Octane, Money and You??? What do you run in your 250 and why?

[NathanUc]

I've been using 93 since I got the bike (2,823m) because I thought it was better for the bike *facepalm*

Maybe that's why I was 'maxing' around 55mpg while I know others get up to like 65.. granted I am not very right hand friendly.

Either way, going to burn up this tank of 93 and switch over to 87 as you fine people have recommended. Thanks for the advice and saving me some cash (I should do the math to see how much I've wasted using 93)

[Kevin2109]

Can I use some of this?


http://www.gixxer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=226570

[warlord]

Originally Posted by Jiggles

Yes I know kkim is a tomb of ninjette knowledge. I was just pointing out that 91 is really not much more expensive than 87. 20 cents/gal 60 cents/tank more. I have a car that pings with 87 and not with 91. I will pay the extra money just to be sure I never have the issue in the bike.

Will this increase my bikes performance? Doubtful.
Chances are my bike won't ever have a problem with pinging but for the infinitesimal amount of additional money that 91 costs, I'll avoid the problem altogether if it were to arise.

I also read in posts on this forum that people had experiences where 87 made their bikes perform a little better. I want to see if this is the case with my bike.

So you'll opt for less performance and decreased fuel economy to solve a pre-ignition issue that your bike doesn't have? And pay more money in the process?

Ok, I really don't get your logic but I applaud you for thinking outside the box!

[CThunder-blue]

I switched on my BRT map and am using 91 now that it's in the lower $4 range. It's an extra 70 cents for an increase in performance so I don't find it all that big of a deal. It really sucked driving a turbocharged car though. The difference in cost really adds up when you have to fill up 16 gallons.

[Jiggles]

Originally Posted by warlord

So you'll opt for less performance and decreased fuel economy to solve a pre-ignition issue that your bike doesn't have? And pay more money in the process?

Ok, I really don't get your logic but I applaud you for thinking outside the box!

How does 91 give decreased performance? It shouldn't affect performance at all.

I plan on riding my bike about 6000 miles per year. Add on that hefty 91 price tag and thats an extra $18/year that I will be paying.

If you read my earlier post, I'm also going to run a tank of 87 to see if there is a difference. And for shits and giggles I'll run a tank of 100 too.

[CThunder-blue]

Higher octane is formulated to prevent pre-detonation. This can cause the fuel mixture to not ignite at the correct time and leave unburnt fuel in the exhaust. It's why 87 is recommended. I run an advanced ignition map with 91 and even I can smell the unburnt fuel. I never could smell it with the 87, but the 91, I can definitely smell it when I come to a stop. I think it's because the BRT low ignition map is stock and only changes when the bike gets into the upper RPM band. Not getting a complete burn translates to lower performance and mpg. I definitely would not put 100 in there.

[Jiggles]

I will try 87 and report what I find. As for tanks with 91 I'll post the mileage I've gotten.

From dealer to home with few stops 77.2mpg
Riding around city with many more stops 48.8mpg, 48.2mpg

[CThunder-blue]

Cool. I think 87 will give you even better MPG

[Jiggles]

We will see. I'm going to go burn the rest of my 91 tank fill up with 87 and ride down to hollister for my 600 mile service. If I get over 77mpg there and back then we will have a clear winner.

And I've never smelt gas when riding my ninja

[warlord]

Originally Posted by Jiggles

How does 91 give decreased performance? It shouldn't affect performance at all.

I plan on riding my bike about 6000 miles per year. Add on that hefty 91 price tag and thats an extra $18/year that I will be paying.

If you read my earlier post, I'm also going to run a tank of 87 to see if there is a difference. And for shits and giggles I'll run a tank of 100 too.

I don't think that the cost of fuel is that much of a factor, either. I've been running 91 in my car ever since I installed the supercharger and the new ECU years ago. The difference in the cost per tank is only a few bucks.

The issue with 91 octane is that the gas companies promote it as though it's a 'premium' product, when it's not. It's either the right fuel grade for your vehicle or it's not.

Originally Posted by CThunder-blue

Higher octane is formulated to prevent pre-detonation. This can cause the fuel mixture to not ignite at the correct time and leave unburnt fuel in the exhaust. It's why 87 is recommended. I run an advanced ignition map with 91 and even I can smell the unburnt fuel. I never could smell it with the 87, but the 91, I can definitely smell it when I come to a stop. I think it's because the BRT low ignition map is stock and only changes when the bike gets into the upper RPM band. Not getting a complete burn translates to lower performance and mpg. I definitely would not put 100 in there.

+1

[CThunder-blue]

Originally Posted by Jiggles

And I've never smelt gas when riding my ninja

Most likely because you still have a catalytic converter. Mine is gone

[Jiggles]

Originally Posted by CThunder-blue

Most likely because you still have a catalytic converter. Mine is gone

Then unburnt gas won't be an issue.

So I rode around until I ran out of gas and then walked my baby over to the gas station and filled up with 87. I wanted the tank of gas to be all 87 with as little excess 91 in there as possible.

Let the testing begin

[CThunder-blue]

Originally Posted by Jiggles

Then unburnt gas won't be an issue.

So I rode around until I ran out of gas and then walked my baby over to the gas station and filled up with 87. I wanted the tank of gas to be all 87 with as little excess 91 in there as possible.

Let the testing begin

Unburnt gas isn't an issue if you have a cat is right, environmentally speaking. However, unburnt gas also means you are not getting full combustion. That means your engine is not burning fuel as efficiently as it should. This translates to lower MPG and performance. Hope that explains it better than the first time. I'm not out to prove you wrong. I'm just trying to say that 87 would be better for an engine that does not have any timing advance. Heck, I keep thinking to myself that maybe 89 wouldn't be ok to use. I just have no way of monitoring knock, so I'll just stick with the safe bet that even if my engine runs a little rich, it's better than too lean.

[FrugalNinja250]

Originally Posted by Jiggles

Then unburnt gas won't be an issue.

So I rode around until I ran out of gas and then walked my baby over to the gas station and filled up with 87. I wanted the tank of gas to be all 87 with as little excess 91 in there as possible.

Let the testing begin

You need to average mileage over several tank fulls, because it's impossible to fill to the exact same point each time you refill. Little things like slope, bike lean, lighting conditions that affect your ability to clearly see the fill level, etc, all impact mileage calculations.

[Bols]

Originally Posted by miks

Don't know if you guys have it over there, but I use Shell V-Power. $2x for a full tank, don't mind the extra $1-2 for better fuel.

Same here

[Jiggles]

Originally Posted by drsketch

basically if you're running anything other than 87 you like to throw your money away.

Donate to starving kids, or autism research and buy 87

I'll restate this, 6000 miles will cost $18 more to use 91 over 87. If you truly believe this amount of money is that significant then I suggest to you that every time you have finished using electronic equipment you unplug it from the wall (TV, computer, fans/ac, etc.) Electronics continue to draw power even when they are turned off. Doing this will save you about $30 per year which you can then donate to charity.

As far as throwing away money, I paid $130 for 2 loaves of banana bread and a small banana bread cake at a Children's Miracle Network bake sale run by the Rite Aid I used to work at. I only throw away money when its worth it

[Gorilla25]

mmmmmmm...banana bread

[Alex]

Originally Posted by Jiggles

I'll restate this, 6000 miles will cost $18 more to use 91 over 87.

I agree with you on the main point (that the money isn't likely a significant factor), but the math still seems pretty low?

6000 miles / 50 mpg = 120 gallons per year

Here in the bay area, the difference between 87 and 91 is always at least 30 cents, so 120 * .3 is at least $36/year, right? An when pricing really gets up there, I've seen it differ by as much as $.40 per gallon.

[Jerkson]

I dont know about the US but here in canada we have up to 10-15% ethanol especially in our high-octane grades. Ethanol raises the octane rating but as we all know you get less energy out of an ethanol burn and thus less MPG.

There is one grade of 94 here that is ethanol free.

sorry, to answer the opriginal question I put 94 ethanol-free whenever I can otherwise I put whatever the highest they have is. For the extra couple buck to protect against the possibility of pinging and pre-det i figure I may as well. If I cant afford the extra couple bucks on a lil bike that gets such good MPG, maybe I should drive it less. The difference between 87 and 94 here is about 25c / liter I believe (about 80c / gal)

[Jerkson]

Originally Posted by FrugalNinja250

You need to average mileage over several tank fulls, because it's impossible to fill to the exact same point each time you refill. Little things like slope, bike lean, lighting conditions that affect your ability to clearly see the fill level, etc, all impact mileage calculations.

Im travelling 1800KM one-way to Nova Scotia from Hamilton Ontario in a month or so. Two of us are going. I will fill with 87 the whole way there and with 94 the whole way back. Then I can compare this a little more accurately FOR SCIENCE! PS: For accuracy you write down the number of GAL/L the pump says not a predetermined tank level.

[Jiggles]

Originally Posted by Alex

I agree with you on the main point (that the money isn't likely a significant factor), but the math still seems pretty low?

6000 miles / 50 mpg = 120 gallons per year

Here in the bay area, the difference between 87 and 91 is always at least 30 cents, so 120 * .3 is at least $36/year, right? An when pricing really gets up there, I've seen it differ by as much as $.40 per gallon.

The gas station I use is always only 20 cents more for 91. And I averaged the highway mileage I got and the city mileage I got so that 3 gallons goes 200 miles.

[money]

Thank you to everyone for this thread. I've been putting 93 in my bike as a habit (since my car requires it) and didn't realize it could be negatively affecting the performance. I'm going to make the switch to 87 and see if I notice any difference.

[TXJ]

I just use whatever is recommended. I only use exxon, their speed pass system is great for lazy old people like me who don't want to get their wallet out or go through the tedious task of standing up.

[Bosgarage57]

I use 87, ever one in a while I'll put some fuel booster into all my bikes and cars though.

[Jiggles]

The test results are in

I filled up with 87 right before I left for hollister. Rode the highways and freeways all the way there with no stopping. Had my service done and rode back on the same route. Pulled up to the gas station with 100.1 miles on the odometer. I expected to be putting in about 1.5 gallons... and then the gas just kept coming. It filled up with 2.521 gallons. 100.1/2.521 = 39.7mpg. That's absolutely terrible. What could possibly be the reason for this. When I ride around in the city i get 48mpg but on the highway with 87 I get 39.7mpg Is my ninja leaking fuel or something??

On my trip there and back I was riding in 6th gear at around 10k rpm/75mph. With the first tank of gas (91) I got 77mpg on the way back to my house from hollister. 87 should have given me the same results. I'm thinking there is something very wrong with my poor ninja. Help?

[Alex]

Keep track of it for a few more tanks. The differences are larger than would be explained by differences in bike performance, so make sure that you truly are measuring it the same way each time (resetting the trip meter, dividing by the number of gallons put in as you fill it up to the same level each instance).

[kkim]

Originally Posted by Jiggles

The test results are in

I filled up with 87 right before I left for hollister. Rode the highways and freeways all the way there with no stopping. Had my service done and rode back on the same route. Pulled up to the gas station with 100.1 miles on the odometer. I expected to be putting in about 1.5 gallons... and then the gas just kept coming. It filled up with 2.521 gallons. 100.1/2.521 = 39.7mpg. That's absolutely terrible. What could possibly be the reason for this. When I ride around in the city i get 48mpg but on the highway with 87 I get 39.7mpg Is my ninja leaking fuel or something??

On my trip there and back I was riding in 6th gear at around 10k rpm/75mph. With the first tank of gas (91) I got 77mpg on the way back to my house from hollister. 87 should have given me the same results. I'm thinking there is something very wrong with my poor ninja. Help?

how are you filling up your tank?

[Jiggles]

Originally Posted by kkim

how are you filling up your tank?

I am making sure to fill it the same way each time. I use the same pump at the same chevron, place the lip of the rubber on my gas tank and push in all the way. Then I let the auto-shutoff determine the level of the gas.

I just went and rode in some backroads with no stops and I got 51mpg with 87. I'm thinking that the wind resistance on the freeway is what killed my mileage.

I'm going to start manually filling the tank rather than letting the auto shutoff determine the level. This way I can raise the level of gas to the same visible spot each time.

Now what I'm really wondering is how the balls I got 77mpg in the first place. It was my first time on the bike so maybe I was so timid with the throttle and shifting that it really improved my mileage. Idk... I need to try to replicate that high mpg.

[kkim]

Originally Posted by Jiggles

I am making sure to fill it the same way each time. I use the same pump at the same chevron, place the lip of the rubber on my gas tank and push in all the way. Then I let the auto-shutoff determine the level of the gas.

that's the problem. you need to "manually" fill the tank to the same spot every time you fill to get accurate readings.

[Jiggles]

The auto shutoff will take it to the same level as long as you place the pump in the same position.

However it cuts off nearly a half gallon short so I'll just fill it myself

[kkim]

not all auto shutoffs are calibrated the same... more so if you're using different stations.

so, again I ask you, how have you been filling the tank... manually or with the auto shutoff? if manually, are you filling to the same reference spot in the tank at each fill?

[Jiggles]

But as I said I use the same station and the same pump each time. Before I was using the auto shutoff. The last tank I filled I did it manually up to a visible and repeatable spot. I will continue to use the manual method since I can squeeze an extra .5 gallons in there.

With the auto shutoff When I filled up, my fuel gauge read 3/4 full lol...

[kkim]

Originally Posted by Jiggles

But as I said I use the same station and the same pump each time. Before I was using the auto shutoff. The last tank I filled I did it manually up to a visible and repeatable spot. I will continue to use the manual method since I can squeeze an extra .5 gallons in there.

With the auto shutoff When I filled up, my fuel gauge read 3/4 full lol...

so, that would account for the crappy mpg on the last tank, no? you've changed you're method of filling up, so naturally the mpg calculations will differ.

[Jiggles]

not quite. I allowed the pump to go through its auto shutoff and then recorded the amount of gas I had put in. I then calculated my MPGs. Then I finished filling up the extra .5 gallons. So the crappy mileage is still a mystery.

[kkim]

best bet is to do as Alex suggested and keep track of the next few tanks and see if the numbers stabilize.

[NathanUc]

I'll try and do a test as well. It won't be perfect at all, but should give at least a ballpark figure to see if it makes a noticeable difference.

Since I have about half a tank of 93 left and I'll be taking a 4 hour road trip this weekend, I'll do as follows:
1. On the way to Chicago:
Ride I-65 N at 70mph for 100miles using the rest of my 93.
Once off I-65 N and for the rest of the weekend (will ride well over 200miles over weekend), get rid of ALL the 93 and switch to 87.
2. On the way back to Bloomington:
Ride I-65 S at 70mph for 100miles using 87.


At these speeds, I'm sure winds will make a big diff on mileage, but this is the only way I can really try it without scaring myself running on E (which, btw, is when I have over 1 gallon left).

[Jiggles]

Originally Posted by NathanUc

I'll try and do a test as well. It won't be perfect at all, but should give at least a ballpark figure to see if it makes a noticeable difference.

Since I have about half a tank of 93 left and I'll be taking a 4 hour road trip this weekend, I'll do as follows:
1. On the way to Chicago:
Ride I-65 N at 70mph for 100miles using the rest of my 93.
Once off I-65 N and for the rest of the weekend (will ride well over 200miles over weekend), get rid of ALL the 93 and switch to 87.
2. On the way back to Bloomington:
Ride I-65 N at 70mph for 100miles using 87.


At these speeds, I'm sure winds will make a big diff on mileage, but this is the only way I can really try it without scaring myself running on E (which, btw, is when I have over 1 gallon left).

The 93 you are using has no ethanol though, right? Its pure gas? If I were you I would stick with that. Ethanol blows.

[NathanUc]

Originally Posted by Jiggles

The 93 you are using has no ethanol though, right? Its pure gas? If I were you I would stick with that. Ethanol blows.

Honestly have no idea... it's from Marathon haha. I'll check to see if the pump says anything about that before I leave tomorrow.

[choneofakind]

I use 87. It runs fine and I have no reason to spend more on expensive gas than I have to. I don't plan on messing with ignition advancement in the near future, although tempting, but if I did i would look into higher octane fuel.

btw I've averaged about 63 mpg consistently give or take 1. and that's combined city/highway/twisty backroads. last summer, I was averaging about 66-68 mpg since I had stock jetting and I wasn't ready to ride like I ride now.

[TFKninja]

excuse me for being nieve, but what is 87, in australia we have 91, 95, 98. 91 being the standard and 95 and 98 being the premium, before they started putting ethenol in I never had a problem using standard in my 4x4 which has fuel injection. until lately now it gets valve ping all the time, so I found I have to use premium where ever I can, (my wife keeps putting the cheap stuff in) drives me mad. But I am presuming that because the ninja is still on carbs that may be why we dont have problems with standard fuel. I did get told not to use BP because they add a lubricant to the fuel which is good for cars but not for bikes. Our measuring system may be different because we are metric and that may be what the stickers mean if it is labeled by Kawasaki. I laugh hearing the argument of fuel efficiancy for a motorbike here because I have only just started riding because the price of fuel in my 4x4 has just been getting too expensive so the savings I have now are just huge compared to what we are talking about here.lol