The 2018 definitely runs best on 91 octane(recommended). That said I have ran both 87 and 89 with no problem if attention is payed to how you apply the throttle. No lugging or full throttle. The West is full of small towns that only have 87. Mileage has not varied enough on any of them to tell. Non ethanol included.
I always top off before a long empty stretch, even carry extra gas now on my 1000.
Cause you know the throttle keeps opening up on those long straight bits, gas mileage takes a hit! I saw mid 20s a few times into a strong headwind at 85ish.
I recall rolling into Amboy CA on fumes and they had some problems with dispensing fuel so AAA brought me fuel from 60 miles away.
Same thing in Tecopa CA. I couldn't get anything from the pump. Attendant said they called tech folks. I had to change plans as fuel became a priority.
Dyer NV was out of fuel once when I stopped in. Didn't need fuel but I made a mental note not to need fuel there ever.
People associate higher octane fuel as higher quality fuel. It is not. All gasoline from the refining process is essentially the same. Its not until manufacturers add there chemical "additives package to it" to make it proprietary and create the octane rating. Interestingly enough ethanol is an octane booster. The very evil thing throngs of people get up in arms about when they hear its in their fuel.
The best octane you can run it the lowest your bike doing not experience preignition/pinging/detonation on. For an overwhelming number of people the it 86/87 octane. The DL is not a high compression engine and lower octane fuel that the manual calls for is more then sufficient to run each time every time you fill up.
Running too high of an octane and you get incomplete combustion which means lower power output and the potential for carbon deposits.
The best octane you can run it the lowest your bike doing not experience preignition/pinging/detonation on. For an overwhelming number of people the it 86/87 octane. The DL is not a high compression engine and lower octane fuel that the manual calls for is more then sufficient to run each time every time you fill up.
my manual clearly calls for premium fuel with a minimum pump octane rating of 90.
could I get away with a lower octane if I babied it a bit and didnt put too much of a load on it..... maybe but why would I want to take that risk? in a pinch, yes. in the short term, I'd buy octane booster and carry that. for each time, every time.... no thanks.
The best octane you can run it the lowest your bike doing not experience preignition/pinging/detonation on. For an overwhelming number of people the it 86/87 octane. The DL is not a high compression engine and lower octane fuel that the manual calls for is more then sufficient to run each time every time you fill up.
In my DL1000 I tried 91 for shit and giggles one day and I do believe I felt a positive difference. I typically run 89 if filling at a station. If filling at home from my boat gas I keep then its non ethanol 87. The non ethanol feel like the 89/91 ethanol.
Northern Nevada, southern Oregon. Smack in the middle of No Where Scenic-ville.
Funny though, in Oklahoma I thought I was smack in the middle of kinda lost and didn't know where I was going and found a gas station/video store.
Someone must being living near bye.
Spec, I respectfully disagree. I was in Keller WA last week for a gas stop and they only had 87 octane. And Diesel. Nice little store with a deli and they had Octane Booster, which my son on his TL bought and used for fear of detonation at the high temps outside. I just added a bit of 87 to get to his next gas stop and filled with premium. I use that because of the ignition advancer and HC pistons in my old K6 Vee. I lost my high frequency hearing at a young age and it hasn't gotten better in the last 60 years or so. I can't hear detonation, pegs scraping (which I can feel), etc. Better safe than sorry.
Not to be argumentative, but also, I've read dyno tests that clearly show that premium gas does in fact produce a little more power due to the controlled burn versus the "pop" of regular. We're talking micro-milliseconds here. (Is there such a thing as a micro-millisecond?)
Spec, I respectfully disagree. I was in Keller WA last week for a gas stop and they only had 87 octane. And Diesel. We're talking micro-milliseconds here. (Is there such a thing as a micro-millisecond?)
One of the four filling stations here in Prescott, WI carries only 87 and diesel, the same for most older 1- or 2-storage tank stations still around.
A mico- (millionth) milli- (thousandth) second would be 0.000,000,001 (1 billionth). In ISO notation written as 1.00e-9. or 1 nanosecond, slang, "New York Minute" or BS, the 0-60 time for my blown, fuelie Wee. >
Although the manual calls for a minimum 87 octane, I think my perceived performance and marginal economy gains with 91 octane are because the 91 is the only grade in my region that is non-oxygenated (E0). Therefore, probably less to do with the octane itself.
I have no practical way to test, but I likely would not perceive any difference between 87oct oxygenated (E10) and 91oct oxygenated (E10).
Running too high of an octane and you get incomplete combustion which means lower power output and the potential for carbon deposits.[/QUOTE]
The entire post is correct but the last point is important. And deserves repeating.
I noted in another thread that octane is basically a measure of resistance to spontaneous combustion under pressure. Has nothing to do with "improved power".
High compression engines require high octane fuel to avoid spontaneous combustion before the timed spark. What is commonly called pre-combustion or "pinging". Pinging is not good.
I owned a Guzzi that would ping like crazy with premium. Had to add Lucas Octane Booster to make it happy. Because it was an extremely high compression engine.
Same with airplane engines only more so. Thus AV GAS at 120+ octane.
Pilots term fuel for low compression engines as MO GAS (motor gas).
That would be us.
If you do not have a high compression engine you do not require high octane.
Stroms are not high compression.
If your engine isn't pinging it is happy. If it pings on regular gas I would look at timing issues.
My DL1000 is 11.3:1
2 spark plug heads. Newer bikes run leaner than ever.
Incomplete combustion isn't an issue to worry about IMO.
Suzuki says to run high octane.
I'm going with premium unless I can't get it for some reason and then I'll take it easy on the throttle. Premium is about a $1.50 more per tank right now in my area.
I’m surprised people are recommending octane lower than the manual states.
The vee2/3 is a torquer. I would not run 87 octane without changing my driving habits, which would have to include not leveraging low end torque effectively.
Slow vs fast burn after auto ignition, and the topic of incomplete combustion, is something I hear repeated in forums all the time. It’s a myth.
The only difference between low and high octane is the gas’s ability to withstand pre-ignition. Meaning igniting outside the spark induced ignition. If you have an engine tuned for low end torque, and the manual says to run 90+... do exactly that.
In a pinch, sure. Just modify your throttle and shifting inputs to mitigate the risk.
I’m surprised people are recommending octane lower than the manual states.
The vee2/3 is a torquer. I would not run 87 octane without changing my driving habits, which would have to include not leveraging low end torque effectively.
Slow vs fast burn after auto ignition, and the topic of incomplete combustion, is something I hear repeated in forums all the time. It’s a myth.
The only difference between low and high octane is the gas’s ability to withstand detonation. Meaning igniting outside the spark induced ignition. If you have an engine tuned for low end torque, and the manual says to run 90+... do exactly that.
In a pinch, sure. Just modify your throttle and shifting inputs to mitigate the risk.
Yes when using lower octane fuel than what your engine is designed for avoid large throttle openings at low revs where the effective compression ratio and risk of detonation are highest
In many cases higher octane fuels also have higher levels of cleaning agents which is a good thing.
We should probably clarify a couple of definitions to ensure we're referring to the same thing.
When I hear "burns slower" I assume this is in reference to flame propagation under ignition. Is that correct? Or does the term "burn" refer to something else?
Pre-ignition is the spontaneous combustion of the fuel/air mixture before controlled ignition.
We also need to know the following if we're going to provide recommendations for our bikes.
1. Does the DL1000 have knock sensors?
2. Does the DL1000 have advanced ignition timing capabilities?
3. Was the DL1000 OEM fuel map designed with the expectation that you'll be running 90+ octane?
Too often we grab something off the interweb and repeat it without looking at all other variables, with the most important being the use case.
Terry, what octane of gas do you run in your RT? :grin2:
I agree 100% that it is a waste when the engine has no capability to benefit from it. The reverse is true, if an engine has no capability to retard timing, pull boost, or reduce cylinder pressure, is it safe to run low octane in an engine designed for 90+?
My 2.0T Cadillac can run 87 because it will safely reduce boost and retard timing, but not before I hear the dreaded can of marbles sing.
We should probably clarify a couple of definitions to ensure we're referring to the same thing.
When I hear "burns slower" I assume this is in reference to flame propagation under ignition. Is that correct? Or does the term "burn" refer to something else?
Detonation is the spontaneous combustion of the fuel/air mixture before controlled ignition.
We also need to know the following if we're going to provide recommendations for our bikes.
1. Does the DL1000 have knock sensors?
2. Does the DL1000 have advanced ignition timing capabilities?
3. Was the DL1000 OEM fuel map designed with the expectation that you'll be running 90+ octane?
Too often we grab something off the interweb and repeat it without looking at all other variables, with the most important being the use case.
Terry, what octane of gas do you run in your RT? :grin2:
I agree 100% that it is a waste when the engine has no capability to benefit from it. The reverse is true, if an engine has no capability to retard timing, pull boost, or reduce cylinder pressure, is it safe to run low octane in an engine designed for 90+?
My 2.0T Cadillac can run 87 because it will safely reduce boost and retard timing, but not before I hear the dreaded can of marbles sing.
Spontaneous combustion of the fuel/air mixture before controlled ignition is "pre-ignition". Commonly caused by hot spots in the combustion chamber such as carbon build up or overheated spark plugs.
Detonation occurs when the mixture ahead of the flame front literally explodes all at once. This occurs most often when the octane rating of the fuel is exceeded by cylinder pressure and other factors.
Slow burn vs fast burn? As long as the flame front propagation is uniform you want it to "burn" as fast as possible. That is/can be why lower octane fuels will deliver more cylinder pressure in some engines. Slow burn is not really all that slow....but instead it is simply the flame front traveling/igniting at a slower pace. Typically higher octane fuels will have a slower more controlled flame front. The chemical properties of higher octane fuel do burn slower and this is part of the octane rating. It is more stable under pressure, thus the higher octane number. This higher octane fuel might make less cylinder pressure than a lower octane fuel because of the burn rate....this is why you would advance timing when running higher octane fuel. This allows the cylinder pressure to build earlier to make more torque.
My 12:1 compression RT is supposed to have 91 AKI fuel. I put 93 AKI in it around here. I have run it on 89 AKI in higher elevations where that is all that is available. Worked fine, but cylinder pressures are much lower at high altitude! BTW, these have no knock sensors.
Burning higher octane fuel than your bike needs won't hurt anything, other than your wallet. Fuel economy could go up or down slightly, depending on the composition of the regular vs the premium fuels, i.e. alcohol and other octane enhancers content.
Burning lower octane fuel than your bike needs could damage it. I don't know if modern bikes have knock sensors (or the equivalent) to detect detonation and retard the timing if needed. Pretty much all modern cars do and will run OK on the lower octane fuel even if higher octane is specified. Fuel mileage (and power) may suffer - possibly enough to eliminate the savings from buying cheaper regular vs more expensive premium.
Personally the only vehicle I have that specifies premium fuel is my BMWR1200RT. That's what I use in it, if available. And yes, there are many small town gas stations in parts of North America where you might not be able to find Premium. While doing a tour around Lake Superior earlier this summer we found several of them.
I use what I recommended in the manual. Plus, I add some fuel stabilizer a few times a year. Right now I'm using StarTron additive.
If I park one of the bikes for two or more weeks, I'll fill with non-corn gas. I have two stations near me. One has 87 oct (RON) non-ethanol but you can't fill a street vehicle with it (lawn equipt and the like only)...But Jerry cans fill just as good!
Detonation and Pre-ignition are often confused. I wrote in simple laymans terms, so there are "qualifying" points to all of it. Detonation isn't considered a cause for pre-ignition unless it has already done damage to the engine. You will know that soon enough as you will have scored cylinders/pistons, melted ring lands, to start with. Lean conditions are more apt to promote detonation, due to temperature of flame front.
Pre-ignition could promote detonation however. Should the pre-ignition occur well before the spark timing it would/could greatly increase cylinder pressures to the point of detonation. Uncommon in street vehicles.
Pre-ignition is what you used to have when you turned the key off and the engine ran in a stumbling fashion for a moment then stopped. Detonation is the pinging/rattling heard in an engine when under load.
Uncontrolled combustion is just that. Usually detonation.
Yes, fuel formulation independent of actual octane will have different burn characteristics. But I tried to simplify when I wrote about the fast/slow earlier. For instance, air/fuel ratio can have a big effect on flame fronts. Not only in speed but completion of burn. Not uncommon for a flame front.....to go out before reaching all unburned fuel. ( this is what makes combustion chamber design SOOOOOO important ). Ever heard of water or methanol injection? Used to slow/cool the flame front. So it isn't JUST octane but a combination of things. Higher octane fuels are formulated to burn slower. Period. What may be making this difficult to wrap your arms around is that "slow" certainly isn't slow at all. A single cylinder engine at 7000 rpm fires 3500 times per minute. 58 times per second. And consider that the actual burn function only lasts for about 90 degrees of crank rotation...well you can see that fast or slow is very fast indeed. We are talking differences that take special equipment to measure.
I have to disagree. I've made a bit of a study of this subject, and my understanding is that higher octane fuels have a higher resistance to detonation, period. All else being equal, slowing the fuel burn would increase the likelihood of detonation (as it would give more time for the radiant energy to cause the remaining unburned air-fuel mixture to suddenly 'explode', i.e. detonate).
I don't think flame front propagation speeds in an air-fuel ratio have much to do with octane rating. In fact, the faster the better. Slow flame front propagation is one of the causes of detonation.
That's my take, anyway. I'm not a combustion scientist, so it's possible I have not understood all the factors. The article above talks about the need for an earlier spark (advanced timing) with higher octane fuels, which would suggest slower burning. Maybe just slower to initially start. It's not clear.
My 2017 US 49-state DL650A calls for, "a minimum pump octane rating of 87 ((R+M)/2 method." In italics, they continue, If the engine develops some trouble like lack of acceleration or insufficient power, the cause may be due to the fuel the motorcycle uses. In such case, try changing to a different gas station. If the situations not improved by changing, consult your Suzuki dealer." Maybe to trade you up to a Gixxer?
Continuing, If pinking (sic) or knocking is experienced, substitute higher octane grade gasoline or another brand because there are differences between brands.
I ride solo always and generally don't carry anything approaching GCWR. I started using 87 oct oxy during break-in, and shortly thereafter switched to 91 oct non-oxy. After going back & forth for a few tanks, I determined that there was a noticeable improvement in acceleration and a slight bump in fuel economy; not enough to offset the 30-60¢/US gal. premium price, but the seat-of-the-pants feel is better and not having alcohol running through the fuel system is comforting for me as well.
I was hoping to land on a consensus on the octane topic, with respect to science behind the combustion process. We've run into a stalemate on this topic it appears, like many other threads in many other forums.
One thing we did land on, I believe, is run the octane your manual calls for. These bikes don't have advanced engine management. No knock sensors, no ability to retard timing, which is a risk if you run low octane gas under certain conditions.
And I believe we also agree that there is no benefit to higher octane unless your engine can make benefit of it. My 2.0T definitely makes use of it, as proven on the dyno. A naturally aspirated, low compression ratio engine... not so much.
I really wish you could dial in your octane at the pump :grin2:
I was hoping to land on a consensus on the octane topic, with respect to science behind the combustion process. We've run into a stalemate on this topic it appears, like many other threads in many other forums.
One thing we did land on, I believe, is run the octane your manual calls for. These bikes don't have advanced engine management. No knock sensors, no ability to retard timing, which is a risk if you run low octane gas under certain conditions.
And I believe we also agree that there is no benefit to higher octane unless your engine can make benefit of it. My 2.0T definitely makes use of it, as proven on the dyno. A naturally aspirated, low compression ratio engine... not so much.
I did not express 100% confidence on the subject of detonation and octane because it's a complicated subject. It's not a new one, though, and was largely figured out as far back as the 30s. I've never had the chance to read Harry Ricardo's book "The High-Speed Internal-Combustion Engine", but apparently it covers this topic quite well.
What was thought to work in the 1920's doesn't always apply today. The Ford Model T engine had a compression ratio of 4.5:1. That was lowered to well under 4:1 to allow for poor fuel at the time. The much better performing Model A had a 4.2:1 compression ratio, the '32 Flathead V8 had 6.3:1 compression. It was the Hot Rod engine of the era. High octane fuels just were not around so I don't know how they would understand the whole concept. High octane fuels were first formulated in volume for aircraft engines. War aircraft needed higher horsepower engines in lighter packages. Engineers figured out that raising compression gave significant horsepower gains. And that higher octane fuels were required. That is when the concepts of octane, flame front, cylinder pressure really became important.
I enjoy the debates about octane. But when we try to apply theory across such a wide array of engine types and engine uses ... it has to result in friendly disagreements. Choosing between Maryann and Ginger was easier but still never conclusive.
To narrow the discussion we need to add more constants. For example, if engine designers were given a single octane blend that would be used worldwide for the next 15 years. How would that effect their choices? If those same engineers knew that an engine would only be used within a very narrow range of RPM such as for urban transportation, as opposed to dropping the clutch at redline. Then what? I think you get my point.
Obviously, an impossible reality but it is a helpful hypothetical for understanding the issue.
Back in the dark ages of my mechanical youth, we modified engines in small shops. We reshaped camshafts, we bought high dome pistons then shaved the tops off to fit our needs. We added multiple cylinder base gaskets to effect the compression ratios. We also looked to aviation for clues. In particular the seaplane guys. (and they had AvGas in 55 gal drums):wink2:
Personally, I would love to see the gasoline pumps also list BTU content.
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
StromTrooper
1.7M posts
66.6K members
Since 2003
A forum community dedicated to all Suzuki Strom owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about performance, modifications, troubleshooting, purchasing, reviews, accessories, maintenance, and more!