85 Octane in The FJR
- Thread starter LAF
- Start date
Help Support Yamaha FJR Motorcycle Forum:
Top_Speed1
Panama Canal Crosser
Hmmm...
Tried and tested extensively in our jetskii's, snowmobiles, sand rail buggies. And actually last year at a 120 mile <-> Lake Ontario crossing (Owsego NY to Kingston ON) on my 260hp Seadoo, GPS top end was 69-70. I had more than 1 friend (26 total skiis did the trek) with the same model ski kicking my butt; I would say at least 5-7mph faster. I knew they were on 93 Ultra and I was on 87. In Kingston bone dry, I (we all) filled with Marine fuel (93) and on the return trip we (260's) were neck and neck, actually I was a couple MPH faster (I have a Revis Stage-1 on mine) and also easily noted was another 5K on the Rip meter with this higher Octane. (75-7600 vs 81-8200). Now power to weight factor trip difference? ..we actually drank a lot of great Canadian brew with burgers n such up there so the return trip was even more keeled ...but this minor of a difference I'm mentioning is more of a joke
So we (and many others) have proven this time and time again throughout all my powersporting. Now... how much with the FJR? ...may be another story? (I have not side by side tested this!). But to say Octane doesn't give you more power/speed/rpms is plain ludicrous. And F... any so called reports!
Sorry we disagree but I do have more than 30 years with multiple hi-performance 'fuel thirsty' toyz and within my Showroom and online Store I have more than 10,000 Powersport toys (sales) under my belt. I hear feedback from my customers all the time on this (yes, we have a Forum also!), truthfully the only ones who say there is no difference are the ones who try to brainwash themselves mainly because they have a thing about buying the more expensive fuel. I personally do run low Octane if I'm just putzing around also, but if I'm in a race, you better bet it's at least 93/94 ...clear as the Canadian Blue
LAF
Well-known member
SO if someone takes their Honda Fit and fills it with 93 it will out run one filled with 87?Hmmm...Tried and tested extensively in our jetskii's, snowmobiles, sand rail buggies. And actually last year at a 120 mile <-> Lake Ontario crossing (Owsego NY to Kingston ON) on my 260hp Seadoo, GPS top end was 69-70. I had more than 1 friend (26 total skiis did the trek) with the same model ski kicking my butt; I would say at least 5-7mph faster. I knew they were on 93 Ultra and I was on 87. In Kingston bone dry, I (we all) filled with Marine fuel (93) and on the return trip we (260's) were neck and neck, actually I was a couple MPH faster (I have a Revis Stage-1 on mine) and also easily noted was another 5K on the Rip meter with this higher Octane. (75-7600 vs 81-8200). Now power to weight factor trip difference? ..we actually drank a lot of great Canadian brew with burgers n such up there so the return trip was even more keeled ...but this minor of a difference I'm mentioning is more of a joke
So we (and many others) have proven this time and time again throughout all my powersporting. Now... how much with the FJR? ...may be another story? (I have not side by side tested this!). But to say Octane doesn't give you more power/speed/rpms is plain ludicrous. And F... any so called reports!
Sorry we disagree but I do have more than 30 years with multiple hi-performance 'fuel thirsty' toyz and within my Showroom and online Store I have more than 10,000 Powersport toys (sales) under my belt. I hear feedback from my customers all the time on this (yes, we have a Forum also!), truthfully the only ones who say there is no difference are the ones who try to brainwash themselves mainly because they have a thing about buying the more expensive fuel. I personally do run low Octane if I'm just putzing around also, but if I'm in a race, you better bet it's at least 93/94 ...clear as the Canadian BlueLightSky
Octane is related to compression and how it affect flame front of plugs.
Sorry while I do not know you I do not buy your information either. Too many years when Muscle cars were truly Muscle cars.
Too many bike motor builds under my belt with high lift cams, domed pistons, and very low squish areas clayed to even think about what you are saying. Does you ski or FJR have compression releases on the cylinders?
Run what you want or think works for you, but 87 is all you need in the FJR. Now my Turbo Car drinks 93 or 94 but even it will run on 87 and just pull timing and loose a bit of punch.
Maybe boats are different motors then cars and motorcycles but I don't think so. Your example is not only unverifiable but subjective and just plain seat of the pant nonsense. While I do agree boats or skies that are built may run better on 93 or 94 I do not believe a motor from Yamaha or whoever that says use 87 or 89 is what you use and gain nothing from burning up higher octane gas.
Although you do say you are a great salesman and this post certainly shows you have the gift of "selling" what is not needed.
Top_Speed1
Panama Canal Crosser
Funny stuff, maybe you should ask Mike Helton (NASCAR Pres.) why they control and test the 99-Octane (Sunoco 260 GTX last I knew) so closely before each race? They also make it mandatory all cars have the exact same fuel and Octane so one car doesn't have an advantage. I do believe speed is the advantage they are talking about...SO if someone takes their Honda Fit and fills it with 93 it will out run one filled with 87?Hmmm...Tried and tested extensively in our jetskii's, snowmobiles, sand rail buggies. And actually last year at a 120 mile <-> Lake Ontario crossing (Owsego NY to Kingston ON) on my 260hp Seadoo, GPS top end was 69-70. I had more than 1 friend (26 total skiis did the trek) with the same model ski kicking my butt; I would say at least 5-7mph faster. I knew they were on 93 Ultra and I was on 87. In Kingston bone dry, I (we all) filled with Marine fuel (93) and on the return trip we (260's) were neck and neck, actually I was a couple MPH faster (I have a Revis Stage-1 on mine) and also easily noted was another 5K on the Rip meter with this higher Octane. (75-7600 vs 81-8200). Now power to weight factor trip difference? ..we actually drank a lot of great Canadian brew with burgers n such up there so the return trip was even more keeled ...but this minor of a difference I'm mentioning is more of a joke
So we (and many others) have proven this time and time again throughout all my powersporting. Now... how much with the FJR? ...may be another story? (I have not side by side tested this!). But to say Octane doesn't give you more power/speed/rpms is plain ludicrous. And F... any so called reports!
Sorry we disagree but I do have more than 30 years with multiple hi-performance 'fuel thirsty' toyz and within my Showroom and online Store I have more than 10,000 Powersport toys (sales) under my belt. I hear feedback from my customers all the time on this (yes, we have a Forum also!), truthfully the only ones who say there is no difference are the ones who try to brainwash themselves mainly because they have a thing about buying the more expensive fuel. I personally do run low Octane if I'm just putzing around also, but if I'm in a race, you better bet it's at least 93/94 ...clear as the Canadian BlueLightSky
Octane is related to compression and how it affect flame front of plugs.
Sorry while I do not know you I do not buy your information either. Too many years when Muscle cars were truly Muscle cars.
Too many bike motor builds under my belt with high lift cams, domed pistons, and very low squish areas clayed to even think about what you are saying. Does you ski or FJR have compression releases on the cylinders?
Run what you want or think works for you, but 87 is all you need in the FJR. Now my Turbo Car drinks 93 or 94 but even it will run on 87 and just pull timing and loose a bit of punch.
Maybe boats are different motors then cars and motorcycles but I don't think so. Your example is not only unverifiable but subjective and just plain seat of the pant nonsense. While I do agree boats or skies that are built may run better on 93 or 94 I do not believe a motor from Yamaha or whoever that says use 87 or 89 is what you use and gain nothing from burning up higher octane gas.
Although you do say you are a great salesman and this post certainly shows you have the gift of "selling" what is not needed.
You believe what you want, just don't get in a stock vs. stock race with me, I'll line ya up with with race-101 and you vs. your 86/87 I'll be drinking a beer at the finish line waiting for ya! (note; would not use my own personal machine w the 101)
Cheers... and w whatever fuel you wish!
RossKean
Well-known member
There is no doubt that high octane fuel is a benefit (even a requirement) in an engine that is designed for it. i.e. high compression engines. Thermodynamically, there is little difference in heat of combustion. Higher octane resists detonation to a greater extent. Until someone can show dyno runs for the same FJR on both fuels, I will choose to be skeptical. I have run both regular and (infrequently) "premium" and have not noticed any difference (seat-of-pants dyno).
Last edited by a moderator:
That supports LAF, I and others have said. Those motors are high compression and benefit from higher octane because the octain prevents pre-detonation (flame fronts due to compression happening on the up stroke of the piston). It forces the NASCAR builders to build to 99 instead of even more compression that would benefit from 100 or higher. The 99 standard is there as a target to build to; not that pre-existing motors work better or worse with higher or lower octanes.
All octane does it retard detonation. IOW: makes the fuel harder to ignite. That's specifically why you don't use a higher octane than needed to prevent pre-detonation. Buying hihger than that may not hurt anything (there's another discussion about that) but it's not a benefit for the money spent.
Last edited by a moderator:
Top_Speed1
Panama Canal Crosser
I agree some motors will not benifit from it and some are timed to have a higher rating. As I said "quoted from my ealier post"...
..it can be compressed more without igniting leading to a more complete combustion. I believe the energy density of high octane fuel is also higher. But not sure if we see a benefit in the FJR like I have seen in some other toyz.
My jeyskiis and sleds (I think) are timed/detonated for higher Octane as this is where I have seen the biggest results (differences). Most Marine fuel is around 93. There really is a big difference in them, the FJR as I said I'm not sure
In thinking... higher octane fuel should be more efficient?
..it can be compressed more without igniting leading to a more complete combustion. I believe the energy density of high octane fuel is also higher. But not sure if we see a benefit in the FJR like I have seen in some other toyz.
My jeyskiis and sleds (I think) are timed/detonated for higher Octane as this is where I have seen the biggest results (differences). Most Marine fuel is around 93. There really is a big difference in them, the FJR as I said I'm not sure
Last edited by a moderator:
Mihalis fjr
Well-known member
In Greece we can find only 95 and 100 octane gas and the most gas stations are BP and SHELL.I don't know how the bike runs with 85,87,91..?!
The price is 2$ per liter for the 95 and 2.40$per liter for the 100 octane..Very expensive i think....
The price is 2$ per liter for the 95 and 2.40$per liter for the 100 octane..Very expensive i think....
Last edited by a moderator:
C&C
Well-known member
Actually high octane, energy density, is very slightly lower (but again another topic for a different thread); unless you engine requires higher octane (and can take advantage of it; these days, this usually means a knock sensor), stick with 87 (regular; that means 85, at altitude) for your feejer. I did look up your Sea-Doo and the manual does state higher power when using higher octane (but regular can be used with lower performance expectation) but this doesn't apply to the FJR (and quite a lot of other engines out there.
C&C
Well-known member
European (and other areas of the world used different octane numbers). We (U.S.) use Ron+Mon divided by two; some others use Ron (by itself).
Ron - Research octane number
Mon - Motor octane number
Mihalis fjr
Well-known member
What is the cost $ per liter in U.S.?
Last edited by a moderator:
Top_Speed1
Panama Canal Crosser
Mihalis fjr
Well-known member
Thanks for the info!
Very cheap!The basic salary in Greece now is 800-900$per month..The 2$ per liter here is very expensive!What is the basic salary in U.S per month ?
Top_Speed1
Panama Canal Crosser
wfooshee
O, Woe is me!!
To Top_speed's subjective comparison of watercraft and octane differences. If the watercraft's engine can benefit from higher octane, it's because it's engine controls (knock sensing, timing, whatever) is pushing combustion based on the ability of higher octane to resist detonation. An engine that wants high octane will run on low octane, as long as the management system can do things to control knocking. If not, the engine will eventually be not worth very much.
My old turbo car from years ago would run like a scalded cat on the recommended premium. It would run, but much less scalded-like, on regular, by backing off the boost and backing off the timing. Same with my son's Ford Raptor. It runs on regular, but not right. Put some premium in it and all is well. But the difference is engine management, not fuel energy. The ECU has to back things off if the fuel isn't up to what the engine needs in order to keep the engine screwed together.
But high octane is not high power. Engines that require high octane are more powerful than engines that do not, either through compression, boost or timing.
Your arguments about limiting octane by the rules also does not mean octane=power. It means that they can't build an engine for 102-octane (which would be more powerful than an engine built for 99-octane) because the fuel required would be disallowed by the octane test.
My old turbo car from years ago would run like a scalded cat on the recommended premium. It would run, but much less scalded-like, on regular, by backing off the boost and backing off the timing. Same with my son's Ford Raptor. It runs on regular, but not right. Put some premium in it and all is well. But the difference is engine management, not fuel energy. The ECU has to back things off if the fuel isn't up to what the engine needs in order to keep the engine screwed together.
But high octane is not high power. Engines that require high octane are more powerful than engines that do not, either through compression, boost or timing.
Your arguments about limiting octane by the rules also does not mean octane=power. It means that they can't build an engine for 102-octane (which would be more powerful than an engine built for 99-octane) because the fuel required would be disallowed by the octane test.
Spud
Well-known member
Some newer cars have different hp ratings for higher/lower octane fuel.
2013 Ford Escape I-4 turbo rated at 240 hp w/premium fuel and 231 hp on regular. So obviously there are some motors that run better on premium. I don't think that's the case w/the FJR.
2013 Ford Escape I-4 turbo rated at 240 hp w/premium fuel and 231 hp on regular. So obviously there are some motors that run better on premium. I don't think that's the case w/the FJR.
True. Those vehicles have knock sensors (and possibly other components in the newer stuff) that dynamically adjust the engine. The FJR does not have any of these components.
As always, 85 octane is fine in the FJR as long as you don't hear it pinging. Higher octane is a waste of money.
It goes back to motors BUILT FOR higher octanes. If they aren't they knock... if they have knock sensors, then the engine management retards timing and does other stuff to stop the knock (at a penalty to the rated HP output). The point that most are making is that a motor built to 87/85 will not get magic HP by putting higher octane fuel in it. It's not built to the requirement.
Without computers, motors built to higher compressions (that need higher octane to prevent pre-detonation) can be harmed with lower-than-specified octane fuels. Motors that can operate without pre-detonation with 85/87 see no benefit from 93 (and some would argue see harm from the additional octain side effects of residues and slower buring).
Without computers, motors built to higher compressions (that need higher octane to prevent pre-detonation) can be harmed with lower-than-specified octane fuels. Motors that can operate without pre-detonation with 85/87 see no benefit from 93 (and some would argue see harm from the additional octain side effects of residues and slower buring).
Last edited by a moderator:
str8
Well-known member
I ran premium only once when it happened to be a cold day at a higher elevation (say 3500') and according to my butt dyno, the bike was actually slower.
wfooshee
O, Woe is me!!
That would be the higher elevation, not the gas. Less air, thus less fuel going into the cylinders.
Similar threads
