The 13 Best Fuel-efficient Motorcycles You Can Buy in 2013


Looking for the latest list? CLICK HERE for Gas 2’s Best Fuel Efficient Motorcycles You Can Buy in 2018!

Unlike my general disdain and subtle aggression towards street-clogging cars, overly smug Prius drivers, and bloated “crossover” SUVs, I’ve never hidden my love of 2-wheeled motor vehicles. In addition to being cheaper, faster, sexier, and (I am wholly and utterly convinced) safer than 4-wheeled “cages”, 2 wheelers are generally greener than conventional cars, making fuel-efficient motorcycles a great alternative for environmentally conscious commuters who aren’t afraid to get a little wet every now and again.

It seems like I’m not alone in feeling that way about the more fuel-efficient motorcycles out there, either! Earlier this week, the Chicago Tribune posted their (rather poorly researched) “top 10” list of fuel-efficient motorcycles. I’ve included their choices, below, and added of few of my own, as well. See if you can guess which ones are mine in the comments, at bottom.



Honda NX700
Honda 2013 NC700X

Honda’s new NC700X delivers up to 64 miles per gallon, and some owners are reporting even higher fuel economy, thanks to the bike’s available automatic keeping the low-speed/high-rpm antics to a minimum.


Honda CRF250L

Honda’s smaller-caliber CRF250L sips gently at the gas, getting a reported 73 mpg.



BMW’s F650GS is a big-bore, single-cylinder street bike, but it gets (what the Chicago Tribune calls) “little-bike mileage” with a claimed 63 mpg rating.


Yamaha V Star 1300
Yamaha V Star 1300

Yamaha’s hulking 1300cc V Star touring bike goes a long way towards proving the old “it’s not what you ride, it’s how you ride it” theme. The big, loping V-twin makes big power at WOT, but has a tiny appetite for fuel when it’s lazily cruising along, getting a reported 78 mpg!

Suzuki TU250X
Suzuki TU250X

Suzuki’s retro TU250X is just as fuel efficient as any of its 1960s predecessors, but has much cleaner emissions and modern brakes that would’ve make it a real track day contender 40 or 50 years ago. The entry-level Suzuki gets nearly 80 mpg.


Kawasaki Ninja 250
Kawasaki Ninja 250R

Kawasaki’s small-bore version of the popular Ninja street racer series has many of the visual styling cues and cornering chops of its track-ready bigger brothers, but gets 77 mpg.


Kawi KLX250
Kawasaki KLX250s

Like Honda’s all-road capable 250, above, Kawasaki’s dual-sport KLX250s model performs on and off-road, and gives back at least 70 mpg.


Honda Rebel
Honda CMX250C Rebel

Despite a few examples having been found fossilized in Jurrasic-era rock formations, the immortal Honda Rebel continues to be a hit with younger, newer, and smaller riders. The little Rebel is easy on the wallet, with an MSRP under $3000 and an 84 mpg fuel economy rating.


2013 Suzuki DR200
Suzuki DR200SE

Suzuki’s popular DR series of motorcycles are capable of both on-road and off-road travel, and gets an estimated 68+ mpg.


2013 Royal Enfield Bullet
Pretty Much any Royal Enfield

The classic Royal Enfield road bikes are still built the old way, in India, by hand, and are fully new interpretations of the old English Enfield designs. The bikes look like a million bucks, and get as much as 85 mpg from their torquey, single-cylinder power plants.


2014 Vespa 946
Vespa 946

Vespa’s retro-style, steel-bodied scooter may not “count” as a motorycle to you, dear reader, but its powerful 125 cc single, CVT gearing advantage, and lightweight construction mean it will leave most of the bikes in the list above in the dust from 0-30 mph, where city traffic lives. It may not be quite available to ride home, but you can definitely buy this bike today … just don’t expect to take delivery before Thanksgiving (but what a thing to be thankful for!). Expect the 55-ish mph Vespa to get over 90 mph when it arrives in showrooms later this year.


Cleveland Cyclewerks Misfit
Cleveland Cyclewerks Misfit

Let’s get one thing out of the way: if you don’t like this bike, then you hate America, Jesus, and probably cheddar cheese. This is the cooler-est 250 cc bike you can buy, and even though every ounce of your true biker spirit will want to call this a poser sack of Chinese crap, but get up close and you won’t be able to. The people involved are genuine enthusiasts, the build quality is excellent, and the look, the feel, and the pitch are dead-nuts-on. This is, in my opinion, the second best physical object 3500-ish US American dollars can buy, and it gets well over 80 mpg.


Genuine Stella 150 4T
Genuine Scooter Co. Stella

If not liking Cleveland Cyclewerks’ Misfit means you hate America, then not liking Genuine’s Stella means you hate yourself. A nod to Vespa’s classic 70’s-era PX scooters, this 150 cc low-emissions scooter features an honest-to-goodness MANUAL transmission, as well as a host of go-fast goodies and customizing options available through Genuine’s captive parts-house, Scooterworks. Except for my old Honda Ruckus, this is the only bike I’ve ever ridden that got waves from Harley riders (read: accountants and dentists), crotch-rocketeers, and Key West scooter trash alike … and this bike has enough juice to pull some serious road-trip duty. The best part? This low-emission, recycled-steel-bodied bike gets over 140 mpg.



Source | Photos: the Chicago Tribune, Cleveland Cyclewerks, Genuine Scooter Co., Vespa.

About the Author

I’ve been in the auto industry 1997, and write for a number of blogs in the IM network. You can also find me on Twitter, at my Volvo fansite, or chasing my kids around Oak Park, IL.

  • Pingback: The 13 Best Fuel-efficient Motorcycles You Can Buy in 2013 – Gas 2.0 | Biker Shop Today()

  • I have a Ninja 250. Absolutely love it. I get 70 mpg average and my best was close to 80 mpg. I loved to drive it and save money over driving my car to work. But now I bought a Chevy Volt. Now the Ninja 250 is a gas guzzler compared to my Volt. I can drive to work and back with my Chevy Volt for only 0.44 cents of electricity. With my Ninja 250, the round trip will cost $1.10 in premium gas.

    I feel guilty driving the Ninja now. I need a Zero motorcycle, or preferably a future eNinja.

    • Jo Borras

      The amount of fuel needed to build a new e-bike is far more than your little Ninja will burn, even after 50,000 miles of riding (I picked that number out of the air, but I’ll stand by it). Plus, that Volt blows compared to the bike. We both know it. You deserve to have some fun and can switch it to ethanol, if you decide you want a greener alternative. 🙂

      • anderlan

        “The amount of fuel needed to build a new e-bike is far more than your little Ninja will burn, even after 50,000 miles of riding (I picked that number out of the air, but I’ll stand by it).”

        Wait, is this true of EVs generally? If not, then why is it true for e-bikes? Are you thoughtlessly repeating anti-EV FUD?

        • eidolon

          Pulling the embodied energy argument out of the hat when reminded about the efficiency of e-motorcycles is quite specious. No mention of the amount of electricity it takes to refine gasoline, either.

          • Jo Borras

            Your use of the word “specious” aside, ignoring the fact that most US electrical energy still comes from dirty fuels is also silly. 😛

          • Not in Santa Cruz, darlin’, where Zeroes are born. The hippies wouldn’t allow it. I bet Ashland, OR (Brammo’s home) even uses fairly clean energy.

          • Andyj

            When electric cars are rated around 3~5 miles per KWH it matters not how “dirty” the electric is supposed to be. You also omit the little fact each gallon cost the processor 6.5KWH of “dirty electricity” too.

        • anderlan

          An editor of an alt-fuel site stands accused of repeating anti-EV propaganda from the likes for Bjorn “I’m not a scientists so I can’t get called out on my bullshit science” Lomborg. And he offers no defense. WTF?

          • Bradrad Radranaginn

            I have a tire in my back yard that I intend to burn in a few minutes, but I have time to say that I think saving the planet is for sissies. Electric stuff is fun, and gas burning is fun, but arguing with a hippie over which machine burns more fuel is useless and gay.

      • eidolon

        Apples and oranges, Mr. Borras. The amount of energy it takes to manufacture an e-bike is irrelevant. What exactly are the sunk energy costs of building gasser bikes? Also, electric motorcycles are far more efficient than gas bikes. Electric motorcycles/scooters can get 300+ mpg equivalents.

    • Pandabear

      First, pumping premium gas in a ninja 250 is silly. It is designed to run on regular, so that 1.10 is more like..0.98 for a “fair” comparison. Second, and more importantly, the chevy volt costs as much (or more) than 7 times that of the ninja 250. Penny wise, pound foolish if you ask me. Comparing a vehicle that costs roughly $25-30,000 more to a $5k bike for the sake of saying i save some 50-60 cents a day in gas.

    • NinjasFTW

      What universe are you from?

  • Pingback: Latest Money Fast, News | HOW CAN I GET MONEY()

  • my guess on your 3, without reading anything except the names or having a very good clue:

    -Pretty Much any Royal Enfield
    -Honda 2013 NC700X

    • Jo Borras

      Cleveland Cycle, not the Honda.

  • Pingback: 13 Best Fuel-efficient Motorcycles You Can Buy In 2013 - Cleantech Reporter()

  • cycle broken @home

    I wish you provided a graph or chart of speed correlated with fuel consumption. I commute about 90 highway miles round trip w/65 mph limit…realistically 70-75 mph to stay with traffic and visible. I’m guessing that most of these bikes high efficiency drops of (significantly?) at some point, but where? Is there a realistic option to increase the teeth ration on the sprockets or would they be too underpowered at, on average, 250cc or less?

    • Jo Borras

      Most bikes, even these, have pretty bad aero compared to cars (drag, specifically). I’d say ANY bike is going to lose a metric s***ton of efficiency above 55-60 mph. That said, these are EPA numbers,

      Here is your speed chart, from

      • Tiffany

        Fuel economy aside, most smaller bikes do not do well on the highway without some sort of enhancements (which would also decrease mpg efficiency due to added weight/drag/etc..) I rode a 2004 Honda Rebel CMX250c (technically 234cc’s) for 7 years and occasionally made a few highway trips. After about 30 minutes (without a windshield) your neck is killing you from the wind resistance against your helmet pushing your head back. And at 5’2″, 128lbs I MIGHT get 82mph.. if I’m following a rig down a decent hill lol. Otherwise, my max speed is between 68 and 75 mph- no add-ons, just me.

        • Mark Penrice

          Odd, my CG125 has no fairings at all, and flat out at 65ish the effect of having my head pushed back is a relatively minor concern; having to stay ducked down to reduce my frontal area is worse 😀

          I’d love to have even a fairly small screen just to deflect the worst of it over my helmet though, as it’s kinda loud (I try not to take longer, faster trips without earplugs, in fact – and that’s inside a fully enclosed helmet) … it’d let me sit up straighter, too. The rest of my body isn’t so affected because the frame is quite narrow.

          You definitely feel the effect of head and tailwinds quite badly, though, same as I used to in a low-powered (1-litre) car … maybe even as much as when I had the roof rack fitted.

          And you very definitely see the effects of high speed on fuel consumption. If you keep it to 40-45, you go a good way into three figure MPG (UK) … with more regular, harder riding, and capping yourself to 55, it falls back into the 2-figure range. Flat out, it dips to 80-85mpg or maybe worse. Even so, that’s not bad for travelling at that speed; my turbodiesel car struggles to do better than 50mpg on such a cruise…

      • Mark Penrice

        Is that actually used for testing motorcycles as well as cars? IE are the stated figures EPA numbers? Most cases round the world I’ve seen, there’s either no official bike test and manufacturers can state the results of whatever hokey in-house test they’ve run, or it’s a pretty basic and useless one.

        The graph you’ve shown actually wouldn’t be too bad for a smaller bike, eg a medium-fast 125 or a slower 250. It’d push the engine hard and let it cruise on part throttle about equally, and assuming realistic drag was placed on the wheels / cooling air blown against the engine would probably give a result similar to what I get with my own bike when riding to and from work.

    • Mark Penrice

      It really would depend on the bike and how it’s geared already. Generally if you lengthen the gearing, your steady-state economy should improve… up to a point. If you’re sat there hanging on at full throttle to maintain 60 when you might otherwise have been able to use only 75%, the reduced revs and butterfly valve turbulence will be offset by the carb tuning / fuel injection map typically enriching the mixture slightly to give more power and a cooler exhaust to stop the engine leaning out and overheating when working hard.

      It can even hinge on subtle differences. With the engine/gearbox originally in my (125) bike, it seemed to be rather undergeared and overeager in 5th, easily going through 65 and on towards 70, but coming out of the top of the power band as it did. I always intended to gear it up and get a little more speed with less revs, but something went belly-up and it suffered a failed bearing before I could do so (maybe just too many revs for too long, but in truth I didn’t do that so often as it’s quite torquey). The only option was a replacement engine… with different gears, as it was originally from a farm bike that happened to use the same powerplant. I had to gear up a little to keep the general range similar to the old one (first is a little higher, top is a little lower, everything is closer together, most particularly the first three), but it also seems to have a difference in tuning… more torque, less top end power, and more spread out. It’ll grumble around quite nicely at moderate speed in the nearly-but-not-quite the same top gear, but now starts feeling weak in the 60-65 zone unless I’m slipstreaming. But I know the power that’s there persists up to quite high relative rpms … gearing up any higher now wouldn’t do anything other than make first gear impractically high. I’d still do it if I was going to have to do a long high-speed trip on it which didn’t involve super steep hills or a lot of stop-and-go, but otherwise it’d be a mistake.

      I’m pretty sure there’s enough parallels with 250cc bikes in the same way – you may get one similar to my original setup, or like the dirtbike setup without an altered chain gearing, or even like the original wide-ratio peaky-power one but already geared-up (just, of course, with a bit more power and therefore a higher ultimate top speed). It’d be foolish to try and generalise about it. However, unless your bike already feels overgeared, like it’s not pulling to max power (or the tacho tells you it isn’t) in top gear when you crank the throttle, a generic, normally-tuned 250 should have a *little* leftover at 70ish mph for you to lengthen the stock gears slightly (a detuned one won’t… a harder-tuned one definitely will). Just be warned you may then not be able to reach the same top speed, and you’ll have to drop gears more readily (not *entirely* so bad, seeing as the lower gears will also *themselves* be a bit higher, and top will still make up the majority of your cruising mileage) in the face of headwinds and gradients. (I was actually going to provoke that effect on purpose as part of my planned change, so that I could use 4th gear up to slightly higher speeds as well; as it was, I couldn’t quite reach 55 up a certain steep hill as it also ran out of revs… having to drop down a little earlier but being able to maintain 56 seemed preferable to waiting a bit longer but dropping to 54 instead and not really knowing which gear to use at 55. It’s not always bad.)

      In most cases, though … yeah, it’s not too difficult a job to change the gearing. You’ll need a new (smaller) rear wheel and/or new (larger) front end sprockets (or in extreme cases of knife edge tuning, both smaller or both larger by a particular amount), probably a chain of suitably altered length (either longer or shorter depending on the new sprockets), and the ability to dismount the rear wheel and take off the gearbox output shaft cover. The rest of it is relatively simple and just involves undo nuts/bolts, breaking the chain with a certain tool (or some bolt cutters if you’re sure you’ll never need it again), making sure you don’t lose certain parts, swapping them over, re-tightening things to a specified torque, remounting the wheel, running the new chain and either inserting the springclip or riveting it shut (likely to be the worst part of it all, especially if you’ve not done it before), then putting the front cover back on and oiling it all up.

      It’s not as bad as it sounds, trust me. So long as you get the right parts. I ended up getting both the wrong front sprocket (as I didn’t realise the output shaft had different splines on each version) AND wrong rear one (they changed it partway through a particular model year, and most outlets decided to label mine as the previous year, and the new one as the same year mine was sold… even though they probably wouldn’t have filtered through to dealerships until the year was through). Keep an eye out for silliness like that, and changes to the frame which might fiddle your chain length. If possible, count how many links you have already, and what your current front/rear teeth are, and use the various online calculation tools to figure out what the *difference* needs to be rather than plugging your model name in and being returned an entirely incorrect number. Bear in mind chains are only available with even numbers of links, because of how they’re constructed – you’ll not see an odd-number one unless it’s a very strange, specially made one.

      Good luck anyway 🙂

  • T-Bone

    V-Star 1300 @70+ mpg? In what alternate universe? Product spec site reports 48.

    • Jo Borras

      As I said in the article, it seemed poorly researched. Still, that’s the number the Chicago Trib got, somehow.

    • 1972Mach1

      The V-Star 250 gets 78 mpg per the website, all the bigger ones get in the 40’s.

  • I have a Royal Enfield Bullet G5. Its really fun to ride, looks great and is getting at least 70mpg.

  • dan

    Your picture of a ninja 250 is actually a 300 SE

    • Jo Borras

      Good catch! Thankfully, it’s the Trib’s picture – and I did call their article “poorly researched” for a reason. 😉

  • Pingback: The New Honda Grom is the Best, High-MPG Thing Ever (w/ video)()

  • that Vespa 946 is HAWT!!! Not as sexy as my 1965 Lambretta TV175 was, but still hawt.

    All of these bikes pale in comparison to mine. ;-P The electric one, that is. My gas bike is the Lamborghini of motorcycles with a whopping 20mpg average (according to it’s own calculator). So glad the R1 is relegated to touring duty only, that bike was costing me a fortune as a daily rider.

  • Pingback: Dear Government, When do Cyclists Start to Matter as Much as Cars?()

  • Pingback: 13 high mpg motorcycles you can buy in 2013 -   - City-Data Forum()

  • Fuel price is such a big problem in today’s era where it’s price going higher and higher day by day. We must need this kinds of fuel efficient bike who give best performance and save our money as well.

  • CBR Rider

    Most popular bike in the UK last year………….Honda CBF125 returns close to 130MPG

    • Mark Penrice

      … officially.

      But it can probably manage a genuine 100mpg when driven conservatively. The CG which preceeded it definitely can, after all.

      Do note that, as they’ve been plucked from the Chicago Tribune, these figures will be US MPG. And American gallons are roughly 4/5ths the size of UK ones (~3.8 vs ~4.5 litres)… so 80MPG US = 100MPG UK (…and 100MPG US = 125MPG UK). Which makes them even less believable, really.

  • addy

    When u say: “The 13 Best Fuel-efficient Motorcycles You Can Buy in 2013”, it may include plzz:
    HONDA 50cc gasoline, which I got +100km/L from…
    on 300km highway in a 4hrs stretch @ 85km/hr top speed.

    • Jenny

      Addy, what Honda 50cc bike/scooter is this? I would love to have this one only for it’s cracking mileage. 100 plus kms/l is a lot. I would be grateful if you could share the model of this Honda bike with us. I wish the newer 50cc Vespas could do this sort of mileage. I would have 2 of them in one go.

      • Mark Penrice

        Yeah, exactly. If I could get that sort of speed out of a 50 — even the claimed 75km/h average cruising speed, in fact – I wouldn’t need my 125. It struggles to make it past 80-90k some days. Never mind it giving probably 5x the economy … at the same speed … with an engine that’s “only” 2.5x smaller and is probably running at least 1.5x the rpms to achieve that pace, if not fully twice the rpm…

        (Well, ok, so long as I could bore it out to 51cc and therefore qualify to travel on the short section of motorway that’s on my commute, I wouldn’t need my 125. The road has a 50mph speed limit and is often too congested to reach that, but it’s forbidden to bikes under 50cc — and yer typical “50” is actually 49.9 for the exact same licensing reasons – and the alternative routes are all rather slow)

        I have a feeling our erstwhile reporter has either confused litres for gallons – 100*MPG* would be believable under those conditions – or is looking at some officially-stated specs which includes the absolute flat-out on-the-limiter superman-posture generous-tailwind maximum speeds AND the dodgy-as-hell Japanese-standard economy (which is probably measured at a constant 25km/h – I’m not even BSing here, some of their tests state that speed – going round and round a velodrome, having put 100ml of fuel into a dry tank, then coasting as far as possible when the engine cuts out)… and thinks you will honestly be able to achieve both of them at the same time. Also that their speedometer doesn’t over-read in the slightest, no sirree Bob.

        Even so, all in all, I think I’d prefer to hang on to the ability to average about 100km/h when I need to. That additional hour can come in handy.

    • Mark Penrice

      85km/h… (or 53mph)
      454mpg UK… (380ish US)
      From a mass market 50cc motorcycle
      …really? I mean, really, honestly, without having made a mistake somewhere?

      You know, I have a feeling I’ve seen you make this wild statement before, on some other website… and when I challenged you to prove it there you quickly clammed up as well.

      For the love of chips, [CITATION NEEDED]

  • EricTheRon

    So sick of people touting electric vehicles as “green” or “efficient”. Yes, there’s no fumes from your tailpipe and the electric motor uses electricity efficiently. But the generation of that electricity is not as efficient as modern cars (and certainly not hybrids). And since electric vehicles are an additional load on the electric grid, so long as there are coal generation plants on the grid then this additional load is coming from coal plants (and also causing them to remain online longer for the additional loads). You are currently getting a fuel “deal” because you are avoiding gasoline road taxes, but if electric vehicles become commonplace you can bet the taxing authorities will make up that difference in license fees.

    • meep

      Power plants are way more efficient then cars.

      • Sparky

        .. That efficiency is lost in the many miles of power line “Line Loss” (resistance) with electrons radiating outwards, unused, before it reaches consumers.

    • John Berrey

      We don’t need another Nuclear plant either to make electricity. We cannot risk; look at Japan! We simply need to switch fuels from gas to alcohol.

      • Nonone

        All nuclear disasters have been the effect of human error. Three Mile island disaster cause was employees shutting down cooling pumps. It did not completely melt down because the us (Virginia) based designers built in redundancy that were hard for people to shut down. The Chernobyl reactors were basically in a shed. Fukushima was the result of pumping sea water in to try to cool the reactors. Another reason these failed is because they were antiquated from the start the Idaho National Laboratory had breeder reactors ready for commercial applications in the early 1950’s but Eisenhower pushed PWR to European nations because he was afraid the USSR might try to European reactors. Even though the breeder reactors could have been ready in 6 months to a year.

    • UncleB

      New Clean Electricity Coming!
      My cut and paste for this: “China is taking American discovered, American developed, American proven viable, Thorium nuclear technologies: safer, cheaper, scalable, plutonium free, 99% fuel efficient, near waste free, with benign waste after 300 years sequestration, to a new level. They rebirth,
      research, re-engineer, modernize, improve, Thorium LFTR styled technologies as we speak. Will this newer, safer, nuclear technology,
      already proven in working reactors in U.S., and brought to a new Chinese level of sophistication, eventually supplant the suicidal, dirty, inefficient, expensive, dangerous, Plutonium creating,
      current American enriched Uranium systems? Could China give birth to a new nuclear age? For all mankind? Remember: Uranium is in limited supply on earth. Thorium yields much higher energy per unit of fuel and Thorium is a much more plentiful fuel on earth. China speaks of a debut of Thorium in 2017. Can this newer fissioning technology supplant coal, oil, and enriched uranium (humanocidal, dirty) systems currently in use? at par or lower overall costs? Will China’s ‘politburo of seven’ enact this by law, as they have the electric car? More electric trains? More electric bullet trains? Larger population? My Question: Can a blinkered corpocracy like America keep up, compete, maintain itself beside this raging communist giant? Will the stagnant Corpocracy fade away
      with its fiat fairy money, from the world scene? China’s Thorium systems to debut in 2017?
      See: Kun
      Chen from Chinese Academy of Sciences on China Thorium
      Can The Great Corporate American Propaganda Whores hide reality for much longer? Will the peons soon enough realize that Socialist Welfare for the failing Corporations is not working well for them? Can America change this? Yes! She can so!
      Forgive my out-brake but every now and then an innocent like me just has to vent.

  • Singapore Rider

    Hmm, my Honda Wave S 125 run 60 km per liter. But you want the best, checkout Honda Future 125 which only sell in Malaysia, full tank 5.6 liters run 386 km with a storage which can fit a full face helmet under the seat. Too bad not selling in my country.

  • bymaak

    you forgot theYamaha XV250N or the Virago 250…Stock mine gets 84…changed the Sprockets increased my tire pressure by 5 pounds and am currently getting 110 mpg on the HIGHWAY and Maintaining 75 mph and STILL GETTING 98 mpg. Suck it Honda!!! and what about the new 300 ninja’s?..any clue what their MPG is?

  • mrokit

    I have a 2009 Honda CRF 230 M. I’m getting between 67 to 78mpg and I’m a heavier rider than most (235lbs) for this size of bike. This includes 2-20 liter saddlebags as well. Its still beats my Buick Lacrosse any day of the week.

  • mrokit

    Also, own a 2012 TaoTao CV 150. Honda CRF 230 still beats it in fuel economy. Word of advice on my Chinese scooter. Get about 73 mpg tops. Don’t buy one! They are cheap and the engine runs well. Its the rest of the scooter that falls apart, muffler bolts, throttle cable and housing and crappy rubber intake manifold. Can be a maintenance nightmare! Stick to Japanese or European scooters if you want one.

  • Gregory Faulkner

    The author should have added the Honda CTX700 and CTX700N, which, at time of the write up, they were coming to market sporting the same power train as the NC700X but for shorter, cruiser-preferring consumers. I’ve got the more expensive, sport-touring CTX700. I started riding in the hot summer and achieved upper 70s for mpg running pure gasoline and assuming a 2% trip meter error. Added a top case, mounting on the passenger’s seat for 42 liters of storage w/o negatively impacting mpg, but added a taller windscreen, because the wind was deafening on the highway, and this move looks like its going to cost me 4-5 mpg, but since the temps are getting cooler at the same time, I’m not sure how much of this is attributable to seasonable change and how much is windshields. That’s one of the problems with MCs. The more one tries to make them highway capable, the more one affects mpg due to drag increases. MCs need streamline options to correct this dilemma.

  • Pingback: Gas 2 | What is the future of fuel? What's new? What's next? Since 2007, Gas 2 has covered a rapidly changing world coming to terms with its oil addiction.()

  • Pingback: Gas 2 | What is the future of fuel? What's new? What's next? Since 2007, Gas 2 has covered a rapidly changing world coming to terms with its oil addiction.()

  • kanga

    Yamaha V Star 1300s does not get 78mpg. Looked at several of sources and it is in the 40’s mpg range.

  • Knapweed

    Can’t read the article at all because of the bloody stupid banner blocking the whole of the left-hand side.

  • Pingback: Gas 2 | What is the future of fuel? What's new? What's next? Since 2007, Gas 2 has covered a rapidly changing world coming to terms with its oil addiction.()

  • Josh

    I love my 07 zx10r but when I’m not on that I like to ride my bicycle, the most efficient mode of transportation ever made. Yes, I have a car too, but it usually just sits there hoping it will rain so I will drive her.

  • dude_creative

    150 mpg Honda dream neo

  • APerfectCircle

    “Watch out for motorcycles” I’ll watch out for them when they all stop riding like dicks. Why is every Harley rider a fat balding old man?

    • Peter Negru

      because they are still stuck in the: ‘MURICA IS DA BEST mind set.
      truth is, harely are slow, poorly made, unreliably noisy, and in-efficent bike that are priced about 2-3 times what they should be.

      the younger kid want performance and bang or the buck, so they buy whatever is the best. usually a japanese bike (they make cruisers as well you know) or if they are feeling flush, something european.

    • Mark Penrice

      Please don’t tar all motorcyclists with the Harley brush. All we want is for you to exercise the same caution you were taught to when learning to drive – IE check both ways when pulling out of a side road – especially if having to squeeze through a gap in a line of stationary cars – and behind/to the side when changing lanes. Is that seriously too much to ask? The next time you forget, it could be a truck, after all.

      Signed, a dude who happens to own a small, cheap, red Honda and uses it to truck back and forth to work along busy city streets and through the near-stationary lines of traffic.

  • Pingback: Gas 2 | Bridging the gap between green heads and gear heads.()

  • wilson

    I don’t care if my mode of transport is less polluting than another. I’ve ridden muscle powered bicycles nearly all my life and I think I’ve earned the right to emit a bit of pollution now. I’m only concerned because of the cost of fuel. It’s outrageous in the UK. Americans would have a heart attack if they had to pay what we do.

  • Sudeep Cheruthitta

    There are a dozen Indian bikes which offer you 70mpl instead of the listed 70mpg. Why don’t you include those frugal kings here?

    • Mark Penrice

      Has anyone actually tested them? And what’s their power/speed like?
      (Are those the diesel-powered Enfields, btw? They’re kinda slow, smokey and drastically unrefined…)

  • alko

    My 2009 Ninja 250 averaged in the mid 40’s with 49 mpg being my best
    , so either I got a lemon or this article is bs. The new Honda CBR250 on the other hand averages over 70mpg. If you want to see real-world fuel economy numbers instead of what manufacturers claim. Go to They have a car section and motorcycle section.

  • Mark Penrice

    I’d love to see the test conditions that produced these figures. I mean, I’d happily have a Vespa replica that scores 140mpg US, but… well… let’s say I’m highly skeptical. Never mind the 1300cc cruiser that clocks over 75. There doesn’t seem to be any kind of standardised test for motorcycle economy, and I know for a fact a lot of Japanese ones are just tested at a constant, low speed (between 30 and 60km/h depending on type – or 18 to 37mph) on a short course.

    A lot of these are quite disappointing, by the way – I’m sure we were doing better than this, at least with the lower capacity machines (excepting that one scooter) 10-20 years ago. My own rough-as-nails old 125 Honda naked (bought for the equivalent of about $1250 three years ago) can pull in a good 80mpg US around town…

    And, well, I guess looking on a US site for anything that might be relevant to me as a UK customer was probably optimistic… nevermind. I’d love if we had anything like the 250 market you guys have…

  • slatedog

    I know this is article is old, but thought I’d comment anyways. The Stella get’s no where near the 140 mpg mark.

    Why not list the Symba 100?

  • dev

    bajaj discover 251mpg

  • Andyj

    Last week my old BMW R1100GS returned 65mpg (UK) loaded with my camping trailer.
    Generally motorcycles have a terrible record for economy. They simply are not designed to be…
    Suggest checking out He has rules and competitions to make bikes practical, economical, nicer to ride fast and be the preferred vehicle to use when choosing from the garage.

  • An electric motorcycle review would be very timely with the new electric Harley and Italian EGO.

    • DanHartong

      an electric Harley?….what do they sound like shhhhpotato-shhhhpotato-spud-spud-spud…..

  • djpalme

    Sadly the US don’t get them.
    Their current generation Honda Wave 125i (2012 model) does 150-180 mpg easily.

    The god old Honda CUB that was sold in the US achieved some incredible MPG number as well.

    • djpalme

      On another note. I find it strange that you keep writing that Automatics cause the bikes to be more fuel efficient as they rev lower.

      That’s simply not true.

      Unless the rider/driver is a moron and keeps revving the engine unnecessary. Any normal driver actually revs a lot lower with manual gearboxes than any Automatic does as their usually tuned to run at peak torque which is at fairly high revs.

      Especially CVT geared scooters lose out on economy as the engine revs higher at slow speeds and the rubber belt has a higher resistance than a chain.
      The only scooter I know of as achieving very good economy is Honda’s PCX, which is down to its aero dynamics. However, it’s efficiency is still worse than similarly sized CUBs.

  • Steve Morin

    My V-Star 1300 gets 42 mpg on average. Although 78 would be nice.

  • neroden

    Um, they’re expensive, but the most fuel-efficient motorcycles on the market are the Zero and Brammo all-electric models…

  • DHZ

    The reigning champ is the ZEV Electric LRC with 140 miles on 7.5 kwh of battery for 636 mpgE of highway speed cruising.

  • John Hughes

    If you don’t need freeway speed, then you could use smaller bikes. The Honda XRM 125 is probably the most popular motorcycle in the whole of the Philippines. For heavier duty, there is the mighty Honda TMX, used for trikes and heavy loads. Looks like it was designed in the 60’s and it is still going strong.

  • RealityBetraysUs

    Yes the yamaha v star 750 =approx 42mpg and the 250=78mpg larger engine logically suck more fuel. Other high mpg bikes: susuki TU250X =80mpg, honda cmx250 Rebel at 84 mpg, Royal Enfield at 85 mpg although without model number I do not know how the hell you would tell the high mpg from the low mpg’s.check out: