22-08-13, 05:48 PM
(This post was last modified: 22-08-13, 05:51 PM by VNA.)
Quote: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.
Quote: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!
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.
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!
Is there ANYTHING out there that I can replace my 12 year old bike with? I think not.
(22-08-13, 07:03 PM)PieEater link Wrote: 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?
22-08-13, 09:45 PM
(This post was last modified: 22-08-13, 09:47 PM by VNA.)
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.
Quote: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.
Quote: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.......................................................................................... 
Now here's a thought for you.
If by using an ignition advancer - which simply means the spark is provided x number of degrees earlier (the engine rotating 360 degrees) than standard. So if this gives a you a power gain with 95 or 98 RON petrol (whichever the advancer is designed to work with).
Then does it not follow, that if your bike's ignition is set for 92RON, and you put 95RON in, or 98RON, you will get a slight drop off in performance? (with no advancer fitted)
Surely.
DIY ignition advancer, see in this thread,
http://foc-u.co.uk/index.php?topic=2243.0
Today with my Gen 1 Thou I put in 20.5 litres of 91RON non Ethanol from 711 (usually use V Power 98RON) and did 280kms today hitting the twisties.
For whatever reason it did not stack up against the V Power. Especially noticeable with low down torque and top end power.
Mid range I couldn't tell. 3000 rpms 2nd gear wide open throttle a definite lack of grunt.
Whatever those boys at Shell are doing they are doing well. RON facts aside (as respect them) my bike loves the stuff and will continue to use the V Power.
where does the muffler go?
The owners manual says;
Quote:Your Yamaha engine has been designed to use regular unleaded gasoline with a research octane number of 91 or higher. If knocking (or pinging) occurs, use a gasoline of a different brand or premium unleaded fuel.
No 95 RON round your way camshaft?
Well, I spent today filling up with 95 (4 fill-ups) and I'll carry on with that for a while, just to see. I still insist that the V-Power eases the standard low down glitches, unfortunately mine has somewhat rather more severe tantrums below 3k at the moment and so is not a good test bike for this. Above 4k it doesn't seem to matter so much, and above 7k, I'm just trying to hang on and don't have time to think about it! But I note that the quote you used, VNA, just says "91 or above". Not very helpful, as part of what we're trying to decide here is whether higher octanes are actually not very good for the gen 1? So when they say "above", what's the limit?
(25-08-13, 09:22 PM)nick crisp link Wrote: Well, I spent today filling up with 95 (4 fill-ups) and I'll carry on with that for a while, just to see. I still insist that the V-Power eases the standard low down glitches, unfortunately mine has somewhat rather more severe tantrums below 3k at the moment and so is not a good test bike for this. Above 4k it doesn't seem to matter so much, and above 7k, I'm just trying to hang on and don't have time to think about it! But I note that the quote you used, VNA, just says "91 or above". Not very helpful, as part of what we're trying to decide here is whether higher octanes are actually not very good for the gen 1? So when they say "above", what's the limit?
But which octane rating should you use for a bike with a trailer? :lol :lol :lol
The Deef's apprentice
26-08-13, 09:11 AM
(This post was last modified: 26-08-13, 09:13 AM by Camshaft.)
VNA - yes, the 95RON will be the next tank full.
Save a bit of cash. Hopefully this will be the sweetspot (not wetspot :rolleyes ) for the bike.
where does the muffler go?
It's says 91 and above, because below 91 it will pink or knock.
4 fill ups in a day? That's a bit of running aboot.
Has yours been Ivanised Nick?
Aye Camshaft, if it's noticeably not happy on 91RON, then def go for the 95. Should be zero chance of pinking on 95RON.
After reading this tread, cant say I have ever taken much notice of the actual octane rating where I live, more about having to fill up with what is available before running out, although normally with all well branded suppliers of normal unleaded. That said, full Monty, Akra slip on, 3 deg advancer, TPS Dynamically set at full anti clockwise,................ran two full tanks today on BP unleaded 95 ron. Runs a treat no problems at all just like with all the other different brands used, not that I am praising 95 Ron or this brand however, if there is anything better out there I'm all ears.
Anyone else got some feedback on the specific fuel used/state of tune setup?
(26-08-13, 07:39 PM)VNA link Wrote: It's says 91 and above, because below 91 it will pink or knock.
4 fill ups in a day? That's a bit of running aboot.
Has yours been Ivanised Nick?
Aye Camshaft, if it's noticeably not happy on 91RON, then def go for the 95. Should be zero chance of pinking on 95RON.
No not Ivanised yet. I didn't actually run the tank right down between fill-ups, but it certainly got some caning on Sunday! I think I spent about £40-£50 on fuel, but got home with about 3/4 of a tank left after final fill-up. 345 hard miles. It ran a treat on the 95, but we weren't at town speeds much (  ) - I'm hoping that Ivanising in late Sept will help with it's reluctance to behave at lower revs. Can't say the change in fuel has made any difference on this one, but it's problems are a little more severe than most.
TBH, it's rare I can take in all this tech stuff properly, but I'm reading with interest, and learning (hopefully). Mike (Falcon269) has been a great help with everything tech so far (as have you), but sometimes even knowledgeable folks disagree on stuff. Well, in the end, for me, it's about getting out and riding, if I can get my bike running as good as possible within my budget, I'll be more than happy.
Hopefully Ivanising will sort your low rpm issues.
When I got mine, new in 2004, I found it would not run sweet at low rpm small throttle openings. Like running through a village or town in 6th at 30mph. It had horrible nasty surging, nor did it pick up that great when you snapped the throttle open on exiting said village or town.
The carbs as standard are set up to pass emission standards. An Ivans kit gets em set up to their sweetest optimum.
Mike did mine in 2005.
So I ended up going through villages and towns in 4th.
Ivanising fixes all that, plus gives you a wee bit more go everywhere.
Yeah I can easy spend 50,60 quid on fuel in a day heading off hill walking. That's in the car. Fuel is some price, it's crazy.
Ignition timing is a simple concept - http://www.howstuffworks.com/ignition-system1.htm And now it's all electronic, instead of the old spring loaded distributors.
95 RON is just the ticket, 98RON is for higher compression engines, they need it, the Fazer doesnae.
|
