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

[inazuma1200]

has 100,000km on it.

[Akzle]

aviation fuel. JP8.

[SVboy]

aviation fuel. JP8.

What would you know,Dork. You dont have a bike....or a life.

I run my GSX 1200 on 95. Why-I dont think 91 is great, except for the lawnmower.{not great science there!} You could probably get away with 91 but for the few extra cents I dont see it as an issue. Has yours been de-restricted? Makes them run GREAT when they are.

[BMWST?]

compared to most car engines a motorbike engine is a ahighprerfromance one with high compression.You should us 95 as a mimimum.I dont have any specific knowledge to back this up

[inazuma1200]

OK thanks all, i tried running it on 95 and it seemed really poppy when i was engine breaking and backfired a bit..not sure if thats good or bad although i did sound kinda cool :P

[Motig]

Mine runs fine on 91.

[SNF]

It NEEDS good fuel - its a bloody sports bike!! The older bikes and cars like mine made back in the days of leaded fuel and have high compression motors especially do not take kindly to 91, leave that to the '90's economy spec sedans.

It will run lean and eventually melt pistons. That said the GSX is pretty modern, has 9:5:1 compression which isn't super high and it doesn't red line at 20,000 rpm or the sky either. So you could be safe with 91.

It may not like it though and might feel more like a slug than a sports bike. Up to you. Personally I'd use the good stuff. It is a sports bike after all.

[AllanB]

I had a GS1200ss - 91 or 95 was just fine - did not notice any difference between the two.

If you are popping on deceleration I'm presuming you have a aftermarket muffler on it? If so it is highly likely it is not sealed properly where the muffler joins the mid pipe. loosen the clamp here and squeeze in some high temp silicone sealant (Supercheap have small tubes http://www.supercheapauto.co.nz/online-store/products/Permatex-Ultra-Black-RTV-Silicone-Gasket-Maker-Maximum-Oil-Resistance-95G.aspx?pid=5366#Cross).

Allow it to set overnight and reclamp the muffler in the morning.

[manxkiwi]

I thought octane rating related to anti knock, or pre ignition? Which relates directly to compression ratio. What does Suzuki recommend? I'd be surprised if they stated over 91 as a minimum. I doubt the 12 has a very high compression ratio. My old SV thou had a reasonably high comp ratio and the book said to use 91 minimum. Though all my Triumphs do say to use 95 minimum.

Running a higher octane fuel than required is just wasting money. It doesn't make an engine run any differently. I'm sure this whole subject has been done to death on a good number of occasions.

In summary, I'd just throw 91 in it, unless Suzuki say otherwise.

[MVnut]

91, it is a very basic lump of an engine and will run fine on 91

[fridayflash]

It NEEDS good fuel - its a bloody sports bike!! The older bikes and cars like mine made back in the days of leaded fuel and have high compression motors especially do not take kindly to 91, leave that to the '90's economy spec sedans.

It will run lean and eventually melt pistons. That said the GSX is pretty modern, has 9:5:1 compression which isn't super high and it doesn't red line at 20,000 rpm or the sky either. So you could be safe with 91.

It may not like it though and might feel more like a slug than a sports bike. Up to you. Personally I'd use the good stuff. It is a sports bike after all.

a sports bike? try naked retro with a detuned gsxr1100 motor, that air/oil motor will run perfect on 91

[nzspokes]

I had a GS1200ss - 91 or 95 was just fine - did not notice any difference between the two.

If you are popping on deceleration I'm presuming you have a aftermarket muffler on it? If so it is highly likely it is not sealed properly where the muffler joins the mid pipe. loosen the clamp here and squeeze in some high temp silicone sealant (Supercheap have small tubes http://www.supercheapauto.co.nz/online-store/products/Permatex-Ultra-Black-RTV-Silicone-Gasket-Maker-Maximum-Oil-Resistance-95G.aspx?pid=5366#Cross).

Allow it to set overnight and reclamp the muffler in the morning.

Nah it will be the pair valves. My 1200 bandit did it untill i dumped the pairs.

[imdying]

It will run lean and eventually melt pistonsThis is rubbish.


91, it is a very basic lump of an engine and will run fine on 91This is not.

[EJK]

Pump diesel. They're cheaper.


It NEEDS good fuel - its a bloody sports bike!! The older bikes and cars like mine made back in the days of leaded fuel and have high compression motors especially do not take kindly to 91, leave that to the '90's economy spec sedans.

It will run lean and eventually melt pistons. That said the GSX is pretty modern, has 9:5:1 compression which isn't super high and it doesn't red line at 20,000 rpm or the sky either. So you could be safe with 91.

It may not like it though and might feel more like a slug than a sports bike. Up to you. Personally I'd use the good stuff. It is a sports bike after all.

Do you also support oil additives to "restore lost horsepower, boost fuel economy and engine performance"?

[SMOKEU]

There must be more to fuel octane requirements than just the compression ratio. My old MC19 CBR250 ran fine on either 91, 95 or 98. I didn't notice any difference in performance or fuel economy. That had a compression ratio of 11:1 IIRC. Mitsubishi GDI engines and many other direct injected car engines have a lower compression ratio than 11:1, yet they all require a bare minimum of 95 octane fuel in order to run properly, and 98 is even better.



when i was engine breaking and backfired a bit..not sure if thats good or bad although i did sound kinda cool :P

If your engine is breaking, then that's a bad thing.

[Banditbandit]

I had a GS1200ss - 91 or 95 was just fine - did not notice any difference between the two.

If you are popping on deceleration I'm presuming you have a aftermarket muffler on it? If so it is highly likely it is not sealed properly where the muffler joins the mid pipe. loosen the clamp here and squeeze in some high temp silicone sealant (Supercheap have small tubes http://www.supercheapauto.co.nz/online-store/products/Permatex-Ultra-Black-RTV-Silicone-Gasket-Maker-Maximum-Oil-Resistance-95G.aspx?pid=5366#Cross).

Allow it to set overnight and reclamp the muffler in the morning.

Why ?? The aftermarket pipe on my big Bandit is not sealed - sounds great on the over-run ... between 3,500 and 2,500rpm ... crackles and pops .. I blip the throttle just to listen ...

[SMOKEU]

Why ?? The aftermarket pipe on my big Bandit is not sealed - sounds great on the over-run ... between 3,500 and 2,500rpm ... crackles and pops .. I blip the throttle just to listen ...

In my experience, if you have a leaky exhaust then the engine won't perform as well compared to an exhaust with no leaks.

[imdying]

There must be more to fuel octane requirements than just the compression ratio. My old MC19 CBR250 ran fine on either 91, 95 or 98. I didn't notice any difference in performance or fuel economy. That had a compression ratio of 11:1 IIRC. Mitsubishi GDI engines and many other direct injected car engines have a lower compression ratio than 11:1, yet they all require a bare minimum of 95 octane fuel in order to run properly, and 98 is even better. Go and research the difference between static and dynamic compression ratios.

[imdying]

Why ?? The aftermarket pipe on my big Bandit is not sealed - sounds great on the over-run ... between 3,500 and 2,500rpm ... crackles and pops .. I blip the throttle just to listen ...This shitty emissions system on your bike is effectively a leak, that creates that popping.

[imdying]

In my experience, if you have a leaky exhaust then the engine won't perform as well compared to an exhaust with no leaks.It's a controlled leak into the exhaust port to promote after burning in the exhaust to help it meet emissions standards. It's not detrimental to performance, although it'll put your wideband readings out of whack when tuning (so block it up for that).

[Banditbandit]

This shitty emissions system on your bike is effectively a leak, that creates that popping.


It's a controlled leak into the exhaust port to promote after burning in the exhaust to help it meet emissions standards. It's not detrimental to performance, although it'll put your wideband readings out of whack when tuning (so block it up for that).

Naaa .. it's an after-market can I fitted myself and it does not quite seal on the engine-side ... there's a small visible gap between the pipe and the can ... It's not intentional ... except I intentionally left it that way ...

It sucks in air with oxygen which causes any unburnt fuel in the hot can to detonate ...

It doesn't seem to affect the performance .. the bike performs better with the can than with the standard pipe ... it just might be better again if I sealed it .. but hey, I never use all the performance the bike already has ...

[Tigadee]

compared to most car engines a motorbike engine is a ahighprerfromance one with high compression.You should us 95 as a mimimum.I dont have any specific knowledge to back this up

91 is apparently very dirty (was told that all the crap after flushing the pipes at the oil refinery goes into the 91 tank) and leaves more carbon residue on the insides of the engine than does 95 or 98. I don't feel too much difference in performance or economy (maybe a little), but if only for the fact that the insides of the engine will be cleaner, I use 95 or 98.

Although most if not all modern bikes run on 91, that is the minimum octane fuel recommended (as some countries have lower octance fuel).


...running it on 95 and it seemed really poppy when i was engine breaking and backfired a bit..not sure if thats good or bad although i did sound kinda cool :P

Yes it does indeed...

[imdying]

NaaaYeah, your bandit will have a PAIR valve.

btw, your bike is not warrantable... VIRM 11-1 item 6.

[imdying]

91 is apparently very dirty (was told that all the crap after flushing the pipes at the oil refinery goes into the 91 tank) and leaves more carbon residue on the insides of the engine than does 95 or 98. I don't feel too much difference in performance or economy (maybe a little), but if only for the fact that the insides of the engine will be cleaner, I use 95 or 98.

Although most if not all modern bikes run on 91, that is the minimum octane fuel recommended (as some countries have lower octance fuel).Ok, so that's all wrong. Whilst there is a range of what will work in practice, there is no minimum or maximum, only correct. Putting 92 in an engine designed for 91 will offer no advantage. You underline minimum like that implies that higher is better, but it is not.

[Banditbandit]

Yeah, your bandit will have a PAIR valve.

Yeah - before the aftermarket can .. has bugger all to do with the fact that the can does not seal onto the pipe ..




btw, your bike is not warrantable... VIRM 11-1 item 6.

What ?? It's had several warrants from VTNZ since I fitted the can ...

(edit)

Naaa .. I went and looked ... it's fine ... a decibel check would show it is under - even when it is burbling on the over-run ... which it would never be checked at ...

[Tigadee]

Ok, so that's all wrong. Whilst there is a range of what will work in practice, there is no minimum or maximum, only correct. Putting 92 in an engine designed for 91 will offer no advantage. You underline minimum like that implies that higher is better, but it is not.

I emphasise minimum as in 'NOT to go below 91'. There are lower octane fuels used in other parts of the world, you see, and the motorcycle manufacturers state "use 91" so that there is no confusion as to whether or not lower octane fuels are allowed... I don't think a lot of modern engines would handle 89 or 88 octane well, for example...

You read my underlining of the word minimum to mean that there is a scale of benefits, whereas I meant differently... I said so myself that I don't feel much difference between 91 and 95 or 98, but if using the higher octane does not leave as much carbon deposits as 91, then I am willing to pay the difference in price and use 95 or 98. (Was shown the differing real-world results by a motorcycle mechanic.)

[MSTRS]

It NEEDS good fuel - its a bloody sports bike!! The older bikes and cars like mine made back in the days of leaded fuel and have high compression motors especially do not take kindly to 91, leave that to the '90's economy spec sedans.

It will run lean and eventually melt pistons. That said the GSX is pretty modern, has 9:5:1 compression which isn't super high and it doesn't red line at 20,000 rpm or the sky either. So you could be safe with 91.

It may not like it though and might feel more like a slug than a sports bike. Up to you. Personally I'd use the good stuff. It is a sports bike after all.

Load of utter rubbish... (clue - there is no R in the bike designation for a start)

My GSXR 750 IS a sportsbike and runs very well on 91. Arguably it might run fractionally better on higher octane, but I reckon you'd need to put it on a dyno to really be sure.

[Paul in NZ]

There are a billion factors that determine the optimal fuel rating for an engine... Compression is one factor but combustion chamber design, emission gear, ignition advance etc etc... You name it...

Vickis wee car runs OK on 91 but lordy lordy what a difference 95 makes... The mechanic we use stressed to her DO NOT run it on anything less than 95 but its just this particular model. Another car may well be fine...

Run 95.... Pretty most owners I have talked to use it on these wonderful things

[imdying]

There are lower octane fuels used in other parts of the worldNot really, you're probably confused by RON vs MON. Not that we live anywhere but here in any case...


I don't think a lot of modern engines would handle 89 or 88 octane well, for example...As above...


if using the higher octane does not leave as much carbon deposits as 91, then I am willing to pay the difference in price and use 95 or 98. (Was shown the differing real-world results by a motorcycle mechanic.)It's your money...

[imdying]

Naaa .. I went and looked ... it's fine ... a decibel check would show it is under - even when it is burbling on the over-run ... which it would never be checked at ...Item 6 is leaks, you have one.

[Tigadee]

Not really, you're probably confused by RON vs MON. Not that we live anywhere but here in any case...

Quite likely, I'm not so knowledgeable about the petroleum industry - only know that the prices seem to go up more often than down.


It's your money...

Not even the money, it's my engine I'm thinking of...

[imdying]

Quite likely, I'm not so knowledgeable about the petroleum industry - only know that the prices seem to go up more often than down.Check it out for sure, wiki will have an article. Basically a lot of what you see around the net is using American figures, which are lower than ours, even though they're equivalent to each other.


Not even the money, it's my engine I'm thinking of...I think you would be unlikely to come across to many Japanese bikes that expired of that, they tend to fall of the road well before that causes any problems.

[AllanB]

Why ?? The aftermarket pipe on my big Bandit is not sealed - sounds great on the over-run ... between 3,500 and 2,500rpm ... crackles and pops .. I blip the throttle just to listen ...

Why? - sounds like a untuned snap crackle pop machine that has not been set-up correctly! If it is nicely sealed you'll get a deep burble on the over-run with maybe a background tune of gentle humming 'pops' from the PAIR system. Sweet.

Your WOF inspector must be slack - they should specifically check for leaks In the exhaust system.

[scracha]

Compression ratio on the tedium is 10.4 to 1 and it runs Ok on the shite 91 stuff they have over here. 91 is the minimum it's designed to run on. 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. I suspect that's just due to 95 being a better quality fuel than the octane rating. I've never found the rather expensive 98 of any brand being any better than the 95. I've ran mainly 91 in the bike, it's now 12 years old and approaching 80,000 Km. I suspect stories of "gunk" in the engine from 91 are just that....stories.

The GSX1200 has a lower compression ratio (9.5 to 1) so I guess you'd be just pissing your money away using 95 or 98.

[oneblackflag]

Glad I bumped into this thred... I have been quite often running the WRr on 91, not realizing the stated minimum 91 recommended was (R+M)/2 which is not the rating pumps use :spanking:. At 11.8:1 It runs noticeably better on 95, but I don't notice any difference running the e10 98 from Gull vs 91... Is my butt dyno not working or would the ethanol decrease performance?:dodge:

[intern]

Octane is something that is frequently misunderstood, because it is pretty complicated. Effectively, the higher the octane, the HARDER it is to burn the fuel. Lower octane fuel burns EASIER - but it is more prone to spontaneous ignition upon compression. Octane is NOT a rating of 'quality'; 91 is every bit as good quality as 95 or 98 ('they' don't flush out the pipes and use that gunk for 91).
So, a higher compression engine will prefer higher octane fuel - but 'higher octane' generally means 91, anyway. So you can use octane higher than that, and I know I do, but you probably don't *really* need to :banana:
More here: http://auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-efficiency/fuel-consumption/question90.htm

[intern]

Glad I bumped into this thred... I have been quite often running the WRr on 91, not realizing the stated minimum 91 recommended was (R+M)/2 which is not the rating pumps use :spanking:. At 11.8:1 It runs noticeably better on 95, but I don't notice any difference running the e10 98 from Gull vs 91... Is my butt dyno not working or would the ethanol decrease performance?:dodge:

From my boating exploits, I know to avoid putting ethanol in a fuel tank. Ethanol should be reserved for after the ride :2thumbsup. If it sits in your tank for a while, it turns into water and we all know how much fun water in a fuel tank can be! :angry:

[Tigadee]

I think you would be unlikely to come across to many Japanese bikes that expired of that, they tend to fall of the road well before that causes any problems.

I hope I never find out! LOL

[SMOKEU]

91 is the minimum it's designed to run on. 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.

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.

[Gremlin]

Not really, you're probably confused by RON vs MON. Not that we live anywhere but here in any case...
Well, you might transport your bike there to have a ride, then you need to know for sure. Different areas of the USA use RON, MON or (RON+MON)/2.

Otherwise, it simply depends on the bike. General rule of thumb is European bikes take premium, I certainly wouldn't put 91 in the BMW, although I believe it will automatically adjust to manage. The CB900... never put premium in it, 91 is just fine, and it's probably done 100,000km or more on 91 only.

[Tigadee]

The CB900... never put premium in it, 91 is just fine, and it's probably done 100,000km or more on 91 only.

Thanks for the info... :yes:

[nzspokes]

Thanks for the info... :yes:

I get better milage on 95.....

And even better with a screen....

[Gremlin]

On 91 I get around 250-270 per tank before reserve, if that helps. 270km is very economical, very rare to get less than 250km. Motorways and suburban roads, complete mix and consumption doesn't really vary.

[FJRider]

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.

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 ...

[FJRider]

On 91 I get around 250-270 per tank before reserve, if that helps. 270km is very economical, very rare to get less than 250km. Motorways and suburban roads, complete mix and consumption doesn't really vary.

I average 14 km's per liter ... on 91. On a 23 liter tank I "may" get 300 + out of a tank. I haven't pushed my luck ... and gassed up before that.

[SMOKEU]

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.


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.

[FJRider]

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 ... <_<

[SMOKEU]

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.

[FJRider]

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 .. ??? :doh:


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 ... :rolleyes: how trusting of you .. :lol:


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 ... :blank:


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 .. ??? :scratch:

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

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.

[actungbaby]

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.

[SMOKEU]

FIND ... or "Think" ..?? :dry: .... No proof yet .. ??? :doh:



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



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




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

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

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.


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?

[FJRider]

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 .. ??? <_<


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 .... :scratch:

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.


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 ... ???


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 ...

[SMOKEU]

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 .... :scratch:

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.

[blackdog]

I think everyone has overlooked the obvious question.

Why isn't it tuned and running methanol?

[FJRider]

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)


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 ...


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 ... :shifty:

And do you say MY use of 91 is purely on financial grounds .. ??? :blank:

[SMOKEU]

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 ... :shifty:

And do you say MY use of 91 is purely on financial grounds .. ??? :blank:

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.

[oneblackflag]

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.:drinknsin

[BMWST?]

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