Fuel consumption for Kawasaki Vulcan Nomad 1600

I have a 2008 Nomad 1600 with nearly 10,000 miles on the odometer. The bike came with a Power Commander III. The manufacturer claims 37 mpg. A few weeks ago I felt the bike was running rough and I calculated my mileage at 30 mpg, way below what it's supposed to be. I replaced the old spark plugs and now I arrive at a figure of 34 mpg.
Given that I live in Central Texas and winds are part of the daily experience, should I accept this fuel consumption figure or is there something wrong that deserves looking at (timing, for example)? Idle seems OK, the bike's acceleration seems good, but I feel that it should be using less gas (93 octane in these parts). I'd like a direction to look at before I bring it to a shop.
Any suggestions?
Feel free to e-mail me at biker1944@austin.rr.com
Thank you.
Mike  

34 is pretty poor from the perspective of someone who rides a naked bike in a relaxed manner, but it's not out of line for someone with an active right wrist on a Nomad.

On the other hand, why are you running 93 octane in it? Does it ping if you use 91? Using a higher octane than necessary merely causes more carbon buildup, a problem that the entire Vulcan line suffers from. You might find it beneficial to run some carbon cleaner through the motor, then try a lower octane once you have clean chambers again. The lowest octane that doesn't ping when the chambers are clean, is the octane you should be running.

regards,
Joe  

In this area (Central Texas) it's either 87 or 93. Some stations have 89, but those are few and far between. And the manufacturer specifies 92 or higher. I do add Sea Foam every few fillings, and usually put in Chevron or Texaco gasoline (unless I'm low and no Chevron station in sight).
Thanks for the information.....  

The 92 Octane specification is mostly an attempt to compensate for manufacturing inconsistancies. Some of these bikes run fine on 89, but many knock if pushed hard. Each bike has it's own characteristics and some folks have found that recalibrating the TPS (Throttle Position Sensor) can eliminate the knock on 89.

Here's some detailed information... http://www.gadgetjq.com/tps_adjust.htm

regards,
Joe  

I ride a 2003 Nomad with a power commander and Thunder mfg air kit with K&N filter.  I too was getting around 34 mpg till I instlalled a tachometer.  I didn't realize how high I was reving between shifts.  The Nomad with stock pipes is very quiet.  Since adding the tach I get 38-40 mpg.  If possible borrow a tach and see where you are shifing.  Ride safe.
Loophole  

I neglected to mention that the bike came with Cobra pipes, not the stock pipes. And I researched and found out that Kawasaki claims 35mpg, not 37 as I had thought. So I guess I'm within normal range (but I do like the acceleration a bit too much).  

You might consider a 4 cylinder tourer for your next bike. Unlike the V-twins, the 4 cylinder engines don't get above 50 mpg, even on a naked bike, but they produce more horsepower for less gas when you're feeling rambunctious.

regards,
Joe  

Somewhat retired (aka no job) on limited income, so a new bike does not seem to be part of my future.
I'd love a Road King, but Harley-Davidson and I have a disagreement on the meaning of "affordable".
 

Follow up:
For the last few days I've been running the bike on Exxon and Shell, and my last calculation gave me 37.4 mpg, so I wonder if it's the additives in Chevron/Texaco that were responsible.
Side note: With Shell the engine conked out a couple of times at slow speed but fired right up when I pushed the ignition.  

Yeah, I've noticed that Shell gets about 10% lower mpg than any other brand of gas. I don't buy Shell unless I'm getting desperate, not even for my car.

regards,
Joe