Anyone tried higher octane for fuel economy?

[RiderEh]

As per the title, I'm wondering if anyone has run higher than 87 octane to see if it gives better fuel economy.

[Hibobb]

My two cents is run what is cheapest all summer, and store you bike thru the Calgary winter with a tank of non-ethanol gas in it.

If you want more MPG, try a 16 tooth front sprocket, and stay on slower side roads.

The T7 give amazing MPG if you drive like an old guy...

[prowlnS10]

41 minutes ago, RiderEh said:

As per the title, I'm wondering if anyone has run higher than 87 octane to see if it gives better fuel economy.

My experience has been best mileage with regular grade & agree with Hibobb's reply

[Simmons1]

Just now, prowlnS10 said:

My experience has been best mileage with regular grade & agree with Hibobb's reply

Same here. I get the best mileage with regular grade.

[Mr. Kwak]

I have listed all my fuel stops (for 14000km) in an spreadsheet and come to the conclusion that there is almost no difference.

Better fuel economy is slightly in favor for the cheaper lower octane with high ethanol fuel. 

 

Biggest difference is just in the riding style,  if you ride slower (offroad or small roads) your consumption is much lower than for long distance on the highway. 

Edited August 2 by Mr. Kwak

[RiderEh]

In Canada, I believe we have only up to 10% ethanol. I think the USA is much worse unfortunately, due to legislation.

 

In the winter I just use fuel stabilizer and have not had any issues.

 

Looks like I can stick with 87!

[Dougie]

Wow. Can’t believe 87 is still for sale anywhere. I use 97 where I can, it does give good mileage, and only put 95 in if I have to. 
Although, is this the same measurement or do you have different scales?

[jdub53]

2 minutes ago, Dougie said:

Wow. Can’t believe 87 is still for sale anywhere. I use 97 where I can, it does give good mileage, and only put 95 in if I have to. 
Although, is this the same measurement or do you have different scales?

 

The U.S. (and Canada, I believe) uses the R+M/2 method for octane, while a lot (most?) of the rest of the world uses RON. As shown in the attached pic from my T7's U.S owner's manual, 86 octane using R+M/2 is the minimum requirement and is why I only use 87 octane.

 

 

Regarding the OP's question, because octane is an additive used only to prevent detonation it is does nothing else such as provide an increase in miles per gallon or provide 'more power' as many people mistakenly believe. "It costs more, therefore it must be superior in every way" is a great marketing tool, but using only the octane required in a given engine has aways returned the best mileage for me.           

[Redbikejohn]

Only ever used the highest in my 700 but on my last bike (xt660z) I used the lower one until the uk changed it to the 20% version.  I immediately felt a difference (worse) and noted a drop in mileage.  I keep a close eye on miles per tank and even know the difference between summer and winter economy. 

[Rider 101]

Here in Oz I use 98RON or at a pinch 95

Never ever use anything with ethanol in it.

I think my average fuel economy is in the region of 4.8l/100km but I would have to check.

[Dougie]

2 hours ago, jdub53 said:

 

The U.S. (and Canada, I believe) uses the R+M/2 method for octane, while a lot (most?) of the rest of the world uses RON. As shown in the attached pic from my T7's U.S owner's manual, 86 octane using R+M/2 is the minimum requirement and is why I only use 87 octane.

 

 

Regarding the OP's question, because octane is an additive used only to prevent detonation it is does nothing else such as provide an increase in miles per gallon or provide 'more power' as many people mistakenly believe. "It costs more, therefore it must be superior in every way" is a great marketing tool, but using only the octane required in a given engine has aways returned the best mileage for me.           

The higher octane allows for advanced ignition.  Essential for higher revs in modern machines. In Europe our 95 is contaminated with ethanol but the 97/99 contains a max of 5% , usually less. My lads 42 jeep was built for 67 octane, so the dizzy is advanced for modern fuels, she can do over 50!. Steering box is still an over 80 year old design though, so it’s a bit hairy. 

[Hollybrook]

Octane additives slow down the burn rate of the fuel, which does allow you to run more timing advance and generate more power when set up correctly. Lower octane fuel has a little more energy in it, so it can get slightly better mileage if the engine is timed correctly to take advantage of it. 

 

I recall 2WDW stating that even the stock ECU benefits from using premium gas, but it is not necessary without engine mods. 

[Lewie]

20 hours ago, RiderEh said:

As per the title, I'm wondering if anyone has run higher than 87 octane to see if it gives better fuel economy.

But isn’t it more expensive?

[AZJW]

My extremely unscientific analysis is that I get better gas mileage out of 91 premium vs 87 unleaded.   I seem to get around 60-62 mpg with 91 and around 57-59 mpg with 87.  Only engine mods are a Uni air filter & a Camel-ADV Rally exhaust with a stock ECU.   Everyone has a different riding style and environment so YMMV, but in my case it seems to be worth it.

 

Edit: This question got me thinking so here's my math:

 

60 mpg  using 91 octane @$4.09@ gal = $0.068 cost per mile

57 mpg  using 87 octane @ $3.44 @ gal = $0.060 cost per mile

 

Over 1,000 miles my use of premium 91 octane will cost me an additional $8.00 vs using 87 octane. 

Edited August 4 by AZJW
Fuzzy math of cpm corrected

[Hollybrook]

@AZJW I think that should be $80 per 1,000 miles...

[AZJW]

48 minutes ago, Hollybrook said:

@AZJW I think that should be $80 per 1,000 miles...

Thanks, but now I'm confused here. If I divide 1,000 miles by 60 mpg is comes out at 16.6 gallons used. 16.6 times the $4.09 @ gallon equals $68.16 total cost for that 1,000 miles.  The same 1,000 miles at 57 mpg comes out to 17.5 gallons used. 17.5 x $3.44 equals $60.20 or about $8.00 less than the 91 octane. What am I missing?  

[Dougie]

One decimal point out. It’s about 6 cents per mile. I thought you were using nitromethane for a mo. It’s  around 11p per mile on super in uk. Lucky bastards.
 

[Hollybrook]

@AZJW we're both wrong! 

 

You wrote: 

 

60 mpg using 91 octane @$4.09@ gal = $0.68 cost per mile

 

I used that $0.68 cost per mile in calculating, but it should have been $0.068!

 

I could hide behind your mistake, but considering my engineering training, I am at least as guilty. 

Edited August 4 by Hollybrook

[AZJW]

56 minutes ago, Hollybrook said:

@AZJW we're both wrong! 

 

You wrote: 

 

60 mpg using 91 octane @$4.09@ gal = $0.68 cost per mile

 

I used that $0.68 cost per mile in calculating, but it should have been $0.068!

 

I could hide behind your mistake, but considering my engineering training, I am at least as guilty. 

I came out of anal coma and corrected my cost per mile in my post above.

[Goody Boy]

On the average I get 22 km/L on 91 RON and 24 km/L on 95 RON.

[mcbrien]

I just run midgrade ethanol as my dealer recommends. Twice I've tried running regular and within a few tanks I have the hard start issue which goes away on midgrade.

[Tenerider]

Just yesterday I ran 98 Octane here in Europe - and my buddy ran 95 with 10% ethanol.

During our trip, we've always (!) had our fuel level bars drop at the same time, getting the reserve warning (flashing) at the same time (really within seconds rather than minutes!).

We have different exhausts, but both of us have similar mappings (see below), same airbox, same filter. Our size/weight/luggage is almost identical. We rode together, very similar riding stile.

Without further ado: My fuel reserve started blinking about 15-20km later than his the only time we've used different fuel! I assume this is not due to different octane rating but to less ethanol percentage in 98 fuel here in Europe.

And I've noticed before that E10 gives worse fuel efficiency than E5 (both 95 octane).

 

Funnily, his bike always shows a significantly higher avg fuel consumption: When mine shows something like 3.9 l/100 km, his shows 4.2 or even 4.3. My real consumption (documented over 17.000 km) is actually 0.1 l/100 km higher than the indicated one.

I think this has to do with our ECU flash: mine got flashed a year later than his, probably the tuner has made some alterations.

Before ECU flash, the readings were different (meaning I got a higher efficiency than indicated).

Edited August 5 by Tenerider