CloverHillCrawler
Active member
Just did this on monday with a group of Adv's from Central Md. 6 hours of riding with 20,000 ft of elevation changes and I did about 32 mpg.
Last edited:
-
There were many reasons for the change of the site software, the biggest was security. The age of the old software also meant no server updates for certain programs. There are many benefits to the new software, one of the biggest is the mobile functionality. Ill fix up some stuff in the coming days, we'll also try to get some of the old addons back or the data imported back into the site like the garage. To create a thread or to reply with a post is basically the same as it was in the prior software. The default style of the site is light colored, but i temporarily added a darker colored style, to change you can find a link at the bottom of the site.
Will Using 87 Octane impact performance?
- Thread starter crtsteve55
- Start date
Just did this on monday with a group of Adv's from Central Md. 6 hours of riding with 20,000 ft of elevation changes and I did about 32 mpg.
troop
Well-known member
Just did this on monday with a group of Adv's from Central Md. 6 hours of riding with 20,000 ft of elevation changes and I did about 32 mpg.
And your base F3 has the 79t rear pulley too. I could see low(er) mpg's on the 89t rear pulley but not the 79t. Hmmm
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.
BLUEKNIGHT911
Sadly Passed Oct 2024 - RIP
:agree: ( mostly ) however the Gas price difference " in my neck of the woods " is .70 ( 87 vs.91 ) .PER GALLON .... I have been here over a decade and never heard from anyone stating " their engine failed because they only used 87 " ....... JMHO .... Mike :thumbup:
Motorcycledave
Active member
Not enough for you to ever notice .... ride on
Big F
New member
I am on my 5th Spyder and I have run a check on each one using 91 octane vs. 87 octane and found there is absolutely NO difference on the MPG using either gas.. and yes, I know there are some owners that swear they get better mileage using 91 octane but feel that is not a true statement..
wish you the best on being a Spyder owner and ride safe.
BIG F
wish you the best on being a Spyder owner and ride safe.
BIG F
.70 OOOH, dats a lot!
CloverHillCrawler
Active member
Funny thing to mention about the ride as well, even though we were moving at a good pace I put it in eco mode as I was running tail gunner.
It helped me having a less responsive throttle in order to keep up speed at an even pace behind the group without running up on top of them.
Oh and to get back on topic I try to run nothing but sunoco ultra 93 if possible. I tried 87 for a while and it seemed to lose a little oomph off the start.
I will deviate while with a group but otherwise it's that.
I really wish that they had the old ultra 95 around that I used to run in my old 71 Impala.
Last edited:
ThreeWheels
Active member
This is an older thread and a very long one, so I'm sure someone must have posted these same comments.
My riding style leans more towards touring, less on performance.
I find very little difference between 87 and 91 octane, with the exception of cost. Running 87 octane gives me far more value than higher octane gas.
The single biggest factor in performance is if you can find ethanol free gasoline. Pure gas gives you a far better performance than an octane boost.
Just my opinion. I could be wrong, and if I am, I'm sure someone on this forum will be happy to tell me.
Last edited by a moderator:
BLUEKNIGHT911
Sadly Passed Oct 2024 - RIP
:agree: ... It's not about the Octane ...... Non-Ethyl will make a larger difference ..... Mike :thumbup:
Recently completed a 2500 mile trip with my 2015 RTS, about 90 percent of it pulling a Bunkhouse. Of that, probably 50 percent was hiway at 60-65 mph. All of it using 87 octane w/corn. Per my log book, mileage was about 36 mpg. I'll take it!!
As a side note, I am impressed how the Spyder pulls the camper versus my 1800 GW. Only thing I don't care for is the un-sprung hitch.
As a side note, I am impressed how the Spyder pulls the camper versus my 1800 GW. Only thing I don't care for is the un-sprung hitch.
IdahoMtnSpyder
Active member
You and just about everyone else on this forum!
BajaRon
Well-known member
"Will Using 87 Octane impact performance?"
It's always amused me a bit that this is a subject for debate. It's a matter of physics. Like whether the earth is round or flat. Though there are some who will debate this as well.
The universal answer, of course, is 'YES!" Using less than optimum fuel octane is going to give you less than optimal performance. Whether or not a person notices it does not alter the fact. Most people don't 'Notice' that the earth is round. But it still is.
I did extensive testing (about 5,000 miles) with my 998 GS and found that I consistently got 2~4 mpg better with premium fuel than with either regular or mid grade (I was not able to detect any appreciable difference between either of the lower grades of fuel).
A debate about when, under what circumstances, and how much of a difference less than optimal octane produces are reasonable. Because there are several variables which impact the end result. The lower the altitude, the hotter the day and the greater the load on the engine, the more octane value will make a difference.
And yes, your Spyder will run fine forever on 87 octane (and 86 octane in higher altitudes)
But just like with tires and oil. We will do this all again in days to come. It's just the nature of the beast. It gives me a smile every time.
It's always amused me a bit that this is a subject for debate. It's a matter of physics. Like whether the earth is round or flat. Though there are some who will debate this as well.
The universal answer, of course, is 'YES!" Using less than optimum fuel octane is going to give you less than optimal performance. Whether or not a person notices it does not alter the fact. Most people don't 'Notice' that the earth is round. But it still is.
I did extensive testing (about 5,000 miles) with my 998 GS and found that I consistently got 2~4 mpg better with premium fuel than with either regular or mid grade (I was not able to detect any appreciable difference between either of the lower grades of fuel).
A debate about when, under what circumstances, and how much of a difference less than optimal octane produces are reasonable. Because there are several variables which impact the end result. The lower the altitude, the hotter the day and the greater the load on the engine, the more octane value will make a difference.
And yes, your Spyder will run fine forever on 87 octane (and 86 octane in higher altitudes)
But just like with tires and oil. We will do this all again in days to come. It's just the nature of the beast. It gives me a smile every time.
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
Well-known member
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.
Last edited:
BLUEKNIGHT911
Sadly Passed Oct 2024 - RIP
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 :thumbup:
CloverHillCrawler
Active member
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!... roflmao
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!... roflmao
Last edited:
BLUEKNIGHT911
Sadly Passed Oct 2024 - RIP
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 :thumbup:
Similar threads
