Will Using 87 Octane impact performance?

[old Timer]

Not to start up a fuel debate but just to broaden the perspective a bit. I always saw to it that I fed my animals and family with the best and most healthy food products available, and I do the same with my equipment. In short, the difference in my neck of the woods between a tank of 87 and 91 is about a buck and a quarter. That's in part because I tend to fuel up when I still have a gallon left in my tank; for obvious reasons. So, a hundred and twenty-five cents per fill up seems to me to bargain when I'm relying on a machine to give me the best performance and reliability possible. The truth be known, I probably treat my spyder better than myself given some of the crap food I indulge in. But that's a story for another day. Feed your beast the best and it will reward you for it.

With all due respect, to equate running the higher octane fuel because it is the BEST is in all reality a marketing gimmick. 91 is no better as in best than 87 they are both equally good with for all practical purposes being only how easy it is to light off and how quickly the flame front travels. The higher the octane the slower the flame front and the harder it is to light off, that is why you run hi octane in hi compression engines. It is actually more complicated than that. Our three cylinder engines have more advanced combustion chambers than the v twins of earlier Spyders. Another complication, at higher elevations with its lower air pressure, negates even more the use of the so called premium or 91. If you are not getting pre ignition or detonation, you are good to go.

The issues are more complicated than presented here,however the bottom line with our Spyders is running the higher octane 'premium' is only for our ego, not for any benefits.

[BajaRon]

With all due respect, to equate running the higher octane fuel because it is the BEST is in all reality a marketing gimmick. 91 is no better as in best than 87 they are both equally good with for all practical purposes being only how easy it is to light off and how quickly the flame front travels. The higher the octane the slower the flame front and the harder it is to light off, that is why you run hi octane in hi compression engines. It is actually more complicated than that. Our three cylinder engines have more advanced combustion chambers than the v twins of earlier Spyders. Another complication, at higher elevations with its lower air pressure, negates even more the use of the so called premium or 91. If you are not getting pre ignition or detonation, you are good to go.

The issues are more complicated than presented here,however the bottom line with our Spyders is running the higher octane 'premium' is only for our ego, not for any benefits.

While I agree that running high octane fuel at high altitudes is not wise. Nor, can you usually find it at all up there. I don't understand how that translates to being a waste of money at lower altitudes (below 4,000 ft)

It used to be detrimental to run the wrong octane in an engine. Sometimes fatally detrimental. The fact that computers have eliminated this danger by being able to detune the ignition process on the fly to reduce combustion chamber temps is a far cry from there being no difference. Neither are physics and ego the same thing.

I am all for running 87 octane ethanol fuel in your Spyder if that's what you want to do. But wanting us to believe that it doesn't matter. Or that the manufactures are lying to us about how they engineered the vehicle is asking a lot.

[BLUEKNIGHT911]

For all of those who love 91 or 93 octane because of it's PERFORMANCE factor ..... show me the Dyno numbers. I don't actually doubt the performance should be better ..... what I want to know is .....HOW MUCH ..... Then I can decide if it's worth the extra .70 per gal. it will cost me ..... Mike

[CloverHillCrawler]

This video shows just that and basically it comes down to being tuned to run 91 or above. Without changing your tune there is not that much performance difference but change your tune to match your fuel and yes there is a significant difference.

I don't know if the way that the spyder "adjusts" itself for fuel would take advantage of the fuel or detune the performance in order to maintain a status quo.

You would need to get one of the monster guys or some of other tuning specialist that frequent the site to explain it to us.

But I like his summary.

If you are going to run 87 be tuned

If you are going to run 93 be tuned

if you are going to run 93 in a 87 tune you will be ok with no significant performance difference.

If you are going to run 87 in a 93 tune you will probably blow the f up!...

[BLUEKNIGHT911]

This video shows just that and basically it comes down to being tuned to run 91 or above. Without changing your tune there is not that much performance difference but change your tune to match your fuel and yes there is a significant difference.

I don't know if the way that the spyder "adjusts" itself for fuel would take advantage of the fuel or detune the performance in order to maintain a status quo.

You would need to get one of the monster guys or some of other tuning specialist that frequent the site to explain it to us.

But I like his summary.

If you are going to run 87 be tuned

If you are going to run 93 be tuned

if you are going to run 93 in a 87 tune you will be ok with no significant performance difference.

If you are going to run 87 in a 93 tune you will probably blow the f up!...

Thanks for the video ..... what it proved to me was for Spyders all you have to do to get more noticeable Power is to spend $ 400.00 on an ECU tune. .... not exactly apples to apples is it ..... I want to be shown that if you have a stock Spyder ( which 95+% of the spyders are ) and you run 91 + octane, what is the increase going to be ?????? .... Mike

[BajaRon]

For all of those who love 91 or 93 octane because of it's PERFORMANCE factor ..... show me the Dyno numbers. I don't actually doubt the performance should be better ..... what I want to know is .....HOW MUCH ..... Then I can decide if it's worth the extra .70 per gal. it will cost me ..... Mike

Now, that's a worthy question. But I'm afraid the answer will not be universal. Because the logical advantage to using higher octane would rise or fall depending on ambient factors at the time of testing. Temperature, most likely, being a big one.

On my GS test, I was consistently getting 10%~15% better fuel mileage with Premium ethanol fuel. @ $3.00 a gallon for regular, that's only $0.30~$0.45 per gallon savings. But it also discounts the added power that produced the increased mileage.

In the end, it all comes down to personal preference. My only issue with the discussion is the premise that you're going to get identical results regardless of what octane is used.

I too would love to see a dyno test on a hot day. Though whatever the results might be. I doubt it would lay this discussion to rest.

[BLUEKNIGHT911]

Now, that's a worthy question. But I'm afraid the answer will not be universal. Because the logical advantage to using higher octane would rise or fall depending on ambient factors at the time of testing. Temperature, most likely, being a big one.

On my GS test, I was consistently getting 10%~15% better fuel mileage with Premium ethanol fuel. @ $3.00 a gallon for regular, that's only $0.30~$0.45 per gallon savings. But it also discounts the added power that produced the increased mileage.

In the end, it all comes down to personal preference. My only issue with the discussion is the premise that you're going to get identical results regardless of what octane is used.

I too would love to see a dyno test on a hot day. Though whatever the results might be. I doubt it would lay this discussion to rest.

the discussion is not likely to cease ( like tires , oil, psi's etc. ) if a Dyno is used by a competent operator, it would go a long way to achieving a definitive answer, because the multitude of variables could be equalized .... however no one is likely to do this , certainly not BRP........ JMHO ....Mike

[2dogs]

With all due respect, to equate running the higher octane fuel because it is the BEST is in all reality a marketing gimmick. 91 is no better as in best than 87 they are both equally good with for all practical purposes being only how easy it is to light off and how quickly the flame front travels. The higher the octane the slower the flame front and the harder it is to light off, that is why you run hi octane in hi compression engines. It is actually more complicated than that. Our three cylinder engines have more advanced combustion chambers than the v twins of earlier Spyders. Another complication, at higher elevations with its lower air pressure, negates even more the use of the so called premium or 91. If you are not getting pre ignition or detonation, you are good to go.

The issues are more complicated than presented here,however the bottom line with our Spyders is running the higher octane 'premium' is only for our ego, not for any benefits.

Tell that to my vet. Basically, I came up with the same conclusion when I built my 350 into a 383, with a mild cam, just so I could pass smog. I have to detune it to pass smog. When I'm done with smog I tune it back up. However, when I go out of state and fuel up with real gas I will realize significant changes in power and MPG on the trip back home. For the same reason as shown in the video, Monster Flash says to NOT run 87 in their performance turned stage 2 ECUs. Prior to installing stage 2, I found the same results as Ron did when using 91 over 87. A slight increase in power, particularly when going uphill, and a small increase in MPGs. After spending hours doing research (online) opinions abound, coming from all directions. So without being tuned for a specific octane all the butt dinos out there are just that, opinions. However, that being said, those of us who keep close track of MPGs do tend to show some slight credibility on increased MPGs with a stock ECU when using 91.

[Big F]

don't believe everything you read.. I have had 5 Spyders over the past 12 years + (990's and 1330's) and tested each one using 87 octane vs 91 octane and found there is absolutely no difference in engine performance! save your money and use 87 octane and ride happy and safe!
BIG F

[baxter]

just finished 2700 mile trip through Northeast in five days. use 87 octane and averaged 39 mpg. no problems climbing hills and running highway speeds all day.

[BajaRon]

just finished 2700 mile trip through Northeast in five days. use 87 octane and averaged 39 mpg. no problems climbing hills and running highway speeds all day.

If not having problems is your primary criteria. Then you are fine using BRP oil and running low octane ethanol fuel. Both will get you down the road and back reliably. The owner's manual clearly states that this will be the case. I don't think anyone disagrees.

However, if a person wants optimum performance, then they will have to use products that can deliver it. The owner's manual also makes this clear. In my experience, both statements in the owner's manual are accurate.

The amount of difference in performance is an unanswered question and will vary. Leaving it up to the rider to determine if there is enough value in using higher grade products to warrant their use. Just as it is with any other component.

[CdnF3Rider]

From what I notice, a lot depends on your riding style. You will not hear the knocking in a newer engine as stated in this chat. Your Spyder will adjust the timing etc. to compensate. The 1330 is high compression and if your riding style lands you in the 29-34+ MPG camp I would say you are not going to notice. If however your average MPG is around 22-24 because of an aggressive riding style then you might notice a slight performance downgrade. There is only so much spark and timing it can compensate for.

I get 6.5-6.7L/100km or 35-36MPG on a regular basis. So far I have been using 91 octane and see no reason to switch.

[Bangorbob]

I use 87 in my 20 RTL and notice I get like a ping when I take off from a start. Doesn't happen when I use 89 or higher. Same thing happened on my 16 RT. I live at 2700 above sea level. ????

[Knizar]

I use 87 in my 20 RTL and notice I get like a ping when I take off from a start. Doesn't happen when I use 89 or higher. Same thing happened on my 16 RT. I live at 2700 above sea level. ????

We have NO problem with 87 octane in Minnesota @ 1050 feet ASL on our 1330 RTL's

[FrogmanDave]

I use 87 in my 20 RTL and notice I get like a ping when I take off from a start. Doesn't happen when I use 89 or higher. Same thing happened on my 16 RT. I live at 2700 above sea level. ????

This is exactly correct. For some reason people refuse to acknowledge or believe it. Put your Pedal Commander in Sport mode and try accelerating open throttle from a dead stop. You will not believe the pinging with 87 octane. Now I realize this is not a stock application but it proves the point that the ignition cannot keep up with the detonation using lower octane fuels. The same is true for stock just not as pronounced.

[Bangorbob]

This is exactly correct. For some reason people refuse to acknowledge or believe it. Put your Pedal Commander in Sport mode and try accelerating open throttle from a dead stop. You will not believe the pinging with 87 octane. Now I realize this is not a stock application but it proves the point that the ignition cannot keep up with the detonation using lower octane fuels. The same is true for stock just not as pronounced.

Here we go. I'll probably get negative feed back, but real life stuff proves some times what people/mgfrs say is not allows true. I filled up with 89 octane and guess what? NO ping. I will try using 87 again and then 89 after that. IF I get no ping I will be using 89 from here on. Just my not professional experiment.

[BLUEKNIGHT911]

This is exactly correct. For some reason people refuse to acknowledge or believe it. Put your Pedal Commander in Sport mode and try accelerating open throttle from a dead stop. You will not believe the pinging with 87 octane. Now I realize this is not a stock application but it proves the point that the ignition cannot keep up with the detonation using lower octane fuels. The same is true for stock just not as pronounced.

I was concerned with using 87 octane a long time ago also .... after I got my 14RT w/ 1330 engine I asked my best friend and Master Mechanic (who also built Drag Bike engines) to see what He thought ..... He could not detect any PINGING w/87 oct + ethyl, he even checked it using a stethoscope and still no pinging ...... Maybe I got a Wednesday built engine and it's just way above what normally comes from BRP ..... Yeah, MAYBE????? ..... JMHO .... Mike
I do agree that if you Hop up your engine .... Higher Octane is Necessary ..... but not for a Stock engine.

[Bangorbob]

I guess it may depend on where you live, what altitude, and what blend of corn/etc.

[ARtraveler]

Opinions good. Be nice to others who DON'T share YOUR opinion. This particular subject will NEVER be solved.

My first five years or so with the Spyder, I used the highest octane I could find. Then I changed to 87 pure (Alaska) and then 87 with 10% ethanol for the last four years when I moved to Arkansas. I detected NO performance issues. I am not an aggressive rider though. I thank BK for suggesting I try it. Saved me a bunch of money over the years. Here, the higher octanes can be a dollar more a gallon. I no longer have Spyders...so for me...the experiment worked satisfactorily. I use it in my car also.

[Bangorbob]

Wow! Don't share an opinion? What's wrong with an opinion IF it is stated as that persons. Discussions are based on a lot of things, facts, fiction, and opinions. I agree that we should play nice with each other and DON'T criticize someones thoughts/opinions.

[ARtraveler]

Wow! Don't share an opinion? What's wrong with an opinion IF it is stated as that persons. Discussions are based on a lot of things, facts, fiction, and opinions. I agree that we should play nice with each other and DON'T criticize someones thoughts/opinions.

Since you have chosen to call me out in public, I will answer you in public. As a moderator on the site, it is my job to keep peace on the site. My message was a "friendly reminder" to keep the thread friendly.

Opinions are always WELCOME here. Opinions are what makes our site great. When the opinionated person gets up on a soap box and starts to call others out because they are not in agreement...then...the problem begins.

It is nice to see you back posting again. We do enforce the site rules these days. We try to keep our site "family friendly" these days and do not allow troublemakers to rule the roost any more. I would recommend a re-read of the site rules.

[Bangorbob]

Got it. Just needed clarification. As usual I misread your previous post. When you leave one word out (my mistake reading) which is unfortunately happening is I get older. Sorry for any misunderstanding. That's my open apology to the site.

[mecsw500]

I think Australia uses the European method for octane rating calculation, not the averaging mechanism used in North America. The European rating is numerically higher that North America for the same gas/petrol.

Also, it depends on where the rider is at altitude. Here at 5,000 feet in the Western US 91 octane is considered premium rather that 93-95 at sea level. I imagine Australia is largely sea level.

So just beware when reading octane ratings from North American riders, it's not the same as in most of the rest of the world from what I can tell.

[Lew L]

.

Usually get 40 to 41 MPG. Aggressive rider and Spyder with intake mods and a Stage 1 tune. Happy with 91 oct fuel (not happy with fuel prices, but that another story). My Spyder will walk away from other similarly geared Spyders.

Lew L

[Bangorbob]

Well, I filled tank again with 89 and rode about 150 to death valley and back. BTW, it was 100 degrees in DV. Anyway, no ping at all. Also i check my mpg-36. It'll take it.