Jump to content

  • Follow us:

  • Facebook
  • YouTube
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • Instagram
  • RSS Feed
  • Google+




Related Garage

yz426.jpg

Yamaha YZ426F (2001)


Owner: phydeaux99
Added on Yesterday, 11:28 AM



Related Reviews

Yamaha YZ450F 2011


Last review by Le_Racer
* * * * -

Yamaha YZ450F 2003


Last review by Garrett Canada
* * * * -

Yamaha YZ450F 2008


Last review by thaoe_thumper
* * * * -

Yamaha YZ450F 2004


Last review by 1trackmind
* * * * -

Yamaha YZ450F 2010


Last review by flightrider
* * * * -
Photo
- - - - -

Fuel injected YZ450 mileage


  • Please sign in to reply

20 replies to this topic
  • stevethe

    Get Help Now

5,220 posts
Location: California
Garage View Garage

Posted November 22, 2015 - 05:31 PM


Wondering if the new bikes get much better fuel economy than the older carbed version.

The new YZ450 and the 2016 WR450 look to both have 2.0 gal. tanks. IMS makes a larger tank for the YZ however the WR has a battery in the way for a bigger tank?

  • GHILL28

    TT Addict

3,835 posts
Location: California

Posted November 22, 2015 - 08:42 PM


I can't compare to the older carb'd versions, but compared to some other EFI 450's, the '14 YZF with the MXA map drinks like an Irishman.  That map adds a bunch more fuel all around.  

 

The power on it is pretty flawless, so I can't complain too much, but I had hoped the range would be better when I bought the bike.  Good thing I have the 3G tank.  I wouldn't budget the 2G tank for more than 50 miles.



  • grayracer513
42,883 posts
Location: California
Garage View Garage

Posted November 23, 2015 - 06:57 AM


It would seem to me that the engine could be mapped leaner and more advanced in the cells where the throttle opening is low to improve economy.



  • GHILL28

    TT Addict

3,835 posts
Location: California

Posted November 23, 2015 - 09:17 AM


Well the MXA map has a bunch more advance with it to burn off the excess fuel (what the mag claims).  I can still smell unburnt fuel coming out of the exhaust, so I suspect there is some optimization to be done.



  • grayracer513
42,883 posts
Location: California
Garage View Garage

Posted November 23, 2015 - 09:26 AM


The extra advance I recommended is not for burning off excesses, it's normally done in the automotive world so as to deal with the very low density of the fuel/air charge at light throttle openings and still get some usable force from the small amounts of fuel being burned.  Small block Chevrolets, for example, are generally happiest with a max full throttle advance at around 32 degrees BTDC, but at a cruise, they run as high as 55 degrees.



  • poppa

    TT Bronze Member

316 posts
Location: Texas

Posted November 23, 2015 - 09:56 AM


We could get about 50 miles with the 2.6 gal ims tank on an 11 450f. Not stock map but not really crazy map either. He was riding at the expert level at the time. Have about a half pint of fuel left after race. Running out the vent hose on the line

  • GHILL28

    TT Addict

3,835 posts
Location: California

Posted November 23, 2015 - 10:44 AM


The extra advance I recommended is not for burning off excesses, it's normally done in the automotive world so as to deal with the very low density of the fuel/air charge at light throttle openings and still get some usable force from the small amounts of fuel being burned.  Small block Chevrolets, for example, are generally happiest with a max full throttle advance at around 32 degrees BTDC, but at a cruise, they run as high as 55 degrees.

 

So what type of map would you suggest then?  This is the MXA map:

 

YZ450fmap.jpg



  • cpetz24

    TT Bronze Member

427 posts
Location: Missouri

Posted November 23, 2015 - 10:51 AM


I have a 2011 YZ450F with a 2.4 gal clarke tank.  Bike is all stock, exhaust, cams, piston etc.  I run the "Woods Map" as referenced in the sticky at the top of this forum.  I run A-Class and in my last race (hare scramble) I got the following: 

 

Overall, I got 0.87 GPH which I thought was pretty good.  For a 450f. 

 

Tank Size 2.4 gal

Race Time (hrs) - 1.766667

Gal Used - 1.55

GPH - .8773

Hrs till empty - 2.7355

MPG (Rought) - 27.096

Race Miles (rough)- 42

    

I never was able to get an accurate measure of the milage, but it was pretty close.  I've found that measuring bike milage for a race is better in Gallons Per Hour (GPH) as it gives you a more accurate reading, unless you have an odometer to help you out.  The course was fairly open with quite a bit of grass track.  I would say I averaged between 2nd and 3rd gear most of the race.  

 

I plan on gathering more data points as the season goes on, but for right now this is what I have.  I still have yet to get some readings from a mud race, or a more open course.  

 

 


Edited by cpetz24, November 23, 2015 - 11:00 AM.


  • grayracer513
42,883 posts
Location: California
Garage View Garage

Posted November 23, 2015 - 11:15 AM


So what type of map would you suggest then?  This is the MXA map:

 

YZ450fmap.jpg

 

Basing off of that, and using that same pattern, something along the order of:

Fuel

+3 +3  +3

+0 +2 +3

+0 +0 +2

Ign

+2 +2 +2

+4 +3 +2

+4 +4 +2

 

That leaves the heavy throttle high speed stuff mostly unchanged while reducing fuel through the less loaded phases.  If you try something like this, leave feedback.



  • GHILL28

    TT Addict

3,835 posts
Location: California

Posted November 23, 2015 - 11:24 AM


Certainly, my next day of suspension testing and whatnot, I will give this a try.  Thank you!



  • WouldsAssassin

    TT Bronze Member

450 posts
Location: California

Posted November 25, 2015 - 10:29 AM


I have a 2011 and use the yamaha provided "slippery conditions" map. Like grey stated reduce fuel and add ignition at the low throttle and rpm range. With the IMS 2.4 gal tank I don't have any problems completing spirited 70 mile trail rides with 1-2 liters remaining at the end.

I race enduros and not very often but have podium finished in my B class at every race entered. I don't just putt around on dirt roads and weigh 260# in race gear.

When I tried the "woods" map I almost ran out of gas at 50 miles. Put that one in the trash.

  • cpetz24

    TT Bronze Member

427 posts
Location: Missouri

Posted November 25, 2015 - 11:03 AM


When I tried the "woods" map I almost ran out of gas at 50 miles. Put that one in the trash.

That's odd.  We may have totally different riding styles then.  I tend to lug around a gear high, and very seldom get up on the top end.  About the only time I bounce it off the chip is when I'm about to crash my brains out... lol



  • WouldsAssassin

    TT Bronze Member

450 posts
Location: California

Posted November 25, 2015 - 12:12 PM


Nope actually it sounds like we ride the same. On nasty singletrack the bike is easier to maneuver at low RPM. When I need to get on it for a hill or an open stretch I usually end up kicking it down two gears.

 

Let me expand on my statement above as it has been quite some time since the "woods" map has been discussed.

 

Here's the Yamaha published map I use. I should play with it some more after using it as is for almost 3 years.

 

"Setting for improved drivability
For riding in slippery conditions, such as on hard packed dirt or wet surfaces. This setting provides easier throttle work that can be experienced not only by experts but a wide range of YZ450F users."
Fuel Injection (FI)
-4 +4 -4
-4 +4 -4
-4 +4 -4
Ignition (IG)
+2 -5 +2
+2 -5 +2
+2 -5 +2

 

The "Woods" map from Directmotocross.com 

Fuel Injection (FI)
+4 +4 -3
+4 +4 -4
-3 -4 -4
Ignition (IG)
-3 -3 -3
-3 -3 -0
-3 -3 -3

 

 

As it sits here on the page it isn't much different from the Yamaha map. However, the numbers that were published in the article and that are supplied in the "maps" thread are actually inverted from what you would enter on the tuner screen. Direct Moto published their map with the top left being closed throttle/low RPM and bottom right being full throttle/peak RPM.

 

If entered as it is above, NBD. If entered as Direct Moto published their map it increases fueling by +4 in the area we trail racers spend 95% of the ride.

 

Having said that, depending on how you entered the map into your tuner will dictate your results and range. Is it as copied above or as Directmoto.com published it? I admit, the directmoto woods map did what they said, but at a 30% reduction in my tested fuel range. So, in the trash it went.



  • cpetz24

    TT Bronze Member

427 posts
Location: Missouri

Posted November 27, 2015 - 06:48 AM


I actually didn't put the map in myself, I don't have a tuner.  I took it to the local shop and they did it for free.  I just printed off the map from the TT sticky (how you have it above)  and gave that to them.  I'd assume they put it in that way.  I've never got a chance to mess with a Yamaha tuner, so I don't know how you have to enter the numbers.  

 

Bike runs great, and I have no real complaints about the map.  It could use a little more hit from low to mid range, but that's really not needed in the tight stuff we ride.  My biggest concern was that with the stock map I had a huge issue with it flaming out/cough stalling when the throttle was chopped.  As soon as I changed the map, that problem went away.  



  • GHILL28

    TT Addict

3,835 posts
Location: California

Posted September 10, 2016 - 04:40 PM


Basing off of that, and using that same pattern, something along the order of:

Fuel

+3 +3  +3

+0 +2 +3

+0 +0 +2

Ign

+2 +2 +2

+4 +3 +2

+4 +4 +2

 

That leaves the heavy throttle high speed stuff mostly unchanged while reducing fuel through the less loaded phases.  If you try something like this, leave feedback.

 

I just put this map in.  Definitely a little more snappy and crisp at low RPM's and no popping (the only reason I put in the MXA map in place of 0/0 in the first place).  I also seem to smell less gas out the exhaust, so that's a positive sign.  Should get some miles on it tomorrow.



  • grayracer513
42,883 posts
Location: California
Garage View Garage

Posted September 10, 2016 - 06:18 PM


Interesting.  So you liked that overall, then?



  • Krannie McKranface
36,167 posts
Location: California
Garage View Garage

Posted September 10, 2016 - 06:32 PM


Wondering if the new bikes get much better fuel economy than the older carbed version.

The new YZ450 and the 2016 WR450 look to both have 2.0 gal. tanks. IMS makes a larger tank for the YZ however the WR has a battery in the way for a bigger tank?

 

FX with stock map got 33.3 mpg in a hilly forest averaging 11 mph.

 

You can put on an Acerbis 2.9 tank from the YZ250F if you relocate some electronics and use a smaller battery.

IMS makes a 2.5 tank, but dry-break quick-fill only, and it requires cutting up the seat.

IMS also makes a 3.1 tanks that doubles as lower radiator shrouds, and fits with no mods, but it is UGLY.

 

IMS told me they have no plans to create any new tanks for the YZ line in 2016 or 2017.



  • GHILL28

    TT Addict

3,835 posts
Location: California

Posted September 11, 2016 - 04:01 PM


I ran in today. Very crisp and responsive on thr bottom which is nice in most scenarios. I've been off the bike for months so it's hard to tell.

I bashed in my water pump so I don't have a good grasp of mpg on it right now. Mile tracking is all screwed up.

  • GHILL28

    TT Addict

3,835 posts
Location: California

Posted September 18, 2016 - 04:47 PM


My mile tracking shows roughly the same mileage with this map, maybe slightly improved.  Tough to gauge with offroad riding and throwing big uphills and downhills into the mix.

 

Testing on the MX track though showed that it does have a bit of a jerky response through tight rutted corners.  But, the straightline power and snap is awesome.  No issue grabbing a handful and clearing things.

 

I'll probably go back to the other one for trail riding just for cornering control.

 

Edit:  Something between the two would probably be ideal.  I'd at least feel better if I weren't smelling unburnt fuel out the exhaust, and keeping the roll-on control through corners would be perfect.


Edited by GHILL28, September 18, 2016 - 04:51 PM.


  • brad12345

    TT Member

35 posts
Location: Michigan

Posted September 25, 2016 - 06:31 AM


I can't compare to the older carb'd versions, but compared to some other EFI 450's, the '14 YZF with the MXA map drinks like an Irishman.  That map adds a bunch more fuel all around.  

 

The power on it is pretty flawless, so I can't complain too much, but I had hoped the range would be better when I bought the bike.  Good thing I have the 3G tank.  I wouldn't budget the 2G tank for more than 50 miles.

 

i think the 14s were mapped really fat, i leaned mine out and increased the performance a bunch. i based my map off the yamaha guy...doug D something, i didnt go as lean as he did but i had great results. try it







Related Content

Forums
Photo

Snake pit oct 30th by The Anvil


Dirt Bike   Dirt Bike Regional Discussion   California
  • Hot  293 replies
Forums
Photo

The "going back to the other darkside" adventure... by Monk


Dirt Bike   Make / Model Specific   KTM   250/350/450/505 SX-F & XC-F (4-Strokes)
  • Hot  91 replies
Forums
Photo

Megabomb Fitment by 288yz450


Dirt Bike   Make / Model Specific   Yamaha   YZ 400/426/450
  • 1 reply
Reviews

Yamaha YZ450F 2017 by Chris.GVS


Yamaha YZ450F 2017
  • - - - - -
  • 0 reviews
Forums
Photo

Michigan Motocross Tires by 288yz450


Dirt Bike   Dirt Bike Regional Discussion   North
  • 1 reply

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

 
x

Join Our Community!

Even if you don't want to post, registered members get access to tools that make finding & following the good stuff easier.

The views and opinions expressed on this page are strictly those of the author, and have not been reviewed or approved by ThumperTalk.