Gas - I tried 93... going back to 87!

[Zip]

In the recent past there have been a few threads about type of gas to use in Spyders. I have a 2010 RTSM5. I have used 87 octane since I purchased it 2 years ago and got a steady 32 MPG. After reading all the comments about gas I decided to try higher octane so over the last few weeks I put in 93 octane. My driving habits are the same and the area where I drive is flat. After 4 tank fulls with the 93 octane I have calculated 28 MPG, a loss of 4 MPG :yikes:and no noticeable change in power. But a change in cost at the pump to the tune of $0.30 more a gal. So as you can assume I will be going back to 87 octane.

 

[BLUEKNIGHT911]

Octane mis-conceptions

In the recent past there have been a few threads about type of gas to use in Spyders. I have a 2010 RTSM5. I have used 87 octane since I purchased it 2 years ago and got a steady 32 MPG. After reading all the comments about gas I decided to try higher octane so over the last few weeks I put in 93 octane. My driving habits are the same and the area where I drive is flat. After 4 tank fulls with the 93 octane I have calculated 28 MPG, a loss of 4 MPG :yikes:and no noticeable change in power. But a change in cost at the pump to the tune of $0.30 more a gal. So as you can assume I will be going back to 87 octane.

A higher ...OCTANE .. rating does not equal more Power ..... It actually slows down the burn to prevent "pinging". Compression ratio's play a factor in this ..... All modern combustion engines have computers that will prevent "pinging" to a large extent ..... However if you tried using say 80 Octane I'm not sure the Spyder would operate OK ..... I use 87 Oct in my 1330 and except for very slightly less power it runs fine - imho ....... Mike :thumbup:

 

[AY4B]

A higher ...OCTANE .. rating does not equal more Power ..... It actually slows down the burn , to prevent " pinging ". Compression ratio's play a factor in this ..... All modern combustion engines have computers that will prevent " pinging " to a large extent ..... However if you tried using say 80 Octane I'm not sure the Spyder would operate OK ..... I use 87 Oct. in my 1330 and except for very slightly less power it runs fine - imho ....... Mike :thumbup:

Mike, you contradicted yourself LOL

 

[Mad Mac]

I run 93 octane in our '14RTL, but I do it mainly due to the fact that it does sit for extended times and we have humidity here in Wisc. and I feel it attracts less moisture with less Ethanol, which our premium fuel has none where I buy it. I also put it up with a full tank when I know it's going to sit. When we are on a trip thru hot weather and pulling a trailer, I will put premium in it to give it a little extra safety margin from "pinging". Is it overkill? Probably. It's a mental thing and no exact science involved, but it makes me feel better. Mac:doorag:

 

[AY4B]

My owners manual permits 87 octane at a minimum. I read on another thread where someone discussed this with a BRP tech and they said the computer learns what you use and how you drive and over time tunes itself to that data. A sudden change either way may not be to your advantage right away.

 

[TerryGrodi]

GAS

I have ran 87 octane in my 2012 RTS SE5 since day one and have never had a problem. I get around 30 to 32 MPG and she runs just fine. I see no reason to spend the extra money on 91 or 93 octane gas. Spend the money you save on upgrades, at least you will get something in return.

 

[Bensonoid]

You probably get mostly 87 octane when you select a better grade anyway, because the hose and who knows how far back from there is full of the cheap stuff. You would have to hang around and get behind someone who just pumped the good stuff to get a full tank of it.

 

[ARtraveler]

Last fall I mentioned that I would be testing 87 octane in both my RT's this season. I am on the first tank for both now. When I get to about three tanks (to get most of the old gas out) I will let you folks know what I find.

I will try to give a "power" report as well as mpg compared to 90 octane that I have been using since day one. :thumbup:

 

[ofdave]

A drop of over 10% by switching to 93 octane is difficult to comprehend.
Perhaps it coincides with the industry using winter blend. Makes no sense at all.

And the pump hose and plumbing does not contain enough of what was previously pumped to make a difference. If you had a chance to view the plumbing you'd see much less than a gallon would be involved.
A 6 foot 3/4" hose contains less than 0.2 gal. So not much, if any, effect would be felt.

 

[jcthorne]

You probably get mostly 87 octane when you select a better grade anyway, because the hose and who knows how far back from there is full of the cheap stuff. You would have to hang around and get behind someone who just pumped the good stuff to get a full tank of it.

Old myth and simply untrue. The hose and small tube to the switching valve contains less than a quart of fuel. The testing apparatus used by the state to measure fuel volume and octane dispensed is only one gallon. The minimum octane is delivered as long as you dispense one gallon or more.

As for octane requirements, some of the older V-twins allowed less than premium fuel. In 2013 the requirement, as shown on the emissions label on the bike, changed to 91 octane minimum. I have been told it changed again in 2017 but have not seen one that did not state 91 octane minimum. The information in the owners manual is outdated and superseded by the information on the emissions label actually applied to the bike.

I can tell you that both of my personal Spyders, a 2013 RT and a 2015 F3 both ran mostly on 93 octane. The few instances when I have had to fuel with lesser fuel, the performance hit was very noticeable. Folks that use mostly 87 and go the other way will not notice the improvement as the change is much more gradual on the increase. Lowering octane causes the engine to ping and is captured and detuned very quickly by the knock sensor.

 

[jroberts650]

In the recent past there have been a few threads about type of gas to use in Spyders. I have a 2010 RTSM5. I have used 87 octane since I purchased it 2 years ago and got a steady 32 MPG. After reading all the comments about gas I decided to try higher octane so over the last few weeks I put in 93 octane. My driving habits are the same and the area where I drive is flat. After 4 tank fulls with the 93 octane I have calculated 28 MPG, a loss of 4 MPG :yikes:and no noticeable change in power. But a change in cost at the pump to the tune of $0.30 more a gal. So as you can assume I will be going back to 87 octane.

I have a 2010 also and have used 87, 89 and 93 before. I always use an ethanol treatment in every tank especially when storing for the winter. My best mileage was with 87 so I've always used that. Now what I have done is used 87 and 89 non ethanol fuel and that's when I had the best mileage. But not all stations have this available. My mileage is consistently 30-32 mpg with 87 and right at 34 with non ethanol.

 

[BLUEKNIGHT911]

Contridiction

Mike, you contradicted yourself LOL

I don't think so ...... so where/what is the is the contradiction ???????? .................LOL ...Mike :thumbup:

 

[WilderThomas]

Octane Used or Preferred

I have a 2010 also and have used 87, 89 and 93 before. I always use an ethanol treatment in every tank especially when storing for the winter. My best mileage was with 87 so I've always used that. Now what I have done is used 87 and 89 non ethanol fuel and that's when I had the best mileage. But not all stations have this available. My mileage is consistently 30-32 mpg with 87 and right at 34 with non ethanol.

I believe the owner's manual calls for 87 octane as a minimum, and 91 octane recommended inside North America. I have to wonder what BRP would say about using non ethanol fuel?

 

[Bob Denman]

If you can get it to burn: the bike's electronics will adapt, and you'll have no problems...
But if you want your bike performing at it's best: give it the stuff that BRP tells you to! nojoke

 

[AY4B]

I don't think so ...... so where / what is the is the contradiction ???????? .................LOL ...Mike :thumbup:

Yout post started out
"A higher ...OCTANE .. rating does not equal more Power "
and end the post with .... "I use 87 Oct. in my 1330 and except for very slightly less power... "[/COLOR][/COLOR]

 

[PistonBlown]

Just to confuse things further, and mainly for New Zealand, Australia and European Spyder Riders:

There are two ways to measure Petrol Octane - RON (Research Octane Number) and MON (Motor Octane Number). For the same grade gas the RON figure is always higher than the MON number.

In most countries the figure displayed at the Pump is the RON number.

In the US and Canada they do the average of both the RON and MON, which is normally called the Anti-Knock Index (AKI).

Because of this when it refers 87 in the BRP manual that would be equivalent to 91-92 outside of the US/Canada. 91 it would be around 95-97.

 

[old Timer]

I love how some ill informed call higher Octane fuel a "Better" fuel.

Higher Octane fuel is no "Better" than lower Octane, it even has the same additives.

The difference is, the higher the Octane the slower the flame front, ie burns slower and is harder to ignite.

Your engine will be the most efficient, ie better fuel mileage and more power using the lowest Octane fuel you can with out pre ignition or detonation.

Two other points to consider, the higher elevation you are riding at, then the lower Octane fuel required, and on real hot out side air temps (OAT) then you would want to run a higher Octane.

This all applies to naturally aspirated engines. Forced induction (Turbo charged or Supercharged) is another entire ball game.

Using Premium when not required is simply put, Stupid. Calling higher Octane Gasoline Premium is nothing more than a marketing ploy that works very well as most Premium fuel is sold to those that mistakenly think they are putting "Better" fuel in their hi priced Baby.

 

[jroberts650]

I believe the owner's manual calls for 87 octane as a minimum, and 91 octane recommended inside North America. I have to wonder what BRP would say about using non ethanol fuel?

I'm sure they would be supportive of using non ethanol. I've always been told to use it if that option was available. If you have ever seen the damage ethanol causes when it turns to corn syrup and gums up everything from injectors to a whole cylinder head assembly, you would cringe everytime you filled up with it.

 

[jcthorne]

I'm sure they would be supportive of using non ethanol. I've always been told to use it if that option was available. If you have ever seen the damage ethanol causes when it turns to corn syrup and gums up everything from injectors to a whole cylinder head assembly, you would cringe everytime you filled up with it.

Sorry but this is BS. I have been through the fuel systems on a number of vehicles that have run nothing but E10 fuel for hundreds of thousands of miles. Squeaky clean. ALL fuel systems in the last many years have been designed for it. The only real problems have been in older engines with fuel systems containing materials not compatible. E10 gas containing ethanol does NOT turn to corn syrup. Dont wish to debate the fallacy of using it in the first place, but its not a detriment to modern engines longevity.

 

[Bob Denman]

:agree: and BRP doesn't say anything at all about NOT using it in the bikes. :thumbup: