ANOTHER NAIL IN THE OCTANE COFFIN -- BUT . . .

[NancysToy]

As usual, we have a great many differing opinions here. All actually have some merit. For some people, their riding style and the climate can make the Spyder (or another vehicle) run worse when the engine heats, or at higher ambient temperatures. The engine management system can compensate for the tendency to knock under these conditions, but performance can be degraded to the point where it is horribly noticeable. My wife's HHR is a case in point. Never knocks on regular, but has no zip and runs poorly sometimes. Has plenty of go at all times on premium, and actually gets far better mileage.

One of the confusing factors is that everyone rides differently, and lives in a different area. That means that not only is the climate different, but the fuel supplies vary both regionally and seasonally. What is good for one rider may not work for another. To complicate matters, the Spyder has a relatively limited ability to compensate for higher or lower octane. While it may not knock as octane drops and temperatures rise, it may reach a point where it runs out of ability to compensate and acts up horribly. On the other side of the coin, it has little built in compensation to allow more ignition advance if the engine doesn't knock, so increased performance is less than what it might be. It is not capable of pushing your eyeballs to the back of your helmet just because you ran high octane fuel. As a result, we are all quite confused.

Run whatever kind of fuel seems to make both you and the Spyder happy. If you put 15,000 miles on your Spyder in a year, the difference between regular and premium fuel costs will only be $200. That won't buy many mods...and it won't put you in the poorhouse, either. You are the only one you need to please. No sense in trying to convince everyone else.

 

[dave01]

While in NC a few weeks ago, I came across fuel with no ethanol crap in it. I filled the spyder up at the same station 4 times, running regular grade and the spyder was a little quicker and had better throttle response. To get the same results with ethanol diluted fuel, I have to run 92-93 octane. I know this isnt proven/scientific/documented/controlled testing, but it works for me. I have one bike that wont run on anything less than 116 octane VP C-16 fuel with only 8:1 compression........till the turbo spools up. My quad manual says ONLY regular grade fuel since it is factory tuned t run on it and doesnt have all of the computers/fuel management stuff the spyder does.
Whatever works for each person should be good enough...IMHO:banghead:

 

[BLACK WIDOW]

As usual, we have a great many differing opinions here. All actually have some merit. For some people, their riding style and the climate can make the Spyder (or another vehicle) run worse when the engine heats, or at higher ambient temperatures. The engine management system can compensate for the tendency to knock under these conditions, but performance can be degraded to the point where it is horribly noticeable. My wife's HHR is a case in point. Never knocks on regular, but has no zip and runs poorly sometimes. Has plenty of go at all times on premium, and actually gets far better mileage.

One of the confusing factors is that everyone rides differently, and lives in a different area. That means that not only is the climate different, but the fuel supplies vary both regionally and seasonally. What is good for one rider may not work for another. To complicate matters, the Spyder has a relatively limited ability to compensate for higher or lower octane. While it may not knock as octane drops and temperatures rise, it may reach a point where it runs out of ability to compensate and acts up horribly. On the other side of the coin, it has little built in compensation to allow more ignition advance if the engine doesn't knock, so increased performance is less than what it might be. It is not capable of pushing your eyeballs to the back of your helmet just because you ran high octane fuel. As a result, we are all quite confused.

Run whatever kind of fuel seems to make both you and the Spyder happy. If you put 15,000 miles on your Spyder in a year, the difference between regular and premium fuel costs will only be $200. That won't buy many mods...and it won't put you in the poorhouse, either. You are the only one you need to please. No sense in trying to convince everyone else.

You are totally right about that. I knew a fellow once that was totally convinced that it was a waste of money to change oil in his car because he rationalized that the filter would clean his oil and that was all he changed. It didn't matter what he read or what he was told that is what he thought.

 

[bjt]

.
They had aviation back then, Scotty?

.

He had a few options...

 

[Firefly]

As usual, we have a great many differing opinions here. All actually have some merit. For some people, their riding style and the climate can make the Spyder (or another vehicle) run worse when the engine heats, or at higher ambient temperatures. The engine management system can compensate for the tendency to knock under these conditions, but performance can be degraded to the point where it is horribly noticeable. My wife's HHR is a case in point. Never knocks on regular, but has no zip and runs poorly sometimes. Has plenty of go at all times on premium, and actually gets far better mileage.

One of the confusing factors is that everyone rides differently, and lives in a different area. That means that not only is the climate different, but the fuel supplies vary both regionally and seasonally. What is good for one rider may not work for another. To complicate matters, the Spyder has a relatively limited ability to compensate for higher or lower octane. While it may not knock as octane drops and temperatures rise, it may reach a point where it runs out of ability to compensate and acts up horribly. On the other side of the coin, it has little built in compensation to allow more ignition advance if the engine doesn't knock, so increased performance is less than what it might be. It is not capable of pushing your eyeballs to the back of your helmet just because you ran high octane fuel. As a result, we are all quite confused.

Run whatever kind of fuel seems to make both you and the Spyder happy. If you put 15,000 miles on your Spyder in a year, the difference between regular and premium fuel costs will only be $200. That won't buy many mods...and it won't put you in the poorhouse, either. You are the only one you need to please. No sense in trying to convince everyone else.

Very well put indeed.

The problem I see with end-user MPG ratings is that there are too many variables for anyone to get accurate results. You would have to fill the tank exactly each time, ride the same roads - in the same weather - with the same shifting and throttle each time. These variables in riding can easily make a 5 mpg shift--- something 'premium' fuel isn't going to do -- at least not on the Spyder. This is evidenced by the well-known difference between highway and city mpg ratings--- and we all know what a difference there is between those two.

 

[BLACK WIDOW]

MPG

Very well put indeed.

The problem I see with end-user MPG ratings is that there are too many variables for anyone to get accurate results. You would have to fill the tank exactly each time, ride the same roads - in the same weather - with the same shifting and throttle each time. These variables in riding can easily make a 5 mpg shift--- something 'premium' fuel isn't going to do -- at least not on the Spyder. This is evidenced by the well-known difference between highway and city mpg ratings--- and we all know what a difference there is between those two.

As you have correctly stated the comparison of fuel economy is very subjective at best, and almost impossible to do any direct comparisons because of the variables you mentioned. I am really not concerned with any difference in the fuel economy, for me that is a moot point. The performance is my issue more than anything else. I for one am very willing to pay a few more cents per gallon for what I believe is better performance. If I didn't think performance was better I certainly wouldn't spend that extra dime. This is just my opinion and observations, others may vary.:thumbup:


Michael:doorag:

 

[kman]

opcorn:

 

[3wheeldemon]

:roflblack: :roflblack::roflblack:

 

[BajaRon]

:roflblack: :roflblack::roflblack:

Uh... It's raining here in East Tennessee. So on days like this it's more fun to :bdh:

 

[NancysToy]

...and for those of you who have made carefully (or not so carefully) disguised remarks about my age......if you think that's bad, you should see the odometer! :roflblack:

Pterodactyl Airlines Welcomes you aboard for you flight. Please fasten your seatbelts.

 

[Firefly]

As you have correctly stated the comparison of fuel economy is very subjective at best, and almost impossible to do any direct comparisons because of the variables you mentioned. I am really not concerned with any difference in the fuel economy, for me that is a moot point. The performance is my issue more than anything else. I for one am very willing to pay a few more cents per gallon for what I believe is better performance. If I didn't think performance was better I certainly wouldn't spend that extra dime. This is just my opinion and observations, others may vary.:thumbup:


Michael:doorag:

:agree:

I'm all about wanting performance--- and if I find out there is a benefit of running higher octane in the Spyder---- I could be converted. Thus far - I've just not seen any extra benefit --- mine runs the same no matter what.

If I dive into the engine and do some performance upgrades---- I'll have no choice but to switch gas.....

 

[Star Cruiser]

:agree:When I bought the Spyder I ran nothing but 87 octane for about the first 3000 miles. Then I tried the 91 octane and noticed the spyder ran much better with improved acceleration and better response in 5th gear at highway speeds.. The Spyder will definately run on 87 octane (there is no question about that) but it runs much better with the 91. I am sure that some will say they noticed no difference, so for them the 87 should be good to go but for me it's 91 octane.

Michael:doorag:

Interesting - I didn't realize that sensors would prevent the knocking (perhaps at the expense of some power). I have always been a proponent of not using higher octane if there was no knock. I think I would try a tank or two of higher octane and see if there is a percievable difference. It is quite a bit more expensive in Canada for higher Octane. (62¢ per US gal more). $3.34 for regular $3.96 for Premium), so I'd only switch for a noticable difference. BUT it is worth a try,. Thanks for the education

 

[BLACK WIDOW]

octane

Interesting - I didn't realize that sensors would prevent the knocking (perhaps at the expense of some power). I have always been a proponent of not using higher octane if there was no knock. I think I would try a tank or two of higher octane and see if there is a percievable difference. It is quite a bit more expensive in Canada for higher Octane. (62¢ per US gal more). $3.34 for regular $3.96 for Premium), so I'd only switch for a noticable difference. BUT it is worth a try,. Thanks for the education

Try it you may like it----I did.

Michael:doorag:

 

[ataDude]

...and for those of you who have made carefully (or not so carefully) disguised remarks about my age......if you think that's bad, you should see the odometer! :roflblack:

Pterodactyl Airlines Welcomes you aboard for you flight. Please fasten your seatbelts.

.

 

[BajaRon]

Interesting - I didn't realize that sensors would prevent the knocking (perhaps at the expense of some power). I have always been a proponent of not using higher octane if there was no knock. I think I would try a tank or two of higher octane and see if there is a percievable difference. It is quite a bit more expensive in Canada for higher Octane. (62¢ per US gal more). $3.34 for regular $3.96 for Premium), so I'd only switch for a noticable difference. BUT it is worth a try,. Thanks for the education

That is a tough call at $.62 per gallon more for premium. Here it's around $.20 more a gallon.

I seem to be getting about 10% better fuel mileage with Premium on the freeway. Around town it's probably not that much different. For long distance driving the additional mileage pretty much pays for the additional cost of premium.

But at your prices it would take a much bigger improvement to make a dollars and cents reason to switch.

 

[Star Cruiser]

Think that is the correct advice for most autos that run lower compression.
I also think that 10.8/1 is high compression in my book, so I guess that is why I run 87 in the autos and 91 in the Spyder.


Michael:doorag:

Mike,
I wanted to get back to you. As you might know I have been a proponent of "if it ain't knocking, stick with regular grade". You mentioned about the computer retarding the timing to prevent knock, and that made sense. I have read that if the compression is greater than 10.5 to 1 it is considered "High Compression".
I've run a couple of tanks of Premium (91 octane) and it might be psychological, but it feels like more performance to me. No difference in milage or anything. There is still no "knock", but I seem to feel better acceleration. For the extra $2.50 or $3.00 a tank I think I'll stick with premium, at least for awhile to get some more comparisons back and forth with different octane ratings. "Almost" converted

 

[BLACK WIDOW]

octane

Mike,
I wanted to get back to you. As you might know I have been a proponent of "if it ain't knocking, stick with regular grade". You mentioned about the computer retarding the timing to prevent knock, and that made sense. I have read that if the compression is greater than 10.5 to 1 it is considered "High Compression".
I've run a couple of tanks of Premium (91 octane) and it might be psychological, but it feels like more performance to me. No difference in milage or anything. There is still no "knock", but I seem to feel better acceleration. For the extra $2.50 or $3.00 a tank I think I'll stick with premium, at least for awhile to get some more comparisons back and forth with different octane ratings. "Almost" converted

Yes, that is also my experience and won't use anything but 91 octane. I certainly wouldn't use it if I couldn't tell the difference.nojoke

Michael:doorag:

 

[boborgera]

Yes, that is also my experience and won't use anything but 91 octane. I certainly wouldn't use it if I couldn't tell the difference.nojoke

Michael:doorag:

:agree::clap: That's all i use [91/93]. It's for better performance, At least in my humble opinion. And better performance = better MPG. That is With every thing else being equal.