For those that advocate using 87 octane in these bikes

[Guest]

Please STOP!!!
Just because YOU cannot hear it, your engine is detonating.
Please STOP giving the new members such BAD ADVICE!!!!

From the SUZUKI Factory Manuals:




Just in case no one happens to notice those little yellow tags that are required on U.S. fuel pumps,
our fuel octane is given in RESEARCH METHOD OCTANE numbers!


Eric

[chuck hahn]

87 falls within the perameters by US standards, so im fail to see your point other than the differences in rating bringing about 2 different numbers.

[bonanzadave]

CRAP !! First you tell me not to use motorcycle oil and now I cant use car gas. Is there secret air I should be using in my tires too....

[chuck hahn]

helium makes the tires and rims lighter so you can get another 10 MPH out of her...man your really behind on your tech tips!!!! LMAO

[Nessism]

87 octane is fine.

http://mn.gov/commerce/weights-and-measures/images/OctaneFacts.pdf

How is octane rating determined?
Gasoline is subjected to two testing methods to establish its octane rating: one, called the motor method, runs the gasoline in an engine running under load; and the second, the research method, runs the gasoline in a freerunning engine. The research method gives slightly higher ratings, and the octane number displayed on the pump is an average of the two methods.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octane_rating

Anti-Knock Index (AKI)
In most countries, including Australia and all of those in Europe, the "headline" octane rating shown on the pump is the RON, but in Canada, the United States and some other countries, like Brazil, the headline number is the average of the RON and the MON, called the Anti-Knock Index (AKI, and often written on pumps as (R+M)/2). It may also sometimes be called the Pump Octane Number (PON).

[Steve]

From the SUZUKI Factory Manuals:




Just in case no one happens to notice those little yellow tags that are required on U.S. fuel pumps,
our fuel octane is given in RESEARCH METHOD OCTANE numbers!

Can't quite agree with you on that one.

Did you notice that it calls for 85 - 95 PUMP octane, then shows you how pump octane is determined?

And, ... why do you think they call that number PUMP octane?
Because it's the number displayed on the pump!!!

.

[1980GS1000E]

So, what's the problem, Steve? 87 falls in the recommendation. Anywhere from 85 to 95.

[TheCafeKid]

So, what's the problem, Steve? 87 falls in the recommendation. Anywhere from 85 to 95.

I think that was his point. He's disagreeing with Daniel, not Ed.

As far as not using 87, or even 89...go ahead and pay for 92 or whatever Daniel. Not only will you get poor-er by the minute, your bike will run that way too...this has been covered redundantly on this and many other forums. Our bikes were not designed for high octane fuel (unless of course you're Ray or one of those guys and are running much higher compression ratios). Even a comparatively modern engine like my ZRX with higher CR wasn't designed around running nor is it recommended in the service manual to run, higher than 90. 87 is perfectly fine.

So, to the new guys, run 87. Its perfectly acceptable. Higher octane not only is a waste of money, it can actually be worse for your engine in the long term...The only bad advice given regarding this topic is what was originally posted. It's blatantly incorrect. As a matter of fact, while I'm certainly not one for advocating heavy handed moderation on such a forum, but it's my opinion that this thread should be deleted by the Admin for the simple reason that it is in fact, as plainly posted by the OP in his picture, utterly wrong.
This is not intended as a personal attack of any sort, but the intent and purpose of this thread, and even this forum, is teaching people who might not know otherwise how to maintain and care for their bike, and while that may have been the OP's intent, the lesson is incorrect....
Just my .02

[7981GS]

Good read if you are willing to spend a couple of minutes reading:

http://www.contactmagazine.com/Issue54/EngineBasics.html

Eric


Just like using lower quality oil, zip ties in your combustion chambers, hand "torquing" bolts,
in the end, it is your engine to do with as you wish.
If you can't afford an extra .20 per fill up to save your engine from damage, it's your choice.
May your engine survive anyway.

[Gssheller]

I think this post comes at an interesting time for me. When I first joined this forum just over a year ago, I was new to this generation of bikes. In fact, I had been away from bikes for over 20 years.
I read through all the beginner stuff and followed all of the points advised...except one. I ran 92 octane in every tank for the entire year, just under 30k miles.
Last weekend, while riding in the Rose City 250, I filled up with regular at the advice of a close friend who has always run 87 octane.
2 tanks later and my bike has never run better. The acceleration seems smoother, more powerful.
At this point, I have to cast a fervent vote for 87.
But each to his own.

[TheCafeKid]

Good read if you are willing to spend a couple of minutes reading:

http://www.contactmagazine.com/Issue54/EngineBasics.html

Eric


Just like using lower quality oil, zip ties in your combustion chambers, hand "torquing" bolts,
in the end, it is your engine to do with as you wish.
If you can't afford an extra .20 per fill up to save your engine from damage, it's your choice.
May your engine survive anyway.

While it is in fact an interesting read, your conclusion is still incorrect.
Perhaps you should read it again, and pay special attention to the compression ratios in the test subject engines that are fed premium fuel, and then the ratio at which they would expect an engine to run less than premium fuel...

Or...since you won't, I'll sum it up for you, and those who may be confused by your misleading posts.

"There are a lot of reasons forfast burn chambers but one nice thing about them is that they become more resistant to detonation. A real world example is the Northstar engine from 1999 to 2000. The 1999 engine was a 10.3:1 compression ratio. It was a premium fuel engine. For the 2000 model year, we revised the combustion chamber, achieved faster bum. We designed it to operate on regular fuel and we only had to lower the compression ratio .3 to only 10:1 to make it work. Normally, on a given engine (if you didn't change the combustion chamber design) to go from premium to regular fuel, it will typically drop one point in compression ratio: With our example, you would expect a Northstar engine at 10.3:1 compression ratio, dropped down to 9.3:1 in order to work on regular. Because of the faster burn chamber, we only had to drop to 10:1. The 10:1 compression ratio still has very high compression with attendant high mechanical efficiency and yet we can operate it at optimum spark advance on regular fuel. That is one example of spark advance in terms of technology. A lot of that was achieved through computational fluid dynamics analysis of the combustion chamber to improve the swirl and tumble and the mixture motion in the chamber to enhance the bum rate."

We don't run anywhere near 10.3:1 in stock form. As a matter of fact most if not all of the 8v engines don't even run 9.0:1. The 16v engine mostly run 9.3:1 or so from the few different models I've read up on. ALL of which are fairly low compression compared to engines designed to run on premium fuel. 10.3:1 can be argued as comparatively low CR depending on chamber design as well.

12.5:1, 14:1....yeah you better be running 95...but what you're suggesting is complete farce.

[bonanzadave]

I live near a fleet/farm store that has a 92 oct / non-oxygenated gas pump. The V2 pirates flock to it like its the only gas in town...

[Steve]

Just like using lower quality oil,

Most of us have switched to higher quality oil.

, zip ties in your combustion chambers,

Thanks, but I have shattered a shim and spent hours fishing the pieces out of the engine, I will continue to use the method that works for me.

hand "torquing" bolts,

For many non-critical items, an EXPERIENCED guess is sufficient. For critical stuff, the torque wrench is still used.

If you can't afford an extra .20 per fill up to save your engine from damage,

Even my wife's L has a 4.5 gallon tank. Filling when it hits REServe takes 3.5 gallons. In my area, the difference between 87 and 89 octane is 10 cents per gallon, meaning a difference of 35 cents, not 20 per tank. Our other bikes are 5.8 gallons or larger, so the difference is even larger.

it's your choice.

The one thing you have correct.

May your engine survive anyway.

They have been doing it for many years and many miles, thank you very much.

.

[GateKeeper]

I look at it this way.....30 years ago when my bike was produced there was none of this high octain gas was there ? So why use it today, I put in the cheap stuff, now mind you I have not filled up the tank in a long time, but once I do, it will be the low octain stuff.....

I ahve been known to be wrong in the past, and this might be one of those times, but I think I will be safe, and at $1.50 a litre for the good stuff, well NO Thanks....my SUV get's enough of that already

[DanTheMan]

I look at it this way.....30 years ago when my bike was produced there was none of this high octain gas was there ? So why use it today, I put in the cheap stuff, now mind you I have not filled up the tank in a long time, but once I do, it will be the low octain stuff.....

I ahve been known to be wrong in the past, and this might be one of those times, but I think I will be safe, and at $1.50 a litre for the good stuff, well NO Thanks....my SUV get's enough of that already

High octane gas has been around for a long time. I ran high octane, leaded fuel in my '70 Fiat 850 Spider after I rebuilt the engine with .040 over dome topped pistons and installed a 3/4 race cam in it. My compression ration was pushing 11:0:1, it would pre-detonate (ping) on anything less.
However, the only time I run higher than 87 octane in my 850 is in hot desert, city and mountain riding (89 octane), and I found my 1100 needs i89 octane for hot summer riding, so I suspect there's some carbon build up in the cylinders.
No "ping" I stick with the lower octane fuels. I'm already paying through the nose for the diesel I run in my other vehicles.