Aaah,
I appear to have made the mistake of not typing slowly enough or loud enough to make myself clear.
I never suggested for a moment that my 350, being the (2012) EXC-F, achieved 80 mpg during an enduro, but I did sy that it's significantly more efficient than it's predecessor, a 2011 250F. This did however have a 280 kit, plus appropriate jetting & an akropovic system, being as we're being picky.
Perhaps I'm also the subject of some Truman-esque experiment to asses the effects of perceived success over a peer group. This complex and expensive undertaking involves me gaining clubman podiums and trophies whilst a good number of actors wobble around making keeping up or going slower look like hard work.
This would explain two things, why I'm deluded into thinking my modern fuel injected, low reciprocating/rotating mass engine with closed loop ECU (almost..) management is better on fuel than it's smaller predecessor and also why none of the other KTM's seem to be blowing up, we're all tickling the throttle and riding like girls.
Tomorrow I'll pop the gps in the camelback and we'll see what my bike gets. Unless of course I run out of fuel or it blows up of course.... Which no doubt it will.
Heaven forbid someone may log in for some grown up and real life experience with some numbers in to allow themselves to make an informed decision about a prospective purchase. Bit like that which led me to join a forum for GS's to help me decide if I needed/wanted a GS/GSA and whether i could do my intended forthcoming trip. Incidentally, the dealers demo GSA around the enduro track, with road tyres, traction off, half tank and no luggage indicated 29 and a bit mpg and was amazingly nimble once pushed on stood up. But then of course, I'm riding like a vicar. Better get some practice in before I head to Istanbul next month. For my first 'trip'. Maybe should have got the one with all the electronic aids instead....