Will Using 87 Octane impact performance?

[Peter Aawen]

I think Australia uses the same RON method as most of the rest of the World for octane rating calculation, not the Anti-Knock Index (AKI) or (R+M)/2 averaging mechanism used effectively only in North America (Canada, USA, Mexico). The RON rating used by most of the rest of the World is numerically higher than the Anti-Knock Index (AKI) or (R+M)/2 used in 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 - Australian Continent Average Elevation = 330m; Highest Mountain on Australian Continent = Mt Kosciuszko @ 2228m; Highest External Territories Mountain = Mt McClintock @ 3490m; Australian Antarctic Territory Western Sector has Ice Domes exceeding 4000m

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.

Fixed it for you mecsw ^^ :roflblack:

You are absolutely correct in your last sentence above (in your quote) - most of the rest of the World uses RON Octane Ratings (RON = Research Octane Number) while North America (Canada, USA, & Mexico) use the Anti-Knock Index (AKI) or (R+M)/2 method, ie. RON + MON divided by 2.

MON = Motor Octane Number, similar to RON only using pre-heated fuel & variable ignition timing to further stress knock resistance...

:thumbup:

 

[Dasmoetorhead]

I just run 93 octane 100% gas, and call it a day.

 

[Big F]

IdahoMtnSpyder said it all.. I'm on my 5th Spyder since 2010 and used 87 octane in all of them with NO PROBLEMS!
BIG F

 

[BajaRon]

I just run 93 octane 100% gas, and call it a day.

Yours is best case. This will give you the best potential for performance and fuel mileage, and least probability for fuel related issues.

The more you ride, the less an ethanol fuel will impact. The longer and more frequent your Spyder sits between usage, the greater the potential for ethanal fuel to create problems.

Many of the Spyders we service have fuel injector issues. How much ethanol fuel has to do with this, I cannot say. It would be nice to run 2 similar Spyders. One running ethanol fuel, the other straight gasoline. And see what the differences, long term, might be.

 

[old Timer]

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

Big F, I 100% agree.

BajaRon, I 100% agree on running 100% gas, however I also 100% disagree on the necessity of running premium although in all fairness you never stated running 100% Premium Gas . The only times it might be a good idea to run a higher octane is low elevation and a very hot day and lugging the engine, especially on an engine that is always run as if driven by a little old Lady.

I have been in the business since the early 70's, (Good Grief) and very involved extensively in Road Racing, etc.

BTW, I wish that there was a service shop as good as BajaRon's some where near Alamogordo...............

 

[Bangorbob]

Where I live I have climb mountains just to get out of the valley (Pahrump Nv), therefore I believe it mpg and performance may be different than flat riding. I also live at 2700 ft above sea level. Just saying.

 

[BajaRon]

Big F, I 100% agree.

BajaRon, I 100% agree on running 100% gas, however I also 100% disagree on the necessity of running premium although in all fairness you never stated running 100% Premium Gas . The only times it might be a good idea to run a higher octane is low elevation and a very hot day and lugging the engine, especially on an engine that is always run as if driven by a little old Lady.

I have been in the business since the early 70's, (Good Grief) and very involved extensively in Road Racing, etc.

BTW, I wish that there was a service shop as good as BajaRon's some where near Alamogordo...............

I've never said that running premium fuel was 'Necessary'. I agree with all those who say that you can run low octane fuel without any issues. Though the ethanol component can be problematic.

However, from the testing I've done, I have proven to myself that performance and fuel mileage is improved by running premium fuel (whether ethanol or non-ethanol). This from a 5,000 mile + test on my 998. Granted, it was summer and warm weather. Most of it was not high altitude. But it was quite conclusive. I simply report my findings. Others say they haven't noticed any difference. I can't say I noticed any seat of the pants difference either. It is the carefully kept data over the span of 28 tanks of fuel on that trip I am referencing with my comments.

As far as service. We don't see anything we do at the shop as 'Special'. We ride. You ride. We get it. We see customers as friends. And try to send bikes out as if they were our own. Actually, we don't take as good a care of ours as we do customer's. We just don't have the time anymore! But the kind words are greatly appreciated. We enjoy what we do.

 

[BLUEKNIGHT911]

I've never said that running premium fuel was 'Necessary'. I agree with all those who say that you can run low octane fuel without any issues. Though the ethanol component can be problematic.

However, from the testing I've done, I have proven to myself that performance and fuel mileage is improved by running premium fuel (whether ethanol or non-ethanol). This from a 5,000 mile + test on my 998. Granted, it was summer and warm weather. Most of it was not high altitude. But it was quite conclusive. I simply report my findings. Others say they haven't noticed any difference. I can't say I noticed any seat of the pants difference either. It is the carefully kept data over the span of 28 tanks of fuel on that trip I am referencing with my comments.

As far as service. We don't see anything we do at the shop as 'Special'. We ride. You ride. We get it. We see customers as friends. And try to send bikes out as if they were our own. Actually, we don't take as good a care of ours as we do customer's. We just don't have the time anymore! But the kind words are greatly appreciated. We enjoy what we do.

:agree: ...Both performance & MPG's should be better with 91 octane ...... however by How Much, I seriously doubt it will be even .05 % .... considering the cost difference between 87 and 91 which varies by .75 to 1.00 per gallon to me it's not wqorth considering. ..... Non-Ethyl is a different story ...... JMHO .... Mike :thumbup:

 

[2dogs]

"As far as service. We don't see anything we do at the shop as 'Special'. We ride. You ride. We get it. We see customers as friends. And try to send bikes out as if they were our own."

For you folks out there listening, you can't find it any better than this. My father owned and operated an auto repair shop for well over 50 years. He took in students from the local state college and helped train them to become future auto repair mechanics. He tried to instill in each one of his trainees the same words above and you just can't get any better service than that. He'd tell the kids, "It doesn't go out the door unless you'd be willing to drive it to New York and back (ie coast to coast).

 

[mecsw500]

Fuel ratngs

Peter ^^^^^^

Thank you for the additions.

I presumed Australia would be like the rest of the world. From my trips to Australia I was pretty sure there weren't many gas/petrol stations at 5,000 feet/1500 meters (metres).

I was very confused to understand why US bikes got less mpg than ones in the UK until I found out the US gallon was smaller than the Imperial Gallon. Duh.

I do know that not all gasoline/petrol is the same even when countries use an equivalent octane rating. The parts per million of sulphur content varies greatly from country to country allowing or not allowing vehicles with emission standards engines from E3 to E6 ratings to run without emissions equipment damage.

In some countries running a lower octane fuel may have a higher sulphur content which may in turn damage the emissions equipment. The US mandates < 20 ppm of sulphur for all grades I think, whereas I believe Australia allows many, many times this amount. So if you are running an E5 compliant engine and your mid grade or lower fuel has a high sulphur content your emissions equipment such as the CAT may suffer as a consequence.

So depending upon where you are geographically, the altitude, the octane rating, the fuel sulphur content and the Euro rated engine compliance specification (which is dependent on the age of your Spyder, I think they are now E5) may all be factors you want to consider, and pinging may not be the only damage that might occur to your overall engine package from your fuel.

Nothing's ever simple.

 

[BajaRon]

:agree: ...Both performance MPG's should be better with 91 octane ...... however by How Much, I seriously doubt it will be even .05 % .... considering the cost difference between 87 and 91 which varies by .75 to 1.00 per gallon to me it's not wqorth considering. ..... Non-Ethyl is a different story ...... JMHO .... Mike :thumbup:

The difference in mileage was consistently about 10% improvement with premium fuel. I was frankly surprised at my initial results. And the reason I took the long trip opportunity to see if I could duplicate them. I didn't ride any differently between fuels. 2 reasons for that. I didn't want to bias the outcome. And I had to keep up with Lamont or get left behind. I don't think he looks at his speedometer...

I found no discernable difference between regular and mid-grade. I have no explanation for this. I assume it has something to do with the sensors and computer algorithm which controls timing, etc. Makes me wonder if there is only a 2 step program. One for premium fuel. And one for everything else. I certainly saw no advantage with mid-grade over regular.

I went back and forth between octanes several times. Running at least 3 tanks of a single grade before switching. And then not counting the transition tank because it had at least some of the previous octane fuel in the mix which I didn't want to bias the numbers. We typically did 120-130 miles between stops. Mostly freeway, same speed riding.

Results are for just 1 bike and just one trip. But I feel a good test because of the repeatable, consistent results. I'd love to do the same on a 1330 bike. I still love road trips. Who knows?

Premium fuel is worth it to me. But whether or not it's worth it to you, that's your call. I'm not meaning to disparage anyone for their choice of fuel. Regular works fine and is definitely less per gallon. 2 worthy selling points. Just throwing my 2-cents worth out there. At today's costs. 2-cents will buy you about 3/4's of an ounce of fuel.

 

[Bangorbob]

I think using mid grade makes my ride zippier. At least I want to believe that. I do know that I haven't had the ping in 3 tanks now. I will run 87 for about 3 tanks just to see IF there is a difference. I know know the seat of the pants is just a feeling but pinging is a sound that is real.

 

[IdahoMtnSpyder]

I wonder if the premium vs regular comparison is actually influenced by the internal design of the 998 vs 1330. These two threads from 9 years ago support Baja Ron's contention that premium gives him better mileage.

https://www.spyderlovers.com/forums...-Premium-vs-Regular&highlight=premium+regular

https://www.spyderlovers.com/forums...mium-vs-regular-gas&highlight=premium+regular

But look at this long thread and poll I started back in October 2017 about my experience and the impact of premium vs regular on MPG.

https://www.spyderlovers.com/forums/showthread.php?109153-Guess-when-I-used-Premium-vs-Regular

My comparison was over about 10,000 + miles on each, premium and regular, with all sorts of everyday riding. The end result was I got better long term MPG with regular. The most interesting aspect of the poll was nobody voted for the real answer about which season I used regular!

So, as I concluded and stated from my experience in 2016 and 2017 there simply is no firm answer as to which gives better MPG. And as I have stated before, in the ten years this debate has raged no one has shown how or where an engine running solely on regular has been damaged.

 

[BajaRon]

I think using mid grade makes my ride zippier. At least I want to believe that. I do know that I haven't had the ping in 3 tanks now. I will run 87 for about 3 tanks just to see IF there is a difference. I know know the seat of the pants is just a feeling but pinging is a sound that is real.

You should never get pinging with a Spyder of any flavor. The computer should be able to compensate down to, at least, 86 octane. I never have gotten pinging and I've run every grade. Though I don't run what I consider, cheap, off brand fuel.

I wonder if the premium vs regular comparison is actually influenced by the internal design of the 998 vs 1330.

A valid point. Certainly plausible. That's why I'd love to run a long trip on my F3. Though it's a 2015 and the question could be raised if my results would apply to a newer machine. There are many questions which will never get a reliable answer. But trust me. Even if something could be proven. There would be doubters. There are still people professing that the earth is flat. I hope they are kidding. But they don't appear to be.

 

[hut1]

I appreciate those who do the actual testing to help keep us all better informed about our rydes. As for me, I've had my '21 F3s for exactly three years this week. I only have about 7k miles on it, but a smile for each one. I've used 93 and 91 octane for every tank except one mistake at 87. I cannot, and don't care to, make any comparison about which is better for my bike. I commuted almost 200 miles a day for 26 years in various cars, trucks, and on my Goldwing. My conservative estimate is that I spent somewhere north of $75k in fuel costs during that time. With the few miles I travel now, the extra cost of the recommended premium fuel is not a big issue for me. If it was, I may have reconsidered my purchase three years ago.

 

[Bangorbob]

You should never get pinging with a Spyder of any flavor. The computer should be able to compensate down to, at least, 86 octane. I never have gotten pinging and I've run every grade. Though I don't run what I consider, cheap, off brand fuel.



A valid point. Certainly plausible. That's why I'd love to run a long trip on my F3. Though it's a 2015 and the question could be raised if my results would apply to a newer machine. There are many questions which will never get a reliable answer. But trust me. Even if something could be proven. There would be doubters. There are still people professing that the earth is flat. I hope they are kidding. But they don't appear to be.

Ron, I agree about the ping. When this tank full of mid grade runs out I will run 87 again. We'll see. I will try to video it with sound IF what I think is a ping comes back.

 

[BLUEKNIGHT911]

I appreciate those who do the actual testing to help keep us all better informed about our rydes. As for me, I've had my '21 F3s for exactly three years this week. I only have about 7k miles on it, but a smile for each one. I've used 93 and 91 octane for every tank except one mistake at 87. I cannot, and don't care to, make any comparison about which is better for my bike. I commuted almost 200 miles a day for 26 years in various cars, trucks, and on my Goldwing. My conservative estimate is that I spent somewhere north of $75k in fuel costs during that time. With the few miles I travel now, the extra cost of the recommended premium fuel is not a big issue for me. If it was, I may have reconsidered my purchase three years ago.

One tank of 87 octane .... it was a mistake ???? .... what exactly happened to your Spyder after you did this ???? .... Thanks ...Mike :thumbup:

 

[BajaRon]

Ron, I agree about the ping. When this tank full of mid grade runs out I will run 87 again. We'll see. I will try to video it with sound IF what I think is a ping comes back.

So, you do believe that you are getting a ping with 87 octane. Be sure you are not lugging the engine. I'm wondering if you might have a lean running cylinder. Clogged fuel injector, etc. Still, it would be a surprise if your 1330 has a pre-ignition issue.

 

[Bangorbob]

Ron, How could I lug the engine from a start? I would understand if it was a manual shift, but an automatic? Not enough throttle at launching?

 

[BajaRon]

Ron, How could I lug the engine from a start? I would understand if it was a manual shift, but an automatic? Not enough throttle at launching?

Must have missed that detail. No, you are not lugging the engine starting out from a stop. Is that the only time you get the sound?