A number of points to consider - you can safely assume that all regular fuel in the uk contains 5% ethanol. Methanol reduced the engine power/ increases fuel consumption - super unleaded suppliers are not forthcoming regarding ethanol content in their fuel, you may get some without it which will give you the feeling of more power & better mpg - super unleaded can contain additional chemical to help with cleaning the fuel system and sometimes provide some lubrication - 5th gear conclusion was that with some engines (highly tuned ones with high CR) there was a power increase. - I also read that additives are put in the fuel at the time of delivery to the fuel station - fuel companies change the composition of the fuel between summer & winter. if you have the wrong type in the tank (e.g your bike has been in storage) then the bike can perform better or worse than what you are used to until you next fill up So here is my conclusion: - CRB-RR's are highly tunes engines with high CR, knock sensor and closed look fuelling and ignition timing (not sure about older models though), they should/ could benefit from the higher octane - if you have modified the fuelling and ignition system, then I expect you will not see any difference. Nevertheless the other additives may help long term engine health (alternatively, you can use wurth fuel injection additive once a year) - regular unleaded is the one specified for the bike so you can't go wrong with it
If you can come up with a scientific test showing that 97 RON fuel has a higher calorific value than 95 RON, I'll believe you. Or heck, even a dyno test for those who think it really does... Under controlled conditions... (e.g same day, with static weather/temp/pressure). Until then, any increase in mileage and/or power is purely psychosomatic.. And/Or pure speculation... Bonjo, you sound like an evangelist... Even Honda say there's no advantage to 97 vs 95... And it's not like a marketing division would miss that trick.. As for additives... A great way to separate you from extra ££... H
Because they now you'll pay for it... And they make an extra 10p/litre or so off of it... Wouldn't YOU do it? H
My Ducati 1098 hated super, ran like shite. Diesel in the Q7. Blade didn't seem to benefit, not noticble on the power front and don't give a s... For economy, who rides a Blade and worries about economy? I need to retry now I've got the PCV fitted.
I've seen this debated to death on the BMW forum I used to go on... got quite heated too! Here follows the best (and most plausible) explanation I've heard... which coincidentally is backed up by the link sinewave posted... Regarding absolute calorific content, you are exactly right... if you were to test the 2 fuels side by side in a "bomb calorimeter" or similar, you would certainly get the same value. However, that is missing the full picture... in an engine, the fuel has a very short period of time to impart its energy (i.e. before the exhaust valves open or the piston reaches bottom of stroke). The higher octane fuels generally burn a tiny amount more efficiently, and can therefore impart slightly more energy in a given unit of time... result being your engine gets a tiny amount more power (or can go a tiny amount further for same fuel). Now, I religiously record my fuel usage in my beemer, and with no shadow of a doubt I get an extra 1-2 MPG whenever I fill up with Super Unleaded (that's not quite enough to justify the extra outlay mind!)
Tried to find the link the other night but I couldn't, but over on the Mercedes Benz UK forum I frequent now and again there was some serious testing done by the AMG lads on their 6.2 Litre 550 BHP V8's. It was found that the engine management system actively retarded the ignition system under full load conditions when using regular unleaded and thus 'lost' 20-25 BHP off their max outputs when compared to using the Super Dooper Gear. So in essence if ya engine aint 'all that' then stick to 'Cooking' Fuels!
Why high octane fuel? In the days before ECU, know sensors and engine management systems (EMS), high CR / tuned engines needed this to stop detonation (maybe some of the older members remember 2,3,4,5 * petrol) Generally a modern engine ignition timing is set to a default value at which it is designed to operate. (say 12deg BTDC as an example). if the fuel quality or octane rating is lower than expected of the knock sensor detect detonation, then this is retarded until so fault condition is reached. This process is not instant and takes few turn off / on of the engine before it completed (some people say it take between 1~3 tankful) If you put in higher octane fuel, it does not automatically mean the EMS will increase the timing to above 12 to take advantage of the fuel and hence give you more power. If you read carefully through the published specifications of some cars, the power rating is based on 97 oct fuel. Until you know how the EMS of your vehicle handles different octane fuel, it is a bit of a guess works. The only way is to log the fuel consumption and the feel of the engine. But could the difference be because of the additives? and so on & on... Like someone said earlier, if your honda says 95 and the bike specification is based on that, then to pay extra is a personal choice for performance improvement (psychological or real) but hey how many of us only use the same type of tyres or engine oil or exhaust.... as the bike originally came with? At the end of the day do what makes you happy and doesn't hurt your machinery most of all enjoy your ride
My VFR1200 handbook specified 97 RON and I tried to put that in it whenever possible. Sometimes it wasn't available (e.g. in Ireland) and if I filled it with 95, I noticed it ran rougher and I got slightly worse MPG. The handbook for my RR8 Blade specifies 95 RON. I did put a tankful of VPower in it when I first got the bike, on the assumption that it would either run the same or better. I was wrong. Bike didn't seem to like it at all and when I went back to 95, all was fine again. Not to mention I get nearer 50 than 40 mpg from the Blade instead of the 35-40 that I got from the VFR and you can tell why I'm pleased I switched.
Oy! Who you calling old? I'd never heard of the 1-3 tankfuls for the EMS to learn the RON... Anyone know if Honda do that? It's not impossible, but for an organisation that doesn't give a toss about brakes, I'd find it a stretch to believe they did this without proof Anyway... Would be nice to get some real tests done... e.g. 95.. test.. fill 98 test... next tank 98 test... next tank 98 test... You'd need at least 2 very similar bikes though. One control (95 always), one doing the variation... At the same time. Same milage, same dyno... etc etc.. A lot of work just to put to bed a subject that keeps the conversation going and provides endless hours of enjoyable debate H
LOL On an interesting sidenote (and I use the word 'interesting' very loosely) my Vectra had a reversible plug under the bonnet... plug it in one way round for 95, flip it round if you're runnin 97/98
Not so i race cars, VPower is all that i use diesel or petrol. It's far better for cars, you will notice a difference. If i used 95 octane i would burn holes in my pistons every time, it's the same for diesel Audi use VPower diesel to win LeMans 24 hours. The only difference is that they get theirs in a drum and we don't. I work in the petrochemical industry, trust you will not buy a better fuel than Shell VPower diesel or petrol and no i do not work for Shell.
Not so, Every company has different additives for it's fuels and is a closely guarded secret. The chemists who proved Mick Philpot was lying tested the aftermath of the fire and could tell which brand of fuel he used to start the fire.
My mate is a race mechanic and backs up that statement. Apparently it's well known in the racing community Shell Vpower fuel is great stuff. Really wants to be at that price tho....
worked on a petchem site and i can confirm that it is all a urban myth well at least on the sites ive been on ..... supermarket get filled with the same as brand stations
Anyone heard about the governments plans to introduce a new fuel specification to approve the use of 10% ethanol being added to your fuel ? Does sound like much but read on as could be a very big deal. The Government have decided more of it needs to be in petrol, because it's more environmentally friendly. It's that friendly that the petrol companies won't mix it at the refinery, they leave it until the last minute and add it either with the tankers or once it's in the tanks on the forecourt. Great news, we're saving the environment. Except we're not. Ethanol will attack quite a few components in your car. Older vehicles in particular are at risk. It rots plastics and rubber. It'll do your fuel pump in and other engine parts because it does not lubricate the same was petrol does. Ethanol is corrosive by nature and hygroscopic (attracts water), particularly when higher amounts of water are present. This type of damage to a fuel system is typical when phase separation occurs and the highly corrosive ethanol / water mixture corrodes fuel system components. It doesn't evaporate the same way petrol does. Instead it leaves a sludge. Another problem is that ethanol requires a lot of land and a lot of processing. More here : E10 fuel - The new E10 fuel that will cost UK motorists more - What Car?
