where did you get the figs from?

Nope these are from a French scooter website and quoted in litres per 100km (62 miles), which is standard European fuel measure. It's common that normal users achieve far higher actual mpg than journo test levels, if that's what these are.

The actual quoted consumption is less the issue than the relative differences between the different models listed, assuming the level of inaccuracy is consistent this at least suggests the new 350 does deliver 10-20% better mpg.

Yeah - what he said.

The performance figures are tested ones, not claimed, and the poor mpg comes as a result from the poor things being flogged half to death during the testing.

Good sources of info, only in foreign:

http://www.scooter-infos.com/actualites.html
http://www.scooter-station.com/
http://www.cyberscooter.it/

Oh, and don't forget that your fuel consumption calculation will be as exagerrated as your speedo reading (ie, around +10% on most scooters).

Yep, thanks for the links. I haven't yet GPS'd my speedo but all speeds I've quoted are indicated. Actual is unknown for me at the moment but seem to agree with my car when the wife is chasing me with the rolling pin (I make a quick getaway on the scooter with her in pursuit by car)! The onboard fuel consumption computer seems pretty accurate so far. Don't know if speedo errors are affecting it. On my car, speedo errors don't affect it to any degree (onboard fuel computer) due to the way the ecu measures fuel flow, engine speed, gear engaged etc and recorded miles. It has a compensation algorythm to take care of that sort of thing relating to speed errors, but of course will never be completely accurate due to many factors. I think it's the same on the B400 but need to confirm that. My pencil and paper method against the computer showed a 0.5mpg difference after my 358mile Birmingham trip. Started out with a completly brimmed tank and burped it 3 times to make sure. I'm told that the fuel consumption computer undereads on B400's by about 4% though. So you are actually getting more mpg's than it tells you. Interesting I thought.

On modern vehicles speedo errors are designed in, the speedo is usually set to read higher than the actual speed.
All the other distance related info, fuel computer, odometer etc is much more accurate.

My Burgmans fuel consumption indicator is very accurate. I find most cars optomistic, my Skodas about 3 or 4mpg over. As for speedos, my car reads about 3mph fast, the Burger about the same. My Xevo read about 8mph fast however!

Agreed gn2. I'll try to get a peak at the ecu specs for the Burgmans if I can to see what software it runs. I'm more than ever wanting to see the real world mpg's for the X10 now!

Barry, did you buy a diesel Roomster or am I confused, like I normally am?

A question which passed through my head (probably tangled in some tumbleweed) on my ride home last night was... does Piaggio have access to Piaggio Aero's aerodynamic design and testing facilities...?

gn2 wrote:A question which passed through my head (probably tangled in some tumbleweed) on my ride home last night was... does Piaggio have access to Piaggio Aero's aerodynamic design and testing facilities...?

No I doubt it. As far as I know there is absolutely no connection between the two companies apart from name.

yellowMax wrote:

gn2 wrote:A question which passed through my head (probably tangled in some tumbleweed) on my ride home last night was... does Piaggio have access to Piaggio Aero's aerodynamic design and testing facilities...?

No I doubt it. As far as I know there is absolutely no connection between the two companies apart from name.

Confirmed

http://www.piaggiogroup.com/en/investor ... -structure