Curious about the Vikings fuel efficiency, Yamaha is claiming the Viking is 30% better than the Rhino economy wise, with the same engine. Can anyone attest to this?
I have 450miles on my Viking now a few longer trips under my belt. Comparing fuel economy to the rhino on a woods road running consistent speeds the Viking is excellent. After a few 60mile trips I'm averaging 2.5 gallons of fuel. My fathers rhino doing the exact same trip averaged the exact same. The rhino is running 27" mudlight tires, dynatek ignition and a utv crap machined sheeve. When we put these mods on the rhino the fuel economy actually increased so if we were comparing stock rhino to stock Viking the Viking would win hands down. I can't compare fuel economy in other situations because these are the conditions we run in mostly.
The Viking should do very well but riding conditions and how you drive it will be the biggest factor. Everyone drives different and in different situations.
The parts fiche lists the high gear as 30 teeth, where as the Rhino had a 31. Given the middle drive and differentials have the same ratios, there's part of the potential MPG gain right there.
On my 150hp Yamaha Apex sled that I used to have... If you ran super/premium it lost 3hp on the dyno. The ECU actually retards the timing when running higher octane. Run what it says to run. If it says to run 87 then run 87.
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
Viking Forum
87.5K posts
5.2K members
Since 2013
A forum community dedicated to Yamaha Viking side-by-side owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about performance, reviews, modifications, classifieds, troubleshooting, maintenance, and more!