91 octane vs. 87: I am so dumb.

[viper84737]

Forum Sponsor

Would you like me to repeat what is already been posted in this thread? And in the 5000 other threads on this forum on the same topic? Do some riders know something that the engineers who designed these bikes don't?

If wasting money on premium for no real advantage makes you happy then go for it. When people make stupid comments implying that it makes some sort of difference I will continue to make my sarcastic comments in response.

Oh great provider of value, you clearly missed the part where specifically stated I wasn't advocating (or implying) an opinion on the issue either way. Brilliant.

And for the record when I say "Toronto", I mean "the GTA", always, unless otherwise specified.

 

[caboose56]

Oh great provider of value, you clearly missed the part where specifically stated I wasn't advocating (or implying) an opinion on the issue either way. Brilliant.

And for the record when I say "Toronto", I mean "the GTA", always, unless otherwise specified.

Maybe my post wasn't directed specifically at you. Even though the point stands that you're wasting money.

Time to flush the sand out of your vagina, princess.

Further, I do not live in the GTA either.

 

[Gryphon]

Viper why are you posting here then?
You have stated that a bike designed for 87-octane will run okay on 91-octane.
This we already know - and I don't think fuel mileage is affected much by octane ratings.
There are (as you probably know) scenarios where a motor designed for 87 might require more octane, which I described weeks ago, to the apparent dismay of some who didn't know what was being technically discussed...
My point is, there are specific reasons for octane requirements.
Maybe an ~89 would be good, travelling far from home in very hot weather, on a bike with ~15, 20, 30,000 km.
But you certainly wouldn't need to seek out any octanes greater than 91, heheh.
Now a guy who rode all summer using 87-octane in a bike designed for higher - that would be newsworthy!
Anyway, at least somebody was riding lots this summer, puttin' down the miles... good for you brother.
But you're just going to enrage the octane-haters on these forums at this point.

Ack! ...I'm too late...

 

[viper84737]

I just felt it might be helpful to provide some data I had collected that was relevant to the issue. I've done a lot of research upon purchasing my bike, before my trip, and during reading this thread, and yes, higher-than-necessary octanes may possibly be overkill, but even my own internal jury is still out on the issue. I'd like to hear from fuel specialists (Fuel producers, auto manufacturers, professional racing teams (say at least teams that operate on $5M or more), chemical engineers, etc).

While I trust oil companies' intentions like I do banks and governments, I suspect they don't wake up each day and try to propagate rumors of how higher octanes would be better for your car while secretly knowing that all you need is 87, just to make more money. That can easily be achieved by jacking the price of oil even 5 cents per barrel anyway. Also, if it were the case that higher octanes were some producer-level scam, we'd start seeing an octane war at the production level. "Oh, buy our 95 octane, you'll get more power; oh, buy our 96, ours is even bettererer for fuel efficiency and gets you laid by busty lingerie models" and they would cease production of the cheaper stuff.

Just because some jackwad on the internet SAYS A or B, and there are enough on either side of the fence to start religions over A/B, doesn't seal the issue in my mind without replicable systems to test claims that yield consistent results.

 

[Mr.Azim]

FYI.... "Minimum 87" doesn't mean "ONLY 87".

 

[caboose56]

FYI.... "Minimum 87" doesn't mean "ONLY 87".

Why not run MR12 on the street?

 

[RockerGuy]

While I trust oil companies' intentions like I do banks and governments, I suspect they don't wake up each day and try to propagate rumors of how higher octanes would be better for your car while secretly knowing that all you need is 87, just to make more money. That can easily be achieved by jacking the price of oil even 5 cents per barrel anyway. Also, if it were the case that higher octanes were some producer-level scam, we'd start seeing an octane war at the production level. "Oh, buy our 95 octane, you'll get more power; oh, buy our 96, ours is even bettererer for fuel efficiency and gets you laid by busty lingerie models" and they would cease production of the cheaper stuff.

But getting you to buy 91oct instead of 87 will get you to spend $0.14 per liter. A higher % of profit compared to 87.

If someone come to your business do u recommend the cheaper product or the more expensive product?

 

[Krime]

I'll never understand people that put higher octane fuel then what's stated by the manufacturer. Give that extra money you would have otherwise wasted to charity or something, it'll be far more rewarding.

 

[Griffin]

I just felt it might be helpful to provide some data I had collected that was relevant to the issue. I've done a lot of research upon purchasing my bike, before my trip, and during reading this thread, and yes, higher-than-necessary octanes may possibly be overkill, but even my own internal jury is still out on the issue. I'd like to hear from fuel specialists (Fuel producers, auto manufacturers, professional racing teams (say at least teams that operate on $5M or more), chemical engineers, etc).

While I trust oil companies' intentions like I do banks and governments, I suspect they don't wake up each day and try to propagate rumors of how higher octanes would be better for your car while secretly knowing that all you need is 87, just to make more money. That can easily be achieved by jacking the price of oil even 5 cents per barrel anyway. Also, if it were the case that higher octanes were some producer-level scam, we'd start seeing an octane war at the production level. "Oh, buy our 95 octane, you'll get more power; oh, buy our 96, ours is even bettererer for fuel efficiency and gets you laid by busty lingerie models" and they would cease production of the cheaper stuff.

Just because some jackwad on the internet SAYS A or B, and there are enough on either side of the fence to start religions over A/B, doesn't seal the issue in my mind without replicable systems to test claims that yield consistent results.

Do you really expect bonafide "Fuel producers, auto manufacturers, professional racing teams (say at least teams that operate on $5M or more), chemical engineers, etc" are going to post in this thread? Wow.

What you will get is various opinions posted. Some, like Caboose's make sense. Others not so much. It's up to the reader of this stuff to assess the merits of each. But don't expect to hear from an objective chemical engineer, and even if someone posted claiming to be an "expert", by what means would you assess their credentials?

From what I've seen, your "data" that you've brought to this argument is subjective, imprecise, lacking in specific measurements and unclear. For example, unless you are riding a specific route in the exact same manner and in the same conditions and evaluating the mileage you're getting the results are meaningless. Further, that seems only to be dealing with mileage and does not address performance or wear on engine components. It adds nothing to the side of the argument that says more octane is better. I think you are assigning far more significance to your casual observations from your trip than is warranted.

By the way, the above IS a typical Torontonian/GTA response in that you don't get much more typical than me - born and raised in TO and living in the GTA.

 

[Scuba Steve]

Does anyone here actually know what the cost difference is to produce 91 vs 87 gas and why is it 10c per liter here and 10c per gallon in the US?

 

[RockerGuy]

Does anyone here actually know what the cost difference is to produce 91 vs 87 gas and why is it 10c per liter here and 10c per gallon in the US?

Its actually 14c in the GTA, don't know about Loo

 

[invictus43]

While I trust oil companies' intentions like I do banks and governments, I suspect they don't wake up each day and try to propagate rumors of how higher octanes would be better for your car while secretly knowing that all you need is 87, just to make more money.

Engine fuel requirements depend on many factors. Please read the thread again, specifically my posts along with Gryphon, Caboose and Griffin. Using lower than specified fuel octane than specified by your manufacturer can void your warranty. Engine damage can result. Alternately, using higher than specified may or may not give you better performance or engine life.

 

[toysareforboys]

Its actually 14c in the GTA, don't know about Loo

Some gas stations in the GTA are 12c over regular, and I recently filled up at one that was 10c over and by far the cheapest gas price anywhere I could find!!

http://www.torontogasprices.com/Danforth_Gas_-and-_Wash_Gas_Stations/Toronto_-_East/94621/index.aspx

The local Pioneer at Thickson/Hwy 2 is 12c over and has a pretty good price. I'll have to check the Ultramar and see what their primium is over regular, if it's under 15c it'd be cheaper to do premium there as they are always about 3c cheaper than everywhere else (and no ethanol)!

-Jamie M.

 

[RockerGuy]

Some gas stations in the GTA are 12c over regular, and I recently filled up at one that was 10c over and by far the cheapest gas price anywhere I could find!!

http://www.torontogasprices.com/Danforth_Gas_-and-_Wash_Gas_Stations/Toronto_-_East/94621/index.aspx

The local Pioneer at Thickson/Hwy 2 is 12c over and has a pretty good price. I'll have to check the Ultramar and see what their primium is over regular, if it's under 15c it'd be cheaper to do premium there as they are always about 3c cheaper than everywhere else (and no ethanol)!

-Jamie M.

Yeh, Pioneer and other smaller brands offer premium at a cheaper price than Esso, Petro, Shell and other big name stations. Pioneer buys their gas from Petro

 

[OpenGambit]

Just throw in a couple bottles of the NoS energy drink and all will be well.

 

[viper84737]

Do you really expect bonafide "Fuel producers, auto manufacturers, professional racing teams (say at least teams that operate on $5M or more), chemical engineers, etc" are going to post in this thread? Wow.

Where on Earth did you get this idea? I don't expect them to, no. I'd be going out and asking them myself.

And you're right, I never said my data was some precisely-measured scientific data. It was just a set of sample data. Use it if you wish, ignore it if that pleases you.
Also, "It adds nothing to the side of the argument that says more octane is better." -- once again, I never said I was arguing for either case, in fact I EXPLICITLY stated to the contrary.

The assumptions being made by some (Torontonian(???)) minds just astonishes me sometimes.

 

[mikbusa]

87. Tastes great, less filling.

 

[01cbr]

I just felt it might be helpful to provide some data I had collected that was relevant to the issue. I've done a lot of research upon purchasing my bike, before my trip, and during reading this thread, and yes, higher-than-necessary octanes may possibly be overkill, but even my own internal jury is still out on the issue. I'd like to hear from fuel specialists (Fuel producers, auto manufacturers, professional racing teams (say at least teams that operate on $5M or more), chemical engineers, etc).

While I trust oil companies' intentions like I do banks and governments, I suspect they don't wake up each day and try to propagate rumors of how higher octanes would be better for your car while secretly knowing that all you need is 87, just to make more money. That can easily be achieved by jacking the price of oil even 5 cents per barrel anyway. Also, if it were the case that higher octanes were some producer-level scam, we'd start seeing an octane war at the production level. "Oh, buy our 95 octane, you'll get more power; oh, buy our 96, ours is even bettererer for fuel efficiency and gets you laid by busty lingerie models" and they would cease production of the cheaper stuff.

Just because some jackwad on the internet SAYS A or B, and there are enough on either side of the fence to start religions over A/B, doesn't seal the issue in my mind without replicable systems to test claims that yield consistent results.

You seem to be missing the actual intended use of higher octane fuels.

 

[regder]

To add some data to this mess:

I rode nearly 22,000 km on a 2010 GSXR 600 around North America this past summer. I filled with the top octane fuel each time (mostly 91 in the USA, though sometimes I found 93, etc, generally never any higher) and I never filled with the 85 stuff in Colorado, as my bike's manual says to use minimum 87.

I, with a tailbag and a backpack causing drag on my kit, was consistently able to get 300 kms out of a tank before I urgently needed to fill up, and I estimate if I ran to absolutely dry, I could have gotten at most 325 km out of each tank. I fuelled up at Exxons, Valeros, Shells, Huskys, any big-name gasoline station, and avoided the smaller ones due to my lack of knowledge of their consistency practises. Wherever I filled up, I got about the same mileage. Altitude did not seem to make much of a difference, though admittedly I didn't perform maximum scientific dilligence up in the mountains, and downshifting to lower gears to take sexy turns and twisties would have obviously affected things.

I did run California Highway 36 (140 miles from end to end), and I do remember getting to the eastern end of CA-36 with just over 300 kms on the odo and my fuel warning light on solid. I was worried I'd have to use the spare tank I brought with me, but ended up finding a gas station just in time. I figure I was very close to being actually empty. I did most of CA-36 in a "vigorous manner" in 2nd and 3rd gear, with some stretches near the eastern area in 6th as it was straight and visible.

There was a post about controlled conditions and skepticism when it comes to fuel mileage reports, and I always favor scientific analyses whenever possible. This is the best I could do. I monitored fuel mileage and usage and fillups very carefully, to the best of my ability. I have not performed a test on 87 octane fuel yet, and since returning I do fill up on 91 consistently.

Take my data as you will. I am not making any claims either way to support or reject the hypothesis of octane ratings and performance or mileage, I am only providing to you what data I know I observed.

Interesting that you didn't notice a difference in mileage at altitude. I was consistently getting amazing fuel economy up in the Colorado mountains. Normally my reserve light starts flashing around 300, I was good up to about 350-360 in Colorado if I remember right. The flip side was that I had almost zero power above 10k feet. Even crossing Texas on the I40 at around 4k feet I was still getting around 330 before the light came on.

This is on a fuel injected FZ6 without an 02 sensor, maybe the 02 sensor in your GSX-R makes the difference.

Forum Sponsor