gen 1 best fuel

[Hedgetrimmer]

I recently read that the gen 1 will run better on a low octane pump fuel (say 89-91) rather than 92-95. Wondered what others are filling up with and why?

[Falcon 269]

I recently read that the gen 1 will run better on a low octane pump fuel (say 89-91) rather than 92-95. Wondered what others are filling up with and why?

Did you read this on the US FZ1OA forum, Nick?  If so, US uses Motor Octane Number to indicate octane whereas UK/Europe uses Research Octane Number. 

The same fuel will score lower on the MON test than on RON so you can't make a direct comparison.

Use 95 octane regular unleaded in the UK.  I expect some will reply that Shell Advance Super or similar works better in their bikes but it's not what I've found.

[Hedgetrimmer]

Yep, you've rumbled me Mike!
Thanks for pointing out the differences in UK vs US ratings.
I've always gone for the higher octane rating at pumps in the UK.
A bike shop I used to work at used to recommend Shell V-Power, and advised that Yams from this period run better on it. I always thought I noticed the difference on my previous thous, but can't really tell with this one at the mo.

[flesh]

Yep, you've rumbled me Mike!
Thanks for pointing out the differences in UK vs US ratings.
I've always gone for the higher octane rating at pumps in the UK.
A bike shop I used to work at used to recommend Shell V-Power, and advised that Yams from this period run better on it. I always thought I noticed the difference on my previous thous, but can't really tell with this one at the mo.

My Gen 2 runs much better on the Shell V Power. "Almost" eliminates the crappy standard fuelling (mines a '10 plate with the newer ECU aswell). Also gives better fuel economy for some reason

[ChristoT]

Yep, you've rumbled me Mike!
Thanks for pointing out the differences in UK vs US ratings.
I've always gone for the higher octane rating at pumps in the UK.
A bike shop I used to work at used to recommend Shell V-Power, and advised that Yams from this period run better on it. I always thought I noticed the difference on my previous thous, but can't really tell with this one at the mo.

My Gen 2 runs much better on the Shell V Power. "Almost" eliminates the crappy standard fuelling (mines a '10 plate with the newer ECU aswell). Also gives better fuel economy for some reason

Higher octane means more bang per amount of fuel used, hence better throttle response and fuel economy.

The carbed bikes, without fuel injection and ECUs can't adjust their fuelling on the go to take advantage of the better fuel. So while it may clean the engine out, and give a wee bit more power, the difference won't be nearly as noticeable. The engine may even run hotter.

[Pat]

Don't notice any difference in performance, but my gen one does seem to get a constant 10% better MPG using super rather than normal unleaded. So, as it's only ~5% more expensive I figure it makes sense to use it.


Seems to make no difference at all using it in my 1200 Bandit though, so that gets whatever's cheapest!

[Falcon 269]

Higher octane means more bang per amount of fuel used, hence better throttle response and fuel economy.

Actually, it means greater resistance to premature detonation ('knock').  It burns slower and allows the use of a higher compression ratio in tuned motors. 

http://www.nicoclub.com/archives/gasoline-octane-myths.html

It's not necessary to use higher octane fuel in our Fazers.  In theory, there should be no discernible benefit, either.  However, as I predicted, several here report personal experience that suggests otherwise. 

A classic case of try it for yourself and make up your own mind, I think.

[Hedgetrimmer]

Actually Mike, I don't know what octane the V-Power stuff is - I'm guessing it's in the higher ranges for pump fuel, but I wonder if there are perhaps other additives/reasons for it to make a difference. Shell talk about having developed it in conjunction with Ferrari, so it may be performance was their guiding criteria, but that's not why I use it. I use it because, as I mentioned, it seemed to make my previous thous run smoother, reducing the standard Fazer glitches somewhat. At the shop I worked at where they recommended it, we found our customers reported the same.
 
Ok, just checked, and V-Power has a claimed UK rating of 99 RON. As with oils, over a period of development, with all the money spent on R&D, testing etc, I fail to believe that noticeable improvements wouldn't occur, perhaps not year-to-year, but certainly over longer time scales. Technology advances and sooner or later the benefits are available to all.

[PieEater]

Personally I try to alternate between a tankfull of supermarket petrol because it's cheaper and a tankfull of V-Power because it contains additives that should help keep the fuel system clean, I don't notice any difference in performance or fuel economy.

[Falcon 269]

I'll go see if my local Shell garage has got V-Power over here.  No harm in trying it, like I said.

[Exupnut]

Run outta gogo juice and dragged some shit thru carbs the other day so when that happens i always stick a tank of high octane in and thrash the dogs off it and it sorts it. First time it happend on the thou and it made a noticeable difference on the throttle low to high.

[Hedgetrimmer]

This is what went in my tank today:
 
http://www.shell.co.uk/gbr/products-services/on-the-road/fuels/vpower/what-is-v-power-nitro-plus.html
 
A bit on the expensive side, but hell, this is my bike we're talking about here!
The only thing I wonder about is whether it would be wise to use it on v. low mileage engines. A friction modifier like that might prevent proper running in, as with fully synthetic oils.

[fireblake]

Our local Shell which 500 meters from my house is .1 of a penny dearer than the local Asda which is 3 miles away. Sainsbury's 4 miles away also does 10p a litre off when you spend £60 on groceries. They all do there own version's of V Power.  I just buy unleaded for my Gen 1 and am totally happy

[PieEater]

Run outta gogo juice and dragged some shit thru carbs the other day so when that happens i always stick a tank of high octane in and thrash the dogs off it and it sorts it. First time it happend on the thou and it made a noticeable difference on the throttle low to high.

Important to note that not all high octane petrol will contain the additives and detergents that Shell put into V-Power.

[VNA - BMW Wank]

As Mike (Falcon) says it's about burn rate.


Petrol is petrol in energy terms, a gallon of 92RON has the same energy as a gallon of 98RON.


The difference is that 98 RON gives a more controlled slower burn, rather than just exploding.


So if you read up on things such as top dead centre and ignition timing, you'll get the idea.  The fuel is ignited before top dead centre, it starts to burn, and as the piston just passes the top the main explosion occurs pushing the piston hard down the cylinder.

What can happen, if like in the old days you used poor quality fuel  (cheap low octane) or your timing was not set up correctly (happened to me with a Cavalier SRI that I bought) is you'll get pinking.  That is detonation is occurring right on or before TDC - pre ignition is called knock.

The timing on your Gen1 Fazer is factory set and cannot be adjusted.  Running a slightly higher octane fuel will make no difference, running a much higher octane fuel will probably mean a slight fall off in performance - that's because the timing will be slightly out with the wrong fuel, though at least on the right side of top dead centre. 

If you put too low an octane fuel in you will get pinking or knock which will eventually burn out your valves (usually inlet?) 
There is of course a lot of marketing bull in fuel and oils.  Sure they are cleaner than they used to be, but manufactures can't add extra energy - as far as I am aware it's not possible.  And clearly it's best to use the correct octane for your bike if you want to get max performance.  If you have concerns about the quality of the fuel in your country it may well be worth going up a grade.
 Now if my memory is correct.  The Gen1 Fazer is rated for 92RON and up.  What I can't remember is how effective ignition advancers are for the bike and how well they work with 95 and 98 RON fuels.
The bottom line, the only time I've ever stuck 98 RON in was when there was a petrol shortage and that's all there was. 

Oh, a lot of modern petrol cars (as we learned in the oil thread car engines are more sophisticated than bike engines!) are now using high compression, high efficiency turbo charged units.    These engines often require 98 RON, but the manufactures knowing what some of their customers will do, have wisely fitted most of them with anti-knock technology, which if pinking or knock is detected by the knock sensors will retard the ignition.  But of course your 220hp Golf GTI will only make 220HP if you put 98 RON in it.

Blah blah blah blah.




Blah.

[Hedgetrimmer]

I don't use this or that fuel from a desire to achieve any outright performance gains. In my experience, stock gen 1 thous run a bit smoother on V-Power, that's why I use it when I can. That's my take on this, I've used it on 4 bikes now, and I'm happy with the results, and that's what counts, so yah-boo sucks!   
 
Incidentally Mike, I wonder if it will make any noticeable difference to an Ivanised bike (since it won't have the poor low end fuelling of a stock bike anyway) and will be interested to see what you think once you've tried it. I'm not talking about miracle cures here, or a revelatory experience, by the way, just a noticeable improvement.

[VNA - BMW Wank]

One possibility might be;

Going from 92RON, which the bike is set up for, to 98RON, could be making things smoother by just taking the edge of the bikes performance.

If the timing is out, you could be loosing power, which maybe might feel good?

Personally, I think, well I'm pretty sure it's all in the heid.  You might loose one or two HP using a higher octane fuel, but in terms of how the bike feels, I can't see it making any difference.  It's a case of having spent the extra money it is gonna feel better.

Anyway fuel is expensive enough without spending extra on it?   There's a recession on don't you know.

[Hedgetrimmer]

How on earth is having your timing out going to feel better???!
Improvements in my head? I don't believe so. I can't gauge it on my current bike cos it's not running right, but it definitely made a difference on my previous ones. Don't ask me, ask the customers who had it recommended to them by Woodford Motorcycles. I never noticed any drop off of performance either. The idea behind V-Power is that it coats your cylinder wall with a friction modifier, as well as having detergents to remove any undesirable deposits, so improving performance. I'll take the word of the engineers who develop the fuel - I don't think it's just a conspiracy to make more bucks before they blow your engine up. There may be some truth that the fuel is too advanced for a 2001-2005 bike, but wouldn't Shell's extremely well-funded R&D department have thought about that before putting it on sale to Joe Public, who they know aren't all engineering geniuses?

[VNA - BMW Wank]

How on earth is having your timing out going to feel better???!

Because with a higher octane fuel you need to advance the ignition to get the optimum burn.
With a bike like the Gen1 you can't do that, that is unless you fit an ignition advancer unit. 

So with the higher octane fuel the piston is further past TDC when the main burn or explosion occurs, so maybe that could make it feel smoother or better.  But in reality the performance of your bike is, if anything, very slightly down.  And I'd put good money on it all being in the head. 

It's worth reading the article via the link that Mike posted.  Note the use of language in the naming of grades.  ie planting the concept that a higher grade fuel will be better for, or perform better in your motor when it simply won't, all it will do is cost you more money and make more cash for the oil company.  Shell is just pushing this further.

We also know that modern bikes have had problems with high tech oils and bedding in, so just in case I might be minded to avoid a fuel that claims to be trying to coat my bores!

At the end of the day it's just more marketing bull.  All modern fuels have to meet certain standards, all have detergents etc, and I'd bet if you strip yer bike engine doon, assuming you've changed the oil now and again, I'll bet you'll find it pretty darn clean in there.

Anyway filled up with 95 RON tonight, that's all I'll ever be putting in her.  Can't even remember what brand our local filling station is selling, it's changed several times over the last few years. 

[Camshaft]

I swear my Gen 1 has more get up and go with Shell V Power 98RON. Thrashing it I'm not sure but general running about the bike is more eager and recovers better from the odd accidental take off when the clutch grabs before the throttle revs the engine over idle.
I had a Mitsubishi Lancer 1990 1.5 Carb and Shell V Power 98RON was without any doubt producing better power and far better fuel economy over 95 & 92RON.


Tests on a Dyno would be interesting so as to quash the theory over reality situation.

[VNA - BMW Wank]

Tests on a Dyno would be interesting so as to quash the theory over reality situation.

I don't think we are talking simply theory, as it's not theory that 98RON has the the same energy as 92RON it's fact.  And so on.

As to a bike going on a dyno, first with 95RON, then 98RON, here's my guess.  It's gonna be hard to measure the difference, any differences would probably fall into  differences in the region of dyno tolerances  and uncertainties, ie the accuracy of the dyno and those little things you just can't get exactly the same between two tests. 

But what we can be sure of is, if you keep putting higher and higher octane fuel in, eventually you'll get a fall off in performance as your ignition timing falls further and further away from it's optimum. 

 

I had a Mitsubishi Lancer 1990 1.5 Carb and Shell V Power 98RON was without any doubt producing better power and far better fuel economy over 95 & 92RON.

I'm afraid a quick google ain't telling we what this was set up for, ie what fuel it should be run on.  But 1990 is right in that transition period when Europe was phasing out lead.  What does lead do, it's raises the octane rating and lubricates the valve seats, it's perfect apart from one little detail that it's highly poisonous.  Now most cars back then ran on 4 star, so that translated into super unleaded.  Also back then a lot of cars you still set up the timing by loosening the distributor and using a strobe (on was it no.1 piston spark lead) to point at the crank at a given rpm (tick over or 1000rpm) and you gently moved the distributor until you had the two little marks perfectly lined up.

So if your car still had this 1980's style set up, well you could do calculations, and advance or retard the ignition as required in order to try your motor on different fuels.

Of course using names rather than numbers confused some folks.  I ended up buying a car that need 4star, the previous owner has done a couple of thousand miles on unleaded but said it was crap on it.  I bought, then a few weeks later got it checked out as though the timing was spot on for 4 star, it just wasn't going as it should.  The inlet valves were burn't.  Conclusion, previous owner got his calculations wrong.

Anyway, that brings me to another wee point.  I got a quote for getting it fixed.  I then popped into Halfords and bought a Haynes manual and got the head off.  Spent a bit of time and got the new inlets seated and put it all back together.  One thing I didn't do was decoke the head.  Even back in 1990 de-coke sessions were history.  You can't get cleaner than clean!

[PieEater]

I'm inclined to think there are 2 arguments here.

1) Is a higher octane petrol going to offer discernible benefits in engine performance and / or fuel economy to a carbureted Fazer 1000?
2) Are the additives in a premium petrol such as Shell V-Power going to offer discernible benefits in engine performance and / or fuel economy to a carbureted Fazer 1000?

My personal opinion is;
1) No - The engine was not designed to nor has the ability to make use of higher octane fuel.
2) Quite possibly - If the additives clean up deposits that have built up in the jets and other areas of the fuel system that have formed over time.

I'd argue that folks who report an improvement in performance / fuel economy from using V-Power are more likely to be seeing this through the effect of the additives than the higher octane rating.

[Spannerhands]

Don't see how posh fuel can make a difference unless you've got EFI with a knock sensor.
Worst thing is ethanol they put in petrol these days. Eats away at your carbs and fuel lines!

[Hedgetrimmer]

I'm inclined to think there are 2 arguments here.

1) Is a higher octane petrol going to offer discernible benefits in engine performance and / or fuel economy to a carbureted Fazer 1000?
2) Are the additives in a premium petrol such as Shell V-Power going to offer discernible benefits in engine performance and / or fuel economy to a carbureted Fazer 1000?

My personal opinion is;
1) No - The engine was not designed to nor has the ability to make use of higher octane fuel.
2) Quite possibly - If the additives clean up deposits that have built up in the jets and other areas of the fuel system that have formed over time.

I'd argue that folks who report an improvement in performance / fuel economy from using V-Power are more likely to be seeing this through the effect of the additives than the higher octane rating.

Yes, this is what I feel. I doubt that the higher octane is the reason that people notice improvements when using such fuels, and I think VNA may well be right in that it may actually adversely affect the running of older bikes (although I still wonder how that could make it feelbetter if it is effectively putting the ignition timing out). Much more likely to be to do with cleaning additives, anti-knock additives etc. I still do believe I noticed an improvement on stock Fazers, less glitchiness, and I think the sheer numbers of people reporting the same bears this out.
May I throw a couple of extra complications into the mix, as it were? The Fazer 1000 gen 1 was set up apparently to run on quite poor quality fuel as stock, and hence the fluffing at low revs they all seem to have. So what of the Ivans jet kits, and also the 3 or 4 degree timing mods, partly designed to adjust everything to higher quality fuels such as we have in Europe? How would these affect the arguments?

[VNA - BMW Wank]

No it won't adversely effect the running of a bike like our Gen1 Fazers.  But in performance terms if anything it will make a smidgen less power, but I suspect that even that will be hard to measure.

Much more likely to be to do with cleaning additives, anti-knock additives etc. I still do believe I noticed an improvement on stock Fazers, less glitchiness, and I think the sheer numbers of people reporting the same bears this out.

Engines are clean on standard fuels, they were over 20 years ago too, the days of weekend de-coke sessions are well and truly gone.  92 RON has good enougth anti-knock properties (which is what RON is about) for the GEN1.

It's all about that timing.  If I could buy 92RON I would, but we don't have that option.  By 98 RON, the ignition - the spark, is being applied too late.

You'd have to speak to tuners about ignition advancers and whether 98RON and a suitable ignition advancer produces results with the Fazer.  But seeing as the bike was designed by Yamaha for 92RON I'd take a bit of convincing  to go down that route.

May I throw a couple of extra complications into the mix, as it were? The Fazer 1000 gen 1 was set up apparently to run on quite poor quality fuel as stock, and hence the fluffing at low revs they all seem to have.

No, not poor quality fuel, it needs good quality fuel of 92RON or higher. 

Ivans jet kits are to set up so the carbs get round the poor set up required to get through stringent emissions tests.  Those standards have been updated again, and hence Yamaha can no longer sell a bike with carbs.  I would guess for example today's emissions standards will be looking for near zero emissions on a closed throttle, something a carb, unless you add little electronic stepper motors and stuff can never do (bypass holes).  Carbs, as wonderful as they are, are history due to emission standards.  But no - Ivans carb kits are all about getting your carbs set up to their sweetest optimum, that have absolutely nothing to do with ignition timing.

Carbs used to wear out years ago, but that doesn't seem to be much of an issue today.  And wear and dirt are two different issues.  Varnishing is the enemy of carbs today, which happens when you leave carbs for a long time with fuel sitting in em.  It has been suggested that varnishing is less likely to happen with a higher octane fuel.  So if you stick yer bike away for the winter, a tank full of 98RON might be worthwhile.   But there's no day to day running benefit for your crabs.

Ignition advancer yes, different game, designed to take advantage of higher octane fuels.  I'd be very wary of it though, but if a tuner like Ivan is offering such a mod, then it might be worth considering.  Just remember that if you want to go back to 92 or 95 RON with a 98RON compatible advancer, well remove the ignition advancer before filling with a lower octane, it won't take that many tankfuls to burn through yer valves.

At the end of the day, for most of us, our relationship with our motorcycle is not rational, it's emotional.  Ask any sales good person about selling stuff and people purchasing, it's about about interaction and emotion. 

So loving your bike, you will buy it the best fuel there is, and yes it will go faster and feel smoother becuase that's what the best will do.

But take the emotion out of it, look at the facts in the cold light of day, stick it on a dyno in quiet desperation if you wish but I'm afraid..........................................................................................