If you drive standard Arctic Cats, a 400 (376), 500, 700 and a 950cc, on a straight pavement road. Who would get farest (if they all have the same size of tank?)

Would the list look kind of like this if you drive at say 40 mph:
400
500
700 Efi
950 Efi

If you tow lets say a 1000 lbs wagoon, would the list look the same? I mean, you would maybe have to rev the 400 and 500 a bit more. But just have "idle" gas on the 950?

If you drive the exact same on a moderate mud trail, at the same speed and same tires etc. Would the list still be as above?

Why I am asking this, is because no manufacturer presents their fuel milage on their quads! Why? I know people on these forums says:

-well, it depends on how you run your atv, and it will differs more than driving a car. Impossible to say.

But is it really that impossible, to make 3 tests? One on straight pavement, one when towing a certain amount, and one when doing trails? The car industry managed to make comparments between auto/manuals and it is listed for every make and model of the entire industry!

It would be really nice to see which maker made the most efficient ATV models compared to CC's. Wouldn't you thinkt that? I mean here in Sweden the gas is very expensive now, and I think it will only get more and more expensive, even in the US. I know 950 H2 is expensive to buy, but how much harder on gas is it compared to the 400? It has the double engine size, is it the double fuel usage?

Is Honda the most easy on gas? They have their clutching system. Or is a manual AC 500 the best when shifted right? Or is the Suzuki KQ 450 the best?

Just want to start a discussion about this, if you are interested.

Thanks

 

Well I would say, the Polaris 800 I have gets pretty bad milage/Hours. I can burn 5 gallons 5/6th of a tank in 6 hours of riding. My riding would be considered mild to most. When my wife's 300 can do 6 hours with 1/4 tank.

I will have to get 1 or 2 fuel cells for a Full days or a weekend ride once we get to that point.

 

I think you are looking for figures that could never be realistic.

I see your point - Set up some basic tests that are the same for all ATV's to come up with an apples to apples baseline to compare ATV milage. Great idea for comparison shopping - the problem is that any test would be so unrealistic for actual ATV use that the manufacturers would be flooded with complaints about poor fuel milage. Many complaints about performance + complaints claiming false advertising = lower model sales.

It's one thing for a car, which in real-world use CAN be expected to remain at a constant speed on a predictable road for hours and hours on end - thus confirming milage numbers projected by a manufacturer. But in an ATV, that is NEVER going to happen. Not only do you have the normal differences based on how different people will drive but you add in all the various types of terrain and you'll get milage figures that go all over the map for the same ATV. I can run woods type trails in my Outy and get in the low to mid 20's for milage. I can run those same trails using low range more and get only 15. I have no doubt that if I really decided to play with the bike on those same trails that I could make the milage numbers go down even more - just like I could putt along and get an extra 5 MPG's while I'm watching the scenery go by.

In your questions above, it's pretty safe to assume that on a smooth road the small cc unit will get better milage, with the possible exception of slightly larger cc EFI bikes getting better MPG figures than a smaller carb version. You are also correct in assuming that after a point, a larger engine can get better milage than a smaller one if they are pulling a load. Once the smaller ATV is forced to run past it's most efficient power range, it's milage will go down drastically. The thing is, those large load ranges are typical of ATV riding - deep mud, steep slopes etc. will all mimic the load of towing a huge weight.

I just can't see how any 'standard' MPG figures would really do any good. You might find that on a hard-pack surface at 30 MPH that a Honda Rincon gets a steady 30 MPG while a Brute Force in the same test only gets 23. However, it could be that once those two are slogging their way through rough trails that the BF would outperform the Rincon in the same conditions. Note that this is just tossing out numbers to make a point, I have no idea as to the Rincon or BF's MPG numbers.

In short, unless all manufacturers have some form of standard trail loop to generate MPG numbers any milage figures given to any ATV will be mostly meaningless. Since milage figures will certainly effect sales numbers, soon we'd see manufacturers designing ATV's that perform best under the conditions of the milage test, not real-world conditions - that would be bad for us as riders and buyers of these ATV's. While getting higher milage is great, ATV's are never going to be used as economy vehicles. As ATV riders, we punch our throttles to jump a start as fast as we can, we slam our brakes and hit the throttle to start a power slide, we jump over things and we choose to power our way through a deep mudhole rather than drive around it. Nobody buys an ATV with economy in mind but if todays higher fuel prices make that large an impact in your riding then the best answer is to get a smaller cc machine. Overall, for most peoples' ATV riding use, a smaller machine will get better milage than a larger. We all know that a 400cc machine will go anywhere that an 800cc machine can. In just about every trail situation, the smaller quad will get better milage than the larger - that's about as accurate of numbers that you can really get.

Jaybee

 

I think it would be nice to see a "standard" made like this for ATV's.

For fuel useage I can give you a camparison for my AC400 Manual and my 500TRV Auto. It would probably be better if they were both auto's or manual trannys though. Towing or empty over the exact same 50mile trail to my cabin that involves loose sand&gravel, shallow silty mud, serveral creek crossings, and some hard pack trail.

Both machines with just the rider, the 400 burns about 1/4 less. If I tow with the 400 and have the 500 empty they burn roughly the same amount. If I tow with the 500 and the 400 is empty the 400 will use half the fuel the 500 does. If I tow with both the 400 again uses about 1/4 less fuel.

That being said it may be tough to compare with such variables as engine size, transmission type, 4wd or 2wd, and then you would need to consider type of terrain, throttle position, and tires. (I am sure I am foregetting something there) SO the results that I am getting probably are not what someone else would get. Which is true for cars as well especially if you look at the mpg on a sticker of a vehicle and then drive it.

I have a freind who has an AC 650H1 and towing a trailer to my cabin he MUST fuel up before the return trip or before going any place from it and once he had to fuel up before he got there!. He is talking like downsizing, and getting a 250 or 300 to ride and keeping to 650 for when he needs stuff moved. This is due to higher fuel prices. He burns nearly twice the fuel I do in my 400, then again he has twice (if not more) engine than I do.

I have had god luck by setting aside $100 per machine each month in my bank account. That way I have $1200 a year per machine for maintenance and fuel. Plus, I am using the surplus after just 3 years to buy 2 new machines. I got a great deal on two Suzuki 250 Ozarks $5200 OTD ($2600 ea). NOW my wife (bless her little heart) says "BUY ME A TWO SEATER!" and I am a firm believer in keeping the mrs happy so I just started looking at them this week.

I am wondering if the oil prices stay high long enough, which will eventually drive up the cost of an ATV if manufacturers will come up with some kind of a Miles Per Gallon (quart, liter, etc) or Hours of use at 3/4 load type thing like they have for generators to entice people to buy their machine?

Good question Kinuski, but it is making me think way too much. Which, as my wife says, can be a dangerous thing.

SJ

 

Well, thank you Swampy!!! You are the first to see my point!

I mean a test doesn't need to be EXACT values for real world trail riding. The main thing with the test is that you can compare different brands and models with each other. Maybe the test should be done and list mpg for: trail, mud, tow, street (in legal countries/states) and also maybe a overall "fuel efficient" value considering all the tests.

JUST AN EXAMPLE, NOT TRUE :
In such a test we can get a hint that (just example) the polaris 700 is maybe only half that efficient than the AC H1 700. JUST AN EXAMPLE NO OFFENSE:

 

Thinking more on this, one persons "real world trail" is more than likely not the same as the next. But, one persons city or highway driving is not either.

Just looking at various ATV specs you can see that the larger the engine the larger the fuel tank.
AC Thundercat - 951cc - 6.5gal tank
AC500 - 493cc - 6.5gal tank
Yamaha Grizzly 550 - 558cc - 5.3gal tank
AC 366 - 366cc - 4.0 gal tank
Yamaha Big Bear 400 - 386cc - 4.0 gal tank

So it looks like maufacturers are matching tank size to engine size. But, jet size in the carb also effects the fuel useage. I do not see the specs on that. This works because you can modify or replace your muffler and change your jet size to get more cc's. I have always thought that an EFI engine, since it is regulated by a computer, can be more efficient than a carborated engine of the same size.

I agree that the rating doesn't need to be exact because I am pretty sure there are too many variables to control. Then again there area alrady too many options to choose from when selecting an ATV. You know 2wd or 4wd, engine size, tire size, carborated or EFI, diff lock or no liff lock, color, would you like fries with that? Do you want it super sized?.......

Swampy

 

THe smaller the engine the better the fuel economy also a manual will get better than the cvt

 

Ok, thank you all for your opinion! By the way, I am not from a government. :-) I love to take a ride with my AC400. I use it for towing out tree / fire wood. Around house. And also on the road! Yes, in Europe it is legal to ride your ATV on highway! But you need drivers license and blinkers, rear mirror and licensplate and such things on your atv. Your atv also need to be checked buy government once a year, just like they check your cars once a year.

That is why I am talking about fuel consumption. I don't think it is funny to ride 100 miles on roads / gravel roads / pavement with only 18 mpg. Compare that to an MC. But I think tire pressure may be a concern in this, and also the tires! Thinking of getting street tires to my atv for changing when going on trips! Thank you for your opinions!

 

Economics are complicated. Different riders will get different MPG on the same machine.

I would probably approach it in this way. A 400 will cost less to buy, and will also get the best MPG unloaded. You would need to calculate the percent of usage when loaded and the MPG drop and also the price differential. Let's say a 400 cost $2000.00 less than a 950 - well you can buy a lot of gas for $2000.00

My personal experience is that I get 24mpg with my 400 if I take it easy. One time in the winter the going was so hard that I had to stay in 4x4 and low range all the time and the 400 was working really hard. I only got about 18 miles on a whole tank - that is around 4pmg or so.

My other experience is that my 400 can pull heavier loads than my friends 500 Honda. I help him pull trees out of the woods for firewood. I can pull more wood out and use less gas than he does. We fill up before and after the work is done. Other factors come to play because I have more aggressive tires and spin less so that may be part of the reason that I can pull heavier loads and also get better MPG - make sense to me.