Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 46 to 58 of 58

Thread: 2000 GSX1200 run on 91, 95 or 98 and why?

  1. #46
    Join Date
    13th December 2008 - 18:22
    Bike
    Your mom
    Location
    Christchurch
    Posts
    3,901
    Quote Originally Posted by scracha View Post
    It does run noticeably better on 95 but unless I'm in the mood for a fang I'm buggered if I'm paying the extra.
    Quote Originally Posted by FJRider View Post
    Is that you Akzle .. ???

    So ... you're an expert on octane levels/economy ... when you struggle to sort YOUR on air filters ...

    Pull your fucking head in fella ...
    Read the quoted post "It does run noticeably better on 95...". If it runs better on one readily available fuel that costs a mere pittance more than the other (the difference is about 8c/L, so that's still around $1 more for an "average" size bike tank), then why on earth run the bike on 91 when the economics just don't stack up? Once the total cost of ownership is calculated on a per tank basis, such as the fuel itself, wear and tear on consumable items, depreciation etc, that $1 or so is virtually nothing in comparison to all the other costs associated with owning a bike.
    Last edited by SMOKEU; 20th February 2014 at 21:15. Reason: html

  2. #47
    Join Date
    1st September 2007 - 21:01
    Bike
    1993 Yamaha FJ 1200
    Location
    Paradise
    Posts
    14,126
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by SMOKEU View Post
    Read the quoted post "It does run noticeably better on 95...". If it runs better on one readily available fuel that costs a mere pittance more than the other (the difference is about 8c/L, so that's still around $1 more for an "average" size bike tank), then why on earth run the bike on 91 when the economics just don't stack up? Once the total cost of ownership is calculated on a per tank basis, such as the fuel itself, wear and tear on consumable items, depreciation etc, that $1 or so is virtually nothing in comparison to all the other costs associated with owning a bike.
    Simple economics ... need gas .... buy gas.

    Unless you have Dyno stats on fuel octanes used ON YOUR bike ... gut feelings ... and what you "feel" ... aren't worth a pinch of shit.

    Unless you have accurate records kept on fuel use/octane levels ...on the same roads and in the SAME conditions ... you're just blowing smoke.

    I'm guessing YOU have neither ... PROVE ME WRONG ...
    When life throws you a curve ... Lean into it ...

  3. #48
    Join Date
    13th December 2008 - 18:22
    Bike
    Your mom
    Location
    Christchurch
    Posts
    3,901
    Quote Originally Posted by FJRider View Post

    Unless you have Dyno stats on fuel octanes used ON YOUR bike ... gut feelings ... and what you "feel" ... aren't worth a pinch of shit.

    Unless you have accurate records kept on fuel use/octane levels ...on the same roads and in the SAME conditions ... you're just blowing smoke.

    I'm guessing YOU have neither ... PROVE ME WRONG ...
    If I find that my bike runs noticeably better on one commonly available fuel octane in comparison to another, then I'm going to stick with the "better" fuel. I'm only going on the admission of the bike owner regarding different fuel octanes and how it runs better on 95 than 91. I have no experience with the bike in question, so I'll trust what the owner says.

    If the price difference between 91 and 95 is huge, then it would be understandable to choose the cheaper fuel if the vehicle can tolerate it. However, it's not worth sacrificing performance/smooth running just for a few cents when the rest of the costs of bike ownership are so much higher. If we all had that mentality then everyone on here would be riding on a GN125 or a 50cc scooter.

  4. #49
    Join Date
    1st September 2007 - 21:01
    Bike
    1993 Yamaha FJ 1200
    Location
    Paradise
    Posts
    14,126
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by SMOKEU View Post
    If I find that my bike runs noticeably better on one commonly available fuel octane in comparison to another, then I'm going to stick with the "better" fuel.
    FIND ... or "Think" ..?? :dry: .... No proof yet .. ???

    Quote Originally Posted by SMOKEU View Post
    I'm only going on the admission of the bike owner regarding different fuel octanes and how it runs better on 9
    So YOU have no actual proof or knowledge on the subject of HIS bike ..??? but are happy to agree to his claims ... how trusting of you ..

    Quote Originally Posted by SMOKEU View Post
    If the price difference between 91 and 95 is huge
    The last post you made on the subject ... claimed the price difference was minimal ... make up your mind ...

    Quote Originally Posted by SMOKEU View Post
    then it would be understandable to choose the cheaper fuel if the vehicle can tolerate it. However, it's not worth sacrificing performance/smooth running just for a few cents when the rest of the costs of bike ownership are so much higher. If we all had that mentality then everyone on here would be riding on a GN125 or a 50cc scooter.

    Just a few cents ... ??? not huge .. ???

    If the gains (if any) .. of real and proven value .. are (believed) worth the extra price ... who am I to argue ...

    ALL owners have the choice to run their vehicles with the fuel THEY choose. Whatever reason (if any ... no matter how stupid) THEY may have .. to do so.
    When life throws you a curve ... Lean into it ...

  5. #50
    Join Date
    11th June 2011 - 16:30
    Bike
    Honda vfr 750 fn 1992 x2 90red
    Location
    palmerston north
    Posts
    1,745
    Blog Entries
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by SMOKEU View Post
    So you can't be fucked running your bike on the right fuel just to save a little bit of money that's a negligible amount in comparison to all the other expenditures of bike ownership? Just buy a push bike if you're going to be that much of a jew.
    not that much difference is there know my mums car says high octane mum always insisted use that but since inheirted

    her car put 91 as thought chouldint afford the extra . but little sis rekon her toyata runs better milage

    on high octane read that else where too.

  6. #51
    Join Date
    13th December 2008 - 18:22
    Bike
    Your mom
    Location
    Christchurch
    Posts
    3,901
    Quote Originally Posted by FJRider View Post
    FIND ... or "Think" ..?? :dry: .... No proof yet .. ???



    So YOU have no actual proof or knowledge on the subject of HIS bike ..??? but are happy to agree to his claims ... how trusting of you ..



    The last post you made on the subject ... claimed the price difference was minimal ... make up your mind ...




    Just a few cents ... ??? not huge .. ???

    If the gains (if any) .. of real and proven value .. are (believed) worth the extra price ... who am I to argue ...

    ALL owners have the choice to run their vehicles with the fuel THEY choose. Whatever reason (if any ... no matter how stupid) THEY may have .. to do so.
    If the bike owner tells me a plausible story about their own bike, why shouldn't I believe it? They own it and know their own bike better thank you or I do. I also never said the price difference between 91 and 95 is big. I only said that IF the price difference was that significant between 91 and 95, then running on the cheaper fuel could make sense even if the bike doesn't run as well, but since the price difference is negligible compared to the overall cost of running the bike it doesn't make sense to use the cheaper fuel in this case. Do you have an issue with comprehension?

    Some vehicles get more mileage from a tank of fuel on higher octane fuels in comparison to lower octane fuels, negating the extra cost.

    Quote Originally Posted by actungbaby View Post
    not that much difference is there know my mums car says high octane mum always insisted use that but since inheirted

    her car put 91 as thought chouldint afford the extra . but little sis rekon her toyata runs better milage

    on high octane read that else where too.
    If someone can't afford the difference in cost between 91 and 95, then how the fuck are they meant to afford the fuel in the first place, let alone the maintenance, WOF, insurance, vehicle licensing, consumables etc?

  7. #52
    Join Date
    1st September 2007 - 21:01
    Bike
    1993 Yamaha FJ 1200
    Location
    Paradise
    Posts
    14,126
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by SMOKEU View Post
    If the bike owner tells me a plausible story about their own bike, why shouldn't I believe it? They own it and know their own bike better thank you or I do.
    I could tell you plausible stories about my bike. None of which would be true. And you would believe me .. right .. ???

    Quote Originally Posted by SMOKEU View Post
    running on the cheaper fuel could make sense even if the bike doesn't run as well, but since the price difference is negligible compared to the overall cost of running the bike it doesn't make sense to use the cheaper fuel in this case. Do you have an issue with comprehension?
    I have no issues with running my FJ on 91 octane ... and I seldom ride at a level that any HP increase is wanted/needed. (or any shortfall of such is noticed)

    I do have an issue with claims made with no proof ... one recent member made a post about two rides (each with a different fuel octane) made on two different days and posted the result as proof ....

    So many variables factor into an accurate record of actual economy ... at best you hope for is an average figure.

    Few claim average ... most claim actual. There IS a HUGE difference between the two.

    If most of the rides you do is within the posted limits ... it is unlikely ANY improvement could be noticed with a higher octane fuel.

    Quote Originally Posted by SMOKEU View Post
    Some vehicles get more mileage from a tank of fuel on higher octane fuels in comparison to lower octane fuels, negating the extra cost.
    WHICH one's ... ??? Is this another "owners claim" you mentioned ... ??? or factual proof ... ???

    Quote Originally Posted by SMOKEU View Post
    If someone can't afford the difference in cost between 91 and 95, then how the fuck are they meant to afford the fuel in the first place, let alone the maintenance, WOF, insurance, vehicle licensing, consumables etc?
    They run on bald tyres ... NO WOF ... NO insurance ... and NO rego (at best on hold)

    And ... NO maintenance either ...
    When life throws you a curve ... Lean into it ...

  8. #53
    Join Date
    13th December 2008 - 18:22
    Bike
    Your mom
    Location
    Christchurch
    Posts
    3,901
    Quote Originally Posted by FJRider View Post
    I could tell you plausible stories about my bike. None of which would be true. And you would believe me .. right .. ???



    I have no issues with running my FJ on 91 octane ... and I seldom ride at a level that any HP increase is wanted/needed. (or any shortfall of such is noticed)

    I do have an issue with claims made with no proof ... one recent member made a post about two rides (each with a different fuel octane) made on two different days and posted the result as proof ....

    So many variables factor into an accurate record of actual economy ... at best you hope for is an average figure.

    Few claim average ... most claim actual. There IS a HUGE difference between the two.

    If most of the rides you do is within the posted limits ... it is unlikely ANY improvement could be noticed with a higher octane fuel.



    WHICH one's ... ??? Is this another "owners claim" you mentioned ... ??? or factual proof ... ???



    They run on bald tyres ... NO WOF ... NO insurance ... and NO rego (at best on hold)

    And ... NO maintenance either ...
    I'm questioning the motive as to why someone would lie about how a higher octane fuel makes the engine run smoother when they claim to have tested both types of fuel. The difference in cost is so small, so why even argue about it?

    I had a Subaru Leone that gave a slight improvement in fuel economy with 95 octane compared to 91 octane, just enough to offset the extra 4% or so in cost. I base this statement on several tankfuls of each type of fuel, and all the driving was done in similar road, traffic and meteorological conditions in order to ensure the most easily comparable results. Take from this what you wish. Unfortunately I no longer have the vehicle nor the inclination to purchase another such vehicle to commence more scientific testing, so you'll just have to take my word for it. Or not. I really don't care either way.

    My original statement that you seem so keen to refute still stands, regardless of your opinion; if there's a noticeable improvement in the way the vehicle operates with a higher octane fuel compared to a lower octane fuel (95 vs 91 in this instance), then there's no reason to use the lower octane fuel based purely on financial reasons (stop being a fucking Jew), assuming all other factors remain the same such as availability.

  9. #54
    Join Date
    15th January 2009 - 10:26
    Bike
    .
    Location
    .
    Posts
    3,823
    I think everyone has overlooked the obvious question.

    Why isn't it tuned and running methanol?
    Quote Originally Posted by James Deuce View Post
    Don't argue with the pigs, man. They'll tap your phones and steal your weed and make your old lady do things she won't do for you.
    Quote Originally Posted by Hitcher View Post
    Sexually transmitted diseases are one thing, sexually affected carnage is something else entirely. Ladies, if his cock's that small that he's prepared to put you at risk for a root, look elsewhere. Seriously.

  10. #55
    Join Date
    1st September 2007 - 21:01
    Bike
    1993 Yamaha FJ 1200
    Location
    Paradise
    Posts
    14,126
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by SMOKEU View Post
    I'm questioning the motive as to why someone would lie about how a higher octane fuel makes the engine run smoother when they claim to have tested both types of fuel. The difference in cost is so small, so why even argue about it?
    Highlighted is the key word ... Short of a dyno test in controlled conditions ... such claims are based mostly on what they believe to be true. Not a lie as such .... but a stretch for me to believe. I choose to argue the validity of such claims.

    The cost of either of the two octanes available here in Paradise ... is irrelevant ... (although probably higher than that available in shaky city)

    Quote Originally Posted by SMOKEU View Post
    I had a Subaru Leone that gave a slight improvement in fuel economy with 95 octane compared to 91 octane, just enough to offset the extra 4% or so in cost. I base this statement on several tankfuls of each type of fuel, and all the driving was done in similar road, traffic and meteorological conditions in order to ensure the most easily comparable results. Take from this what you wish. Unfortunately I no longer have the vehicle nor the inclination to purchase another such vehicle to commence more scientific testing, so you'll just have to take my word for it. Or not. I really don't care either way.
    Similar is not SAME. Your result found is at best AVERAGE.

    Exact roads, at exact times taken, at exact speeds on exact parts of the road, in exact weather conditions, in exact gears at exactly the same time .. ??? ... easy to do ... isn't it ...

    Quote Originally Posted by SMOKEU View Post
    My original statement that you seem so keen to refute still stands, regardless of your opinion; if there's a noticeable improvement in the way the vehicle operates with a higher octane fuel compared to a lower octane fuel (95 vs 91 in this instance), then there's no reason to use the lower octane fuel based purely on financial reasons (stop being a fucking Jew), assuming all other factors remain the same such as availability.
    I have my opinion of your opinion ...

    And do you say MY use of 91 is purely on financial grounds .. ???
    When life throws you a curve ... Lean into it ...

  11. #56
    Join Date
    13th December 2008 - 18:22
    Bike
    Your mom
    Location
    Christchurch
    Posts
    3,901
    Quote Originally Posted by FJRider View Post
    Highlighted is the key word ... Short of a dyno test in controlled conditions ... such claims are based mostly on what they believe to be true. Not a lie as such .... but a stretch for me to believe. I choose to argue the validity of such claims.

    The cost of either of the two octanes available here in Paradise ... is irrelevant ... (although probably higher than that available in shaky city)



    Similar is not SAME. Your result found is at best AVERAGE.

    Exact roads, at exact times taken, at exact speeds on exact parts of the road, in exact weather conditions, in exact gears at exactly the same time .. ??? ... easy to do ... isn't it ...



    I have my opinion of your opinion ...

    And do you say MY use of 91 is purely on financial grounds .. ???
    I was unable to do this testing to a high degree of scientific accuracy due to a lack of funds and available equipment, and because I couldn't be fucked spending many thousands of $ just to prove a rather meaningless point. After many tankfuls of each type of fuel (91 and 95) I got an average fuel consumption for each type of fuel, and 95 octane did give me slightly more mileage from a tank. I repeated the same "test" many times in order to get the most accurate reading. These are my own observations and I really don't give a fuck if you don't believe me. You can't refute my claims if you weren't there to see the results, in much the same way that I can't prove those results are true or accurate.

  12. #57
    Join Date
    12th September 2013 - 22:42
    Bike
    500EXC
    Location
    Hamilton
    Posts
    515
    Blog Entries
    6
    It's quite simple that if you have a high compression engine it's not going to run as well on 91, therefore give less ecconomy; thats not to say 91 is bad for it but it won't be ignighting in a way the engine was designed for, it would be bad if the engine was highly tuned, but manufacturers design tolerence into the engine for goones (like me that get the wrong petrol). 95 won't give better ecconomy for an engine that dosen't have sufficient compression to start with.

    Don't know (can't be bothered looking up) Smokeys comp but I'm sure if it's of a higher compression rating (probably as a sport bike) it will get slightly better economy from 95. I know mine does (med-high) comp. Just runs better full stop, easy to feel on a 250 no need for dyno, more response the lot. If i bumped up the comp to 13.5:1 no way would it be running smoothly on 91 or producing the power/economy, probably melt the piston.

    Another poster chimed in saying 91 is high octane... Not true If memory serves me correctly it's the equivalent of 89 in the states due to the differing measuring formula.

    End of the day it depends on your engine if you will get better ecconomy/smoothness 91 vs 95.

    I don't see so many flaws in Smokeys argumet.

    before you rip into me to much: Just got home from a poker night pissed I came 3rd and from the booze. Spelling and logic my be off skew.
    Sticking to the back roads

  13. #58
    Join Date
    4th October 2008 - 16:35
    Bike
    R100GSPD
    Location
    Wellington
    Posts
    10,036
    My own experience is I do get slightly better economy on. 95 than 91 both on bike and previous car,and the car,not esp high comp def ran nicer on 95.the increase in economy offset the price difference

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •