Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 52

Thread: Harley Qs

  1. #16
    Join Date
    17th April 2006 - 05:39
    Bike
    Various things
    Location
    Wellington
    Posts
    14,429
    Quote Originally Posted by rambaldi View Post
    And gull I think but they throw fucking ethanol in there as well, and not the good kind
    Quote Originally Posted by RDJ View Post
    Yes. I have run both Gull's ahem high end ahem petroleum product in the supercharged V8 ute and the V8 bikes, and the BP-98 product for comparison; even the seat-of-the-pants dyno can tell the difference. Gull - we're not that Gullible...
    Yeah it's junk, and Challenge isn't much better.

  2. #17
    Join Date
    4th January 2016 - 15:51
    Bike
    2005 Superglide
    Location
    Gisborne
    Posts
    8
    seller completed his form & I completed the MR13B. Just wondering if I receive a letter in the mail saying I am now the registered owner of the bike? how does this process usually go?

  3. #18
    Join Date
    12th September 2009 - 16:14
    Bike
    .
    Location
    .
    Posts
    1,750
    NZTA will send you a certificate of registration naming you as the registered person and a list of previous registration transfer dates.

  4. #19
    Join Date
    26th January 2010 - 19:14
    Bike
    2012 Suzuki Boulevard M50
    Location
    North Shore, Auckland
    Posts
    987
    Quote Originally Posted by Crasherfromwayback View Post
    91 here in NZ is shit. Anyone that tells you otherwise likes boys.
    You're not exactly right there Crasher.

    25 years in the fuel and lubricants industry here and I was on the industry panel that the MOE put together to establish the fuel specifications for the introduction of ULP. I'd say that Marsden UL91 was as good as any UL91 anywhere, Marsden Point being a somewhat MON limited refinery you tend to get RON give away and the fuel out of there is fairly free of olefins. Spec'd for NZ conditions too, vapour pressure changes to accommodate winter starting.

    But then, Auckland gets only Marsden Point petrol down the pipeline, you poor folk south of the Bombays might be getting imported fuel - but it'll still have to meet the MOE specs and they're quite rigorous.

    Did you have any particular area where UL91 falls short? And is that a shortfall against the actual MOE spec or just a shortfall in your expectations?

    You do know of course that US engines have their octane requirement specified in a different way. Here we identify petrol by only its RON, either 91, 95 and 98 for certain brands. In the States they identify gasoline octane by (RON + MON)/2, an average octane. Therefore the States 91 is more like NZ 95 RON (95 + 85)/2.

  5. #20
    Join Date
    17th April 2006 - 05:39
    Bike
    Various things
    Location
    Wellington
    Posts
    14,429
    Quote Originally Posted by Old Steve View Post

    But then, Auckland gets only Marsden Point petrol down the pipeline, you poor folk south of the Bombays might be getting imported fuel - but it'll still have to meet the MOE specs and they're quite rigorous.

    Did you have any particular area where UL91 falls short? And is that a shortfall against the actual MOE spec or just a shortfall in your expectations?

    You do know of course that US engines have their octane requirement specified in a different way. Here we identify petrol by only its RON, either 91, 95 and 98 for certain brands. In the States they identify gasoline octane by (RON + MON)/2, an average octane. Therefore the States 91 is more like NZ 95 RON (95 + 85)/2.
    I live in Welly, and any testing done on WMCC's old dyno, tended to point to our 91 down here being poos. But yeah, when I was in the States riding a Beull about, their 91 seemed to suit it just fine. Thanks for your reply...good reading! Cheers.

  6. #21
    Join Date
    6th February 2008 - 10:35
    Bike
    '03 FXD
    Location
    Dark Side of the Moon.
    Posts
    1,818
    Quote Originally Posted by Crasherfromwayback View Post
    I live in Welly, and any testing done on WMCC's old dyno, tended to point to our 91 down here being poos. But yeah, when I was in the States riding a Beull about, their 91 seemed to suit it just fine. Thanks for your reply...good reading! Cheers.
    Hey Pete I've been running 91 in my dyna and apart from the occasional miss and fart it seems to go alright.You reckon 95 or 98 will see it running better?
    Never too old to Rock n Roll.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    I've got miserly tourettes and I don't give a fuck.

  7. #22
    Join Date
    17th April 2006 - 05:39
    Bike
    Various things
    Location
    Wellington
    Posts
    14,429
    Quote Originally Posted by MIXONE View Post
    Hey Pete I've been running 91 in my dyna and apart from the occasional miss and fart it seems to go alright.You reckon 95 or 98 will see it running better?
    This missing and farting is often if it's cold perhaps? When it's lean? If it's reasonably stock, you'll poss be ok on 91, but we def had better results with 95 or better mate.

  8. #23
    Join Date
    6th February 2008 - 10:35
    Bike
    '03 FXD
    Location
    Dark Side of the Moon.
    Posts
    1,818
    Quote Originally Posted by Crasherfromwayback View Post
    This missing and farting is often if it's cold perhaps? When it's lean? If it's reasonably stock, you'll poss be ok on 91, but we def had better results with 95 or better mate.
    Yep stock apart from screaming eagle pipes.I will give it a test on BP98 though.
    Never too old to Rock n Roll.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    I've got miserly tourettes and I don't give a fuck.

  9. #24
    Join Date
    17th July 2003 - 23:37
    Bike
    CB1300
    Location
    Tuakau
    Posts
    4,796
    Also common for the big four to put other extras in their highest octane fuel.
    Logic seems to be people will buy 91 because they don't care but performance fuel they want a point of difference to keep them coming back to their brand.

    Sent from Tapatalk. DYAC

  10. #25
    Join Date
    26th January 2010 - 19:14
    Bike
    2012 Suzuki Boulevard M50
    Location
    North Shore, Auckland
    Posts
    987
    If the Harley manual says use 91 Octane, then use New Zealand 95! Our 95 Octane has a MON of 85 and a RON of 95, therefore is almost a direct equivalent of US 91 Octane.

    When unleaded petrol was introduced, the MOE was worried that cars that had run on leaded 96 for years may be tuned wrong for ULP 95. While the MOE were happy to have the spec written around a RON of 95 in line with European standards, they did have this 96 octane tuning concern. So the fuel companies proposed to the MOE that though the spec for ULP 95 would state a RON of 95 octane, they would supply ULP 95 with a minimum RON of 96 for a year or 18 months (this was over 20 years ago, can't remember the length of time).

    And going back maybe 27 years, Caltex wanted a BMW approval for their newly introduced additised petrol. This showed that the additised petrol kept the back of the intake valves clean and this stopped lean start up and rich running when the engine warmed up. Caltex NZ sent 800 Litres of unadditised Marsden Pt ULP91 to BMW California to have the test run, BMW would additise the petrol (actually gasoline by the time it reached the USA) with the additive supplied by the additive company and run the test. The pallet of petrol arrived on the San Fransisco wharf on October 16th, 1989, the day before the the California earthquake. The petrol went missing for about 4 weeks, safe and sound on the wharf but its whereabouts unknown to anyone. Finally the petrol got to BMW and the test was run, BMW would dismantle the engines and weigh the inlet valves, run some 320s up and down the Californian freeways for some distance (10,000 miles each I think), then dismantle the engines and weigh the inlet valves again. To pass the test you were allowed some minimal weight increase on the four valves. The NZ test showed weight absolutely no gains. BMW rang the additive company and asked what was this amazing new additive they were testing, but the additive company had to tell them the result was down to the quality of the Marsden Pt petrol, very low olefins content because of the Marsden Point hydrocracker.

    So, from losing the petrol in the aftermath of the California earthquake, it all turned out OK in the end. I had a set of four inlet valves in a plastic top box on my desk as a paperweight, the valves were marked "0.00 g, 0.00 g, 0.00 g and -0.01 g". Don't know what the test cost Caltex, but they must have been the most expensive inlet valves in the country.

  11. #26
    Join Date
    6th February 2008 - 10:35
    Bike
    '03 FXD
    Location
    Dark Side of the Moon.
    Posts
    1,818
    Quote Originally Posted by Crasherfromwayback View Post
    This missing and farting is often if it's cold perhaps? When it's lean? If it's reasonably stock, you'll poss be ok on 91, but we def had better results with 95 or better mate.
    I'm trying the bp98 now and "seat of pants" there is quite a difference.Torque seems to be arriving quicker (if you get my drift) and it will pull higher gears earlier.It will be interesting to see the diff in tank range.I'm convinced already anyway.
    Never too old to Rock n Roll.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    I've got miserly tourettes and I don't give a fuck.

  12. #27
    Join Date
    14th January 2013 - 18:39
    Bike
    W650 sidecar & HD Fat Bob
    Location
    Wanganui
    Posts
    459
    Quote Originally Posted by Old Steve View Post
    If the Harley manual says use 91 Octane, then use New Zealand 95! Our 95 Octane has a MON of 85 and a RON of 95, therefore is almost a direct equivalent of US 91 Octane.

    When unleaded petrol was introduced, the MOE was worried that cars that had run on leaded 96 for years may be tuned wrong for ULP 95. While the MOE were happy to have the spec written around a RON of 95 in line with European standards, they did have this 96 octane tuning concern. So the fuel companies proposed to the MOE that though the spec for ULP 95 would state a RON of 95 octane, they would supply ULP 95 with a minimum RON of 96 for a year or 18 months (this was over 20 years ago, can't remember the length of time).

    And going back maybe 27 years, Caltex wanted a BMW approval for their newly introduced additised petrol. This showed that the additised petrol kept the back of the intake valves clean and this stopped lean start up and rich running when the engine warmed up. Caltex NZ sent 800 Litres of unadditised Marsden Pt ULP91 to BMW California to have the test run, BMW would additise the petrol (actually gasoline by the time it reached the USA) with the additive supplied by the additive company and run the test. The pallet of petrol arrived on the San Fransisco wharf on October 16th, 1989, the day before the the California earthquake. The petrol went missing for about 4 weeks, safe and sound on the wharf but its whereabouts unknown to anyone. Finally the petrol got to BMW and the test was run, BMW would dismantle the engines and weigh the inlet valves, run some 320s up and down the Californian freeways for some distance (10,000 miles each I think), then dismantle the engines and weigh the inlet valves again. To pass the test you were allowed some minimal weight increase on the four valves. The NZ test showed weight absolutely no gains. BMW rang the additive company and asked what was this amazing new additive they were testing, but the additive company had to tell them the result was down to the quality of the Marsden Pt petrol, very low olefins content because of the Marsden Point hydrocracker.

    So, from losing the petrol in the aftermath of the California earthquake, it all turned out OK in the end. I had a set of four inlet valves in a plastic top box on my desk as a paperweight, the valves were marked "0.00 g, 0.00 g, 0.00 g and -0.01 g". Don't know what the test cost Caltex, but they must have been the most expensive inlet valves in the country.

    That opening sentence is worth gold to me, thanks and also to MIxone for his report. May explain a few things for me, I will let you know if the 95 makes a change.

  13. #28
    Join Date
    1st March 2007 - 11:30
    Bike
    2014 R1200 GS, 2007 DR 650
    Location
    Whakatane
    Posts
    1,473
    For fuels with ethanol added, I believe that the octane rating is not harmed by the addition, but the fuel's calorific value drops - you get less kilojoules per litre and so have to use more fuel for a given task. Since this fuel is cheaper, your km's / $ is about the same as conventional fuels.

    However, I also believe that the stoichiometric fuel/air ratio for both fuels is about the same (open to correction here). It must be, I think, because otherwise the engine would have to be re-tuned when moving from one to the other.

    The consequence of all this then, is that the motor must have less peak power on the alcohol blend.
    I may not be as good as I once was, but I'm as good once as I always was.

  14. #29
    Join Date
    30th July 2008 - 18:56
    Bike
    Road King
    Location
    In the sun.
    Posts
    2,143
    Blog Entries
    1
    91 95 and 98 all work fine in my old 88ci motor. I cany tell any diference between any of them.
    Just another leather clad Tinkerbell.
    The Wanker on the Fucking Harley is going for a ride!

  15. #30
    Join Date
    30th July 2008 - 18:56
    Bike
    Road King
    Location
    In the sun.
    Posts
    2,143
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Bass View Post
    For fuels with ethanol added, I believe that the octane rating is not harmed by the addition, but the fuel's calorific value drops - you get less kilojoules per litre and so have to use more fuel for a given task. Since this fuel is cheaper, your km's / $ is about the same as conventional fuels.

    However, I also believe that the stoichiometric fuel/air ratio for both fuels is about the same (open to correction here). It must be, I think, because otherwise the engine would have to be re-tuned when moving from one to the other.

    The consequence of all this then, is that the motor must have less peak power on the alcohol blend.
    Depends entirely what the motor is tuned for. The compression ratio defines the volumetric efficency of any motor, hence drag motors run very high CR and produce enormous HP on Methanol fuel. Methanol however has a relatively low calorific value compared to petrol.
    Just another leather clad Tinkerbell.
    The Wanker on the Fucking Harley is going for a ride!

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
  •