Will Using 87 Octane impact performance?

[jjc54]

When Rotax designed, built, and supplied Can Am with engines, the design team very likely tested to 100% max performance intended.

More than likely, that team determined that 91 octane fuel is not harmful and provides both reliability and performance, some intertwined towards emissions. At a guess, the lower octane fuel gave a substandard result somewhere within that 0% to 100% max performance.

As a group of owner riders, it is known that each has a different level of comfort with regard to how we ride, and with that, how we situate on the performance between 0% and 100% engine output amount.

Regarding all reciprocating internal combustion engines, those run at lower power settings do not create high cylinder pressures. With these lower cylinder pressures at partial throttle, detonation is nowhere near the possibility of when the engine is running with high cylinder pressures at a greater throttle setting, towards or at 100%, with higher rpm.

That said, in less stressful operation, lower octane fuel may never be an issue. When extracting more from that engine, especially greater load with accompanying more open throttle, there becomes the possibility that low octane fuel will fail.

As riders, we sometimes hear, ride within your comfort zone - same with the engine, operate it within its comfort zone. That level of comfort may well be within reach of 87 octane for many. Those that truly push the engine towards 100% output could be outside 87 octane's anti knock range.

I keep accurate records on fuel purchased and cost/gallon to come up with a cost/mile and I do this by month so I can compare apples to apples. Lately I have noticed that my MPG is not what I was expecting to the point I thought I should investigate. It was surprising considering that the spyder was running really great. In checking I noticed that I was no longer in eco mode. Recently I started listening to the radio after shutdown by holding down on the mode button after key shutdown which probably turned off eco. In investigating the eco mode from 2015 threads I came across a chart that showed when in eco mode when accelerator was at max the throttle position was limited to 60%. I am now back in eco and will monitor what happens. With this new info I will in the future use more less than 91 to save some money but will make sure I have the good stuff in when I know I will be pushing the limits with the eco off.

[troop]

Well, that's interesting .... I went out and checked my 2014 RT which has the 1330 engine .... and after getting a magnifying glass out, I could read that sticker and yep, it says minimum 91 Octane .... I wonder why the owner's manual says "91 Octane RECOMMENDED"????? I'd be interested to know if that's what's needed to PASS the Emissions standards? There is information on that sticker that refers to emission requirements, as opposed to what the engine actually requires to function safely .... JMHO .... Mike

Yup .. Small print. Likely the very same sticker that's on my 2022. As in your 2014 manual, my 2019/2022 manual says 87 required/91 recommended.

[Dasmoetorhead]

Yup .. Small print. Likely the very same sticker that's on my 2022. As in your 2014 manual, my 2019/2022 manual says 87 required/91 recommended.

So that being said, it should end this discussion.

[troop]

So that being said, it should end this discussion.

Not likely ... The real end will be when BRP directly comes out and states "Minimum 91 octane required" in all their literature.

[racoon]

Why is it that people are having trouble accepting the information that BRP has published in the Operators Guide?

For my 2024 Spyder RT Sea-to-Sky it's on page 176 of the Operators Guide, that says minimum octane 87 and recommended octane 91?

[racoon]

So the discussion between 87 and 91 octane has been bothering me a bit, so I went looking for the information under the seat that PMK mentioned.

The sticker with the information that was mentioned earlier is right in the middle under the driver's seat. You can't even read all of it unless you open the driver's seat and stick your head under the seat.
And even then, I had to remove the rear seat to get the driver's seat high enough that I could see the sticker.

I can confirm it says 91 octane.

So which do we believe, that sticker that's nearly impossible to read, or the information in the Operator's Guide? Each of us has to decide for themselves. JM2C

[nhoj]

Why is it that people are having trouble accepting the information that BRP has published in the Operators Guide?

For my 2024 Spyder RT Sea-to-Sky it's on page 176 of the Operators Guide, that says minimum octane 87 and recommended octane 91?

The confusion it seems is for the 1330 based Spyders the Fuel specs appear in two places... I checked the manual(s) for our 2015 RTS & F3S, also for our 2023 RT(es).

In the "Basic Procedures Section"

Recommended Fuel
Use premium unleaded gasoline with
an AKI (RON+MON)/2 octane rating of
91, or an RON octane rating of 95.

Then in the Specifications section:

Minimum octane 87 Pump Posted AKI (RON+MON)/2
Recommended octane 91 Pump Posted AKI (RON+MON)/2

[troop]

The onus is solely on BRP. Their literature on fuel type is very misleading. An owner of a 1330cc motor has no liability if engine damage were to occur using 87 octane in a stock motor. Then again, who has ever heard of any engine damage using 87 octane fuel? Now, change exhaust or ECU settings and all bets are off. BRP would have a right to argue...

[IdahoMtnSpyder]

Not likely ... The real end will be when BRP directly comes out and states "Minimum 91 octane required" in all their literature.

What I find with a Google search is, 1) less than 20% of vehicle engines require the use of premium fuel, 2) use of premium in an engine which does not require it provides no benefit, 3) nowhere has any of us found a statement from BRP that says 91 octane is required. The environment does not benefit from the use of 91. The emissions from the engine are not reduced, and a refinery emits more pollution producing 91 than 87.

The only question we need an answer to is, "Why does BRP say 91 is recommended and not say 91 is required?" Required has a clear specific meaning in law and regulations. Recommended does not. And as has been the case several times in the history of the Spyder, we can rest assured BRP will never give us that answer.

[2dogs]

Probably because 91 gives you more power and economy.

[Mikey]

[PMK]

Why is it that people are having trouble accepting the information that BRP has published in the Operators Guide?

For my 2024 Spyder RT Sea-to-Sky it's on page 176 of the Operators Guide, that says minimum octane 87 and recommended octane 91?

For me, my best understanding in regards to the most updated and current info, is the placard on the vehicle.
Granted, the manual and placard should be the same.
Unless a revision is done to the manual, that information can become outdated and the placard decal, like an emissions placard, or A/C servicing placard, are the most current at the time the vehicle is completed, and delivered to the customer.

Consider this viewpoint. The manuals are printed many months before a Spyder is built. The production line specs, whether a torque spec, an updated part number / part spec, or even updated placard for fuel requirements, is done at the most up to date moment, when leaving the production facility.
Granted, a Spyder could be shipped to a dealer, and prior to delivery, a change could be made. The front pulley NHTSA recall being an example.

If Can Am had not provided a printed manual with your Spyder, but rather an easily updated electronic version, the decals wording might likely be amended, to read the info, followed by “or latest revision of the manual”.

No doubt a topic, with no clear cut right or wrong.

[PMK]

The onus is solely on BRP. Their literature on fuel type is very misleading. An owner of a 1330cc motor has no liability if engine damage were to occur using 87 octane in a stock motor. Then again, who has ever heard of any engine damage using 87 octane fuel? Now, change exhaust or ECU settings and all bets are off. BRP would have a right to argue...

Wanted to add a couple things.
Agree, we are not often hearing about, or reading about engine failures based on fuel octane. Then again, it is not likely, that those running lower octane fuels, will utilize the entire performance spectrum from 0 rpm at start, to 100% rpm during a ride, on every ride.
I fully agree that the lower octane and higher octane fuels will obtain similar mpg, on a typical ride. Typical leaning towards not reaching redline rpm each ride, or several times during each ride.

The owners that sometimes ride solo, and other times ride two up with loaded frunk, trunk, and sidebags, and / or dragging a loaded trailer, those type parameters, may be better served by higher octane.

Everyone is different, and to each their own regarding comfort level of the fuel octane utilized. Reasons vary, whether frugality, expected improved mpg, maybe more stable performance, or more.

Consider too, regarding US fuel, we have different blends, depending upon ambient climates.

Possibly, the higher octanes have improved specs regarding vapor lock type concerns.
At this point, all good, whatever you decide for feeding your Spyder. Ours will get the swill it has enjoyed since new.

[PMK]

Seems as though you are enjoying watching cruelty to animals with that reply.

Honestly, I have a few co workers over the years, sometimes engineers, sometimes just techs, they needed a good wack with the stick to beat the stupid out and common sense in.

Bring on the EV Spyders and the fuel octane debate becomes old news, for old Spyders…

[AndysF3S]

Seems as though you are enjoying watching cruelty to animals with that reply.

Honestly, I have a few co workers over the years, sometimes engineers, sometimes just techs, they needed a good wack with the stick to beat the stupid out and common sense in.

Bring on the EV Spyders and the fuel octane debate becomes old news, for old Spyders…

I hope the EV Spyders are a long time coming and I won't own one, but the debate will switch to what size charger should I be using and what is the better battery and there are always tires and oil!

[troop]

I hope the EV Spyders are a long time coming and I won't own one, but the debate will switch to what size charger should I be using and what is the better battery and there are always tires and oil!

And then, how are we going to acquire the electrical power? Coal? Solar? Nuclear? Two of the three are not EPA friendly. And battery disposal? China will no longer take them. Round and round we go

[Lew L]

And then, how are we going to acquire the electrical power? Coal? Solar? Nuclear? Two of the three are not EPA friendly. And battery disposal? China will no longer take them. Round and round we go

Ah - BUT they will happily take ore scrap copper and steel. Millions of tons and billions of dollars. (Yes, I looked up the amounts and couldn't believe it)

Bring back US steel!!!!!

[racoon]

Consider this viewpoint. The manuals are printed many months before a Spyder is built. The production line specs, whether a torque spec, an updated part number / part spec, or even updated placard for fuel requirements, is done at the most up to date moment, when leaving the production facility.

And the engines were designed, and the components manufactured many months before the engine was assembled, and then more time before the engine was installed in a motorcycle, and more time before the crated-up motorcycle arrived at a dealer to be assembled and prepped for sale.

And by the placard on the vehicle, I assume you mean the little sticker that's hidden under the driver's seat that is nearly impossible to get too? Yeah, those placards were also printed many months before the motorcycle was built, too.

And I have an electronic version of the 2024 Spyder RT Series Operators Guide. There are two places I found Copyright notices, and both show 2023:

Page 2: ©Bombardier Recreational Products Inc. (BRP) 2023
Page 220: ©2023 BOMBARDIER RECREATIONAL PRODUCTS INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

The electronic copy has the same Octane information as the printed Operators Guide.

So your suggestion that the printed operator's manual is out of date seems very weak, at least to me.

[PMK]

And the engines were designed, and the components manufactured many months before the engine was assembled, and then more time before the engine was installed in a motorcycle, and more time before the crated up motorcycle arrived at a dealer to be assembled and prepped for sale.

And by the placard on the vehicle I assume you mean the little sticker that's hidden under the driver's seat that is nearly impossible to get too?
And yeah, those placards were also printed many months before the motorcycle was built, too.

And I have an electronic version of the 2024 Spyder RT Series Operators Guide. There are two places I found Copyright notices, and both show 2023:

Page 2: ©Bombardier Recreational Products Inc. (BRP) 2023
Page 220: ©2023 BOMBARDIER RECREATIONAL PRODUCTS INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

And the electronic copy has the same Octane information as the printed Operators Guide.


So your suggestion that the printed operators manual is out of date seams very weak, at least to me.

As weak as my point of view seems, you will probably find, that while what you is logical sense, the placards on a vehicle are deemed most current at the time of manufacture. Changes thereafter, could be more current.

As an example, the manufacture date decal / placard, on the rear suspension swingarm, has a manufacturers production date of January 12, 2023.
That date of January 12, 2023 is the latest revision of the unit and appendages added as dealer installed options. Manuals dated prior to the January 12, 2023 date are actually deemed out of date, unless the vehicle produced, and the technical information match.

If a change were made to the vehicle during production, the applicable manuals (Parts Manual, Service Manual, Service Bulletins, and even, the Operators Manual) should be revised.

The manufacturer certainly would not be willing to scrap outdated, incorrect owners manuals.

The easiest and best BRP could offer for owners, is to offer a revision notification service, via email, providing updated manual pages, that could be printed, and added to the operator manual.

Ironic, that’s how my preference is, but…
Can Am has spoken out and this link states the Can Am Motherships advice for best practices to owners about the fuel.

https://can-am.brp.com/on-road/us/en...otorcycle.html

[racoon]

Can Am has spoken out and this link states the Can Am Motherships advice for best practices to owners about the fuel.

https://can-am.brp.com/on-road/us/en...otorcycle.html

Interesting link, but it proves my point more than yours.

The first sentence in the first paragraph on that page is:

"It is always best to refer to the Operator's Guide for your Can-Am for fuel requirements for your specific model and engine."

[PMK]

Interesting link, but it proves my point more than yours.

The first sentence in the first paragraph on that page is:

"It is always best to refer to the Operator's Guide for your Can-Am for fuel requirements for your specific model and engine."

Reread what I posted

I did agree with you by posting that link

[troop]

I think this sentence sums it up .. " For Spyder models, your machine will perform to its highest potential and best performance on 91-octane fuel with no ethanol. That said, you will not damage anything if you use 87-octane fuel with no more than 10% ethanol, it just won’t perform top(sic) its full potential."

[mecsw500]

Need to be aware that North America uses the average of MON+RON ratings (also know as AKI = (MON+RON)/2). I think Australia like the EU uses just the RON rating (or E10 perhaps). 91 to 94 octane in North America is premium (94 most places, 91 here at 5,000+ feet). I think if you are running 91 RON octane in Australia I think you are running way too low a grade as that would be like 87 or 85 AKI rating here in North America.

Note grade has nothing to do with quality, it's just that higher octane ratings burn with a slower flame front for higher compression engines. Most gas/petrol here in the North America is both unleaded and 10% Ethanol. You can find Ethanol free but it costs a lot more. After many, many years of running both older and new vehicles on both unleaded and 10 % Ethanol fuel I've never had any problems. I run my 2022 Spyder RT LTD on 91 AKI octane 10% Ethanol with no issues, but I live at 5,000 feet so 91 AKI octane is rated as premium as the 15% lower air density doesn't require has high an AKI rating. I doubt anywhere in Australia worries about altitude for the RON octane rating required. If I lived at sea level I would probably run whatever premium is there, usually 94 AKI.

I think using 98 RON octane in Australia is also better for your catalytic converter as that's 50 parts per million sulfur/sulphur rather than the 150 part per million of 91 RON octane. Compared with Europe, Australian gas/petrol seems to be rated for E3 and E4 emissions vehicles, unlike the E6 ratings now found on European vehicles. Australia's gas/petrol does seem to have very high Sulfur/Sulphur content.

You mileage may vary, of course in this case quite literally.

[Peter Aawen]

Need to be aware that North America uses the average of MON+RON ratings (also know as AKI = (MON+RON)/2). I think Australia like the EU uses just the RON rating (or E10 perhaps). 91 to 94 octane in North America is premium (94 most places, 91 here at 5,000+ feet). I think if you are running 91 RON octane in Australia I think you are running way too low a grade as that would be like 87 or 85 AKI rating here in North America.

... snip .... I doubt anywhere in Australia worries about altitude for the RON octane rating required. If I lived at sea level I would probably run whatever premium is there, usually 94 AKI.

....

As nhoj quoted in post #182 earlier,

Recommended Fuel
Use premium unleaded gasoline with
an AKI (RON+MON)/2 octane rating of
91, or an RON octane rating of 95.

here in Oz, where our 'Standard' ULP is 91 RON (basically equivalent to your 85 or 87 AKI over there) the Recommended fuel for Spyders is 95 RON, altho they will 'run' on our 91... just not so well. Both 95 & 98 RON are considered 'Premium' over here, AND we can have Ethanol added to our fuel too. Usually the Ethanol stuff is somewhat cheaper than the 'equivalent' non-ethanol gas, and anything under 10% doesn't need to be stated/declared at retail selling points but is often clearly identifiable by the lower price; while anything 10% or over must be clearly labelled & identified; and we can get up to E85, which is usually only used in specially manufactured & appropriately tuned vehicles!

Back to the good stuff - before I got the ECU Upgrade done on my V-Twin RT, it would run 'OK' on our 91 RON, but it did get noticeably better milage & performance on 95 or 98 RON (I run log-books, & meticulously track all of this sorta stuff & more! ) After the ECU Upgrade, the high revving high compression V-Twin really only just 'tolerates' 91 RON, and full throttle applications are not enjoyable for me or the engine, so it's an 'only in emergencies' thing now!! But the RT still runs as perfectly as I can measure on 95 RON; and the only time 98 makes ANY measurable difference that I can detect (apart from to my wallet! ) is on the track, where there's a measurable performance gain - not a massive gain, but it IS measurable, even with just a stop-watch!

Altho anywhere but the track, there's just no point for me in running 98 RON, cos not only is 98 RON significantly more expensive than 95 RON, but there's just NO milage advantage; in fact, for me/my Spyder/its tune, there's a penalty - when I'm just cruising along & staying within the speed limit on 95 RON, I'll reliably get 38-40 mpg for tank after tank; cruising the same distances/speeds/roads on 98 RON, I NEVER get better than 35 mpg, and usually won't get better than about 31-32 mpg... So when you consider that our 'usual cruises/trips' are at least 1000 km one way, and that we're paying a bit over $2.00 per litre for 95 RON & at least 20-25 cents per litre more than that for 98 RON (often more!) - the less range I get from 98 RON not only puts us at risk of running out of gas between some of the servo's (that are frequently 320 km/200 or so miles apart in our wide open spaces) but it also adds the need for an extra couple of tanks full of gas to do that sorta trip length, and ALL THAT means that if I'm running 98 RON, we hafta carry extra gas &/or it costs something like an extra $100 just to get there!!

So I run 95 RON whenever I can, apart from on the occasional track day where I am chasing the last smidgeon of extra performance.

Ps: We do have lower emission standards here than in Europe & many other countries, so we don't always get the latest & 'greatest' models of vehicles & our fuel isn't always of the highest quality when it comes to emissions etc. And we DO have some areas where 'high altitude' &/or 'Alpine Fuel' is not only a good idea, but in certain times of the year, it's essential - sure, our Great Dividing Range isn't anywhere near as high as the Rockies or many of the North American 'high altitudes', but they are high enough, and extensive enough too! Besides, in most of our higher reaches, we've got the added issue of dealing with high ambient temps for much of the year too; so we don't get any benefit from the colder & therefore denser/better oxygen content per cylinder you generally get over there as you climb!! So 'Alpine Fuel' is actually a pretty big thing here, even if the majority of the population is never impacted or even aware of it!