On the subject of fuels - Bike Magazine

I just read an interesting article from this months Bike magazine (dated march 2010), where they tested 3 fuels rated at differant octane numbers.

Now, I am a fan of Shell V-power; I use it during the colder months as I have noticed it makes cold-starting easier and the engine has appeared less likley to stall while cold; infact, since using V-power I have never had any cold-stalls (if such a term can be used). However, I have still experiancd carb icing at motorway speeds, so its not a valid treatment for carb-icing. I have never noticed an increase in power, nor would I suspect there would be one.

However, for those who have high-performance superbikes, they may expect a higher-rated fuel (i.e. higher RON) to give more power. Bike tested a BMW S1000RR and a suzuki GSXR1000 with a standard premium unleaded (95 RON, no statement of the place of purchase), Shell v-power (99 RON) and BP Ultimate 102 (102 RON, silly expensive).

There is no significant change in the peak power or the peak torque produced in either engine; certainly, the given power figures for the differant fuels could be within the error of the dynometer equipment used. The BMW returned 190.6, 190.5 and 190.6 bhp for the three fuels respectivly, whilst the GSXR returned 162.4, 162.7 and 163.2 bhp respectivly.

So is it worth paying extra for the fuels?

Only if you ride a curvy and its a particularly cold morning

It is worth mentioning that the BMW has knock sensors for each cylinder, to detect pre-ignition / auto-ignition of the fuel (knock) and adjust the igntion map accordingly.

Matt

V-power works better for my curvy in cold weather.

[yorkie_chris]

Those numbers look to be within the margin for error for the dyno.
IMO you will only benefit from higher octane if you bump the compression ratio.

Some other study found different densities and calorific values, which means if you had a carb engine running slightly lean the "better" fuel would show more power. OTOH if it was slightly rich or bang on stoich, it would show less.

Originally Posted by Alpinestarhero

oticed an increase in power, nor would I suspect there would be one.

However, for those who have high-performance superbikes, they may expect a higher-rated fuel (i.e. higher RON) to give more power. Bike tested a BMW S1000RR and a suzuki GSXR1000 with a standard premium unleaded (95 RON, no statement of the place of purchase), Shell v-power (99 RON) and BP Ultimate 102 (102 RON, silly expensive).

There is no significant change in the peak power or the peak torque produced in either engine; certainly, the given power figures for the differant fuels could be within the error of the dynometer equipment used. The BMW returned 190.6, 190.5 and 190.6 bhp for the three fuels respectivly, whilst the GSXR returned 162.4, 162.7 and 163.2 bhp respectivly.

So is it worth paying extra for the fuels?

I've been saying it's a waste of money on a stock roadbike for years, but no-one would listen. You don't even benefit from better fuel consumpton because the extra initial cost outweighs any savings made in mileage.

Originally Posted by Lozzo

I've been saying it's a waste of money on a stock roadbike for years, but no-one would listen. You don't even benefit from better fuel consumpton because the extra initial cost outweighs any savings made in mileage.

This is true. The only reason I run it is because it does make the initial cold-running better on my bike; I like hassle-free mornings so I pay the extra for V-power...I will probably start using regular unleaded again soon though, since the mornings are becoming a bit better

Dont sound too scientific to me.

Maybe that could be an interesting project...

I just remmbered; channel 5's answer to topgear...5th gear...once did a similar test, using golf GTi's as their test car. They did find an increase in the performance of the engine power. Are car fueling systems really that more sophisticated compared to a motorcycle?

[yorkie_chris]

No but didn't that have a turbo on it? With a turbo you can get massive gains just with a bit more boost IF your fuel and compression ratio can resist detonation

I cant recall, but I don;t think so - my memory tells me it was a bog standard GTi

[edit] found the vid

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?...+test&hl=en-GB#

at about 4min 15 sec they give the power figures; shell gave about 5-6 bhp advantage. So really not alot again

That golf is a turbo as standard.