I have not heard of a motorcycle getting more than 100 mpg. Why would vehicle weight, engine size and fuel economy not be roughly proportionate with respect to one another?
2006-12-29 05:39:39 · 13 answers · asked by gregory_s19 3 in Cars & Transportation ➔ Motorcycles
way off base here man but it lounds cool motorcycle engines in comparison to modern car and truck engines are very old tech, event the brand new sport bikes are not near as advance in motor technoligy as the average 2006 model car . just a little bit of the reason with out going into detail , hope this helps
2006-12-29 05:43:37 · answer #1 · answered by superjohnson 1 · 1⤊ 2⤋
It is not a weight to mpg ratio. It is a weight to horsepower issue.
One can make a 4000 pound vehicle get 100 miles per gallon, as long as you don't care how fast it moves and whether it can carry a payload. Just put in a teeny, tiny motor. Low horsepower, low torque. Transmission would be a little tricky, but it can be done.
You can build a 4000 pound truck that only gets 5 miles per gallon by installing a humongous engine. You see these at monster truck rallies and tractor pulls all the time.
So, proper engineering and design has to consider all the RELEVANT factors, not just the first two things one can think of.
2006-12-29 05:47:19 · answer #2 · answered by Vince M 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
If you throw jet fuel in the air it will evaporate before more than 1/2 hits anything.
It's simple, because the fuel suppliers have been in bed with the car makers for over 100 years.
The Japanese made a car in the 1970's which got over 65 MPG. when they brought it over to the USA. The American manufactures made them reduce the amount of gas milage it got, because they could not compete. That's why a Honda does not get better than 45 mpg. All the Jap cars are capable of getting over 60 MPG. but are de-tuned, for the US Standards.
2006-12-29 07:00:05 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
That is because weight and mpg are not directly proportional. There are many many factors that determine gas mileage. Engine size, engine age, weight, power, efficiency of the engine, efficiency of the fuel system, octane rating, wind conditions, aerodynamics among hundreds of other things.
2006-12-29 05:42:54 · answer #4 · answered by mojo2093@sbcglobal.net 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Basically because mileage is not based solely on the weight of a vehicle. You have a loss factor to figure that will be constant with and vehicle be it large or small. Loss in mechanical operation. Loss thru evaporation. Loss thru inefficient burning. So this throws your curve off and million other things
2006-12-29 05:45:31 · answer #5 · answered by Grin Reeper 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is called the laws of physics. The physical properties are not proportional as far as power to weight and the movement of mass through the air (aerodynamics). Although the motorcycle is more efficient overall than the truck there is a point of diminishing return on efficiency.
2006-12-29 05:47:48 · answer #6 · answered by yes_its_me 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
bikes that dont have a windsheild has a great deal of drag created from the rider being full force in the windblast. riding style has a part in it, octane, how heavy the bike is, alot of variables. i have noticed tho that i get more ride time in just cruising the back 40 than blasting down the interstate keeping with traffic flow.
2006-12-29 10:06:41 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because it's not a linear scale. There are a lot of other factors to consider including engine efficiency, friction, and aerodynamics.
2006-12-29 05:41:17 · answer #8 · answered by Wolfcastle 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Smaller engines aren't always as efficient.
That, and most people haul *** on motorcycles-thereby ruining their fuel mileage.
2006-12-29 07:37:56 · answer #9 · answered by superfunkmasta 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
its what answer one said its not liniar. engine size is important but many other factors regarding the engines capabilities apply.
2006-12-29 05:49:44 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋