If you can get 99 put that in your bike will thank you for it but not your wallet .....fuel is a joke now 100 to fill up a average car bike will drink 25 ...
@charlie. I was getting mind fumbled with all the fuel standards looking at an index i completely misread the manual sentence. Indeed the manual states 95 RON. But: I spoke to someone telling me that manufacturers base their ratings off sea level. If i am at 4500 feet. Would it not be better to fill up with 93 RON rather than the reccomended 95 RON ? @Wozza Fuel did shoot up indeed.i myself cannot affird it. But for an old blade would 97 99 not be too high anyway... ?
I'd just do as the manual states mate. They write the manual for everybody all over the world. What's your fuel like in SA? Have you been inflicted with all this Ethanol nonsense? We tend to have to put in the higher octane in the UK simply to avoid getting 10% Ethanol
Hi Jefo yes probably lower one for that year of bike you could always email Honda SA if still unsure ...as above if handbook unclear ...also you will notice how the bike runs just like Paulo v4 needs virgin juice from Italy or it self combusts...
Luckily we dont have the processes in pla e to add ethenol so we have ethenol free 93 and 95 petrol. So should i run 95 RON as per manual ? Or stay with 93 up at 4500 ft ?
It being a 2004 model they dont really have good knowledge ( or lack of care to answer truthfully as they only want to help if you have a new bike ) I am still unsure about what to use. I am at 4500ft so lower oxygen levels... will detonation on 93 be an issue with this bike with a 11.9:1 comlression ratio. I have heard tbe bike does not have a knock sensor.
You live there mate, whatever you think is best. What have you done in the past with previous bikes/cars? When you look online you see people in the Rocky Mountains saying things like -0.5RON per 1000ft but that's just forum chatter. Why don't you run a few tanks of each and see if you can notice any difference.
at higher altitude, air is less dense. If your engine does not have close loop fueling, then it can in theory run richer. Richer mix can make an engine run cooler which in turn can make pre-ignition less likely. So running lower octane than recommended, may not give you the dreaded pre-ignition. You can experiment specially if you have carbs but why live on the edge? Stick to the manufacturer handbook and use 95 if available; remember pre-ignition is not something easily detected on a bike unless it is very bad. If you have knock sensor + close loop fuel system then lower octane can be an option
I ran 95 in a 2010 cbr 125 no problems. I just dont get why the previous owner of my blade reccomended 93 ron unleaded instead of 95 ron unleaded when tbe manual states 95 ron. Maybe he put in yhe wrong fuel ? But at almist 5000ft they say your oxygen levels is 20 percent less....is that maybe why he used 93... If no one knows...let me ask tgis question Will it hurt to use 95 on this old bike ? What could the possible negative effects be compared to 93 ?
People are full of shit. Either test 93 and see, or just run 95 and worry about the other things in life. If you were asking '95 RON or 87?' then the answer would be clear, but as the octane difference between 93 and 95 is tiny, it aint gonna matter.
This is all very interesting, I have always thought the exact opposite about altitude vs octane and bought “Super” when in Alps etc. But now I’ve looked into it on the web (after reading this thread) I realise that I was completely wrong… Learn some useful stuff from this forum sometimes!
