What's your route and what indicated speed are you riding at wide?
In my old job I was doing 9 miles each way of dual carriageway with plenty of roundabouts and was sitting at indicated 80/5k rpm which returned 46-49mpg. Changed jobs and now do 25 miles each way including M4 and sit at indicated 76/4.5k rpm which returns 57-59mpg.
Before, I was like you and would be filling up at 165/180 miles, now it's generally 215 before it starts flashing.

Previous tanks were a mix of stop start/warm up on drive stuff with the runs being a few 10 mile commutes and a run of 60/70 miles, so I can understand the 45 ish mpg. The tank full yesterday was a solid day run down around Pembroke, filled up in the morning in Cardiff, ran at 5k revs down to Carmarthen to meet buddy and then did back roads, by the time the fuel light came on at 170ish miles I was heading home so did a bit more and ended up fueling up in Swansea to make sure I got home... that tank worked out at a tad over 47 mpg .
I am running a kev mod, set at 4 o clock position dna stage 1 an 2. Did expect better after some of the stuff I d read

Is the cat out? Made a big difference with mine.

Cat is at present still fitted, maybe next mod !!

Ah there's the start of your trade off I would guess.

Sorry ?? Not following your thought ??

You're changing the fuelling set up so the bike is going to be flowing more fuel. You're never going to get the economy of a standard set up.
The trade off for more power is less economy.

Ok guess that makes sense. I thought i had read the mods made it more fuel efficient

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2

I was thinking after I wrote that and only one bike I've ever worked on has become more economical after tuning, and that was the Caponord I had that I used Tuneboy on to map the ECU. All the others have always seen a drop in economy.

Is that with your Kev mod set at the 4 o'clock position? because if so...i aint gonna bother doing the mod :confused5:

and i also read that the mod is supposed to improve the economy.