MZ5
Well-Known Member
One thing I look at in magazine reviews is what fuel economy the testers achieved. For MCN's test of the NC750X, they reported average of 55 MPG, which we all know is quite low for this model. This tells me something about the testers' riding style and perhaps their expectations, and hence the validity of their comments as it might apply to me and my style.
MCN incorrectly stated the fuel grade as 91 octane, but without a measurement standard to accompany the stat, the number 91 is ambiguous.
They did list the wrong octane requirement. They also swapped bore and stroke in the text of the article, but got it right on the data page. The octane requirement is in no way ambiguous, though, because it’s an American publication, it mentioned riding in California, and the entire continent uses the (R+M)/2 octane number. If you’re outside N. America, I’d expect you to know you use a different rating system, just as I expect me (and you) to know when reading a European publication that I need to make an adjustment to whatever their listed octane requirement for a m/c is.
I look at the fuel economy a tester gets, too. I agree their figure is quite low, but not outside the experience of the membership of this forum. They also explicitly stated that they flogged it the whole time. So I got something useful from their feedback. I freely admit that I wouldn’t be much impressed with their figure if I had no other info about the NCX.
Despite their testing style, and their editorial oversights, they still really liked the bike. That’s pretty high praise.
I’m struggling with MCN’s new ownership and editorship, too, but apparently not nearly as much as you are? Hope you find another source you like better. If you do, please share!