I've been thinking this over.... seems that we are all bashing our heads in trying to find more fuel efficient solutions...... while we already have scooters and motorcycles that can churn out over 65-70mpg easily (some of which are in the 80+ range) without the complexity of hybrids and emit a minute fraction of what even some of the cleanest cars will. The only reason I can find for not having a scooter/bike if you are truly concerned about carbon footprint/fuel efficiency would be protection from the rain and a/c .

 

Personally, I just don't like motorcycles. I prefer having 4 wheels under me and some sheet metal around me. A/C and weather protection are a plus, as well.

Otherwise, yeah. If you like riding cycles, they can be extremely economical.

It is kinda stunning, however, that cycles don't get BETTER mileage than they do. Think about it. My car with me in it weighs about 2400 pounds and the car has a 1.5 liter engine. A small bike would have what, a 250cc engine and weigh maybe 500 pounds with rider? So, less than 1/4 the weight and 1/6 the displacement... shouldn't it get about 4x the mileage? (or more?) Shouldn't a modern 250cc bike be capable of 160 mpg on the highway as easily as my Yaris gets 40?

Suzuki TU250. Fuel-injected 250cc motorcycle. 82 mpg. Why not more??? And this is the same company that gave us the Suzuki Swift... an 1800 lb car with a 1.0 liter engine that got over 50 mpg. Somebody's just not trying hard enough.

 

Good point, you fail to realize how much faster something like a Ninja 250R is than a yaris though (and can still manage better than 60mpg - some reporting fuel mileage in the 70mpg range), a 250cc motorcycle with the same performance capabilities of a yaris will probably get some ridiculously great gas mileage. A honda ruckus will get 100ish-126ish mpg which is pretty much unbeatable by just about anything on 4wheels. You also have to factor in the price point too. Most small bikes cost a fraction of what a yaris does.

 

Motorcycles are not as aerodynamic as cars either. I am sure that has alot to do with it.

 

I'm sure the major factor is that bikes are designed to be fun to ride above all else. Aero is a factor, but a bike still has 1/4 the frontal area of a small car.

The bike I linked wasn't a Ninja, it was a 250cc "entry level" bike. I know a performance bike isn't going to get the best MPG, I didn't bother going there.

You talking about the new 49cc Ruckus? I found this statement in a review: "The Ruckus is abysmal for street riding, unfit for the majority of public roadways." Seriously?

 

Yeah from the factory they are low as hell (the ruckus). I've read several mpg reports on the rebel 250 (honda) getting over 80mpg (in some cases people getting over 100mpg) then again their are some bigger bikes like the shadows that are very close as well overall it is a more efficient mode of transportation.

I still think the ruckus is fine for someone that lives in hyde park or downtown tampa.

 

The ruckus is why Im glad I have my c70. 45mph, 100 (I havent done exact numbers but its well over) plus mpg, and I never get bulldozed by traffic at lights.

 

cars have more wheels though

 

its a safety thing. You can be the best rider out there, but that dumb fuck in the minivan is still going to change lanes right into. The scooter idea is great if you can pick one up for cheap and if you live in an area that would allow you to avoid the dumb fuck minivan driver. St. Pete generally isn't one of those areas. Tampa isn't either. You can take the back roads and cut through neighborhoods and what not, but that is a bit annoying dealing with stop signs and all of that.
I personally find a motorcycle to be much safer. It gives you the on demand power to get away from the dumb fucks on the road. But even then, there is still no such thing as a fender bender on a bike. I was sitting at a red light on us19, headed to work one morning and has someone bump my rear wheel knocking me and the bike over. I jammed my wrist and elbow pretty good and broke the mirror, dented my tank and torqued a brake line to the point of leaking. That was at <1 mph.
You also have to factor in the need of a second car. On an individual basis, having a motorcycle, and a car just isn't cost effective. You spend more buying the motorcycle and maintenance and gear and insurance than you save from the difference in gas. The only way it is really effective is if you live with someone who has a car and you have the bike. Even then, it can get complicated trying to get both of you to work on time when it is pouring rain.
So yeah, having 70plus MPG is awesome, but only if you can balance out the cons effectively.