Ron, here's a fact, you'll never convince the naysayers that you can get more MPG out of 91 than 87. Obviously, we know how to do it and they don't. It's not rocket science, it's just all in the wrist. And, it doesn't stop with just MPG, it includes tires, brakes, and all the wearables. Now this may be a stretch, but I would include "safety" as well. I'd also go so far as to say that I think spyder riders are generally the most cautious, experienced and safest operators on the pavement. Age and experience may factor greatly into that.
-
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
Ron, here's a fact, you'll never convince the naysayers that you can get more MPG out of 91 than 87. Obviously, we know how to do it and they don't. It's not rocket science, it's just all in the wrist. And, it doesn't stop with just MPG, it includes tires, brakes, and all the wearables. Now this may be a stretch, but I would include "safety" as well. I'd also go so far as to say that I think spyder riders are generally the most cautious, experienced and safest operators on the pavement. Age and experience may factor greatly into that.
IdahoMtnSpyder
Active member
I just took another look at my gas numbers from June 1 to September 31 for both 2016 and 2017. Both summers were similar driving habits and conditions. In 2016 I rode 8171 miles and used 275.81 gallons of 91 octane. In 2017 I rode 8155 miles and used 274.92 gallons of 87 octane. So, for 2016 I had 29.625 MPG on 91 and for 2017 I had 29.663 MPG on 87. 87 octane gave me 0.0375 better MPG! That was a whopping 0.13% improvement! Virtually all of the gas was ethanol based.
Ron's numbers are for a 998 engine and mine for a 1330 engine. I think engine design is a factor in why Ron, and other 998 owners, have experienced better mileage with 91 octane.
Ron's numbers are for a 998 engine and mine for a 1330 engine. I think engine design is a factor in why Ron, and other 998 owners, have experienced better mileage with 91 octane.
BajaRon
Well-known member
A big part of the reason that ethanol fuel is less expensive at the pump is that it is subsidized by you and I. (same source, different pocket). No such subsidy for straight gas. It is actually cheaper to make gasoline than it is to make ethanol. It also takes more energy to make a gallon of ethanol than it does to make a gallon of gasoline. And guess what they use to make the ethanol? You guessed it, fossil fuels!
It's a crazy world...
There is that! :thumbup:
The 998 engines are designed and tuned as high revving high performance engines with a fairly tight (& high) power band in a wide rev range, peaking well up into the 8000's; while the 1330 engines are designed and tuned as slower revving high torque engines with a pretty wide & flattish torque band in a shorter rev range, peaking in the 5,000's.... I can't recall if there's any difference between the two in compression ratio as well, and I'm not anywhere near a ready source of that info, but I suspect there'll be some difference...
With any luck, someone here will be able to chime in & tell us all what the compression ratios are and if there's any significant difference?! :dontknow:Still, given the above it's not all that surprising that the 998 engine's notice the difference in octane rating more than the 1330's - high revving high performance engines and their 'higher/tighter' state of tune generally means that they are more critically reactive to any changes in the things that let them work at their best; while slower revving 'lazier' engines tend to run a less critical/more forgiving state of tune and so are far more tolerant of any variations in any/all of the variables like octane rating, altitude, fuel temperature, ambient temperature etc...
Just Sayin' :thumbup:
Last edited:
Snoking1127
Well-known member
??? I average 34 MPG +/- tenths regularly with 87 octane. And I like jacket rabbit starts and going vroom vroom, and when not doing that I run on CC.
mecsw500
Member
From what I can remember the Ethanol has about 30% less energy than gasoline. So for 10% Ethanol you are going to lose about 30% of the energy for that 10%. So for a gallon of gas you are going to only have about 97% of the energy you would have on 100% gas versus the 10% Ethanol blend.
So, in reality, you might just notice the difference if you were a drag racer, but on the street I certainly cannot tell the difference.
The difference I do notice is the 15% less power I get for living at 5,000 feet.
Mikey
Well-known member
ldpost: Don't worry it happens to the best of us! replying to old post sometimes enlightens us!!:2thumbs: Always check the posting date in the top left corner of the post.
Last edited by a moderator:
BLUEKNIGHT911
Sadly Passed Oct 2024 - RIP
"pennies per gallon" .... in Vt. it's about 70 pennies more for 91.... 40 more for 89 .... As for improved performance/acceleration .....can you give me a % for that improvement or actual Dyno numbers? .....Mike :thumbup:
Last edited by a moderator:
rjinaz86323
Active member
We live in north central AZ. Almost all of our trips involve mountain roads and hot dusty Rez riding to go anywhere. I ran 91 or 93 octane when we first got our Spyder After a while I tried 87 octane and could not tell any difference. So I always use 87 if available. Most of our riding is fully loaded 2up multi week trips. Averaging low-mid 30's on most roads, but a little less on freeways. Out west here most freeways are 75 or 80 speed limit.
BajaRon
Well-known member
The computer makes any power reduction compensation for lower octane seamless. You're never going to feel it. At higher altitudes, higher octane is counter productive. The difference is going to be greatest below 4,000 ft. and in warm to hot temperatures under load.
Last edited:
Is there anyone else like me who doesn't give a monkies about octanes and gas mileage ?
I just fill it up when it needs it and ride on. I don't know my mpg and don't care.
I have tried putting in different octane ratings and noticed no difference at all in performance.
If you need to be an accountant and worry about pennies to ride then you can't be enjoying it too much.
Baz
I just fill it up when it needs it and ride on. I don't know my mpg and don't care.
I have tried putting in different octane ratings and noticed no difference at all in performance.
If you need to be an accountant and worry about pennies to ride then you can't be enjoying it too much.
Baz
BLUEKNIGHT911
Sadly Passed Oct 2024 - RIP
Well, I'm in the 87 octane camp. (14 1330 RT) However, I do keep track of my MPG's .... WHY!?! ... because if I notice they drop by 5 or more MPG's something isn't right .... It's similar to "my Spyder doesn't stop like it used to" .... WHY?? ... Could be you need to top off the brake fluid; or more importantly, maybe the Brake Pads are getting dangerously LOW! .... good luck ....Mike :thumbup:
Last edited by a moderator:
If I were to suddenly drop 5 MPG I'd certainly look into why. But if other riders had a similar occurrence and didn't care why, I wouldn't judge them for not wondering or caring one way or the other. However, if they incurred a related engine failure I'd certainly stop and help them out.
Mikey
Well-known member
I think about ethanol verses nonethanol, more than octane, especially when it gets time to put it up for the winter!
Last edited by a moderator:
PMK
Active member
Mike, for many years, I have read your replies and reasoning in regards to using 87 octane fuel, regardless that the manufacturer, whether determined by Rotax, the engine designer and manufacturer, or BRP the vehicle manufacturer, determined their reasons to state in manuals and placards to burn higher octane rated gasoline.
While I do respect your decision, and may not agree with your ideas, your recent reply post of a few days ago had me consider your words and challenge.
Your words put forth a request that a person that stated running high octane fuel, provide data to prove a need for the higher octane rated fuel.
After considering your words, it seems more applicable that those folks deviating from the manufacturers recommended fuel octane, they should be providing data, with repeatable results, demonstrating no harm to the engine in any way, or performance loss, over the wide and varied ways these machines are utilized.
BajaRon made some very good well accepted criteria where a lower octane may be acceptable, essentially higher altitudes, with less density, ultimately reducing the engines cylinder pressures. Myself, I have never accomplished testing to get a cylinder pressure value from compression testing a good fresh 1330 that is properly broken in. Cylinder pressure, along with other factors, some by mechanical design, others by mapping of the fuel and ignition, plus fuel quality must “play” well together.
As I mentioned, after considering your words for a few days, I hope the lower octane fuel causes no concerns for anyone electing to run it. Modern vehicle engines and the systems that support them are very smart, far more intelligent than the high performance V8 engines with points or no map style electronic ignitions.
Simply not sure whether you or BRP is more correct, but it would be very cool if you had data to support the running of lower than specified octane fuel.
troop
Well-known member
I don't know ... In the manuals, BRP requires minimum 87 octane, but recommends 91+ octane. I have to believe that BRP engineers/Rotax engineers and the legal department would clearly state "Requires 91+ octane" if 87 octane would cause any harm to the engine. Plenty of motorcycles require 91+ octane. In regard to efficiency, ethanol free gasoline is a no brainer, and generally also results in a bit more MPG's. Here in Wisconsin, I always store with ethanol free and a stabilizer. Come riding season, I tend to flip/flop between regular/premium fuels. while I do notice a touch better MPG's with ethanol free, I don't feel any performance issue.
ARtraveler
R.I.P. Dwayne
This discussion will go "round and round" depending on the current readers.
I have made my comments earlier on but will reiterate one more time.
Early on 2008 when I purchased one of first Spyders...I was a manual reader and a gung ho Spyder guy to the core. I used premium gas (the highest octane) I could get in Alaska...which was 91. Pricing was no big deal. The three grades were always a dime difference. So, premium cost me 20 cents a gallon more. We always had three grades available (except in the bush). There, you took what they had and liked it.
I am NOT a mechanic. However, I have owned seven separate Spyders over 15 year period and put over 200,000 miles on them. I took Blue Knights suggestion a few years later and adopted the use of 87 octane. There was no "ethanol" gas in Alaska during my time there. I moved from Alaska to Arkansas in 2019 where they have a combo 87 octane and ethanol. After my change over to the "death to Spyder" blend, I still noticed NO appreciable engine operation. As Baja Ron has said, the computer adjusts your machine to run on whatever proper octane/ethanol you may choose to use. I never experienced any mechanical issues with my Spyders due to low octane gas. The two gentlemen that purchased our F3L's back in 2023 got some very fine machines. One at 20K miles and the other at 8K miles.
I am no longer involved in the gas wars threads, but thought I would give you my .02 worth. Its free, and I can still post about Spyder stuff. :bowdown:
I have made my comments earlier on but will reiterate one more time.
Early on 2008 when I purchased one of first Spyders...I was a manual reader and a gung ho Spyder guy to the core. I used premium gas (the highest octane) I could get in Alaska...which was 91. Pricing was no big deal. The three grades were always a dime difference. So, premium cost me 20 cents a gallon more. We always had three grades available (except in the bush). There, you took what they had and liked it.
I am NOT a mechanic. However, I have owned seven separate Spyders over 15 year period and put over 200,000 miles on them. I took Blue Knights suggestion a few years later and adopted the use of 87 octane. There was no "ethanol" gas in Alaska during my time there. I moved from Alaska to Arkansas in 2019 where they have a combo 87 octane and ethanol. After my change over to the "death to Spyder" blend, I still noticed NO appreciable engine operation. As Baja Ron has said, the computer adjusts your machine to run on whatever proper octane/ethanol you may choose to use. I never experienced any mechanical issues with my Spyders due to low octane gas. The two gentlemen that purchased our F3L's back in 2023 got some very fine machines. One at 20K miles and the other at 8K miles.
I am no longer involved in the gas wars threads, but thought I would give you my .02 worth. Its free, and I can still post about Spyder stuff. :bowdown:
Last edited:
Similar threads
