Interesting

[Wrinkly]

Well to me anyway. I've just been up to Kelso for the GSER do. I filled up to the brim before I set off with E5. On arriving in Jedburgh the bike was telling me I had 116miles left.
Filled up in Kelso this morning with E10. On arrival home bike was telling me I had 20 miles left. Exactly the same route and the milage showed 7 miles more on the way home than on the way there.
It would appear much better fuel consumption is achieved on E5.
I might start using it in the car.
I must say this 1300 GS ASA is a very good motorcycle. I can confirm it is capable of more than 80 miles without breaking down. Stick it in auto mode and it's just so easy to ride and still has enough grunt for 99.9% of overtakes. Stick it in Dynamic manual and the things a bit of a beast.
Knowing what I know now, if I was looking for a new GS and didn't have any problems operating a clutch, I would still go with the ASA.

 

[Lupo]

Tailwind V’s headwind?

In general, the lesser E will be more ‘bang for your buck’……nice to see this in practice though!

 

[botus]

when you say E5 where did you buy it?

BP E5 is only 97 octane and is better suited to the R1300's as its closer to the E10 standard 95 octane rating that the bike was set up to run on
Whereas E5 from Shell and Esso is now 99 octane and is less suitable from an octane perspective, but like BP E5 its less damaging from ageing and corrosion of the fuel system (due to their lower ethanol rot fuel content)

many muddle up what octane does - its actual delays the ignition of the fuel - effectively retarding the ignition timing and in an engine not set to run it - whilst it will seem smoother, it will be actually be less efficient - not only that, as it burns slower and later, if the engine isn't optimised - this different burn leaves more energy left in the combustion chamber gases with the con-rod low down the bore (with less optimal mechanical efficiency) meaning exhaust valve temps increase undesirably - plus it hideously expensiveness these days

in some older BMW bikes they had set them up to be optimised to run better on super unleaded high octane fuels - AKA the R1200GS Twin Cam and the K1300 bikes - where the user manual specifically states use 98 octane or higher or expect reduced performance and increased fuel consumption. On these bikes the differences between the wrong 95 and the desirable 98 is huge, with significant power gains throughout the rev range

since the introduction to the UK mkt of ethanol infected junk fuels circa 2020, BMW gave up the idea of using decent fuel and all current BM bikes are set to run on 95 E10 (check your manual)

going back to before Ethanol rot fuels where out a hexhead BM never knew what ethanol was, and thus run nastier - here BP 97 and a drop of dipetane works well

as for why you saw a difference in fuel consumption - driving east west vs west east, and or with / without prevailing winds will make significant differences in fuel use

 

[Santa-2512]

I just stuck cheap shit (1.84) a litre in mine robbing bastard's. 30p a litre more than the cheapest place I filled up at

£6 more per fill. !!!

 

[JoeBiff]

Where did you buy it?
JFC

 

[jetjock]

Tailwind V’s headwind?

In general, the lesser E will be more ‘bang for your buck’……nice to see this in practice though!

Yeap there’s a northerly wind at the moment

 

[Gee-]

You haven't sussed out "The helpless old man ran out of fuel at the side of road, needing a helpful push TRICK" yet?
Can save a fortune and get others really fit pushing you and the bike that few miles to a gas station. Where you top up the already 3/4 full tank.

 

[Oldrat]

Might you have gorged yourself on ale and pies in Kelso oh Wrinkly one?

 

[Davey B]

I suspect there's some sort of misread going on...I very much doubt that E5 to E10 can be such a huge difference as an extra 100 miles to the tank (or I am misreading your post)
180ish miles from Beverley to Kelso with 116m left seems to be c 300 mile overall range...or c 72mpg...and 210 miles on the way back...or c50mpg

 

[wessie]

since the introduction to the UK mkt of ethanol infected junk fuels circa 2020, BMW gave up the idea of using decent fuel and all current BM bikes are set to run on 95 E10 (check your manual)

including the current S1000 series?

my 2018 S1000XR had a recommendation to use 97+ RON fuel, although the bike was able to adjust to use 95 including E10.

the artificial bangs on the over-run were louder with E10 fuel.

 

[Wrinkly]

I suspect there's some sort of misread going on...I very much doubt that E5 to E10 can be such a huge difference as an extra 100 miles to the tank (or I am misreading your post)
180ish miles from Beverley to Kelso with 116m left seems to be c 300 mile overall range...or c 72mpg...and 210 miles on the way back...or c50mpg

I suspect you're right.

 

[botus]

range is always based rate of usage

if you spend most of life stuck in town it will show low range left available
do a decent long run and magically if will go much further - but as you get stuck in traffic and or ride hard, range to go will recalculate

 

[Bubb]

If you are saying it was more fuel efficient on e5, then maybe that’s because you rode slightly differently…ie, more heavy throttle use on one way rather than the other.
If the same journey was 7 miles less distance one way to the other….i have no explaination…apart from one way was down hill!

 

[JoeBiff]

If you are saying it was more fuel efficient on e5, then maybe that’s because you rode slightly differently…ie, more heavy throttle use on one way rather than the other.
If the same journey was 7 miles less distance one way to the other….i have no explaination…apart from one way was down hill!

Don’t stress.
That botus has sorted it all, above

 

[Bubb]

Don’t stress.
That botus has sorted it all, above

Ah yes, the all knowing, all seeing, super being that is our very own Bollox ( oops, sorry, botus)

 

[wessie]

Far too many variables to be a definitive comparison.

Prevailing wind direction, temperature affects oxygen density, moisture on the road affects rolling resistance etc etc

I have seen some reports that ethanol free petrol gives about 10% better mpg, but from E5 to E10?

Needs to be a controlled experiment at Millbrook before I am convinced of such an improvement just because of the fuel change.

 

[Clifton]

Ethanol produces 70% of the energy that petrol does so 90% petrol / 10% ethanol blend should produce 97% of the energy that 100% petrol does, so a 3% reduction in mileage would be typical.

 

[Spook1969]

I’ve gotten longer range with E5 than E10 on nearly every bike I’ve ever owned. The range is increase by roughly 10% but the cost difference is roughly 15% so it’s cheaper to use E10. I use E5 always on the R9T as it has a much smaller range and every bit extra helps.

 

[steve hughes]

Wrinkly I recon the journey profile ( traffic hills and wind ) make a difference. We changed our car in Dec last year, the new one comes with an APP ( what doesnt these days). After each trip it records the journey speed distance time and mpg to give you a “ driver score” . I can say hand on heart the same journey either way never gives the same fuel consumption. Eg on Friday I drove 47 miles ( 47.2 coming back) to Manchester 1:12mins going , 1 hour 2 mins back. I used 7 % less fuel coming back ( same petrol) , so faster speed more mpg. Manchester is up hill from where we live

 

[Slipperyeel]

On my twin cam there is a marked difference in range between E5 and E10 - on a long journey that is. On my commute to Italy, E10 will force me to fill up sooner. Couldn't give a measurement without studying the map, but for sure there is a difference.