Rubicon gas mileage: guesses?
#1
I rode a Rubicon this afternoon also, I've had trouble choosing between a 2nd Rancher ES 4x4 and waiting for a Rubicon, for trail riding here in Central Utah. It is a sweet ride, and didn't feel too big.
One concern I have though, is expected gas mileage. With the Rancher already only getting around 25mpg, the Rubicon is 170cc bigger (52%) and 65lbs heavier (12%), but the gas tank only holds 0.3 gallons more (9%) (3.7 vs 3.4 gallons),
so would I be needing to carry gas with me on 60 mile trips, with the Rubicon?
There's not too many gas stops in the Utah high country - I saw 2 mountain lions yesterday and ran over a rattlesnake (he was fine).
Or will the continuous transmission perhaps help fuel economy and keep it close to the Rancher?
Any thoughts?
Thanks, Nathan
PS: I just bought a house with a 2 room hotel, right on the Piute trail here, if anybody would like to come stay for trail riding, drop me an email, we'll give a cheap rate for ATV Connection members, as I've been lurking here for months and you made my Rancher decision easy for me. (Now if you can just help me make the Rancher/Rubicon decision.)
One concern I have though, is expected gas mileage. With the Rancher already only getting around 25mpg, the Rubicon is 170cc bigger (52%) and 65lbs heavier (12%), but the gas tank only holds 0.3 gallons more (9%) (3.7 vs 3.4 gallons),
so would I be needing to carry gas with me on 60 mile trips, with the Rubicon?
There's not too many gas stops in the Utah high country - I saw 2 mountain lions yesterday and ran over a rattlesnake (he was fine).
Or will the continuous transmission perhaps help fuel economy and keep it close to the Rancher?
Any thoughts?
Thanks, Nathan
PS: I just bought a house with a 2 room hotel, right on the Piute trail here, if anybody would like to come stay for trail riding, drop me an email, we'll give a cheap rate for ATV Connection members, as I've been lurking here for months and you made my Rancher decision easy for me. (Now if you can just help me make the Rancher/Rubicon decision.)
#2
All a person can do is look on past experiences, and in the past when honda had a similar tranny hooked up to a motorcycle the fuel milege really was awful. The same can be said about fluid drive transmissions on tractors. It was also very poor. Like I said, this is all based on the past. Maybe they have improved the fluid coupling aspect of the final drive and it will be better than the past.
#4
My old 98 Sportsman averaged about 20+mpg depending on how drivin. I would suspect that the Ruby would get at least that, or Honda would have added a large tank. Sounds like the Ruby will be a great machine. The only bad quad is one that doesn't run.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)




