95 octane or 97 ?

[Martin]

I read somewhere, that the RT should be run on 97 octane petrol instead of the cheaper 95 octane. Are we supposed to use the same in the GS?

I've run mine since new on the cheap stuff and had no problems whatsoever.

 

[cookie]

says 95 on the tank.

 

[Blackal]

"Cheap" is a bit of a misnomer , but the 95RON is sufficient for the GS

Al

 

[Bertie]

95 octane or 97

The RT runs a higher compression ratio, and actually requires 98 octane (Shell V-Power for example), although the knock sensors will allow it to run on 95 octane - you'd just lose performance as the sensors would retard the ignition timing.

The GS only needs 95, but I've always thought mine runs better on Shell V.Power. This may down to the engine cleaning ingredients, rather than the octane rating, but whatever, it seems sharper and smoother to me - I guess its a personal thing!

 

[Johnny Dangerously]

my !200GS manual says 97 is optimal, but 95 is fine with some 'performance limitations'. I usualy use 97 just because its my dream bike and I feel like I should spoil it.

Although I had to use 95 a couple of times in France and didn't notice any difference, maybe slightly better MPG on 97 but nothing to prove it.

 

[GSband]

I'm with Bertie, Shell V Power and I get the impression it's a smoother, rounder engine.

 

[Brian ROSEN]

An interesting idea

".......Although I had to use 95 a couple of times in France and didn't notice any difference, maybe slightly better MPG on 97 but nothing to prove it....."
I might try it but doubt that whatever differenece there is will be noticeable. (However I won't have to queue up fot it as one has to for the 95 sold in the supermarkets & it does cost quite a lot more - so NO financial saving unless it gives extraordinary mpg.)

 

[Dragon Master]

I've been running my 1100 on the Shell 'V-Power' stuff for four years now, on the recommendation of a mate. Cured the 'surging', runs (feels) a lot better, and 15% improvement in fuel consumption compared to Asda's best 95...

Dave.

 

[Dennis the Menace]

15% improvement in fuel consumption compared to Asda's best 95..

Thats interesting a recent test in a motoring mag, found only an increase of 1 mpg using more expensive fuel over same test run. I know people who swear by it, and people who find no increase. I agree when on the continent the bike feels a bit sharper, but there again when on the continent the bike gets used harder,runs hotter and gets the cobwebs blown out more which is what bikes are designed for.

 

[Brian ROSEN]

Yes, that's right

".....when on the continent the bike gets used harder,runs hotter and gets the cobwebs blown out more which is what bikes are designed for
And I really do not believe that there is any gain to be had from using a higher octane rated fuel; "Your" 1200GS manual says 97 is optimal, but 95 is fine with some 'performance limitations' ...mine, in French, says that the motor is designed to run on 95 and that should be the fuel normally used although it will accept higher or lower ratings.
I would suggest that the ambient air temperature has a more signifigant effect.

 

[NLS]

Today I filled my tank after 306 Km. ... trip computer mentioned I had only 14 Km left in my tank and in fact it too more fuel than I filled in my first fill 3000 Km ago... (note I have removed the rubber thingie from day 1)

 

[alimey4u2]

As previously noted, any gains between 95 octane or 97 would be due to engine management preferences (sweet spots)...
The term "octane" used for "pump gas" is a misnomer which implies a higher calorific value, which it isn't....

 

[cookie]

indeed,

octane is a measure of knock resistance. no relation to calorific value at all.

 

[Dragon Master]

The 15% is only a rough calculation. The low fuel light used to come on between 165 - 175 miles, on a run, motorway, steady 4000 revs (indicated 72mph). Since switching to V-power (or similar) it comes on between 195 - 205 miles under the same conditions. Commuting/running around town, it's down to the 160 mark again; on a mixed road run I've gone to 220 miles before it came on on one occasion.

The most I've clocked from a 'tank', filled to brim, run, then filled to brim again (20 litres) was 258 miles, or 58,55 mpg. that included a run around the lakes, including Wrynose/Hardknot, Honister and Kirkstone passes.

Dave.

 

[Brian ROSEN]

Endurance test

That is over 400 kilometres - which even here on the autoroutes will take over three hours. Two hours between fuel stops should be considered a reasonable maximum so complaints that the tank is too small are not really justified, at least here in France.

 

[Johnny Dangerously]

you know, they had something very similar on mythbusters last night where they were testing the theory of getting better mpg driving a pick up with the tail gate down. Maybe we should write to the guys at mythbusters to test this one out!

 

[Dragon Master]

That is over 400 kilometres - which even here on the autoroutes will take over three hours.

Hmm, I take it that was a reply to my last... (I also think we're getting a bit off-thread)

I did Kendal to Tyndrum in August, non-stop (well, a short stop in Dumbarton for Linda to refuel; her CB500 doesn't have the range of the GS ) a recorded distance of 220 miles; took 3 1/2 hours. I had enough fuel left to reach Glen Coe, another 31 miles; it took 18 litres when I filled it.

I usually go off the fuel gauge, time to look for fuel when all of the bars have gone, which they hadn't on this occasion.

Two hours does seem a bit short, except on a motorway where the break is needed to relieve monotony!

Dave.