Can anyone tell me what kind of mileage they are getting on their 955? I have a 2001 and am getting around 42 mpg. It seems like it should be better though. From what I have read online, some folks get up to 50+. I don't ride it particularly hard and just replaced all the filters so it should be running cleanly.
Mine fluctuates a lot depending on how I ride. Recent trip to Scotland and I got about 43mpg motorway consumption, whilst 60+ rubbernecking around some single-tracks and b-roads.
The worst I have seen is 43mpg whilst caning it in Skye (standard tune/standard pipe at the time). 50mpg is possible if I take it easy, but was a little easier to achieve before I had the TOR tune installed, although with this set up I have managed 52mpg+ 2 up touring with luggage.
Jon
PS Archrider, in case you didn't realise, imperial gallons are 4.5 litres & US gallons are 3.8 litres (or very close). It's confusing when we compare mpg figures from both sides of the pond!
I get 41 to 43 miles per US gallon (TOR tune, TOR can, O2 bypass). This is excellent for a near-litre class motorcycle! Unless you want to ride a scooter, this is about as good as it gets for a motorcycle with this level of performance.
With the Standard tune I was getting close to 45 miles per US gallon. Not a big difference.
I don't know how much better it would be with both a stock can and stock tune, because I never saw my stock can.
..............................................................
I don't know how much better it would be with both a stock can and stock tune, because I never saw my stock can.
Mine came with the stock tune and can and I got 50mpg a couple of times with it. Of course, this was when I first got the bike and I was riding pretty tenative since it had been awhile since I had been on a bike. Now that I have got my wings under me and the TOR tune and TOR can, 50mpg = no fun!!
Wow! I didn't expect that robust a response. This has alleviated some of my concerns that I was running the triple a little hard or I hadn't had it properly tuned (no trick question, Graeme, or I would be lumped into the same pool. It's the only way to know whether I'm running efficiently.) Of course, I may need to do some math since this is a global post and I never realized the difference between our gallons. Although with fewer litres per gallon over here, meeting the 50 mpg mark may be easier than if I were on the other side of the pond (or maybe I'm just spinning the numbers in my head.)
BTW, what is this TOR tuning a few of you mentioned? As far as I know my 2001 is stock.
I track my mileage when commuting, then I'll fill up and track mileage when I am doing my weekend rides. I get about 50mpg regularly commuting if I stick with BP, Sunoco or Mobil. HOWEVER, it drops like a rock when I go with non-brand name gas. Out here, it is much more common to find off-brand than name brand.
When hitting the back roads, I am hovering around 42-45. Stock tune, stock can, stock gearing, and I always run premium.
I just returned last month from a trip to the Blue Ridge Parkway on my '06 Tiger, running the TOR tune on the stock pipe. 1800 total miles: 200 interstate at 75-80mph, 300 mountain miles avg 45mph, and 1300 secondary, small road miles avg 55-65mph. I usually ride between 4000 and 5000 rpm in a gear suitable for the roads and conditions at those speeds.
Running all premium gas except for 1/2 tank of regular during the gas shortage in Asheville, NC., average mileage for the entire trip was 45mpg.
Presence or absence of luggage makes a difference with this bike. My 2001, factory stock, averages around 50 miles per US gallon without, and in the mid-40s with.
(Surprisingly to me, the extra drag of luggage does seem to result in less buffeting from the turbulence of oncoming trucks. So, I often ride with the bags even when I'm not actually using them.)
I should say that on my trip to the BRP mentioned in the post above with a 45mpg average, I had both side bags, a seat bag and a Givi topcase.
I always have the side pags on whether I'm on a trip or not. Hard luggage is so convenient. They're one reason I bought the Tiger, that and the triple engine.
I've thought about doing the sprocket change with mine. Do you think that it made the largest difference out of the items you listed? I just recently had my 2001 tuned with plugs and a new filter but I know they used stock. That's what my dealer recommends whenever I ask. Being unfamiliar with the plethora of tweaks you can make to a bike I am hesitant to stray from stock only because I fear screwing it up.
And Brooks, good reasoning for gettign the Tiger. I got mine for the same reason. It's my only form of transportation and the luggage is necessary for work clothes, briefcase, etc. And the triple makes the trip a heck of a lot more fun.
When it came time to change my chain talked with the dealer and decided to change sprockets. What an improvement in my mileage.
I am getting around 48 to 51 mpg each tank. Went to a 19 front. I don't regret it.
Henry
Riding like a scalded dog to enjoy my bike was getting a little old, and just cruising around riding gentle was getting painful on my souped up FJ1200, so I traded for a '05 955 Tiger. I pretty much sit back and enjoy the road/scenery these days, ride pretty easy most of the time. I use Chevron Supreme most always, and usually ride with the side bags on, and under 65 mph. Most of my riding is on secondary roads, big highways only 20 to 30 miles at a stretch. I get 50 to 55 mpg (USA) pretty consistantly.
I have an '06 with less the 5k on the odo. The times I have checked I was down to 35-40 range. I have the TOR pipe and tune. It idels and runs rough below 3k or so. I cleaned up the O2 sensor and this helped some. As did reloading the tune. Best I have gotten is 42. I do tend to be a bit heavy handed... that pipe just sounds sooo good when one puts the right amount of throttle in things. I too, tend to ride with 1/2/3 of the bags on. I like to have the tools and other clothes around and the top box is so nice to have... On a light day trip I will remove the side bags and dump what I need in the top box.
On my 05, the best that I can get is 10 miles to the Litre, the worst is 130 miles on a full tank, at times I was going over 130 mph and never went below the ton, this is not my normal riding style I just felt the need for speed that day.
I've noticed that if you ride using 6000rpm+ all the time the Tiger 955i drinks like a very thirsty Tiger. To get good mpg you need to shift below 6K. With a 19T sprocket that equates to 95mph in top. That's enough for me most of the time.
I think everyone has me convinced. I need to replace that front sprocket as soon as I can. It sounds as though the K&N filter is also worth it. I'm all for spending money if I can save more in the long run.
I'm running completely stock, and getting about 44 MPG highway. But then again, my normal ride consists of hitting the autobahn and running up to 205 kmh (that's 127 MPH) at times. Normally, I ride a little slower (like in the 90's), because holding on at that speed with a tank bag in your way means that your taking the wind blast to the face shield. Actually, I'm surprised that my mileage is that good! I was really expecting something more in the high 30's.
Oh, and there's been some bad press on the K&N filters on these pages. You might want to do a search and see what people were saying before you plunk down the green backs. I've run them pretty religiously in my cars, but the jury's still out on whether I'm going to run one on the bike, or not. Good luck on what ever you decide.
Oh, and here's what I was able to look up... so far...
That was a lot of fun, and since I live to kill fun...
1) A K&N filter flows ever so slightly more than the OEM paper filter.
2) The air filter presents one of the least significant pressure drops in the entire intake tract.
3) Your ECU runs open loop at WOT and therefore cannot compensate for this totally insignificant change in flow.
4) The K&N provides this insignificant flow increase by positioning large openings in the cotton weave that improve airflow and dirtflow. Hold it up to light and look through it.
What do I gain? What do I loose?
You will find board members claiming near 100,000 mile engine life who have used K&N's.
You will not find indisputible power increases.
CLB's bottom line, Thanks for asking...
A K&N will increase engine wear, though you may still be happy with life span.
A K&N will not noticeably or more importantly measurably increase power.
The K&N will clog and provide greater restriction than OEM far before your cleaning interval.
The poor filtering efficiency of the K&N will degrade every time it is washed.
You may think your K&N increased performance. You are wrong. Show me the dyno plots.
PM OnD for instructions on making an OEM filter flow like a K&N. Don't blame anyone but yourself if you go up in flames.
Sorry OnD.
BTR01,
Thanks for the info. I'll do some more research on the K&N. Like I said, I'll spend the money if I save in the long run. However, it sounds as though this may not be true for the K&N. I'm surprised that it would increase the engine wear. At first thought, a more expensive filter shouldn't increase wear.
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
Triumph Rat Motorcycle Forums
3.9M posts
167.7K members
Since 2002
A forum community dedicated to Triumph Motorcycle owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about performance, racing, cafe racers, bobbers, riding, modifications, troubleshooting, maintenance, and more!