what fuel do you use?
- Thread starter chorsley
- Start date
Help Support S1000RR FORUM:
simon d
Well-known member
I run normal unleaded in mine dont know if its right had no probs.
babarr46
Well-known member
95 unleaded or E10 if you can find it (pops nice at altitude 
)
)
andybarsblade
Well-known member
unionjack link=topic=1508.msg14382#msg14382 date=1349635097 said:
Theres no difference
BUZZ
Im welsh get over it.!!!!
Optimax only for me
P
PhilHays
Guest
Mine's only ever tasted 'super'...
Boardsofnorfolk
Well-known member
It's a myth using super,complete waste of money,you will not gain any extra performance or mpg. Stck with normal unleaded. There was a study not so long ago and found no difference! Save your money.
Boardsofnorfolk
Well-known member
pml had to double take your comment Doc ha a ha.Docta13 link=topic=1508.msg14403#msg14403 date=1349639522 said:Had mine converted to lpg
P
PhilHays
Guest
Yeah, but equally there's studies out there to show that super-unleaded does increases out & efficiency in high revving performanc engines. If it did nowt trading standards would be all over the petrol companies.
Shug
GLOBAL MODERATOR
I usually stick standard Unleaded in - more to do with the range in the nearest petrol station with pay-at-pump though. Although the occasional tank (say, on in 6 or 7) of super. They are chock full of cleaning additives, which I reckon can't be bad in the longer term.
andybarsblade
Well-known member
The simple fact is the S1000RR has been tuned to run on 95 RON if you put anything higher in the ecu cannot self map to the fuel or increase the engines advance to give a performance increase.
You pay the extra for super unleaded/V-power/race fuels etc because of the higher RON number, some engines (esp turbo/super charged engines) have been tuned so they can only run safely on the higher RON fuels. 5th gear did a test a few years ago with an impreza turbo and a naturally aspriated car. They ran the cars with normal fuel against v-power and there was a large increase on the turbo charged car but nothing with the naturally aspriated.
Car and bike engines can be tuned to run on higher higher RON fuels (even 104RON + race fuels) and get an performance increase but if they then run on normal (95) fuel the risk of damage (det) increases.
You pay the extra for super unleaded/V-power/race fuels etc because of the higher RON number, some engines (esp turbo/super charged engines) have been tuned so they can only run safely on the higher RON fuels. 5th gear did a test a few years ago with an impreza turbo and a naturally aspriated car. They ran the cars with normal fuel against v-power and there was a large increase on the turbo charged car but nothing with the naturally aspriated.
Car and bike engines can be tuned to run on higher higher RON fuels (even 104RON + race fuels) and get an performance increase but if they then run on normal (95) fuel the risk of damage (det) increases.
Boardsofnorfolk
Well-known member
like hundreds of other products on the market,that say this will do that and that will do this lol it's almost like the placebo effect,it's all in the mindPhilH link=topic=1508.msg14445#msg14445 date=1349697974 said:
. But as pointed out its not even worth putting this in your Beemer,unless you have a turbo? Personal figures worked out in my own car showed that using super unleaded instead of normal cost me less per mile overall, because I was getting better fuel economy from it that outweighed the increased cost.
Economy was calculated by resetting the odometer after filling every tank, noting number of litres that went in and miles passed on the odometer until next fill (and number of litres that went in again).
It was done over 10 tanks of regular vs 10 tanks of super. Also found on the car (which adjusts throttle adaptation according to driving style) that it took a couple of tanks for the change to fully take effect.
Driving conditions were urban. 99% of my driving is in town, and I've consistently had the same average fuel economy and miles per tank on my car for about 5 years.
Don't know what this means for bikes, but I find it odd that my BMW car is tuned for super (it says so in the owners manual) but my bike isn't (haven't read the owners manual).
Economy was calculated by resetting the odometer after filling every tank, noting number of litres that went in and miles passed on the odometer until next fill (and number of litres that went in again).
It was done over 10 tanks of regular vs 10 tanks of super. Also found on the car (which adjusts throttle adaptation according to driving style) that it took a couple of tanks for the change to fully take effect.
Driving conditions were urban. 99% of my driving is in town, and I've consistently had the same average fuel economy and miles per tank on my car for about 5 years.
Don't know what this means for bikes, but I find it odd that my BMW car is tuned for super (it says so in the owners manual) but my bike isn't (haven't read the owners manual).
Boardsofnorfolk
Well-known member
still going to say,you won't get anymore performance or mpg if you put this in your bike or car for that matter,not enough to notice,so why isn't everyone buying it? And if it was so good why have 2 different unleaded fuels? It's a total rip off. I used this years ago in my VR6 and the car was no different,still found it drinking fuel like it was going out of fashion lolmit link=topic=1508.msg14452#msg14452 date=1349703316 said:
My car (e46 BMW 325Ci) does about 280 miles on a tank of super or 240 on a tank of normal, as I said that's 99% urban driving in zone 1 and 2 of London). Tests were done when I was commuting to work so had a regular journey to make the comparison with.
I haven't tried anything scientific with my bike. It doesn't get ridden enough to make accurate measurements because the fuel in the tank is often standing there for weeks at a time before I start it up again. I do notice it rides much more nicely on a full tank of fuel than an empty one, but usually an empty tank is full of old degraded fuel, but since I've owned it from brand new I'd quite like to stick to the super fuel just so I can say it's only ever tasted super
The other thing with the bike is I've spent the best part of £14000 on a nice bike to ride at weekends as a toy, so a couple of quid on a tank of fuel isn't going to make much difference and I might as well put the good stuff in.
Also also, if you read up about the reason why higher octane number is better, you'll see that it's all about the chemical reaction with oxygen and that higher RON fuel burns better (this is simple chemistry and undeniable) so it stands to reason that it would perform better in an engine that produces power from burning fuel.
The 2 grades of fuel are produced as part of the oil refinery process and mixed together in varying quantities. It's probably about production cost as well.
As for that graph, was that in FRONT magazine, as in the one with the naked ladies on the front? Is that really an authoritative source for good journalism these days?
Finally (unless someone starts disputing me with stuff I'll have to spend ages reading with my tail between my legs), if there's no difference in fuel grades, why don't they fill up aeroplanes or F1 cars with regular unleaded?
I haven't tried anything scientific with my bike. It doesn't get ridden enough to make accurate measurements because the fuel in the tank is often standing there for weeks at a time before I start it up again. I do notice it rides much more nicely on a full tank of fuel than an empty one, but usually an empty tank is full of old degraded fuel, but since I've owned it from brand new I'd quite like to stick to the super fuel just so I can say it's only ever tasted super
The other thing with the bike is I've spent the best part of £14000 on a nice bike to ride at weekends as a toy, so a couple of quid on a tank of fuel isn't going to make much difference and I might as well put the good stuff in.
Also also, if you read up about the reason why higher octane number is better, you'll see that it's all about the chemical reaction with oxygen and that higher RON fuel burns better (this is simple chemistry and undeniable) so it stands to reason that it would perform better in an engine that produces power from burning fuel.
The 2 grades of fuel are produced as part of the oil refinery process and mixed together in varying quantities. It's probably about production cost as well.
As for that graph, was that in FRONT magazine, as in the one with the naked ladies on the front? Is that really an authoritative source for good journalism these days?
Finally (unless someone starts disputing me with stuff I'll have to spend ages reading with my tail between my legs), if there's no difference in fuel grades, why don't they fill up aeroplanes or F1 cars with regular unleaded?
Boardsofnorfolk
Well-known member
so you're saying you get 40miles more by using super? I call poo on that lol And I know the difference about fuels,The octane indicates how likely a fuel will auto-ignite, and has no bearing on fuel performance,and using normal unleaded isn't going to make anyone's engine better or worse,so you're saying you car engine is cleaner? Because you se super? I doubt it. As long as people like yourself are buying it,they will make it,simple really.mit link=topic=1508.msg14460#msg14460 date=1349711973 said:My car (e46 BMW 325Ci) does about 280 miles on a tank of super or 240 on a tank of normal, as I said that's 99% urban driving in zone 1 and 2 of London). Tests were done when I was commuting to work so had a regular journey to make the comparison with.
I haven't tried anything scientific with my bike. It doesn't get ridden enough to make accurate measurements because the fuel in the tank is often standing there for weeks at a time before I start it up again. I do notice it rides much more nicely on a full tank of fuel than an empty one, but usually an empty tank is full of old degraded fuel, but since I've owned it from brand new I'd quite like to stick to the super fuel just so I can say it's only ever tasted super
The other thing with the bike is I've spent the best part of £14000 on a nice bike to ride at weekends as a toy, so a couple of quid on a tank of fuel isn't going to make much difference and I might as well put the good stuff in.
Also also, if you read up about the reason why higher octane number is better, you'll see that it's all about the chemical reaction with oxygen and that higher RON fuel burns better (this is simple chemistry and undeniable) so it stands to reason that it would perform better in an engine that produces power from burning fuel.
The 2 grades of fuel are produced as part of the oil refinery process and mixed together in varying quantities. It's probably about production cost as well.
As for that graph, was that in FRONT magazine, as in the one with the naked ladies on the front? Is that really an authoritative source for good journalism these days?
Finally (unless someone starts disputing me with stuff I'll have to spend ages reading with my tail between my legs), if there's no difference in fuel grades, why don't they fill up aeroplanes or F1 cars with regular unleaded?
“99% of the chemistry in Shell V-Power race fuel is identical to the chemistry used in the road fuel that can be bought at Shell forecourts,if you look they tested road fuel in an F1 car made hardly any difference,not sure on the aeroplane lol
