Hondas frugal twin NC700C. Not so...

Fixed! That better?

I dunno, man...engine puts out gobs of torque at low rpm.
Seems like switching a cog or two and eliminating wind resistance and you've got a perfect candidate.

Your right, but that resistance thing is a real drag. Vacuum maybe?

The 1998-2001 vfr's should get 40-45mpg. and less if you run them hard and fast

When I look at the one at the dealer I see a bike that should get 42-48 mpg ridden the way I ride, like a test ride every time I swing a leg over and that's what it returns in many tests that have been published. I know it hurts, but thems the facts.

Somebody tracking mileage at Fuelly has an agenda, to prove excellent mpg's for their chosen steed, it's really simple.

How can this be?

The NC700 series of bikes ARE scooters!!

True dat.

Top ten bikes registered at Fuelly: (and what the hell is a Genuine Buddy??)

Top 10 Motorcycles
Honda CBR250R (449)
Kawasaki Ninja 250R (348)
Honda VFR800 Interceptor (306)
Honda PCX (302)
Suzuki SV650S (259)
Genuine Buddy 125 (251)
Suzuki DL650 (249)
Yamaha FZ6 (222)
Kawasaki Ninja 650R (221)
Suzuki SV650 (174)

And top ten cars at Fuelly:

Top 10 Cars
Volkswagen Jetta (4975)
Honda Civic (2656)
Toyota Tacoma (2416)
Volkswagen Golf (2136)
Toyota Prius (1822)
Honda Accord (1640)
Mazda 3 (1448)
Ford Focus (1301)
Toyota Corolla (1230)
Toyota Camry (1189)

Chevy Suburbans: 70.

People buy high mpg vehicles because they like high mpg, and they ride/drive to get the highest mpg possible, and then they like to post it, to show how high it is, and they ride and drive even more gently to boost their numbers, and the circle goes around and around.

It's a scooter.

My wife has a Buddy 125.

http://genuinescooters.com/buddy.html

So your facts count in the: "It doesn't do what they say it does" column, but others facts saying: "Yes, it does do this" don't count because they have an agenda to prove something?

Therefore someone who doesn't track their mileage on Fuelly has an agenda to prove their bikes get way shittier mileage than those who get better?

...:huh


ps I have an NC700X and I get hideous mpg's.



...and it's not a scooter, dammit! *thbbbbt*

How does putting the topbox in front of the seat change that?

:ddog

My BMW F800ST has it's gas tank under the seat, the battery and airbox up front under the fake tank body panels, where you stored the OEM flat repair kit and any other tools/misc items.


The only difference being, on the F800, you needed to unlock and remove the seat to access the torx screwdriver to undo 8 screws in order to get at the flat kit or other stuff stored. Since the airbox took up 99% of the available space under the fake tank panels, there was very little room to put anything.

The NCX, has as you're well aware, gobs of easy access storage, and the tool kit, battery and fuse panel are all at your fingertips. As an owner of both, I give NCX outright win there.

Would you call the F800 S/ST/R/GT/GS scooters if BMW diddled the frame shape and slapped on step through-like bodywork?

I'd argue that this meant only Honda was smart to design it that way, and BMW wasn't.

Is it the Dual Clutch Transmission option?

Does a Rekluse Auto Clutch make a CRF450R a scooter?

The low redline and low power output of the engine?

Boy, now that would open a can of worms if this criteria was the basis for calling a motorcycle a scooter...

There's no shame in liking scooters

Not at all, but that's not the point, either. Calling it something it isn't, over and over again, does not make it so, not to mention being incorrect in the first place.

I would imagine calling a toaster a frying pan might get old after the zillionth time someone said it too.

Larry,

It's time for you to put up or shut up. As the saying goes, you are entitled to your opinion but not your own facts.

What you see here is 138 pages of just about everything that has appeared on the NC700X in technical reviews, magazine articles, comparisons, and blogs either in electronic or print media. I collected it and don't think I have missed much of anything since the bike was released in the EC early 2012. The binder is open to the Cycle World September 2012 review where author Bruno Deprato says the test bike returned 47 mpg riding a steady 85 mph and at times riding to it's top speed of 117 mph. In the other published reviews the bike returns mileage no lower than 59 with many references to returns in the mid 60's to 70's. All published. I must have missed those but I would like to add them to my binder if they are not a figment of your imagination.

Since you continually refer to published tests where the NC700X returns less than 48 mpg this is your chance to provide your references, you know, those published reviews you refer to.

At the least, we now have a good picture of how Larry rides.

Art

Well, the time I posted I got my worst tank at 45 or 46 mpg he thanked me for my honesty (finally someone giving "real world mpg") but for Pete's sake I rode that tank a steady 80 mph in a stiff headwind that gusted to the high 20's in air temps in the 40s F. I figured my airspeed was above 90 and close to 100 mph for nearly 150 miles of I-10. If it only gets 45 mpg at that pace his 250 might return low 40s hence his single-minded ranting about us lying about the mileage it gets compared to his CBR250. The thing is I don't ride like that very often - the interstate is something I avoid but he says he rides like that all the time.

What I am thinking is people that don't own one have a hard time understanding is that you don't have to baby it or ride like an old lady to get good mileage. Most riders know that ridden gently and in a narrow rpm range most motorcycles will return impressive mpg but get away from that narrow range the mpg drops back to "normal". Baby a 700X and you get 75 -80 mpg, ride for fun and it drops to 68. Other 650s might get high 50's or 60 when tiddling then 40's when ridden for fun. Last Saturday I rode my usual brisk back road pace on a long ride and stopped for gas at 226 GPS miles. I still could only put 3.3 gallons in the tank for a nearly 69 mpg average and I was riding much faster than I'll ever say here. These are all open rural roads where you ride well over the limit at times and usually no slower than 65 mph. Some of these folks are never going to believe it does what it does.

Yeah, and that's the way it is. Their loss. If they want to limit their options based on that then that's the way it goes.

Anyway, thanks for the real world feedback. I appreciate the effort you have put in. It's not something I would buy this year but it's great working with facts. It's a great thing that Honda has done something different for a change.

Hopefully more people are bought into motorcycling as a result and hopefully they can get some rides in with people who aren't "elite" and just let them enjoy themselves. That's what it used to be about anyway.

"What MPGs do you think it should get?
My best is at 76 mpg with a 67 mpg average right now. I documented it on fuelly,
so even a idiot could understand it.
This bike does what it was designed to do in spades.
If it doesn't float your boat, move on.
Anyone that thinks their going to get 80 mpg at 100 mph out of a NCX is crazy IMHO!
I know there are a lot of people that still can't figure fuel mileage correctly. But you can't fix stupid!"

I thought my fuelly post was simple enough for anyone to understand.
I stand corrected.

Larry and OP, from the real world... Only 800 miles on the bike so far. My commute is short in the morning (4 miles) on 45 mph surface streets. The motor doesn't even get up to operating temp which kills MPG. In the afternoon I take a longer way home (12 miles) that includes short stints on the expressway up to 75 MPH typically. My lowest "commuting" mileage on the NC has been 56, highest 61 (all commuting miles, I.e., all short trips). Highest mileage so far has been 65 mpg with a longer ride thrown in but I haven't taken a trip on it yet where I cruise through a tank without stopping. Top speed has not been tested but I have easily eclipsed a GPS verified 100 MPH. I haven't done a damn thing to try to get good mileage other than short shift on surface streets when I think about it. My Buell Uly got 38 to 43 under the same commute conditions and never better than 52 MPG over 17000 miles. The NC gets a legit 30% to 50% better MPG over the Buell at a sacrifice of 15 MPH top end and about 1.5 second in the quarter mile. My SV1000 got 33 MPG over the same short commute, 43 on the freeway, and a best of 48 MPG. The SV1K top speed was ~153 MPH and ~ 11.5 quarter mile (about 40 MPH & 2 seconds better than the NC). My FZR600 was on par with the SV on performance but Buell on mileage. What it all boils down to is the NC provides decent performance, great MPG, in a package that handles well. It delivers what its supposed to deliver at a good price with low operating costs. Their are plenty of other options that have higher performance and cost more to operate if the NC doesn't fit your needs or desires.


Chuck