Honda ST1100 Section > Fuel & Fuel Additives ST1100

Does Premium fuel have all the additives?

(1/3) > >>

Diesel:
Is the extra 10c a litre for premium fuel buying you all the anti foaming, anti gumming, detergents, and fuel system cleaners that you think you are paying for? Or do you still need to put in a fuel conditioner?

Or is regular unleaded just as good - and all the rest is hype?

Rob Mc? Rocketeer?

Cheers, Diesel

Brock:
I dont know about the additives, but for the 1100, my fuel usage figures show no difference in performance ie: Ks per litre are the same regardless of the octane rating. the only change was an increase in Ks per $ when using 91 octane. IE you go further for your $. On average a saving of $2.00 a fill (not much difference, but every 16th fill becomes free sort of )

Down Under:

This is an interesting article:

http://www.frugalfoo.com/2011/02/premium-unleaded-vs-unleaded.html

I'm guided by Honda on this one.  I use 95 RON in my ST1300 as stipulated in the owners manual.   

Regardless of the alleged additives in premium fuel I'm a big fan of treating a tank of juice with fuel injection cleaner about every 5000 k.   

Rob Mc:
Basically you should be guided by your Service manual , if it states you should use ULP (91oct) you will derive no benefits from puttung in  higher octane fuels (95 or 98). While you will do no harm to the engine  by using higher oct fuels , you also will not get any real increase in performace . Better of using the savings by buying a beer.
The higher octane fuels are designed for the higher performace cars with higher compression ratios , these engines all call for high octane fuels and should not have ulp put in them.
Some people assume the higher  the octane they put in the greater the power they will achieve , this is not true . Octane does not equate to a measure of power , it equates more to ignition under high pressure and thats why high performace cars  call for a ron 95 or 98

saaz:
I have one of those cars that have different tuning maps to take advantage of higher octance fuels.  Definitely does make a difference using 98, but not as much as you would think.  98 and E10 make similar peak power but the 98 feels much nicer down low as it can take more spark advance.  Fuel economy on the highway is very similar between 98 and E10 surprisingly.

From my experince with the introduction of the Euro standards for engines and fuels (I used to work on the excise side of things) the additives needed to meet higher octane requirements and the pollution requirements mean that higher octane fuels are more expensive to make to start with.  This does not mean they have extra cleaning properties necessarily as the extra cost is in octane enhancing additives, but they are marketed as having a bit more than the minimum required for ULP, so I assume they do.  I think like any product marketed well the margin above a 'standard' fuel is more than the cost of making it would indicate, all you have to do is create the demand.

Unless the engine can take advantage of higher octane no point in using it.  The article gets it about right I think.  On a carby motor like the ST11 I have found that E10 can give at least as good if not better economy as normal 91 and above. I think this is due to it being a more oxygenated fuel and it runs leaner in a carb bike, so perhaps better economy even though it has less energy per litre than a 100% petrol.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page