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