I thought that high compression motors ( like ours) would make more power with a higher octane fuel. The Hemi motor in my car sure does. It is easily noticable when the anti-knock sensor tells the computer to pull back the timing and change ( richen) the fuel mixture. Even more noticable in the hot weather.
If I hardly open the throttle, it seems to make no difference. But i do open the throttle ( probably more than i should) on the as well as the Hemi.
It's 91 Octane for me.
Using low octane fuel caused me:::
Kaos
Kaos----- Gone but not forgotten.
2014 RTS in Circuit Yellow, farkle-ing addiction down to once every few months. ECU FLASH IS GREAT.
The owners manual information became out of date in 2013 and they STILL have not updated it. The manual is written by the marketing dept and tech writers, not engineering and BRP is awful on cutting corners when putting together updates to the manuals.
READ the engine emissions certification label ON THE BIKE it takes precedence over anything written in outdated manuals. On the RT its under the seat, on the F3 its in the front trunk. It states clearly MINIMUM OCTANE REQUIRED 91. Has been this way since 2013 and for all 1330 engines.
Yes, the engine has knock sensors to allow the ECM to protect the engine if the owner uses lower than required fuel quality. Does not mean you should be running in this protect mode as a normal way of operation.
Do what you want, I bought my F3 for its performance and intend to use the fuel for which it was designed and performs best. There is a REAL performance drop using sub standard fuel in these high compression engines.
I guess BRP screwed up and and put outdated and incorrect marketing information in the specification's section of the 2015 F3's owner's manual, too. Can you imagine the liability a corporation would have by doing that? And by having inconsistent information, where two sources say different things and where one would provide detrimental information as to the product's use? As a design engineer, I highly doubt that... I'd bet the farm that engineering signed off on the technical specifications in the back of the manual. In fact, they had better been the source of the information. At least the 2015 F3 owner's manual is consistent in that it says that 91 octane is recommended in both locations of the manual. The manual also recommends a front tire pressure range that many Spyder owners seem to ignore. It also recommends a specific kit of protective riding gear. Are those recommendations followed as religiously as the recommendation for an octane rating for optimum performance? If not, why were those choices made? There are recommendations and there are requirements. In the world of engineering, those two things are vastly different.
The nice thing about recommendations is that they're optional. You get to choose. As I mentioned, when cruising at 125 mph on the BMW or over 100 mph on the F3, or getting my head snapped back with the acceleration off the line (I came very close to throwing myself off the back end of the BMW accelerating in second gear once), I feel that I get all of the performance that I need with regular gas. Would 91 octane be worth it? It wasn't on the BMW (tried it) and I can't stop smiling when I drive the F3 aggressively (which is pretty much all the time, according to my wife and friends), so I've made my choice on what works very well for me and the vehicle.
I do agree on one thing - anything less than 87 octane would be substandard, and I too would expect to see a REAL performance drop by using something the engine wasn't designed for.
Seriously though, I would love to see REAL data, not my or anybody else's anecdotal seat-of-the-pants data, as to the performance differences on Spyders (both the 998 and 1330 engines) with different octane levels. Considering the aerodynamic drag and rolling resistance of this reverse trike, the design engineer in me suspects it wouldn't be a very substantial difference. If there is a noticeable difference, and more importantly, if you ride such that you would actually use that performance, then it would be worth it. And that's the key - using the extra performance, whatever it is. If you don't, and I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of motorcycle drivers don't, then it's purely a waste of money in my book.
To illustrate that point on performance, let's say that a higher octane gives you a performance improvement of three-tenths of a second better 0-60 time, improving it from 4.8 seconds to 4.5 seconds (numbers are made up). For any driver that takes 4.8 seconds or longer using 91 octane gas to get to 60, then they saw no performance improvement for spending the extra money. No matter what that performance improvement is, any driver who doesn't accelerate faster than the motorcycle will accelerate using the minimum requirement for octane hasn't seen the performance improvement provided by the extra expense. (And the F3 is no slouch off the line using 87 octane!) Same with fuel mileage. If you don't see better than a 10% improvement in gas mileage using a higher octane, then how is it justified to spend 10% (or more) more? It stands to reason that the higher octane gas wouldn't drastically alter engine life, since these engines come with an unlimited mileage warranty (meaning I can put as many miles on this as I want in the first four years using the minimum required gas and expect it to last just fine). If I were to do a track day with my F3 or any of my vehicles, then I might consider using the good stuff. Other than that, I can't justify the expense. Again, it's a choice... My choice is based on a combination of seat-of-the pants experience, some good old engineering analysis, and some pretty simple math. Everyone gets to do their own calculation in their own way!
- Carl
2017 Can Am F3-L (current ryde)
2015 Can Am F3-S (previous ryde)
2012 BMW K1600 (previous ride)
2016 Can Am F3-T (wife's)
I did attempt a fuel economy test on my 2010 RT, using the octane of the gasoline as the only variable...
I noticed approximately an 8% decrease in fuel mileage, when running with 87, instead of 93, in the tank...
Run what you want; if it can burn, it probably won't hurt the bike!
The owners manual information became out of date in 2013 and they STILL have not updated it. The manual is written by the marketing dept and tech writers, not engineering and BRP is awful on cutting corners when putting together updates to the manuals.
READ the engine emissions certification label ON THE BIKE it takes precedence over anything written in outdated manuals. On the RT its under the seat, on the F3 its in the front trunk. It states clearly MINIMUM OCTANE REQUIRED 91. Has been this way since 2013 and for all 1330 engines.
Yes, the engine has knock sensors to allow the ECM to protect the engine if the owner uses lower than required fuel quality. Does not mean you should be running in this protect mode as a normal way of operation.
Do what you want, I bought my F3 for its performance and intend to use the fuel for which it was designed and performs best. There is a REAL performance drop using sub standard fuel in these high compression engines.
Exactly . . . the label under the seat was based on the latest information when your Spyder was built . . . and what do you save between 87 and 91 octane? A dollar a tank, maybe?
Why would BRP say to use a particular minimum rating if it wasn't needed?
Why anyone would put less than the minimum required octane gasoline in their Spyder totally confuses me . . .
I do not get it. You own all these luxury M/C and cars and chince on higher octane fuel? I guess "motel 6" also fits in with minimum requirements also. Just saying.
Jack
In my real life, I am an aeronautical engineer and design high performance fighter aircraft, where requirements are the things that really matter. If you meet the requirement, you're good. Huge difference between "shall" and "should". If the customer says they'll pay for an airplane that will do a 9g turn, we don't get paid anything more to design it to do a 9.1g turn. And we may not get paid if it only can turn at 8.9g's.
The flip side is here. You say chince, I say waste. Do you drive your Spyder hard enough to actually realize the performance benefit (whatever it is) provided by the higher expense? Do you see better than a 10% mileage improvement to justify the additional expense? If you don't drive your vehicles up at the edge of the performance envelope, why do you spend money to exceed the octane requirements? I do try to poke at some edges of the envelope when I get the chance, and still can't justify the additional cost.
You're not quite right, though, in your analogy. "Motel 6" isn't an engineering requirement. It may be an implied requirement based on an individual's bank account. I'm happy to be able to pay cash for my luxury M/Cs and cars because I try to not waste money on unnecessary things, such as exceeding requirements when money is involved with little or no return. For me personally, I would rather spend my money on the four star hotels than on potential performance improvements I'll likely never see.
I'll give you an analogy that I think fits better... When you're all done preparing your tax return every winter or spring, and it says that you owe $20,000 in taxes for that year, how much extra do you send in? The minimum requirement for your yearly tax payment is $20,000, and there is nothing preventing you from paying extra. Do you go beyond this minimum requirement, just because you can and for the good of our country? I doubt it. Meet the minimum requirement and you've met the requirement. Pay less, and there will be trouble. Don't think of the 87 octane level as the minimum requirement. It's THE requirement. Minimum only defines which side of the line is good and which side of the line isn't good. That's how this requirement works...
- Carl
2017 Can Am F3-L (current ryde)
2015 Can Am F3-S (previous ryde)
2012 BMW K1600 (previous ride)
2016 Can Am F3-T (wife's)
In my real life, I am an aeronautical engineer and design high performance fighter aircraft, where requirements are the things that really matter. If you meet the requirement, you're good. Huge difference between "shall" and "should". If the customer says they'll pay for an airplane that will do a 9g turn, we don't get paid anything more to design it to do a 9.1g turn. And we may not get paid if it only can turn at 8.9g's.
The flip side is here. You say chince, I say waste. Do you drive your Spyder hard enough to actually realize the performance benefit (whatever it is) provided by the higher expense? Do you see better than a 10% mileage improvement to justify the additional expense? If you don't drive your vehicles up at the edge of the performance envelope, why do you spend money to exceed the octane requirements? I do try to poke at some edges of the envelope when I get the chance, and still can't justify the additional cost.
You're not quite right, though, in your analogy. "Motel 6" isn't an engineering requirement. It may be an implied requirement based on an individual's bank account. I'm happy to be able to pay cash for my luxury M/Cs and cars because I try to not waste money on unnecessary things, such as exceeding requirements when money is involved with little or no return. For me personally, I would rather spend my money on the four star hotels than on potential performance improvements I'll likely never see.
I'll give you an analogy that I think fits better... When you're all done preparing your tax return every winter or spring, and it says that you owe $20,000 in taxes for that year, how much extra do you send in? The minimum requirement for your yearly tax payment is $20,000, and there is nothing preventing you from paying extra. Do you go beyond this minimum requirement, just because you can and for the good of our country? I doubt it. Meet the minimum requirement and you've met the requirement. Pay less, and there will be trouble. Don't think of the 87 octane level as the minimum requirement. It's THE requirement. Minimum only defines which side of the line is good and which side of the line isn't good. That's how this requirement works...
..Dear Sir ...I'm with you on this 110 %, but you are ...Most here don't get it and never will.....I don't have DYNO figures but my best friend who used to build and run PRO-Drag bikes, tested My 2014 RT......His opinion was " the load needed to activate the Anti-Knock system in the 1330 engine was far beyond normal operating conditions ".....He said if was racing it He would use 91 + with NO ETHYL.....otherwise 87 works fine......No one else here has bothered to test this theory.....They just go with what they THINK is best...........JMHO.....Mike
Last edited by BLUEKNIGHT911; 06-08-2015 at 11:24 AM.
My 2014 RTL has 11,000 miles and has had 87 octane from day 1, never had a problem.
My wife's 2011 RTL is running the same, over 17,000 and no problem.
0992
Amen brother!!! I've got a 2014RTL also and have been using the same as you and EVERYTHING is running great.
BIG F
In my real life, I am an aeronautical engineer and design high performance fighter aircraft, where requirements are the things that really matter. If you meet the requirement, you're good. Huge difference between "shall" and "should". If the customer says they'll pay for an airplane that will do a 9g turn, we don't get paid anything more to design it to do a 9.1g turn. And we may not get paid if it only can turn at 8.9g's.
The flip side is here. You say chince, I say waste. Do you drive your Spyder hard enough to actually realize the performance benefit (whatever it is) provided by the higher expense? Do you see better than a 10% mileage improvement to justify the additional expense? If you don't drive your vehicles up at the edge of the performance envelope, why do you spend money to exceed the octane requirements? I do try to poke at some edges of the envelope when I get the chance, and still can't justify the additional cost.
You're not quite right, though, in your analogy. "Motel 6" isn't an engineering requirement. It may be an implied requirement based on an individual's bank account. I'm happy to be able to pay cash for my luxury M/Cs and cars because I try to not waste money on unnecessary things, such as exceeding requirements when money is involved with little or no return. For me personally, I would rather spend my money on the four star hotels than on potential performance improvements I'll likely never see.
I'll give you an analogy that I think fits better... When you're all done preparing your tax return every winter or spring, and it says that you owe $20,000 in taxes for that year, how much extra do you send in? The minimum requirement for your yearly tax payment is $20,000, and there is nothing preventing you from paying extra. Do you go beyond this minimum requirement, just because you can and for the good of our country? I doubt it. Meet the minimum requirement and you've met the requirement. Pay less, and there will be trouble. Don't think of the 87 octane level as the minimum requirement. It's THE requirement. Minimum only defines which side of the line is good and which side of the line isn't good. That's how this requirement works...
Well Carl it's like this. Life is short and you want to get all the octane you can get. Kinda like my old Dad said: get a lot while your young so I invested heavily in real estate. When I got older I finally figured out what he meant.
Jack
All my life I wanted to be somebody, now I realize I should have been more specific.
2019 Specialized E-Bike COMO 2.0
2018 Jeep Grand Cherokee Overland
2018 Tiffin Phaeton 37BH Motorhome
2015 BMW R1200R LC
2014 RTL SE6 Pearl White
2012 RT-622 trailer viper red
2014 Look 7x12 motorcycle trailer silver and black
2011 Polaris Ranger green
2013 GMC Yukon Denali XL silver oak
2016 Can Am Maverick
I guess BRP screwed up and and put outdated and incorrect marketing information in the specification's section of the 2015 F3's owner's manual, too. Can you imagine the liability a corporation would have by doing that? And by having inconsistent information, where two sources say different things and where one would provide detrimental information as to the product's use? As a design engineer, I highly doubt that... I'd bet the farm that engineering signed off on the technical specifications in the back of the manual. In fact, they had better been the source of the information.
My Users Guide for the 2013 RT states that 87 Octane is the minimum and 91 octane is recommended. The label, under the seat says 91 octane is the minimum.
Among the other things in the guide is the statement: "The informations contained in this document are correct at the time of publication. BRP, however, maintains a policy of continuous improvement of its products without imposing upon itself any obligation to install them on products previously manufactured. Due to late changes, some differences between the manufactured product and the descriptions and/or specifications in this guide may occur. BRP reserves the right at any time to discontinue or change specifications, designs, features, models or equipment without incurring any obligation upon itself."
So BRP has no liability as they have notified you that the manual may be incorrect. The label under the seat is the information that was correct when the machine was assembled . . . ignore it at your own risk . . .
Last edited by Dan McNally; 06-08-2015 at 06:45 PM.
I love this site. If you want to see people get into a pissing match about fuel or motor oil, this is the place to be.
Funny thing is... I have never seen anyone look over as someone else is pumping gas into their tank and tell them they are doing it wrong. On an online forum everyone stands their ground and defends their anonymous opinion.
Yet two riders of the exact same bike will say nothing of the choices made when they are 20 feet away from each other at a gas pump.
I love this site. If you want to see people get into a pissing match about fuel or motor oil, this is the place to be.
Funny thing is... I have never seen anyone look over as someone else is pumping gas into their tank and tell them they are doing it wrong. On an online forum everyone stands their ground and defends their anonymous opinion.
Yet two riders of the exact same bike will say nothing of the choices made when they are 20 feet away from each other at a gas pump.
That's what the anonymity of the internet offers: the chance to start a REALLY good argument from a safe distance!
I love this site. If you want to see people get into a pissing match about fuel or motor oil, this is the place to be.
Funny thing is... I have never seen anyone look over as someone else is pumping gas into their tank and tell them they are doing it wrong. On an online forum everyone stands their ground and defends their anonymous opinion.
Yet two riders of the exact same bike will say nothing of the choices made when they are 20 feet away from each other at a gas pump.
Actually on a group ride, I have done exactly that. And pointed out the label giving the instruction on their bike. They later thanked me for the performance and running difference in their bike. Then again, the folks I ride with know me. Folks on forums just seem to want to argue.
As for the difference between the manual and the label and you don't believe what I have already told you, write an email to BRPCares or call BRP and they will also tell you the label takes precedence. The manuals are not kept up to date.
Its not just 0-60 performance either. The bike just runs MUCH better on the higher octane fuel. Just all around more responsive.
I will say that the folks using 87 on a regular basis will not see much change in putting in a tank of 93. It takes time and miles for the tuning to increase timing and throttle response for the increased octane. Going the reverse direction is nearly immediate as the ECU takes quick corrective action when knock is sensed.
I usually use 91 but if it isn't available I will use 89 or 87.
I have had to do the same. Yes the bike will run on 87 and not do damage. But the loss of performance and responsiveness was very evident and I could not wait to burn up that tank of substandard fuel and get better.
I used regular by mistake once and noticed the engine knocking while it was still cold. Ill spend the extra $ for the best fuel. I noticed that Shell premium now has Nitro in it. Hmm...
2017 F3 Limited
2017 F3 Limited , Lamonster Black Dymond brake pedal with brake rod at #5 Pure Magnesium Metallic
I used regular by mistake once and noticed the engine knocking while it was still cold. Ill spend the extra $ for the best fuel. I noticed that Shell premium now has Nitro in it. Hmm...
Purrs like a kitten with the Shell premium. That is my fuel of choice at the moment.
WARNING, WARNING, WARNING---Your results may differ.
Last edited by ARtraveler; 06-08-2015 at 01:26 PM.
Currently Owned: 2019 F3 Limited, 2020 F3 Limited: SOLD BOTH LIMITEDS in October of 2023.
Noticed a difference right away. Idle rpms dropped from 900 to 800 and the engine sounds like its purring! Will try the 100 next.
Use what is recommended in the manual.....just dont think that you can keep going higher in octane and get better performance or a better running engine. That may not be the case and you make actually damage something !
2 aspirin work, 3 made me feel better, 4 made me feel great....well 8 will surely work even better. This philosophy can be dangerous.
Wife and I just put 3500 miles on the 14 RT (then traded it in for an F3) It drank nothing but Premium the whole way. I wouldn't dream of filling up the tank with anything less.
I do not get it. You own all these luxury M/C and cars and chince on higher octane fuel? I guess "motel 6" also fits in with minimum requirements also. Just saying.
Wife and I just put 3500 miles on the 14 RT (then traded it in for an F3) It drank nothing but Premium the whole way. I wouldn't dream of filling up the tank with anything less.
All my life I wanted to be somebody, now I realize I should have been more specific.
2019 Specialized E-Bike COMO 2.0
2018 Jeep Grand Cherokee Overland
2018 Tiffin Phaeton 37BH Motorhome
2015 BMW R1200R LC
2014 RTL SE6 Pearl White
2012 RT-622 trailer viper red
2014 Look 7x12 motorcycle trailer silver and black
2011 Polaris Ranger green
2013 GMC Yukon Denali XL silver oak
2016 Can Am Maverick
Compresion Ratio???
as well as the Hemi.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by jcthorne
Exactly . . . the label under the seat was based on the latest information when your Spyder was built . . . and what do you save between 87 and 91 octane? A dollar a tank, maybe? 
...Most here don't get it and never will.....I don't have DYNO figures but my best friend who used to build and run PRO-Drag bikes, tested My 2014 RT......His opinion was " the load needed to activate the Anti-Knock system in the 1330 engine was far beyond normal operating conditions ".....He said if was racing it He would use 91 + with NO ETHYL.....otherwise 87 works fine......No one else here has bothered to test this theory.....They just go with what they THINK is best...........JMHO.....Mike 
Our price difference to go 91 no eth isnt worth it. 89 no eth is currently 2.96, 91 is 4.25.
