Does Premium fuel have all the additives?

[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.

[alans1100]

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.

I can add that while I spent about 4 weeks at my dad's place last year and using E10 while I was there That by the end of my third tankful my fuel consumption decreased by about 1.5 ks/l. It could have been a one off, I won't know as I moved back home and back to ULP.

One thing to note is That dad's local United service station has Premium 100, Unleaded, Unleaded E10 as far as unleaded fuels are concerned

[saaz]

My local Caltex only has E10, 95 and 98 (and some diesel for those so inclined) so it is hard to make an objective comparison between E10 and 91 now.  I think the riding conditions and where you buy fuel (high turnover etc) make more difference than whether it is E10 or not.  I have had good and bad batches of E10 and 91 when on trips, and in the car have had 98 and 95 that acted more like 91.

[rocketeer]

Fuel quality and additives seem to be different between states, even cities.  In Brisbane, I am told by a very reliable source, that most fuels come through a pipeline from a single refinery to one of several depots, where mostly a dye is added, but I have a feeling some additives.  Cheap fuel service stations actually ship fuel from down south.

From what I have noticed, BP Ultimate seems the go, followed by Castrol.  I have noted some people religiously running one brand of higher priced fuel do get fuel economy improvements, across different vehicles.  They are also typically quite clean internally.  The trouble is, the additional economy is usually far outweighed by the additional price- 15c per litre I think last time I took notice.

Is it worth it?  Depending how you look at it.  For the extra km per tank?  No way. For the fact that you are using a 'better' fuel that does clean and provides a better burn?  I am undecided.  I still typically use BP or Caltex standard unleaded, unless there is a reason to use higher octane.  But keeping in mind I run a fuel system conditioner that does most of what the higher priced fuels do, except increase RON and oxygen levels.

Brad

[rocketeer]

The one thing I believe higher octane fuels have over standard is oxygen content.  One Toyota corolla comes to mind, he drove like a granny, but religiously used shell V power. When we went through the exercise of calculating cost vs potential savings he decided to put it on straight unleaded. He noted a power loss, as well as a healthy loss in km.  I can't r remember how many, but I do know it was notable. One thing that was very interesting was that testing his oil showed a slight amount of fuel- overfuelling or fuel system issues such as a blocked  injector could have caused this, though he was happy with how the car ran so it would have really only been a minor issue, but may be part of why the fuel economy benefit.  Same with gaining economy using ethanol, I wonder if that bike is running rich to have fuel economy gains.

Unfortunately I simply haven't researched fuel past using what feels good or

[terrydj]

First "Öil" now "Petrol" Makes me think how I have gotten so great milage out of the vehicles I have owned without knowing the stuff some people think is important
Hmmmm, all of the bikes I've owned at least the 150000 kay mark with at least one 1/2 a million. A couple of cars with well over the 200000, the old XD with 1/2 a million but that was mostly on gas. The wifes current Mirage, close on the 300000 and all without knowing bugger all about oils and what petrol to put in.
Suppose I've just been lucky

[rendog]

I fill both bikes up with BP Ultimate where possible.
Last pay I was sucked in by Wollies to use a discount docket.
Bike idles like shit when cold now - not that it gets real cold up here - but you know what I mean.
Think you need fuel additives, pull out a spark plug & look at the top of the piston.
Black is NOT good, so I added some REPCO branded fuel system cleaner to the tank.

Over the years I've used fuel system cleaner a lot, mainly on diesels.
Generally we scour the system by mixing the additive 50/50 via a tap plumbed into the injection system.
The engine needs to be at operating temperature to do this, they run really rough (obviously) and smoke like a space shuttle taking off. 
Often saves replacing rings and liners or de-glazing bores and always notice less black soot from the diesel's exhaust stack.

PS. Don't try this with your catalytic converters connected, it will ruin them.

[rocketeer]

Reblog if you play with diesels- if you ever look at buying some oil I'll throw in some fuel system conditioner- think you'll be a little a surprised....

[saaz]

The oil refiners have swap arrangements for their basic fuels (this was an issue that caused problems when I was working on excise arrangements when the GST came in - don't blame me totally though!), so if you have a refinery in your state most fuel likely comes from it regardless of how it is branded when sold. They do add their own additive packages, so the fuels can be different.  This information came from guys on a car forum that drive the tankers.  The discount chains might get their fuel from anywhere that is cheap at the time, including imported product.  Also storage is important as the tanks need to be kept clean and water content controlled.  So while a fuel might start out fine how it ends up being delivered at the pump matters a fair bit.

The premium 98 fuels may be kept by the refiners themselves and shipped around.

My bike used to run rich midrange when tested on a dyno, but I have put in new needles and needle jets, as well as a size down in pilots.  In cruising economy is not much different, but when using the throttle a bit economy is way up.  With all the variables when riding all I can say is that using any of the grades of fuel in my ST11 give about the same distance per tank.  95 and 98 fuels make the bike more cold blooded when starting, but once going feels ok.  The ST13 being EFI learns various setting from using one fuel, so may take a while to relearn on one that is a bit different. I know that is why Dynojet cannot get a power commander to work with an ST13 as the OEM computer undoes what the PC tries to do, so it is a long term loosing game.