Author Topic: 98 RON bad for ST's?  (Read 269 times)

Offline CallMeSteve

  • STrudel, Steve and Ruth.
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 337
  • Thanked: 130 times
  • Eatons Hill, Brisbane.
98 RON bad for ST's?
« on: June 05, 2019, 01:24:23 PM »
I just got off the phone to the service dept at Brisbane Motorcycles.

I mentioned an intermittent problem with STrudel idling very badly when cold and she asked what fuel I use.  To my surprise she said to stay away from 98 and stick with 95.  "Too many additives" she said. Apparently they had a lot of trouble with several makes of bikes (most notably Ducatis she said) which gave no end of trouble until they drained the tanks of 98 and replaced with 95.

I must admit that being a 'purist' I most often spoil STrudel with 98. So I'll switch back to 95 and see if it helps with my morning idling problem.

I'm just wondering if anyone else has experience on this topic?
A man rides on his STeed, says “Why am I short of attention? Got a short little span of attention”.

You can call me Steve, with apologies to Paul Simon.

 :wht13

current:
ST1300 2014 Police

pre-kids:
CX500
CB900
CB400NB
CB350
1964 Yamaha YG-1 80cc
 

Offline Brock

  • Tardis Tech
  • Global Moderator
  • UNBELIEVABLE "5000 Posts" Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7665
  • Thanked: 960 times
  • White is Best
Re: 98 RON bad for ST's?
« Reply #1 on: June 05, 2019, 01:58:42 PM »
When I first collected my bike, I ran a spread sheet to record fuel usage amongst other things. The result was that plain unleaded was just as good as the higher rated fuels, just cost less. There was no advantage to to paying more, as the economy was the same as was the running/power.

My bike is now just short of 200000Ks from a starting 35000 Ks
Brock
Asian Correspondent
2003 Honda ST1100PY



Ulysses #32829
STOC #8239
OzSToc # ??
Kinross WA
 
The following users thanked this post: CallMeSteve

Online alans1100

  • 1999 ST1100A
  • RTE Coordinator
  • UNBELIEVABLE "5000 Posts" Member
  • *
  • Posts: 6231
  • Thanked: 1128 times
  • Alan, Peterborough, SA
Re: 98 RON bad for ST's?
« Reply #2 on: June 05, 2019, 02:20:23 PM »
I use mainly ULP (91) in the 1100 but if I happen to be filling where E10 is available I'll use that. Cheaper than ULP but the same as PULP (95).

The 1300 mostly gets a mix of both ULP and PULP depending on when I fill her. During the week I can get PULP at the tyre dealer (with 4c discount) but on weekends it's either ULP or 98 (Vortex???) at the Caltex. And again E10 if I happen to be at a place that sells it. Also have had two 98 top ups when 95 wasn't available.

Ride to the city last Friday had me filling with 91 from the tyre dealer because the 95 pump was down and for the trip back home I used 95.

Never had an issue with any fuel anywhere on either bike.
1999 :bl11  2004 :13Candy

FarRider #921- BR15, BR17, CR1

 
The following users thanked this post: CallMeSteve

Online ruSTynutz

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 230
  • Thanked: 127 times
  • Proud Owner of a 2005 ST1300A
    • "Destined to Drive" Driving School
Re: 98 RON bad for ST's?
« Reply #3 on: June 05, 2019, 10:25:40 PM »
I'll be sticking with 95 ULP in my ST1300... ++

Also there's no way I'd be putting BP 91 ULP in my bike as it can contain up to 10% Ethanol!  :-(((

Here are a few links to interesting articles concerning different fuels...

https://www.fcai.com.au/environment/can-my-vehicle-operate-on-ethanol-blend-petrol

https://motorbikewriter.com/is-ethanol-suitable-for-motorcycles/

https://www.roadrider.com.au/the-fuel-truth/

 :13Candy

Suzuki TS90
Suzuki TS185
Honda XL250
Suzuki DR250
Honda CX500EC
Honda CB250RS Outfit (The original "RoadSlug")
Suzuki AN400 Burgman
Kymco Agility 125
Honda ST1300A
 
The following users thanked this post: CallMeSteve

Offline Biggles

  • NatRally 2018 - Mackay
  • "Top Dog" 10000 club
  • *
  • Posts: 13019
  • Thanked: 1652 times
  • Bridgeman Downs, Brisbane
Re: 98 RON bad for ST's?
« Reply #4 on: June 06, 2019, 10:41:47 AM »
I have always used 91 in my four STs with nary a problem.  Last month the valves and plugs checked out with no problems after 126,000 kays.  Over the life of this bike I have averaged 5.31 l/100km.  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.
For the modern man who lives in the city, riding a bike might be one of the only ways to escape the humdrum monotony. To take off and ride. To be both at one with nature and one with the bike. To feel masculine. Adam Piggott

OzSTOC #16  STOC #6135  FarR #509  IBA #54927
 
The following users thanked this post: CallMeSteve

Online ruSTynutz

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 230
  • Thanked: 127 times
  • Proud Owner of a 2005 ST1300A
    • "Destined to Drive" Driving School
Re: 98 RON bad for ST's?
« Reply #5 on: June 06, 2019, 11:37:06 AM »
Fair enough...

Still, I betcha there's heaps of people out there using BP's 91 Unleaded, blissfully unaware that it too contains ethanol...

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.

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 :)

Suzuki TS90
Suzuki TS185
Honda XL250
Suzuki DR250
Honda CX500EC
Honda CB250RS Outfit (The original "RoadSlug")
Suzuki AN400 Burgman
Kymco Agility 125
Honda ST1300A
 
The following users thanked this post: Bloodman, CallMeSteve

Offline Biggles

  • NatRally 2018 - Mackay
  • "Top Dog" 10000 club
  • *
  • Posts: 13019
  • Thanked: 1652 times
  • Bridgeman Downs, Brisbane
Re: 98 RON bad for ST's?
« Reply #6 on: June 06, 2019, 01:20:22 PM »
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. 
For the modern man who lives in the city, riding a bike might be one of the only ways to escape the humdrum monotony. To take off and ride. To be both at one with nature and one with the bike. To feel masculine. Adam Piggott

OzSTOC #16  STOC #6135  FarR #509  IBA #54927
 
The following users thanked this post: ruSTynutz

Online alans1100

  • 1999 ST1100A
  • RTE Coordinator
  • UNBELIEVABLE "5000 Posts" Member
  • *
  • Posts: 6231
  • Thanked: 1128 times
  • Alan, Peterborough, SA
Re: 98 RON bad for ST's?
« Reply #7 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

1999 :bl11  2004 :13Candy

FarRider #921- BR15, BR17, CR1

 
The following users thanked this post: ruSTynutz

Online ruSTynutz

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 230
  • Thanked: 127 times
  • Proud Owner of a 2005 ST1300A
    • "Destined to Drive" Driving School
Re: 98 RON bad for ST's?
« Reply #8 on: June 06, 2019, 06:47:25 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




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


Suzuki TS90
Suzuki TS185
Honda XL250
Suzuki DR250
Honda CX500EC
Honda CB250RS Outfit (The original "RoadSlug")
Suzuki AN400 Burgman
Kymco Agility 125
Honda ST1300A