What brand of fuel do you use for your touring bike?

[STJim]

Up until recently I would have thought that it didn't matter what brand you put in at the pump it should all take you about the same distance.
For a number of years I ran a Mobil Card and always filled with 95 or occasionally with 97. With the Computer on the ST1300 I would usually get from 16.5 to 18.00 kms. per litre of fuel depending on the type of running. I had occasionally used Gull and had notice that the performance was worse. I understand that is because of the 10% methanol added into the fuel.
Recently through my business I was offer a Z Card at a better discount than my Mobil Card. I have changed over. I have now been using Z premium for nearly 2 months. Last weekend I went up as far as Kerikeri and back from Hamilton. This include city riding in Auckland and in and out to Stillwater as well as some riding in Whangarei. The end result for the whole trip according to the computer was 19 kms per litre. If I had used Mobil I would have expected 18 kms per litre.
I would be interested to hear of other riders experiences.

[STJim]

Up until recently I would have thought that it didn't matter what brand you put in at the pump it should all take you about the same distance.
For a number of years I ran a Mobil Card and always filled with 95 or occasionally with 97. With the Computer on the ST1300 I would usually get from 16.5 to 18.00 kms. per litre of fuel depending on the type of running. I had occasionally used Gull and had notice that the performance was worse. I understand that is because of the 10% methanol added into the fuel.
Recently through my business I was offer a Z Card at a better discount than my Mobil Card. I have changed over. I have now been using Z premium for nearly 2 months. Last weekend I went up as far as Kerikeri and back from Hamilton. This include city riding in Auckland and in and out to Stillwater as well as some riding in Whangarei. The end result for the whole trip according to the computer was 19 kms per litre. If I had used Mobil I would have expected 18 kms per litre.
I would be interested to hear of other riders experiences.

I had been so careful with my proof reading of the above post but didn't take enough care with the heading and missed the word "Use" from the heading. Unfortunately it proved impossible for me to edit the Heading

[AllanB]

The one closest to home and I don't pay that much attention to how much it eats. More interested in the quality of the ride.

What's the Honda manual ask for as I'd suggest running the 97 was a fat waste of coin - probably designed for 91. 91/95 never notice any difference on my Honda other than the wallet!

[Jantar]

I have kept a good record of my fuel use on all of my bikes. I have found a distinct difference in fuel distance over the various brands with Shell (now Z) consistantly giving the best results. I have also found a big diffence in the Octane ratings with 91 octane giving better performance (fuel wise) than the higher octanes. Overall Z is best, BP and Caltex next, then Challenge and Mobil last of all.

For the GSX (all in km/l):
Z91 18.4
Z95 17.7
BP 91 17.8
BP 95 17.0
Challenge 91 17.3
Mobil 91 17.2
Mobil 95 17.5
Caltex 91 17.0
Caltex 95 17.6

To be fair to Caltex, that is the one that has been used the most when commuting. If I take the commuting data out then it improves to 18.1 km/l.

For the VStrom (all in km/l):
Z91 17.4
Z95 15.9
Caltex 91 16.9
Caltex 95 16.5
BP 91 16.5
BP 98 16.0
Challenge 91 15.9
Challenge 95 15.7
Mobil 91 15.1

On the DR650 I have found no difference between brands or octanes as yet.

[caspernz]

The variables involved make picking the difference between various fuels a bit hit and miss. Think of the type of riding you do on different days, tedious stuff such as how clean or new is your air filter (it matters) and even the temperature of the fuel going in. Frankly I'd be going with the bike makers' recommendation, mixed in with what your bike feels happiest on.

For me personally, I've tried it often enough to be convinced that BP 98, whilst the most expensive per litre to buy gives the lowest fuel cost per kilometre run. My sporty touring bike is a current model Busa, and to top it off the bike feels happy and lively on BP 98. Next best choice for me is Z 95. Yes I've checked the fuel mileages I can achieve, but BP 98 seems to win consistently, so where and when I can get it that's what I use.

Having spent many years hauling fuel, the difference in 91 or 95 from BP/Mobil/Caltex/Z is in the additive package, the base fuel comes off the same ship. Only BP 98 and Mobil 98 are unique in that regard, at least by what I know of it.

Not into Gull and the lower calorific value stuff at a slightly lower litre price...cheaper to buy yes, but works out more expensive in the long run, for me anyway.

[Jantar]

I had been so careful with my proof reading of the above post but didn't take enough care with the heading and missed the word "Use" from the heading. Unfortunately it proved impossible for me to edit the Heading

Fixed. ....

[Grizzo]

The one closest to home and I don't pay that much attention to how much it eats. More interested in the quality of the ride.!

^^^That^^^

[fridayflash]

interestingly my mum said her car was smelling weird...like curry the last few days, and wondered if it was because she had filled up at the indian owned caltex hehe, turns out the radiator overflow tank lid/hose had been left off (now theres a thread ;) at the last service, diverting overflow to the header pipes

[BMWST?]

always use shell if i can ,and even my old e34 535 which said use 91 in the owners manual ran nicer and gave slightly better economy on 95,the increase in ecomomy was just enough to make up the price difference.The bike would run on anything i think

[Gremlin]

I avoid Gull completely because of ethanol. I believe Mobil might be in the same basket? The doubt is enough to avoid.

Different bikes have also had slightly different preferences, Z often being the best, and Caltex doing well as well at least for me. Now I avoid Z as they're often the most expensive. The BMW tank is big enough I can fill with Caltex and get the AA smartfuel rewards, 6c per litre up to 50L, just have to spend at least $40. Couple of Caltex in East Tamaki are some of the cheapest around, so I often fill vehicles there (consistently at least 3c cheaper).

The BMW being European must have 95 or greater, and I can't really bring myself to pay the massive premium for 98...

Hornet, basic 91 from Caltex works just fine... bugger is that I can't put $40 in.

[Hitcher]

The Z1000 runs just as well on 91 as it does on 95 or 98.

The only bike I've ever owned that had a preference for higher octane fuel was my Shiver. It sulked if ever given 91 to drink.

[Trade_nancy]

The Z1000 runs just as well on 91 as it does on 95 or 98.

The only bike I've ever owned that had a preference for higher octane fuel was my Shiver. It sulked if ever given 91 to drink.

Any high compression engine - car, bike.. should be served better than 91. Inadequate combustive properties in 91 for most modern engines - even if consumption economy figures indicate it's doing OK and it seems to be running good. Unless the ecu is remapped specifically to suit lower octane (not uncommon I believe) I'd avoid putting in cheaper 91 in anything except my ride on mower and the wife's Daewoo.
That advice was from service manager of Honda (car) service centre back in 2001 when I bought a Prelude from them....if u have a lower compression engine...apparently 91 is suitable. He also said that 91 has higher level of impurities. Or - it is cheap shit.
What "number" defines "high compression" - dunno. I figure a 1,000cc motorbike engine would be though.

[slofox]

In my experience, the way I control (or fail to control) the right wrist has a lot more to do with fuel economy than any change in brand (including 10% ethanol blends).

[skippa1]

BP Ultra 98

[shafty]

I always choose the highest octane available - but my brand choice is driven by availability or fly buys at Z

[Crasherfromwayback]

Any high compression engine - car, bike.. should be served better than 91. Inadequate combustive properties in 91 for most modern engines - even if consumption economy figures indicate it's doing OK and it seems to be running good. Unless the ecu is remapped specifically to suit lower octane (not uncommon I believe) I'd avoid putting in cheaper 91 in anything except my ride on mower and the wife's Daewoo.
That advice was from service manager of Honda (car) service centre back in 2001 when I bought a Prelude from them....if u have a lower compression engine...apparently 91 is suitable. He also said that 91 has higher level of impurities. Or - it is cheap shit.
What "number" defines "high compression" - dunno. I figure a 1,000cc motorbike engine would be though.

Correct. Our 91 is total fucking shit and should not be used in the higer output engines end of.

[Old Steve]

I use ULP 91 in my ST1100 here in OZ and get about 19+ km/L. That gives me over 500 km per tank before I have to fill up. I use Caltex here, but their ULP 91 is un-additised.

In NZ I religiously used Caltex ULP 91, I think they have the best additive on the market which keeps injector pintles clean and reduces combustion chamber build up. That makes easier starting and smoother running.

In fact, petrol from Marsden Point is a very good fuel, but a lot of NZ's petrol is imported because Marsden point can't supply the whole market. BOP gets mainly imported fuel as the port of Mt Maunganui is the deepest port in NZ so incoming ships from overseas can enter there fully loaded, partially unload and then go on to Napier and other ports with a reduced draft.

[CRM]

I use 91 octane in my ST1100 because that what's recommended and I've kept records of consumption since I've had it. Best I've got is 5.27l/100 km or 19km/l. That was on Mobil but had more to do with the type of riding I was doing than the gas. Pretty hard to judge best fuel as conditions are so different every day. My average on the ST is 5.68l/100km or 17.6km/l. I was pretty happy with that until I bought my VW Golf TSI that averages around the 6.0l/100km mark :wacko:.

[Crasherfromwayback]

I use 91 octane in my ST1100 because that what's recommended and I've kept records of consumption since I've had it. .

That's because in most countries 91 is fine. It's just that ours is shit compared to most other country's.

[roogazza]

My old 2000 1200 bandit ran happiest and gave the highest top speed at the local sprint on 91. It had a comp ratio of 9.5 to 1.
But anyway once I had made a few mods,jet kit, cams and bumped the comp up to around 11.5 it needed and lived on a diet of 95 or 98.
But for sure it ran smoother when stock on the low 91 octane.

[Crasherfromwayback]

My old 2000 1200 bandit ran happiest and gave the highest top speed at the local sprint on 91. It had a comp ratio of 9.5 to 1.
.

Most bikes are up over that now though mate.

[roogazza]

Most bikes are up over that now though mate.
Yeah bud it's an old bike nowdays huh ? But it was quite noticable how the std bike ran on that shitty 91 I was surprised.

My present bike seems happy on anything 95 and I haven't bothered to put 98 into it, to be honest.

[leathel]

I have kept a good record of my fuel use on all of my bikes. I have found a distinct difference in fuel distance over the various brands with Shell (now Z) consistantly giving the best results. I have also found a big diffence in the Octane ratings with 91 octane giving better performance (fuel wise) than the higher octanes. Overall Z is best, BP and Caltex next, then Challenge and Mobil last of all.

For the GSX (all in km/l):
Z91 18.4
Z95 17.7
BP 91 17.8
BP 95 17.0
Challenge 91 17.3
Mobil 91 17.2
Mobil 95 17.5
Caltex 91 17.0
Caltex 95 17.6

To be fair to Caltex, that is the one that has been used the most when commuting. If I take the commuting data out then it improves to 18.1 km/l.

For the VStrom (all in km/l):
Z91 17.4
Z95 15.9
Caltex 91 16.9
Caltex 95 16.5
BP 91 16.5
BP 98 16.0
Challenge 91 15.9
Challenge 95 15.7
Mobil 91 15.1

On the DR650 I have found no difference between brands or octanes as yet.

Hard case, on my VT750 I use .5 liter more using 91 over 98 per 100 k's and it back fires less and gets rid of the dead spot with 98

But a Harley that rides with us backfires like crazy on 98 and OK on 91

on the VT1100 it pings on 91, not on 98 but I am still tweaking the carbs etc so don't have the numbers yet and when done will test a few fuels.

[G4L4XY]

In my experience, the way I control (or fail to control) the right wrist has a lot more to do with fuel economy than any change in brand (including 10% ethanol blends).

What he said

If I get 250km out of a tank then I've been a good boy, not often that happens

[Waihou Thumper]

I have kept a good record of my fuel use on all of my bikes. I have found a distinct difference in fuel distance over the various brands with Shell (now Z) consistantly giving the best results. I have also found a big diffence in the Octane ratings with 91 octane giving better performance (fuel wise) than the higher octanes. Overall Z is best, BP and Caltex next, then Challenge and Mobil last of all.

For the GSX (all in km/l):
Z91 18.4
Z95 17.7
BP 91 17.8
BP 95 17.0
Challenge 91 17.3
Mobil 91 17.2
Mobil 95 17.5
Caltex 91 17.0
Caltex 95 17.6

To be fair to Caltex, that is the one that has been used the most when commuting. If I take the commuting data out then it improves to 18.1 km/l.

For the VStrom (all in km/l):
Z91 17.4
Z95 15.9
Caltex 91 16.9
Caltex 95 16.5
BP 91 16.5
BP 98 16.0
Challenge 91 15.9
Challenge 95 15.7
Mobil 91 15.1

On the DR650 I have found no difference between brands or octanes as yet.

You obviously have long, long winters..:) to compile statistics like this...:)
What is like going to sleep at night, instead of counting sheep, you are dreaming of fuel stations and km/l......for the next ride

[Jantar]

You obviously have long, long winters..:) to compile statistics like this...:)
What is like going to sleep at night, instead of counting sheep, you are dreaming of fuel stations and km/l......for the next ride
LOL. We do have long winters, but is when I get some of the best riding.

I started keeping a record when someone here on KB commented that they got better distance on one brand of fuel than another. At the time I was sceptical, so decided to repeat the exercise over the following few fills. To my suprise I found that indeed some fuels were better than others. That was on the GS1200SS, and it liked the highest octane fuel I could get.
When I got my first VStrom I repeated the exercise, and found most fuels were similar except for Mobil giving less. The K6 VStrom did not like 91 either, and would run best on 95.
The second VStrom suprised me. I filled up in Blenheim, and they were out of 95, so i had to fill up with 91. I expected a rough ride, but instead it ran very smoothly. I was also suprised to get as far as Rolleston for my next fill, and that was 2 up. So, again I kept exact records, and have ever since. I suspect a lot of the difference is due to the ECU mapping.
Its no problem to just keep the receipts and write the mileage on the top each fill up. Once a month or so I update the spreadsheet, it takes about 4 minutes.

[bluninja]

Hmmm filled up with 91 yesterday morning at Z. 22km/l riding the vstrom 2 up to Napier. Filled up at Caltex in Napier and only got 19 km/l solo to the BP at Wanganui. Must have been the fuel and not the twisty up and down road I travelled on the way back :yes:

[Jantar]

Hmmm filled up with 91 yesterday morning at Z. 22km/l riding the vstrom 2 up to Napier. Filled up at Caltex in Napier and only got 19 km/l solo to the BP at Wanganui. Must have been the fuel and not the twisty up and down road I travelled on the way back :yes:
Nope, can't tell anything from a single tank of each. Now go and repeat the exercise using only one brand and octane of fuel, then do it again using a different brand of octane and fuel.

My tests are over 46,000 km for the VStrom and 24,000 km for the GSX. Where possible I try to use 3 consecutive tanks of the same brand and octane. I have only done 6,000 km on the DR so that is far too early to make any claims.

[bluninja]

Nope, can't tell anything from a single tank of each. Now go and repeat the exercise using only one brand and octane of fuel, then do it again using a different brand of octane and fuel.

My tests are over 46,000 km for the VStrom and 24,000 km for the GSX. Where possible I try to use 3 consecutive tanks of the same brand and octane. I have only done 6,000 km on the DR so that is far too early to make any claims.

Perhaps I should have added the PT smiley. I routinely check my fuel consumption, but no longer put it in a spread sheet as it's no longer valuable to me to do it. When I was doing 1000km plus per week, every week it was worthwhile, but now just checking the kms against the litres in is good enough for me.

I normally use Z purely because the gas station is 400 m from home and it's 24/7 (as are most of their stations) and they don't have a problem with me filling up helmeted.

[caseye]

Put Mobil 97 into the wife's wee 400 XV Virago this afternoon.Been out riding with her, her brother and I all morning, having a ball and generally enjoying the whole ride,weather, stuff.
All morning that bike has kept up with her 600 and the broinlaws RF, but since putting Mercers Mobil high octane in the tank, she's virtually stopped running well and won't go over 90 K even on the flat.
Won't be doing that again.

[kinger]

Tried the same mileage check when I was working in Auckland and coming home to Taupo every weekend.
Contrary to all reports thus, Gull gave me best economy. That was in a 98 2.7 petrol Hilux Surf though.
The bike gets 91 whatever is nearest when I need to fill up. Don't think my 1250cc 1996 Yamaha engine is running too high a compression, and cruising at 100-120 doesn't get me into the "cruise ecomomy" range when it's only just over 4k with a 9.5 red line.
If TPTB would just increase the limit to about 150, I'd save a few bucks.

[Flip]

The old harley works great on all fuels.

Just thinking about my fuel consumption adds about 10% to my fuel economy. I have never noticed any diference other than at very hot, relatively high and heavly loaded conditions the bike seems to produce more HP on 96. I attribute this to the ignition retarding to prevent knocking which I suppose is a function of the fuel but also the set up of the fuel injection and ignition system.

[Theantidote]

my wee 91'1100 seems to run better on the 91 fuel than on 95 - 97...which suits me wallet and keeps the missus happy...
what i find remarkably intriguing is that when petrol comes down below 2bucks a litre we all seem to get really excited and think we're getting a bargain...bollocks remember when filling the tank was lose change and lasted all friggin week...???
and i concur with what someone else said it's about the quality of your ride...me i like to measure economy in miles per smile/or vice versa...as long as i'm smiling it's all that counts at the end of the ride...
ride safe folks...

[cruza]

I have kept a good record of my fuel use on all of my bikes. I have found a distinct difference in fuel distance over the various brands with Shell (now Z) consistantly giving the best results. I have also found a big diffence in the Octane ratings with 91 octane giving better performance (fuel wise) than the higher octanes. Overall Z is best, BP and Caltex next, then Challenge and Mobil last of all.

For the GSX (all in km/l):
Z91 18.4
Z95 17.7
BP 91 17.8
BP 95 17.0
Challenge 91 17.3
Mobil 91 17.2
Mobil 95 17.5
Caltex 91 17.0
Caltex 95 17.6

To be fair to Caltex, that is the one that has been used the most when commuting. If I take the commuting data out then it improves to 18.1 km/l.

For the VStrom (all in km/l):
Z91 17.4
Z95 15.9
Caltex 91 16.9
Caltex 95 16.5
BP 91 16.5
BP 98 16.0
Challenge 91 15.9
Challenge 95 15.7
Mobil 91 15.1

On the DR650 I have found no difference between brands or octanes as yet.

Interesting....Guess when a Z truck loads out of a Caltex gantry, or a bp truck loads out of a Z gantry or when a challenge truck loads out of a mobil gantry it would stuff up all your comparisions eh ......
Tis interesting comparing the different octanes thru , most of my bikes have done the best on 91, noticed on long trips my triumph does better milage on 95 thru .

[Jantar]

Interesting....Guess when a Z truck loads out of a Caltex gantry, or a bp truck loads out of a Z gantry or when a challenge truck loads out of a mobil gantry it would stuff up all your comparisions eh ......
Tis interesting comparing the different octanes thru , most of my bikes have done the best on 91, noticed on long trips my triumph does better milage on 95 thru .

I believe the additives are added in the truck after it has loaded. This information was given earlier in the thread .

[caspernz]

I believe the additives are added in the truck after it has loaded. This information was given earlier in the thread .

Bollocks to that... In theory the tanker yanker is supposed to additive up prior to loading the competitors' fuel, but in practice it's not that simple.

Additive is automatically added at the loading gantry normally, when one is loading out of their own terminal.

Let's just say that not all oil co drivers follow the additive regime when loading at competitor facilities...at least if the past 15 years of personal observation is anything to go by :oi-grr:

[Ocean1]

Let's just say that not all oil co drivers follow the additive regime when loading at competitor facilities...at least if the past 15 years of personal observation is anything to go by :oi-grr:

An industry chemist I worked with is of the opinion that the functional difference in additives between the various suppliers is so insignificant as to make it extremely likely that their main function is to provide a marketing point-of-difference.


From my own experience in handling rather a lot of it, (including lab tests required for custody transfer) there's far more difference between different bulk deliveries to the depots than there will ever be between the product retailed by the major suppliers.

[caspernz]

An industry chemist I worked with is of the opinion that the functional difference in additives between the various suppliers is so insignificant as to make it extremely likely that their main function is to provide a marketing point-of-difference.


From my own experience in handling rather a lot of it, (including lab tests required for custody transfer) there's far more difference between different bulk deliveries to the depots than there will ever be between the product retailed by the major suppliers.

We should probably stop sharing the insider info then? :nono:

Suffice to say I've found 95 and 98 to be value for money for my own vehicles, so that's what I use.

[kinger]

Rode to Hamilton for work last week.
Monday. Caltex 95. 18.2 litres.
Tuesday. BP 91. 19.0 litres.
This on pretty much a bang on 300 km trip. The price difference between the two of 13c/litre makes the 91 the cheaper option......I think.

[ruaphu]

I ride an injected 2000cc cruiser, typical fuel usage is around 17Km/L (5.6 L/100km) when run on 95.

Haven't tried 98 yet. Avoid gull and mobil due to the ethanol uncertainty.

Use 91 now and then but only if i have to. The bike ran ok but i did find one issue. The bike tended to be harder to start first thing in the morning. Just took longer winding over before the bike would fire up. Would give the odd pop and then settle down to the usual constant Vee twin rhythmic thump thump thump.
Cheers Ando


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)

[Mechubs]

What a good little question. My wife and I have done some touring on our own, and in groups plus plenty of over 600km days. And we will always choose premium fuel grade and Z by choice as well. Because Z stations seem to be pretty active so I assume the petrol is fairly fresh. with touring it is important to have a good range and all of the bikes we have operated ( gsf600, gsx650f, gts1000, k1200rs and xjr1300 ) have suffered range with 91 in the tanks, with the BMW suffering worst. I guess at least the grade is a no-brainer to me, considering our oil remains clean and levels virtually unchanged between services.

[Jantar]

..... I have only done 6,000 km on the DR so that is far too early to make any claims.
I have now put sufficient fuel through the DR650 to be able to compare brands and octanes. There appears to be absolutely no difference between brands, and 95 octane gives exactly the same mileage as 91.
So this result is totally different to that achieved on the fuel injected bikes.

[Ocean1]

I have now put sufficient fuel through the DR650 to be able to compare brands and octanes. There appears to be absolutely no difference between brands, and 95 octane gives exactly the same mileage as 91.
So this result is totally different to that achieved on the fuel injected bikes.

Why would it be otherwise? A closed control system compared with an open one, the carb delivers fuel with zero feedback from the result, FI systems are addressing several output variables and varying delivery accordingly.

The only variable that may affect consumption with a carb is your right hand, in response to a perceived need for more revs. And that perception is not only nowhere close to the sort of controlled variable you could rely on for analysis but it’s common to both.

[Pedrostt500]

I run 95 in my FJR, just stop at the most coveniant station to my needs.

[cowpoos]

Up until recently I would have thought that it didn't matter what brand you put in at the pump.

it doesn't...put 91 in it. your wasting your money otherwise. Its not a race tuned engine. It was designed to do high miles in any country, with any type of petrol. put cheap gas in it and enjoy riding, your thinking to much or listening to idiots to often.