Guess when I used Premium vs Regular

[IdahoMtnSpyder]

I'm doing this poll mostly for fun with a 10 day time frame. But in all seriousness I also would like for us to get an idea of just how meaningless some of our debates over gas mileage really can be!

This is in follow up to this thread http://www.spyderlovers.com/forums/showthread.php?109130-Average-MPG-Display where I said keeping track of MPG of a Spyder is pretty much an exercise in futility and I would post graphs showing why I say that. Here are four graphs of my MPG for the summer riding seasons of 2016 and 2017. Pay attention to the Y axis scale. It's not the same on all four graphs in order to make the variation in MPG more clear.

This one is my MPG at each fill up.



This one is the running average MPG over 4 fills.



This one is the running average MPG over 10 fills. Even over 10 fills MPG varies, but naturally not nearly as much as fill to fill.



And this one is the average over all the miles on the Spyder.



As you can see gas mileage goes up and down like a kid on a trampoline. The only one that is really informative is the all mileage average, and in my case it is constantly changing. Now, can you tell from the graphs above which season I ran premium gas and which season I ran regular? Many of the members here have vigorously argued they can clearly tell a difference. My driving habits have been basically the same each season and the Spyder has been the same each season. I do have an F4 tall and wide windshield which is full up most all the time, so that undoubtedly has an impact on mileage. Most of my driving is on highways at 70+ MPH. As we all know, speed hurts MPG!

I also had one long trip pulling a trailer. Can you tell when it was?

 

[old Timer]

You get the best mileage and best power with the lowest Octane you can use with out detonation or pre ignition.

Premium is not a "higher quality" or "Better" fuel, it actually burns slower and is harder to light off. A lot more can be said about this.


So I suspect that running regular gave you better fuel mileage. Most people run Premium foolishly, an ego thing in most cases.

 

[Boilermaker]

Premium an ego thing? First time I ever heard that one. :roflblack: I'd run jet fuel in mine if that were the case.

 

[SPECTACUALR SPIDERMAN]

i have read it is best to run manufacturers recommendation

 

[Mr. White]

I use regular in my Wing and Spyder. I also used regular in my '95 Wing and my 2011 Spyder. I get 32 mpg on my Wing (36 before I triked it in '05) and 34-36 on Mr. Cognac. Our local Wal Mart has ethanol free gas which I have used several times. I can't tell the difference so back to regular. The ethanol free is the same price at premium..... On the Interstate I run the speed limit plus 2 (75 and 80 in west TX) and in hills, I run with my crowd.

:spyder2:

 

[Bob Denman]

Premium here... unless I'm forced to run 87 octane.
I once did some testing, and found that my 2010 (998) got significantly better mileage with 91 octane: 9%
My 2014 (1330) didn't seem to be affected by the octane levels: mileages were unchanged.

 

[blacklightning]

I have always used premium in my motorcycles, unless I could not purchase anything else.
Well, earlier this month at the spyder rally in Maggie Valley, I experimented with using regular, and I actually got 1-3 more mpg. I still prefer premium, but if I am going to go through a full tank of gas (a 200 mile ride or more), then I will sometimes use regular. I figure at highway speeds it will probably not make a difference.

 

[Buckeye Chuck 54]

Regular or premium.

I read some months back in Rider magazine in letters to the editor, a reader asked this, regular or premium. The reply stated in a liquid cooled engine the combustion chamber will stay at a more constant temperature than an air cooled engine. An air cooled engine when in stop and go traffic, the combustion chamber can get very hot and running regular gas "detonation" and "pinging" can occur. My '14 RT-S has a temperature gauge that rarely moves at all, once the engine has been run, of course. Even in hot summer riding. My RT has quite a few miles on it, nearing 145,000 miles and have been running regular gas since it had about 43,000. Haven't had any problems yet.
Chuck

 

[Chupaca]

How much difference....

For the most part I have found little difference and for the price per tank on the spyder not much either. Being in CA we have some wierd fuel mixtures they stick us with ( summer blend, winter blend, hollywood blend...:roflblack the only time I noticed a big change was when I was in a hurry and found a free pump only to find out I had filled up with racing fuel...wow..The only other thing to consider is the additives they put in the more expensive fuels :thumbup:

 

[Big F]

You get the best mileage and best power with the lowest Octane you can use with out detonation or pre ignition.

Premium is not a "higher quality" or "Better" fuel, it actually burns slower and is harder to light off. A lot more can be said about this.


So I suspect that running regular gave you better fuel mileage. Most people run Premium foolishly, an ego thing in most cases.

Finally, someone says it like it is! meaning the ego thing as I cannot see any noticable difference in the two octanes with my 2014 RT Limited..
BIG F

 

[Dmetcalf]

I run premium all of the time

I’m sure I’ll get flamed on this but I chose to run premium gas in my $30K machine. It runs great on it and I don’t mind paying the extra for it.

 

[Easy Rider]

I’m sure I’ll get flamed on this but I chose to run premium gas in my $30K machine. It runs great on it and I don’t mind paying the extra for it.

AND......that's what BRP recommends.

Doing that in a machine that doesn't in any way need it is just foolish.......whether you "mind" or not.

 

[Bfromla]

:thumbup: Thanks for trying, actually going to try my own test next year too, with trailer mode on but no trailer. Will be different I'm sure with the new EPA minimums & other ethonal crap coming out. I've found a good steady line (27MPG)running Shell 93 with V-power & has been EZ enough to find in good consistency. I am close to 40k miles mark & sure a heathy tune up around corner & will end said test starting new chart.

 

[cruisinTX]

one more variable?

I'm wondering what you did to control a variable not seen mentioned here (at least in my quick browse through). I have only owned our 2014 RT for a short time but have noticed it is extremely difficult to get it all the way full. I can see where if a person is very patient and intent on getting the tank 100% full they can do so. On the other hand, those who are not so patient will cut short with trickling gas in so they can get on the road more quickly. It is also obvious that the angle the Spyder is sitting will affect how easily it is to fill to the top. The ability of each pump to trickle or not would be a factor as well. So, all that begs the question, in your testing, how did you make sure the tank was filled to exactly the same level every time? That variable of 1/4 to 1/2 gallon can make a huge difference in mileage calculations on a 7 gallon tank.

 

[Easy Rider]

That variable of 1/4 to 1/2 gallon can make a huge difference in mileage calculations on a 7 gallon tank.

Not over several tanks it won't.
If you are a little short one time, you likely will put in a little more next time.

MPG figures based on only one fill are a fools errand.

Multiple tank fills are needed to erase the error that you are talking about.

P.S. You should NOT be trying to fill it to the very top.
That is potentially bad for you and the bike.

 

[IdahoMtnSpyder]

I'm wondering what you did to control a variable not seen mentioned here (at least in my quick browse through). I have only owned our 2014 RT for a short time but have noticed it is extremely difficult to get it all the way full. I can see where if a person is very patient and intent on getting the tank 100% full they can do so. On the other hand, those who are not so patient will cut short with trickling gas in so they can get on the road more quickly. It is also obvious that the angle the Spyder is sitting will affect how easily it is to fill to the top. The ability of each pump to trickle or not would be a factor as well. So, all that begs the question, in your testing, how did you make sure the tank was filled to exactly the same level every time? That variable of 1/4 to 1/2 gallon can make a huge difference in mileage calculations on a 7 gallon tank.

I usually try to fill right up as far as I can. But you're right, it does make a difference but only on the per fill MPG. That's why when someone says I got such and such MPG on this tank of super duper gas and only so much on the next tank of el cheapo gas the comparison is rather meaningless.

On the 4 fill average MPG variations between fills are smoothed out and only the last of the four has an effect. But then it does only to the extent that the last fill varies from the fill before the first of the four. Is that clear, or not? The four fill average is the average of the current fill plus the previous three. And on the ten fill average the variation in fill levels becomes negligible. In other words, if every time I filled the tank only 3/4 full, the long term MPG doesn't change, but if I fill it all the way and the next time only 1/2 then the current MPG number would really be wacky. But one full tank averaged with nine 3/4 tanks would have little effect on the average MPG.

That's why I focus on the 4 fill graph. Four fill average is an arbitrary selection. I figured that averages out the fill variation and driving variation of each tank while giving a somewhat good view of real MPG as it varies with different driving conditions. I did the ten fill graph just for kicks to see what kind of variation in MPG it might show. It's more than I thought it would be!

Good question. I'm glad you asked.

 

[ARtraveler]

I'm wondering what you did to control a variable not seen mentioned here (at least in my quick browse through). I have only owned our 2014 RT for a short time but have noticed it is extremely difficult to get it all the way full. I can see where if a person is very patient and intent on getting the tank 100% full they can do so. On the other hand, those who are not so patient will cut short with trickling gas in so they can get on the road more quickly. It is also obvious that the angle the Spyder is sitting will affect how easily it is to fill to the top. The ability of each pump to trickle or not would be a factor as well. So, all that begs the question, in your testing, how did you make sure the tank was filled to exactly the same level every time? That variable of 1/4 to 1/2 gallon can make a huge difference in mileage calculations on a 7 gallon tank.

Back in the days when I posted directions for mpg--one of them was to fill to the same level each time. I now mention this as one of the 100 variables that can affect the final number. :thumbup:

 

[Peter Aawen]

But surely, if you work off how many gallons (or litres, or whatever) you can put into your tank after having driven/ridden however far, over time the progressive average becomes more & more accurate & the minute differences in actual fill levels become basically meaningless... It's like AKS saying he only ever works to one decimal place & rounds up - that's a perfectly valid approach because the tiny variations presented by going to 2 decimal places are made meaningless by the differences in measuring devices/pumps etc but are evened out over time regardless! :dontknow:

So working out & averaging Miles PER GALLON or Kilometres PER LITRE or whatever it is you use, over time becomes more meaningful the longer you do it - and, at least for me anyway, it gives me a great handle on the range that I can expect from each 'full' tank of gas! So that once I fill up my V-twin RT, I can know with a fairly high degree of certainty that I WILL be able to reach that next fuel stop that might be 400 kms away! I don't really care what the kpl or mpg number actually is, but I do care that there is no fuel supply in the 400kms between here & there except that in my tank, & I really don't think I'm up to pushing my Spyder 5kms let alone 100! So I need to know that range is fairly reliable/accurate, or I need to carry more fuel somehow!

But if you start worrying about all the variables that can impact fuel range, you might as well not bother, because they include things like the ambient temp AND humidity, the pressure in your tires, the age & tread depth of your tires, the altitude you will be ryding at, the road surface you'll be ryding on, the temperature of the road surface, the weight your spyder is carrying, the height your windscreen is set at today/now, the wind velocity you'll be ryding in, how flappy or aerodynamic your clothes are today, even how long ago or how recently you washed your spyder & I'm sure there are a myriad I missed that can impact as well!! But the reality is that they really only make TINY differences that are ironed out over time anyway....& as such can safely be ignored. So like I said earlier, the more/longer you average the more accurate that becomes AND the more you do it the better you will become at recognising those things that might vary your range significantly & how great any consequent variation is likely to be!! Before this last ECU upgrade I KNEW I could travel 250km safely on 'a tank of gas' cos the variables weren't great enough to impact significantly on that - now that I've done the ECU upgrade I'm developing data to support a new 'safe' range, which atm is looking good for 300km of 'spirited ryding' & is looking likely to be 400kms of touring/cruising; & gathering regular/consistent info on how many kms per litre I get as I travel from each fill up over time will improve the accuracy of that range estimation.... :thumbup:

 

[cruisinTX]

Tank range is also my biggest concern. I know the Spyders are not going get anywhere near the fuel mileage of my bikes, but if I can get 180 to 190 miles on a tank, I'm going to be very happy. I did just that last Wednesday with 194 miles on the tank. I'm sort of spoiled with the longer range bikes getting right at 200 miles on the cruiser and 270 on the sport-touring with it's 7.25 gallon tank. :thumbup:

 

[RinconRyder]

...

Not sure of the elevation where you are but as you go higher you can drop the fuel rating accordingly. Not necessary to run high octane at high elevations.