Is expensive petrol better [Archive]

LBD

29th August 2009, 15:02

The below 3 images ae coppied out of the August 09 Performance bike magizine....A good article on the differences between 3 commonly availabe petrols from BP....

Might be a website thing, but these are hard to read....Copy image and paste on desk top and they are good and clear...

p.dath

29th August 2009, 15:07

I think it is relatively well accepted that unless your engine is made or tuned for higher RON fuel (e,g. has a higher compression ratio) then you wont gain much.

Good read. Thanks for posting the info.

LBD

29th August 2009, 19:39

Kevnz

29th August 2009, 21:34

Good to have some facts on this as I have read a few treads on this and its been just plain confusing with so many different opinions on it. Looks like I'll stick with the cheap stuff, Cheers.

AllanB

29th August 2009, 22:19

I read - 1100 quid for a bloody Power Commander!!!!!

Marmoot

29th August 2009, 23:46

Higher octane petrol is better.

BUT EXPENSIVE PETROL IS NOT BETTER!!!!

jonbuoy

30th August 2009, 05:08

I read the same article, I know people say it shouldn´t make much difference going between 91 or 98 or higher, I always found my bikes felt a bit peppier on 98. I have no idea if its to do with the source/quality of the fuel or the octane rating. Maybe someone in NZ with a Dyno and some spare time could do a comparison between the 91 and 98?

NZsarge

30th August 2009, 06:42

Dunno about economy and I don't really care that much but my 14 definitely prefers to be run on 95 opposed to 91.

YellowDog

30th August 2009, 07:04

Dunno about economy and I don't really care that much but my 14 definitely prefers to be run on 95 opposed to 91.
I do think that the bigger engined bikes benefit from the higher octane. And I also think it is more than 1.4%.

It could just be psychological!

Winston001

30th August 2009, 07:19

Might be a website thing, but these are hard to read....Copy image and paste on desk top and they are good and clear...

Paul - try Control + in your browser and the image should zoom. :Punk: Much easier to read. I have to do it with quite a few sites these days. :D

crazyhorse

30th August 2009, 07:25

I read my bike manuals - and they tell me which to use. GSXR specifies the rating to be a higher Octane, than my SV650. :wari:

Owl

30th August 2009, 08:32

I do think that the bigger engined bikes benefit from the higher octane. And I also think it is more than 1.4%.

It could just be psychological!

Have you tried your Tiger on 98 YellowDog? I've tried it in the S3 and found it more economical on 95.:confused:

quickbuck

30th August 2009, 09:51

Paul - try Control + in your browser and the image should zoom. :Punk: Much easier to read. I have to do it with quite a few sites these days. :D

Yup, because every website person has a 24" or bigger monitor...
And we all surf the net on Lap Tops with a 15" at best..... Well, mine is 16.4, and I have it zoomed to 125%.... just so everything is as "big" as it is at work!

Anyhow, back to the fuel debate.....
91RON is recommended for engines of less than 9:1 Compression Ratio...
How many bikes are that low???

Yup, only the 2-strokes!

Owl

30th August 2009, 09:55

Anyhow, back to the fuel debate.....
91RON is recommended for engines of less than 9:1 Compression Ratio...
How many bikes are that low???

Yup, only the 2-strokes!

Harley's:cool:

hospitalfood

30th August 2009, 09:58

tried my bmw on 91 a few weeks back and it did not seem to make much difference.

the petrol head in me is never sure though ?

this thread raises a good question, i would love to run both my bikes on the cheap gas, i might experiment more

YellowDog

30th August 2009, 10:06

Have you tried your Tiger on 98 YellowDog? I've tried it in the S3 and found it more economical on 95.:confused:
I've not tried any 98, just 95 and did notice some difference and certainly better fuel economy.

After comparing it to 91 and also reading the manual, I decided to stick with 95.

94/95 is the norm in Europe with 98 being the higher octane stuff. I don't think they use 91 much in the USA either.

mossy1200

30th August 2009, 10:23

Yup, because every website person has a 24" or bigger monitor...
And we all surf the net on Lap Tops with a 15" at best..... Well, mine is 16.4, and I have it zoomed to 125%.... just so everything is as "big" as it is at work!

Anyhow, back to the fuel debate.....
91RON is recommended for engines of less than 9:1 Compression Ratio...
How many bikes are that low???

Yup, only the 2-strokes!

That would be my new bonneville also.
Well 9.2;1 anways so close.Runs better on 91 for sure.

LBD

30th August 2009, 15:03

Paul - try Control + in your browser and the image should zoom. :Punk: Much easier to read. I have to do it with quite a few sites these days. :D

Yes that works....tks

Jizah

30th August 2009, 16:19

I've not tried any 98, just 95 and did notice some difference and certainly better fuel economy.

After comparing it to 91 and also reading the manual, I decided to stick with 95.

94/95 is the norm in Europe with 98 being the higher octane stuff. I don't think they use 91 much in the USA either.

What do you put in the CT110?

dipshit

30th August 2009, 16:36

I don't think they use 91 much in the USA either.

They do. Its their 87.

YellowDog

30th August 2009, 20:35

What do you put in the CT110?
It's the firms bike and they put in 91 only.

YellowDog

30th August 2009, 20:36

They do. Its their 87.
I didn't know that.

dipshit

30th August 2009, 21:01

I didn't know that.

USA (AKI/PON) --- Europe (RON)

87 = 91
89 = 93
91 = 95
93 = 98

quickbuck

30th August 2009, 21:02

I didn't know that.

Yup, it is because the Americans use MON (Motor Octane Number) rather than RON (Research Octane Number).

MON is always a lower number for exactly the same fuel.... I'm sure you can google it to find out the way MON is worked out.
I could quote from memory, but it was a while ago...

quickbuck

30th August 2009, 21:03

USA (AKI/PON) --- Europe (RON)

87 = 91
89 = 93
91 = 95
93 = 98

Okay, stand Corrected... AKI/PON, that is a new one on me....

Off to google myself :doh:

quickbuck

30th August 2009, 21:08

Okay,
Here it is...... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octane_rating)

YellowDog

1st September 2009, 05:57

Good lone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gas_Station_Pump_Five_Octane_Ratings.jpg

sinned

3rd September 2009, 16:29

I am surprised by the small difference in power shown on the chart but that just shows how impressions from riding a bike can be misleading. I filled the Speedtriple with 91 once and the motor pinked (knocked) really badly under power. Now I put 95 into everything - at the price of petrol the extra 5 cents a litre doesn't seem worth bothering with.

firefighter

3rd September 2009, 16:52

I read - 1100 quid for a bloody Power Commander!!!!!

What do you run your hornet on? You tried any comparisons with 95/98?
I've always used 91, haven't bothered to try anything else.....

Also how are the PPS going? Still getting good mileage out of them?

EJK

3rd September 2009, 17:14

2.42 quid/ litre? FUUUUUK That's $5.8NZD/ litre.

firefighter

3rd September 2009, 17:18

2.42 quid/ litre? FUUUUUK That's $5.8NZD/ litre.

What? Only if your spending N.Z earnt currency........

quickbuck

5th September 2009, 23:51

What? Only if your spending N.Z earnt currency........

That's right... else it is just under 2 and a half quid....

LBD

6th September 2009, 01:44

95 is 22 Kyrgyz com per liter over here...lucky I dont have to buy it at that price either.............(22 com = NZ85c)

Drew658

6th September 2009, 03:52

I put 95 octane fuel in a Chinese scooter and the fuel filter melted. The rest of the fuel system nearly did the same and the scooter stopped running. Can't trust gas like that.

Owl

6th September 2009, 05:33

I put 95 octane fuel in a Chinese scooter and the fuel filter melted. The rest of the fuel system nearly did the same and the scooter stopped running. Can't trust gas like that.

So that's the fuel's fault? Nothing at all to do with poorly manufactured Chinese rubbish?:confused:

Madmax

6th September 2009, 13:46

Yup, it is because the Americans use MON (Motor Octane Number) rather than RON (Research Octane Number).

MON is always a lower number for exactly the same fuel.... I'm sure you can google it to find out the way MON is worked out.
I could quote from memory, but it was a while ago...

yanks use PON

http://www.btinternet.com/~madmole/Reference/RONMONPON.html

bryce

6th September 2009, 17:47

p.dath

6th September 2009, 17:50

i just filled the tank ,then one day the tl started missing got stuck on one of the bridges north of dannevike .took 5or6 tri,s ,to get up the hill,would only run at full throttle .toped up on 91 in waipuck ran sweet ,talked to my mobil owner he said petrol octan drops in storage so when i filled 96 from the out side pumps it may have less than 91 octane as most people us 91 at the in side pumps (close to the door ) the tanks are then emtied and filled with fresh gas the out side tank mayonly be topped up .

I don't know if you've seen a service station getting their tanks filled - but they don't empty the tank. They just plug the tanker in, and let gravity pull the petrol from the tanker to the storage tank.

I would be surprised if any service station had fuel that was that old. Next thing they'll be selling stale fuel.

Sounds a bit suss that explanation to me.

bryce

6th September 2009, 18:03

p.dath

6th September 2009, 18:14

the mobil in town is small.owner op ,he hasif i remeber write 10,000l tanks and sells about 9,000l 91 2,000l 98 and gets the 91 filled and 98 as requiered but he say,s at same bigger place with 24 hr and the manager not all way,s around just get topped off

I assume those are weekly sales figures. So that means the 98 tank is turned over every 5 weeks.
If he only keeps the tank half fill because of low sales, then it would turn over every 2.5 weeks.

I still find it very hard to believe the claim that his 98 octane fuel is in fact less than 91 octane because of age. If it is, he just broke the law ... he is clearly mis-representing what he is selling.

I did a quick Google on it as well. Couldn't find anything to suggest petrol will drop 7 on the RON scale in a 5 week period.

bryce

6th September 2009, 18:42

i didn,t fill at his station .i was only talking about it to him thinking i had got a bad batch of gas , he said what he thought it was more likely to be the problem ,he gets filled once a week,i thick the idea is that at a bigger place a 10,000 l tank having 2,000 l added a week could have gas years old so yes stale gas in the out side tanks that may have less than 91 octane

geoffm

6th September 2009, 19:37

I don't know if you've seen a service station getting their tanks filled - but they don't empty the tank. They just plug the tanker in, and let gravity pull the petrol from the tanker to the storage tank.

I would be surprised if any service station had fuel that was that old. Next thing they'll be selling stale fuel.

Sounds a bit suss that explanation to me.

Probably more likely rubbish in the fuel or water, which blocked the pilot jet or summat. I have had this before.
Geoff

LBD

6th September 2009, 23:17

Probably more likely rubbish in the fuel or water, which blocked the pilot jet or summat. I have had this before.
Geoff

Any one understand ISO particle counting? (I do so dont try to explain it to me, it took a we while and you would only confuse me again )

Clean fuel (petrol or diesel) oficially is 18/16/13. The diesel I manage is 27/26/23
That means it contain 512 times the number of solid particles in the 4, 6, 14 micron sizes than should be found in clean fuel....That Kazakhs for you(Borats cousins) It also has visible water droplets.