E85 Fuel with dale walkers stage 2 kit

First topic message reminder :

So awaiting my dale walker stage 2 kit and cant help but research.

What will be the best fuel for maximum performance without potential risk of breaking something.

After speaking to Dale he mentioned that i should run the equivalent to 87 octane us. Now as far as i know we only have 91 95 and 98. And e85 some places have 100. 

What do you fill your bike with and has anyone experimented with E85? Is it the equivalent to 87 us?

madmax wrote:The book says a minimum of 91. I started using 95 because the dealer recommend 95 for all Suzuki injected engines. He didn't explain why.

A few years back I owned an EL fairmont. I was having trouble with rough running so I removed the injectors and had them cleaned. Still it ran rough I took it to a mechanic i know and after he found nothing wrong he told me to run a few tanks of 98 in it. Within 6 weeks It was running smooth again and I switched back to 91. No more problems. There must be some truth in there being cleaners in the premium fuels.
It still didn't help the tea bag filter in the bike though.

Same car, traveling across the Nullabour using 98 (because it was 4c dearer than 91) got some amazing range out of the tank ~1000ks typical. Back in suburbia no noticeable difference in range.

I also store fuel at home. I'm told Premium keeps better.....myth? maybe......

You are so right MM,  you can waffle on about all technical aspects of fuel they like, but some figures dont lie as you proved

I can`t speak for the water cooled bikes,

"But a case of interest to anyone doing mods to oil cooled" :

If your doing possible stage - what ever kit... and it involves a "timing advancer", you "MAY", not saying you "WILL", but you may get detonation, and running a higher octane, "WILL" fix pinging.

I personally, have to run 98, but that`s due to my own set up. 
 Before current alterations, with standard internals, and running a 5* timing advancer, in hot conditions, it "WOULD" ping like a bitch, and COULD NOT, run 91 or 95, and sometimes in normal conditions, even 95 would ping for no apparent reason.

PING BAD.... YOU DON`T WANT PING!!!!!!

Once Again, I`m talking "OIL COOLED" , and can`t speak for water cooled

Hey folks, this is a ripper of a topic, because I've learned something. Mostly from the post that #Tag put up - got me thinking in a different direction.

It got me off my @rse and had me dust off one of those hated textbooks I had to read and regurgitate before the guvmint would let me loose as a bloke wanting to be paid to fly aeroplanes. 

#Tag is right. RON stands for Research Octane Number and has NOTHING to do with how much energy is in the fuel per litre or per kg. It is a number a boffin comes up with by putting the fuel in a special test engine with a variable compression ratio running at 600 RPM to find out how resistant that fuel is to detonation. The Australian standard is to publish/advertise the RON of the fuel.

In aeroplanes, they use MON or Motor Octane Number the difference being the test engine is run at 900 RPM. I burned a lot of Avgas in the 1990s and one variety of Avgas was "100/130", a fuel essentially unchanged since it was developed for Kittyhawks and Spitfires. The 100 part was the bit that applied to my Continental and Lycoming motors, a rating of 100 anti-knock-ability at low or no boost, cooler induction temperatures, and lean mixtures. The 130 bit was the index number indicating the resistance to detonation when supercharged, at high temperature, and rich fuel mixture.

So 130 does not indicate 130% octane in the fuel 

And Dale Walkers advice re 87 USA = 91 Aussie is correct. Because the yanks advertise an Anti Knock Index or AKI which is the average of the two readings found by RON and MON.

So they are just made up numbers, an index to indicate how much compression a fuel can take before detonating. It does not indicate how much 'bang' is in the fuel.

Still with me? 

"Well how the hell did I get 400km out of a 20litre bandit tank or 1000km in the EL Falcon using PULP 98, smarty-bone!" I hear someone ask?

Answer: I didn't think it was possible before I dusted off the old books, but now I see that it is. I stand corrected! But how? I reckon it was not a result of there being more 'bang' in the fuel. As #Tag said, it was most likely due to the higher RON having the effect of advancing the ignition timing at the RPM the bandit/falcon engine was running at. You might have got the same result using 91 RON with the spark advanced. 

What a bugger to find out now though! If I'd known that, I might have filled up with PULP 98 at Barkly Homestead and attempted the 370km run up the Tablelands Highway to Cape Crawford! I bottled it because of the soft edges due to recent rain. Didn't want to risk pushing the Bandit for 10 kays after running her dry!

Tech rant over. At the end of the day we don't ride bikes for reasons that you can write down in formulas or define in a textbook. Its a free country and the main thing is - spend your money on things that make you happy. Ride on!

Tropobone,

Avgas was one of the things that got me interested in fuels. I burnt some in the early 90's too (obviously not as much as you, though) . I got my GA licence in 91 but circumstances said I wouldn't get to continue with it. I had less than 200 hrs total.

As you said Motor Octane Number and Research Octane Number are measuring exactly the same thing, they just have different numbers on the ruler (like imperial vs metric)
The background is: octane is one of the liquids in the fuel blend making up petrol. 100 Octane Rating is the point at which pure octane ignites. Any liquid that ignites earlier (cooler) than octane has a rating below 100 anything above (hotter) gets a rating above 100.

It's just a yardstick to know how high a compression ratio you can run before your fuel goes Bang.

MtB - the only major difference between air/water cooled (apart from more consistant chamber temperatures in water cooled) is we kettle boys have EFI. Their knock sensors tell the ECU to retard timing with the later firing point giving lower lower peak pressures on each bang (and of course, less power), so we've got more insurance against he motor going BANG.

#Tag wrote:
MtB - the only major difference between air/water cooled (apart from more consistant chamber temperatures in water cooled) is we kettle boys have EFI. Their knock sensors tell the ECU to retard timing with the later firing point giving lower lower peak pressures on each bang (and of course, less power), so we've got more insurance against he motor going BANG.

This is right, but I`m wont talk for the water boys.

Oil cooled don`t have this luxury, of timing monitoring, unless you go for say a, Dyna 2000 ignition, where you can dial in your specifics through your rev range, with a few different maps to avoid the issue.

Its just the thread is on Stage kits, and not economy, and wanted to high light for further people possibly doing research into kits who may have an Oil Banger.
 But it is all very interesting.

Before i go any further just want to thank,Tropobone great work, MM, Mtbeerwah and especially Tag for his homework and  interesting threads on this, great work    

OK, did a test last year on a 4 day ride with a mate who has the same bandit at that stage both stock except for Yoshi slip on, he uses 91 as he allways has i use 98/95 as i allways have, both filled up at same servo at start, 305ks later fill up again he puts in $21.00 i put in $20.80 same fill point in tank or near enough, next fill up 325Ks later he puts in $23.20 i put in $23.50  this went on the whole trip,same road same speed same conditions, end of trip both spent same amount on fuel, this was to prove a point to him, then about 8 mths ago he has the fuel pump problem, at 42000 ks, did the Gus pump clean out and all good he now uses 95 or 98 and is happy with how his bike goes, have had alot mates on bikes or in cars say the same thing they get better economy from 98 than 91, irrispective of whats in each fuel or what the RON numbers mean for some reason it works, as Forest Gump said and thats all i have to say about that

Extremely interesting folks ..............

All I know is , when I bought my bike , " the man " who sold it to me said that if I put 95 in the bike it would  "love " me for it . After 4 1/2 years of using 95 the relationship is still only platonic , but I do suspect it is very fond of me.....    

talon440 wrote:Before i go any further just want to thank,Tropobone great work, MM, Mtbeerwah and especially Tag for his homework and  interesting threads on this, great work    

OK, did a test last year on a 4 day ride with a mate who has the same bandit at that stage both stock except for Yoshi slip on, he uses 91 as he allways has i use 98/95 as i allways have, both filled up at same servo at start, 305ks later fill up again he puts in $21.00 i put in $20.80 same fill point in tank or near enough, next fill up 325Ks later he puts in $23.20 i put in $23.50  this went on the whole trip,same road same speed same conditions, end of trip both spent same amount on fuel, this was to prove a point to him, then about 8 mths ago he has the fuel pump problem, at 42000 ks, did the Gus pump clean out and all good he now uses 95 or 98 and is happy with how his bike goes, have had alot mates on bikes or in cars say the same thing they get better economy from 98 than 91, irrispective of whats in each fuel or what the RON numbers mean for some reason it works, as Forest Gump said and thats all i have to say about that

Yes, thanks everyone for the info on RON (& MON) - very interesting how an engine design parameter gets turned into a PR exercise on how to make more power

Talon, just a couple of guesses why those reading might have been the same, did your mate also have the 40 tooth rear sprocket ?  If not then I would venture to suggest that would be the reason for you "better economy" as you would be doing slightly less revs, therefore burning less fuel and the resultant same "hip pocket" readings.  Or if both bikes were exactly the same in mechanical setup, if his was slightly off colour (incorrect tune, dragging brake, air filter dirty, not painted red  , etc) then a slightly worse economy of his bike could also account for your dollars being the same.

I must admit, I used to always try to put 98 in the tank, somehow it seemed a "cleaner" fuel, but I'm starting to realise that its all hype, that if the motor was built for 91 anti-knock rating, then anything greater is a waste, unless of course it can be shown that the higher RON has some other added benefit such as a higher calorie (energy) output.

It was also mention that there is suppose to be cleaning agents in the 98 fuel, if this was true and they were actually doing some good, is there evidence that those of us that use the lower RON fuel are more likely to suffer fuel filter blockages

Nobody needs to thank me for sucking up half of the forums bandwidth. I'm here because if I can't be out riding or in the shed, then I'd much rather be here than sitting in front of a telly.

The more active a forum is and the more people are willing to chuck in their opinions and experiences then the more likely it is that somebody will get something from it.

And I've learnt plenty here so me throwing in wheelbarrow loads is just my way of reciprocating what I've gotten out. (See - it's all about me, really )

Edit. Barry, we got the submit at the same time whammy, there. I'd being going through the same stuff you had. These threads are always value cos they give you heaps to chew on (particularly Talons 40 toother, most guys reduce gearing rather than increase it, so it's good to see the other side 
)

barry_mcki wrote:It was also mention that there is suppose to be cleaning agents in the 98 fuel, if this was true and they were actually doing some good, is there evidence that those of us that use the lower RON fuel are more likely to suffer fuel filter blockages

Whether its true or not the 3 main oil companies promote their premium fuels as having a cleaner built in

From Caltex
Caltex Vortex Premium 98 is a high performance, deposit control premium unleaded petrol designed to clean up dirty fuel systems and intake valves as you drive. Vortex Premium 98 helps your car perform at its best.It contains a technologically advanced additive package, formulated to remove and prevent build up of performance robbing deposits from critical parts of your vehicle's fuel system. By keeping your fuel system clean, Vortex Premium 98 helps engines operate efficiently

From Shell
Its unique double action formulation is designed to actively clean your engine and protect vital engine parts to help deliver more powerful performance.
Shell V-Power is formulated to prevent the build-up of power-robbing inlet valve deposits and help remove any that have been left behind by other fuels. This turns the engine more freely, helping your engine to breathe easily and aids in the transfer of energy from the fuel to the wheels.

From BP
But the good news for drivers who want to keep their engines in mint condition is, that BP Ultimate fuels are specially formulated with outstanding cleaning performance; they have four times the cleaning strength of ordinary fuels.

From my experience with my old falcon I would suggest that there is some merit in their claims, however as I said earlier it didn't help with the teabag filter.

Of course if you like you can always add a fuel cleaner to the 91RON

Well this has been a very interesting topic

i think what i will do is i will run 2 tanks of 91 2 of 95 and 2 of 98 and compare the differences

My first fuel bar disappears at 75Km roughly but i have been hard on the throttle 

i shall ease off the lead hand until compare these fuels and will do once again after the stage 2 install!

Hammy wrote:

mstrrab1992 wrote:Thought as much ive always run 98. Would it be safe to keep running 98? I just want what's best for the bike

You may find it will run just as good on the 95, and save you some dollars.  Try both and see if you can feel a difference.

talon440 wrote:Before i go any further just want to thank,Tropobone great work, MM, Mtbeerwah and especially Tag for his homework and  interesting threads on this, great work    

OK, did a test last year on a 4 day ride with a mate who has the same bandit at that stage both stock except for Yoshi slip on, he uses 91 as he allways has i use 98/95 as i allways have, both filled up at same servo at start, 305ks later fill up again he puts in $21.00 i put in $20.80 same fill point in tank or near enough, next fill up 325Ks later he puts in $23.20 i put in $23.50  this went on the whole trip,same road same speed same conditions, end of trip both spent same amount on fuel, this was to prove a point to him, then about 8 mths ago he has the fuel pump problem, at 42000 ks, did the Gus pump clean out and all good he now uses 95 or 98 and is happy with how his bike goes, have had alot mates on bikes or in cars say the same thing they get better economy from 98 than 91, irrispective of whats in each fuel or what the RON numbers mean for some reason it works, as Forest Gump said and thats all i have to say about that

That's what I like to see, real results from real life testing

Barry, in answer to your Question about my 40 tooth sprocket both bikes had standard gearing at the time, and yes you can add other factors into it but it was a good excercise to see what was going to happen either way, another interesting thing happened at one of the servos we filled up at in Mudgee this old toyota hilux ute 80s model pulls up next to where im getting off my bike, old guy gets out and takes the 98 pump of the hook and starts filling it up,(blue healer in back bails of hay and looks like its straight off the farm, when he comes out after paying i said to him why did you choose that fuel, he said cause it saves me $230 in fuel bills for every financial year on my farm, used to use the cheap stuff thinking i was saving money but i was wrong

Unfortunately (?) I don't do enough commuter riding these days to say whether one RON rating is better economy over the other. 

The reasons for my choice of fuel is a very scientific approach, it comes down to what's at the bowser I've stopped at; 91 or 95 then 95, e10 or 91 then 91, e10 or 95 or 98 (depending on how close it is to payday and if I feel like giving her a treat) then maybe a tank of 98. The main thing I've learnt is to try and stay away from E10 and diesel

madmax wrote:


Of course if you like you can always add a fuel cleaner to the 91RON

I usually run a full tank with injector cleaner in it....... the one just before I change the oil ( I run 95 ron  ) I heard any crap it cleans out ends up in your oil .

barry_mcki wrote:Unfortunately (?) I don't do enough commuter riding these days to say whether one RON rating is better economy over the other. 

The reasons for my choice of fuel is a very scientific approach, it comes down to what's at the bowser I've stopped at; 91 or 95 then 95, e10 or 91 then 91, e10 or 95 or 98 (depending on how close it is to payday and if I feel like giving her a treat) then maybe a tank of 98. The main thing I've learnt is to try and stay away from E10 and diesel

Don't go down the diesel path, that stuff is evil.

Your philosophy is the same as mine. 95 trumps 91, & 98. 91 trumps E10. E10 would trump diesel if the servo was that desperately short of supply.

On occasion I've pulled up at a pump to find 2 choices 98 or E10, or a third choice, move to another pump. Going to fill up with 98 because I can't be bothered moving.

paul wrote:

madmax wrote:


Of course if you like you can always add a fuel cleaner to the 91RON

I usually run a full tank with injector cleaner in it....... the one just before I change the oil ( I run 95 ron  ) I heard any crap it cleans out ends up in your oil .

That's interesting, but I guess its gotta go somewhere. You would have thought It would go out the pipe first.

Chook wrote:

talon440 wrote:Before i go any further just want to thank,Tropobone great work, MM, Mtbeerwah and especially Tag for his homework and  interesting threads on this, great work    

OK, did a test last year on a 4 day ride with a mate who has the same bandit at that stage both stock except for Yoshi slip on, he uses 91 as he allways has i use 98/95 as i allways have, both filled up at same servo at start, 305ks later fill up again he puts in $21.00 i put in $20.80 same fill point in tank or near enough, next fill up 325Ks later he puts in $23.20 i put in $23.50  this went on the whole trip,same road same speed same conditions, end of trip both spent same amount on fuel, this was to prove a point to him, then about 8 mths ago he has the fuel pump problem, at 42000 ks, did the Gus pump clean out and all good he now uses 95 or 98 and is happy with how his bike goes, have had alot mates on bikes or in cars say the same thing they get better economy from 98 than 91, irrispective of whats in each fuel or what the RON numbers mean for some reason it works, as Forest Gump said and thats all i have to say about that

That's what I like to see, real results from real life testing

Your test doesn't really prove what it might seem, because you had two different riders.  I regularly ride with guys that get more or less fuel economy than I do on any given bike.  One would have to do the same course twice, in the same weather conditions,  switching riders between the two runs to get a truer reading on this,  yes?

In the USA,  87 octane is the equivalent of your 91 octane.  Due to government mandates, almost all gasoline, of any octane, contains up to 10% ethanol,  making pretty much all gasoline E10.   E85 is 85% ethanol, and is in more rare supply even though you can get it in most towns at at least one station. I couldn't imagine running that in any vehicle that wasn't specifically designed for it.

The E10 is lower in calorie content than pure gasoline, so fuel economy tends to be lower overall.  The stated reason for forcing everyone to use E10 (and now the ethanol lobbyists are trying to get that raised to E15) is air quality.  However, it's all a bunch of shit, because everyone is burning more of it anyway.  
My FA runs fine on all regular fuel, that is mostly E10-87 octane around here.  In places with higher average altitudes above mean sea level,  i.e. 5000 ft amsl and higher (I live at 4900),  the octane rating on regular gas is normally 85, and the FA runs fine on that too.  

The main reason we're stuck with E10 is that the government mandates it all over, basically they're making us support the ethanol industry, meaning corn farmers and distilling companies, most of which are British.  Don't ask why.

And don't get me started on that other evil crap - low-sulpher diesel fuel.   Grrrr....

Just one addition/clarification to your list.  As you stated in your list, the normal way of stating the octane on the pump in the United States and Canada is by showing the (R+M)/2 rating.

In most places, that will be 87 regular, 91 premium, 93 super.

However, in many high-altitude places, and in several other notable locations (like North Dakota) the pump-stated octane rating will be 1 to 2 points lower, depending on altitude.  I've seen lots of 86 and 85 octane in places like Colorado and the high Sierra.  Never seen any lower though, and the bikes seem to run the same on it.

One other note - Most gasoline, of every grade, in the USA, is now laced with 10% ethanol.  Gotta make those distillers happy.  

Our Ethanol fuels are cheaper than standard, mostly E10 but you can get E85, I'm pretty sure the cheaper price is from lower tax (I may be wrong). 

I've seen a number of people get very excited by the cheaper price and use it after years of normal unleaded going in their tanks, the ethanol "cleans" all of the waxes, gum, etc from fuel lines and clogs filters and injectors

You're lucky you can still get gasoline without ethanol.  In the USA you have to look hard for it.  

Chook wrote:Our Ethanol fuels are cheaper than standard, mostly E10 but you can get E85, I'm pretty sure the cheaper price is from lower tax (I may be wrong). 

I've seen a number of people get very excited by the cheaper price and use it after years of normal unleaded going in their tanks, the ethanol "cleans" all of the waxes, gum, etc from fuel lines and clogs filters and injectors

The "cheaper" price of E10 here is all of 2cpl cheaper than 91. What a load of shit, I thought it was supposed to be about 10cpl cheaper than 91!
Not that I would entertain putting E10 in my lawnmower much less the car or bike