Triumph Rat Motorcycle Forums banner

1 - 8 of 8 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,978 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Hi all

I read today in the SA Motorcycling Magazine, 2Wheels that the 2007 range are fitted with a second generation Keihin Engine Management System. Upgraded in memory capacity, it not only gives a quicker startup time for the engine from cold, but also gives a 30% better fuel economy at 140km/h.

Can anyone riding a 2007 model verify these figures for me? And secondly, what (if any) does the additional catalyst have on performance vis-a-vis the 2006 model?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
120 Posts
I checked my L/100km and I have been averaging 6.7 litres per 100Km's. Mine is a 2006 with about 500km on it. I ride it a bit above the posted speed limit with a couple of hard runs to the red line per ride. I know that I have 6 Liters left in the tank when the fuel light comes on.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,978 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
According to the ave. fuel consumption read-out on the instrument panel of my 2006 model I too get around 6.7 litres per 100km. Some respondents (particularly on the T595.net site) seem to think that that the read-out is unreliable... Is there anyone out there with a 2007 model with an upgraded Keihin EMS -- I understand their fitted throughout the '07 Triple range -- Tiger, Sprint ST & S3
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,589 Posts
Yeah the trip computer is notoriously wrong, particularly if it's not set properly. It's common for them to arrive in the US set to "miles/imperial gallons" instead of "miles/US gallons". Even so, my 2005 tells me I'm getting 39-40 Miles Per Gallon, but when I do the math I'm only getting about 32-35 MPG. Or worse if I'm racing.

By all accounts the 2007 does have a new ECU with more memory, and it addresses some of the annoyances of the previous models. However, I doubt the new ECU would be the reason for the increased milage. I would expect it's from a newly developed fuel map.

I would like to see some numbers though. It will be interesting to compare, particularly because my bike has never got milage that others report. Even one guy who I rode with on an identical bike, identical route, and same riding style got 4-5 MPG better than I do.

Life isn't fair. Next summer I plan on playing with Tuneboy maps and trying to figure out a high-milage map, possibly combined with a sprocket change.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,978 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
I think you might be right about the mapping -- although at my last service, an updated map was uploaded to my ECU through the Triumph diagnostic tool. I understand that the new EMS has an increased memory and thereby monitors far more variables??

On the issue of a sprocket change. Do you think that 2 less teeth on the rear sprocket would result in better overall fuel consumption. The motor certainly has enough torque to cope with the change it would bring in the Urban cycle...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,589 Posts
On 2006-12-10 09:25, teologie wrote:
On the issue of a sprocket change. Do you think that 2 less teeth on the rear sprocket would result in better overall fuel consumption. The motor certainly has enough torque to cope with the change it would bring in the Urban cycle...
I don't know. I do know that the opposite it true for some bikes. For instance, for my 96 Trident we went 1 tooth smaller on the front sprocket and changed from 40-42 MPG to 35-37 MPG.

There is a limit, of course. Once you go too high a final drive ration you start to get increasingly worse fuel economy. I don't know where that limit is on this bike. My theory is that 2 less on the rear sprocket would be just fine, but that could be wrong. It will just have to wait until the experiment.

As for the new ECU, it's my understanding that the increased memory is for a longer log of engine variables available for download. It may also have a faster processor for quicker adjustments ( I suppose this could effect economy) but I'm also fairly certain that the new bike doesn't have any more sensors for the ECU to monitor.

Interesting changes...

[ This message was edited by: crashmasterd on 2006-12-10 11:54 ]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,335 Posts
I managed to get 52mpg on my 03 955i with a 45 tooth rear sprocket on the freeway averaging 80mph on a 1,000 mile trip to St. Louis and back.

Things that ruin fuel economy;

-flogging the throttle and pulling wheelies.

-riding at high RPMS when you could shift and spin the motor slower while cruising.

-not maintaining your chain which causes a HUGE increase in friction and slows the bike down


I had a brand new chain and rear sprocket for that trip to St. Louis and made sure to lube it throughout the trip. I'm thinking a lot of the time when people complain about their throttle being abrupt and the bike jerking around is actually just a cruddy chain. I ruined my stock chain and after a few thousand miles it was like riding a bucking bronco.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,978 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
I guess on the upgraded EMS we'll just have to wait for owners of the new 2007 model to come forward in the new year with empirical evidence of better fuel economy etc etc..
 
1 - 8 of 8 Posts
Top