Honda ST1300 Section > Fuel & Additives ST1300
98 RON bad for ST's?
ruSTynutz:
Fair enough...
Still, I betcha there's heaps of people out there using BP's 91 Unleaded, blissfully unaware that it too contains ethanol...
--- Quote from: Biggles on June 06, 2019, 10:41:47 AM ---I have used E10 when there was no 91 (common among NSW Caltex and BP servos that I've used) with no problems, noting the E10 is rated at 94 RON. I had never used E10 until recently having heard stories about seals being damaged, but figure a diluted tankful occasionally wouldn't be an issue.
--- End quote ---
According to one of those articles I've linked to...
"Ethanol doesn’t work with carburettors or mechanical fuel injection. It is also a solvent which attacks metallic and rubber-based fuel lines, and has an affinity to water that can cause steel fuel tanks to rust. But one of the confusing things for riders is the octane rating. (Octane is a measure of a fuel’s ability to resist engine knocking or pinging which is an uncontrolled burn in the engine that can cause damage. Higher octane fuels resist knocking.) Most E10 is rated at 95 RON which seems like it could be suitable for bikes that require that higher octane rating. However, RACQ executive manager technical and safety policy, Steve Spalding, says ethanol-blended, higher-octane fuels may not necessarily meet the correct fuel requirements for a vehicle designated to run on PULP. While the RON may be high enough, there is another property in fuel, called Motor Octane Number (MON), which is rarely specified on the bowser. MON is usually about 10 numbers lower than RON, so a MON of 85 would be ok for a bike rated at 95 RON. However, ethanol fuels have much lower MON numbers than their RON which could be too low for your bike."
Cheers :)
Biggles:
Yep, that's the kind of article I was referring to. I deduce our fuel injection is electronic, and if the bike isn't left standing for long the tank corrosion problem should be minimised. "Rubber based fuel lines" appear to be an issue. Those things said, I'll continue to avoid E10 whenever possible. After all, it's only a 50¢ per refuel saving we're talking about.
alans1100:
It seems BP have two ULP 91 products one is standard ULP and the other has 10% ethanol.
But under our advertising laws I think they'd have to state which was which on the pump.
https://www.bp.com/en_au/australia/products-services/fuels/regular-fuels.html
In SA I've only seen e10 at Liberty and United and one independant Mobil in Port Pirie
Liberty has replaced PULP (95) with E10 at most of their sites
As for Honda and E10
ruSTynutz:
--- Quote from: alans1100 on June 06, 2019, 02:38:14 PM ---It seems BP have two ULP 91 products one is standard ULP and the other has 10% ethanol.
But under our advertising laws I think they'd have to state which was which on the pump.
https://www.bp.com/en_au/australia/products-services/fuels/regular-fuels.html
In SA I've only seen e10 at Liberty and United and one independant Mobil in Port Pirie
Liberty has replaced PULP (95) with E10 at most of their sites
As for Honda and E10
--- End quote ---
That's interesting re: normal unleaded being available...
I just wandered up to my local BP and, now the plot thickens...I spoke to the cashier and he said none of their fuel contains ethanol, this in spite of the sticker below the bowser display clearly saying (even if it was in small print) that 91 Unleaded may contain up to 10% ethanol...
I'm quite happy if that's correct though as my partner has been filling her car there for the last couple of years and had never seen the sticker... :think1
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page
Go to full version