Cookie wrote:

Data wrote:I still marvel at these bikes that break the 'ton' fuel wise. How good is that!

To be honest Data, It's not really that great for a small bike in these days when some small petrol cars can get 65mpg.
Also I wonder why bikes don't always seem to have improved that much. Back in 1980 I used to commute into Dagenham about 30 miles each way on a Honda CD185T. The roads were mostly congested single carriageway back then and I still got around 100mpg. That was a basic engine without fuel injection or electronic ignition.

That said the best I've had from my PCX is around 130mpg but normally it's about ten less than that.
The SilverWing won't go much above 67mpg though.

Indeed. Things have moved on quite a bit since I used to ride smaller bikes. I used to have the CD175 Honda in the seventies. Great bike! I honestly cannot remember what the fuel economy was like but I doubt I used to get your sort of figures. I used to wring it's neck all the time and I did thousands of miles on it with no problems ever. It was still pretty good on fuel I think and much better than my Truimph Tiger 90 (350cc) that I also ran alongside it. Funny, but I always preferred the Honda to the Tiger. It was much more fun and in my book, proves more cc's don't always equal more fun!

Deep mudguards, shrouded forks and shocks, enclosed chain, ah those were the days

Just incredibly sensible stuff that made the bikes last and last. Yeah...I agree. However, on the whole, most of todays scooters offer similar benefits...except maybe the shrouded forks, but easier to clean the many motorcycles.

Would be nice to have fork gaiters and stainless steel exhausts fitted as standard though.
For me as an overall commuter package, the Forza (or any similar 300 scooter) represents far better value than the likes of a CBR250R or even the cheapie Inazuma.

Data, those CD175s have to be one of the icons of the seventies and early eighties. I used to see loads of them on my commute - they always seemed to be blue or red, I can't remember if there were any other colours.

I had a CB160 of 1964 vintage - stunning little bike - 12v electrics, electric start, twin carbies, a massive twin leading shoe front brake and a 'wind down' steering damper. Went like the clappers. That was probably my only foray into anything vaguely 'sporty'.

GN2 - I agree with you wholeheartedly regarding the practical aspects. If I were commuting any sort of distance these days one of the current crop of 300cc scoots would definitely be my choice.
One thing that does seem to have improved these days is engine longevity. I suppose engines are made to finer tolerances (or more consistent at least) but also the fact that they are water cooled helps in this respect - also the quality and effectiveness of engine oil has moved on in leaps and bounds.

Some people get a warm glow when they look at a sports bike whereas I get the same glow when I see a nice practical utility bike - built for a job and fit for purpose.
Me boring?? - errr.... Yeah, probably

Cookie

86.4 on the NC700x which was on an Ugly Bunch Ride Out

http://www.fuelly.com/driver/syntec4/nc700x

If I'm on me own it's more like low 70's.

If anyone is thinking of buying a BMW c650 GT beware. The best mpg I have achieved over the first 2000 miles is 56mpg and the worst 53mpg

Cookie, I don't think you are boring at all, just practical. It's what most people actually want from a bike. Practicality. Ok not if you buy a sport bike of course.

Best I've ever achieved on an NSS300 Forza was 75mpg, but I've only ridden it the once, it only had 20ish miles on the clock and it wasn't mine.

boxer wrote:If anyone is thinking of buying a BMW c650 GT beware. The best mpg I have achieved over the first 2000 miles is 56mpg and the worst 53mpg

And whats wrong with that? Thats not bad! I barely get any more than that from a TMax, with a lot less cc and power!!!!