I really find it hard to believe that such a big deal is being made about bikes and their fuel mileage.

What is needed right now is low cost, high efficency machines that can get one from here to there. Bikes do that.

Yes it's true there are bikes that don't get more than 40 mpg but it must be remembered that the gross majority of bikes cost less than $10,000 new and do get more than 40 mpg.

I paid $2100 for a used Honda Rebel and got a consistant 69 mpg. My Kawasaki KLR 650 cost $3400 and gets 50+ mpg.

Sure, the efficiency gap is closing between cars and bikes but the retail cost certainly isn't.

Here's my choice. I can drive my pickup and get 16 mpg or ride my bike and get 50 mpg. I can't afford a Prius or a VW TDI. I just don't have the money.

Another thing to remember is that in the States most trips are taken by individuals, not groups. Bikes fill this nitch really well.

It's too bad that bikes don't have lower emissions but technology costs. If you raise the price enough and make it tough enough to meet emission standards with a bike I'll just have to drive my 16mpg truck (which I need for my handyman business) that meets emissions standards set for it.

Nothing is perfect. I'll take a 50 mpg bike over a 16mpg truck.

I've owned 5 bikes. My old 82' kawasaki kz750 did a 12.69 1/4 mile and got about 44MPG riding hard. My first bike, a 81' honda twinstar CM200T got 68mpg easy while twisting the throttle alot to keep up with traffic.

My 05 Honda Rebel gets a consistent 80mpg which I ride about 14,000 miles a year (compared to my 93 tercel that gets 40mpg and driven 2000 miles a year) Not only do I save on gas, but the longevity of my toyota has been extended to at least 20 years (had it 12 already).

The savings is clear. Less consumption of gas and no raw materials for a new auto every 6 to 8 years. Although I go through tires every 12,000 miles and change oil every 1500 to 2000 miles as opposed to 50,000 on a car and 3000 mile oil intervals. I can buy an awful lot of tires and oil changes for the purchase price of a new car that i'm saving. The Rebel cost $3000 and I expect to get at least 100,000 miles out of it.

Has anyone adressed that motorcycles use much less asphault than four wheelers? If we all rode bikes then there would be no traffic jams. I BEG the industry to come out with a diesel motorcycle that is affordable and efficient. The new one that has come out for the us army gets over 100 mpg and would love to run on biodiesel. I am going to buy a Kawasaki Ninja 250 that gets 75 mpg. Also has anyone thought about the fact that we need consumer items shipped to us from around the world so we can have our satsumas in december? I drive semi trucks and know that they are thirsty(6.0mpg). Not bad considering that they are 80k lbs. When will it end? Tax the fuel because it is too cheap in the good old USA. 2.00$ a gallon or .52$ a liter or .41 eur. Lots of toll roads may deture people from commuting long distances. I live in Richmond VA and many of my suburban neighbors commute to the big money jobs in Washinton DC which is over 100 miles each way. No public transportation to dc from here.

I've been waiting impatiently for the D650A1 "Bulldog". 100mpg and can run on bio-diesel. Add to that how much less motorcycles cost then cars, and the environmental footprint of making and servicing a motorcycle vs a car, and it's an easy answer.
As far as emissions go, if you can go farther before dumping each emission particle, then you're still doing better. Now only if they'd make a cruiser with good efficiency.....*sigh*

The last comments posted (Scott, Hartwig & Jordan)bring this issue to a sound perspective. Since most transportation is work related, and we all must work, doesn't it make sense to consume the least amount of resources, both in materials and asphalt that we can? Poorer countries have made the two wheeler the workhorse of the common man out of necessity. Many areas in Europe and England still use motorcycles as primary vehicles. They have that unique quality of being both practical and exciting at the same time. The fact that they don't drain your budget and cost a fortune for simple repairs is no small plus. To end on a technical note, bike design is a bit of a mystery. My 2002 Kawasaki ZX7r with minor modification has a top speed of about 170 mph, but when driven on the street at typical speeds, delivers 46 mpg commuting and about 54 on the highway (and it's carburated). A street 750 (by another maker)with two less cylinders, fuel injection, less than half the horsepower, and a top speed of about 120 mph, gets only 35 mpg in town and about 42 on the highway - less than my 1993 HD 1340cc Lowrider. It'll be great when we start seening more E85 machines, but until then, we have to look at the bike situation with a more balanced perspective than one study affords.

My 2006 Harley-Davidson Sportster ('06 was the last year with a carburator, they are all fuel injected now) easily gets 50 mpg on a regular basis, even when I try to break the record for going 0-60 on a stock 883cc Harley after every red light and maintaining speed over 75 mph. When I ride it nice and easy it can get 57 mpg.

A 4.5 gallon tank which I fill up after I burn 3.5 gallons can take me as far as my old '87 Dodge Caravan with about 20 gallons.

Hey, I don't understand why people say it's difficult to get an accurate mile per gallon rating on a motorcycle. All you have to do is use your trip-meter and your receipt that has the ammount of gas you just filled your tank with. 225miles/4.0 gal = 56.25 mpg

I think the reason we can get better gas mileage on our bigger cc engines is that when we are cruising at 75 miles an hour our engines aren't working hard at all. Those smaller bikes that you have to red line to go 60 mph must use more gas than a bike that is basically idling while going 60. It's as if the smaller bike has to keep accelerating the whole time, where a big twin can just cruise.

I don't know......I'm not a mechanic by any stretch of the imagination. It's just an idea.

Do crotch-rockets get worse gas mileage?

Harleys get good mileage primarily because of their heavy flywheels. They not only contain a lot of their own inertia, but keeping that inertia up requires more throttle input. That sounds bad, but what it does is keeps the butterfly valve open further, reducing pumping losses. In English, what it means is that the engine doesn't have to work as hard to suck in the air it needs to run.

My Harley XL1200N Sportster Nightster (that's a mouthful, ain't it?) is currently averaging 43,98mpg on mostly commute-type miles, of course sporting a 73ci/1200cc motor. Then again, it's still breaking in. I currently only have 998 miles on it...As for emissions, who cares? It doesn't hit my pocketbook as hard as my Mustang does :)