All versions of the FJR1300 use "regular" gas. In the US, where we use the Anti Knock Index number (R+M)/2, this means it has a octane rating of 86 or higher. In Europe and other countries, they use the "Research Octane Number", where regular is 91.

There are motorcycles with higher compression ratios, such as the Suzuki V-Strom, that still run regular gas. There are also a lot of motorcycles with lower compression that take "PREMIUM BABY!" It depends on more than just the compression ratio, though I would be willing to bet that some makers use "high test" due to the higher assumed quality.

The Honda CTX1300 uses the same engine as the ST1300, but "detuned" so that it has more low end, and also takes regular gas.

 

There are motorcycles with higher compression ratios, such as the Suzuki V-Strom, that still run regular gas.

1978 Honda CX500 had 10.5:1 and 87 octane. Just because Detroit couldn't do it back then is no reason to assume the crafty Japanese can not.

The Toyota Prius has a mechanical compression ratio of 13:1. But the engine is under complete drive-by-wire control of the ECU including valve timing which can be varied enough to limit the volume of incoming air and the effective maximum combustion pressure. They call it an Atkinson Cycle. Atkinson intended his cycle to be implemented differently but the end result is the same.

A Prius fed a steady diet of 93 (R+M)/2 will throw a CEL, but happy forever on 87.

 

It will also run quite happily on the 85 octane gas you frequently find out west.

 

That is one of many great features of the FJR; Runs fine on regular unleaded. 87 octane in my area. Nothing gained (and possibly power loss) using higher octane.

 

My '07 owners manual, pg 3-13 bottom right corner, specifically says (R+M)/2 of 86 or higher. Keep reading to pg 3-14 and there's the statement about pinging/knocking/premium fuel implying that lower grade fuel is fine.

 

Seems like I looked into this when I bought mine last year and as others have said it's designed to run on regular (87) gas.

A few weeks ago we were in the middle of Iowa, more like the middle of no where and my buddy needed fuel badly. We found some type of co op fuel station in the middle of a corn field. Long story short, the pump wouldn't read my card so I just filled up on the pump my buddy already had going, he needs to run high octane fuel. After reading this thread I realized I ran a tank of the good stuff through my bike and didn't notice any sort of difference at all, good or bad.

I'll stick to the cheap stuff👍..

 

Guys, thanks for the info, but I guess that due to the poor quality of the gas in this area, (Lots of water) I probably will run mid-grade (88 Octane.) It's nice to know that I don't have to run premium any more.
See you on the road!!

 

If you have water in your gas that is coming from the storage tanks where you buy gas or the trucks that deliver it. The octane number won't do anything for that.

 

As noted above, if your area has bad gas (not sure how that happens), running high test won't do a thing. Doesn't do anything for the bike either way. My RT would clatter in hot weather unless I ran higher octane. The FJR runs precisely the same on 87 as on 93.

 

I concur, adding one thing-

My bike (and the OP's BTW) are old '07 models. I don't know how many miles he has on his but I crossed over 100,000 last month. Now, granted I'm not in the grand western states with their nosebleed altitudes but my old beat up Big Fat Heavy Pig still does not knock or ping when in eastern higher elevations. I'm talking, at the extreme, 3500-4000 feet but still, the kind of height that messes badly with carbs and makes it very difficult to open panniers back home if I've opened them up yonder. Here the lowest octane available is 87 so the OP running 88 may be mid-range in his area but he is basically using 'regular unleaded' gas that the rest of us use.

 

If the ambient is in high 80's low 90's I run midgrade. Through a phone app where I track fuel use, I consistently see a 1-2mpg increase between using 89 vs 87. Premium shows no difference, but I do mix every other tank if no midgrade available. In cooler temps reg fuel exhibits same mileage as midgrade.

If temps are in 90's and coolant temp high enough to cycle fans in traffic, I have on occasion heard spark knock, just on intial take up of clutch in 1st gear. Midgrade does not do this.
Just some real world observations on my bike.

 

There is not really such a thing as Midgrade. There are 2 tanks at the stations. Regular and premium.

They create mid grade by mixing the 2 within the pump.

So, the 1-2 MPG increase using Midgrade that does not happen when using full premium does not really make much sense.

1-2 mpg increase is about 5 percent which is well within any margin of error or could easily be attributed to any one of a number of variables.

I doubt very highly that this is truly the case.

Show me a consistent trend on the same roads in the same Temps in the same winds with the same atmospheric pressure and humidity and I'd be very surprised.

5 percent? Meh... I respectfully remain skeptical.

 

Mine is an elderly beast, now showing 138k.

It flew over Vail Pass (11000 ft) on 85 octane, over the rest of Colorado, Wyoming and Utah at their 86 Octane, and behaves perfectly well on 87 Octane at lower elevations.

It has full computer management of the ignition cycle, and it appears to adjust flawlessly, so I'll stick with Regular and keep on riding.

 

I am fully aware of how midgrade is arrived at . 1-2 mpg is closer to 3% and the increase only shows in high ambients.

I ride consistent roads and my comparisons are satisfactory in my mind. Ymmv.
I am also aware that where higher octane is not needed , it is a waste.
I am saying the increase I see with midgrade in high ambient is no improved upon with full Premium, so the small bump in octane is all that's apparently needed in those conditions.
For what it's worth also use Shell 90+% of the time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I use Shell V power Nitro (UK) 99 Octane in my 2016 and the performance and MPG are significantly improved.

Same bikes (FJRs) have just done 3000+ miles around Europe, when the fuel was available (in the EU Shell is 100 Octane) I filled with high octane and my mate filled with regular 95. When we reached a point where one of us had to refuel, I always had 60/70 miles more remaining in my tank.

Is high octane worth paying the extra? I should imagine not, but it works for me.

 

I use Shell V power Nitro (UK) 99 Octane in my 2016 and the performance and MPG are significantly improved.

Same bikes (FJRs) have just done 3000+ miles around Europe, when the fuel was available (in the EU Shell is 100 Octane) I filled with high octane and my mate filled with regular 95. When we reached a point where one of us had to refuel, I always had 60/70 miles more remaining in my tank.

Is high octane worth gpaying the extra? I should imagine not, but it works for me.

70 miles represents between 25% and 30% of a full tank.

Respectfully, no. Mathematically not possible.

Now, if premium in your area contains no ethanol then maybe it's close given that 10% ethanol gas contains about 15% less energy per gallon and requires more throttle to achieve the same performance. If two people are riding together and matching speed etc, it would make sense that the ethanol bike would run out of fuel sooner.

If the different octane fuels are both ethanol free than I don't see a way for a 60 to 70 mile disparity.

This is a math problem. Energy per fluid ounce. Nothing more.

Premium fuel does not contain 35% more energy.

No disrespect intended, however if there is a massive (30%) difference in mileage between 2 seemingly identical engines their is a reason. I don't know what it is but I guarantee it isn't the octane rating.

 

I also run premium exclusively. In my area, no-ethanol premium is fairly easy to find and many if not most Kwik Trips have a separate nozzle/hose for each grade-so you are not getting the first gallon of whatever the previous customer purchased. I also run it all of my small engines that get stored for extended periods of time-snowblower, lawn tractor, push mower, weed trimmer, leaf blower, and chainsaw. It might not be needed, but I never have fuel related issues.

 

I'm amazed at how many believe their premium gasoline is ethanol free. Ran across a rider who believed pumps labeled "May Contain Up To 10% Ethanol" meant "ethanol free" and only "Contains 10% Ethanol" actually contained ethanol.

Obama's EPA took liberties with Bush's RFS law to mandate a national quota of at least one gallon ethanol to be sold as fuel for every 9 gallons of gasoline. Fortunately they did not mandate a minimum of 10% ethanol for every gallon, but they wanted to. For a distributor to get an allocation of ethanol-free one must sell sufficient E85 to cover the uncut gasoline. This puts a premium price on ethanol-free. Around here stations get $1/gallon extra for ethanol-free. Most don't bother.

Its pretty easy to test for ethanol in gasoline. Put about 1 part water in a test tube and mark the level. Add about 9 parts suspected gasoline. Shake. Let settle. If the "water level" went up then ethanol is present. Also ethanol-cut gasoline will turn white. Excessive water will draw some ethanol out of the gasoline making the "water" level appear to rise. But some water will bind to the ethanol still in solution in the gasoline turning it milky.

I don't have problems with E10 in small engines because I keep my fuel fresh and do not leave my small engines outside in the weather. The primary problem with E10 is that water dissolves in solution rather than condense at the bottom of the tank where it can be drained off. Keep water away from your E10 and its bearable. E10 is the cause of many problems but it can be managed.

 

Just a note.

There are some confusing numbers here.

I believe Octane Ratings are calculated differently in Europe.

 

Yes - just for clarification here on this side of the pond, UK and Europe, regular is 95 and super is 98.

In UK it's UL 95 and UL 98 ( UL = unleaded)

In France it's SP 95 and SP 98 (SP = sans plomb - without lead)

SP 95 regular contains up to 5% ethanol.

If in Europe, especially France where I am, beware of using SP 95E-10, it's got 10% ethanol and has the reputation of causing problems.

 

WOW .... Didn't know Steven Hawkins had an FJR. However, whilst the figures are approximate they are more or less correct. We used the onboard bike computers to see what mileage remained on each bike.

At some point between calculating the latest issue surrounding quantum physics or the time it would take to split an atom 1,0000.0000 times, why not fill up with 99 octane and then 95 and see for yourself, you may be surprised. By the way, did you know the earth is not flat

 

WOW .... Didn't know Steven Hawkins had an FJR. However, whilst the figures are approximate they are more or less correct. We used the onboard bike computers to see what mileage remained on each bike.

At some point between calculating the latest issue surrounding quantum physics or the time it would take to split an atom 1,0000.0000 times, why not fill up with 99 octane and then 95 and see for yourself, you may be surprised. By the way, did you know the earth is not flat

Steven hawking riding an FJR would be interesting to see for a variety of reasons.

I don't really need to test this to understand the science behind it. And Im actually not a very samrt guy.

The fuel computers are no where close to accurate as they don't actually measure fuel flow. They are a guesstimate at best.

Either way, if you can get 70 miles more per tank, I would say that the cost differential for premium is likely worth it. 10% more cost for 25% more mileage.

Don't want to beat this long dead horse too much though.

So, if it works for you, than you should ignore the naysayers like me.

Ride safe and enjoy that bike.

 

Most of us have. And Zappo is correct.

 

I actually think you are a very smart guy, but I'm more than happy to keep increasing the multi billion £$? profits of Shell, so I'll keep justifying the extra cost of V Power Nitro to myself

Happy Riding
Andy

 

More octane is waste UNLESS needed, we all know that and with the FJR compression ration and mapping 87 or so is usually just fine.
It would be nice if the C/R could be bumped along with a map change to squeeze out a few more HP.

 

Couple of things I'd like to add here,

Higher octane fuels do not have more energy per gallon, they actually have less do to more anti-knock fillers added that reduce the actual volume of energy producing gasoline, the advantage in higher octane fuels is that you can run more compression or timing to improve the engine ability to produce power, so unless it's tuned either by the operator or the builder or by the computer in today's vehicles for higher octane it's a waste but I'll also add that if it makes you feel better do it. But there is less actual power in a gallon of higher octane fuel than regular, that's why all of today's "tuners" are trying to get their stuff to optimize on regular grades, simply more power available, if it doesn't cause knock.

The same thing applies to the 10-15% ethanol fuels, if the motor is tuned to take advantage of the much higher octane available from ethanol you can make a lot more power, that's why a lot of the hot rod guy's are tuning their hot rods to run on E-85 (85% ethanol) because of the higher octane rating of ethanol they can run a lot more compression or boost and timing to make more power but like higher octane gas there is less btu's of energy in a gallon of each so the MPG's will be less.

Also does does anyone know how they calculate "octane" in Europe ? I know that here in the states it's done by averaging the research and mechanical octane ratings, by looking at the numbers I'd say that Europe goes by the reasearch numbers only but I really don't know. All this has been mostly a great discussion though.

 

Couple of things I'd like to add here,

Higher octane fuels do not have more energy per gallon, they actually have less do to more anti-knock fillers added that reduce the actual volume of energy producing gasoline,

Isooctane does have higher energy content than heptane. Octane ratings are based on the anti-knock properties of pure isooctane cut with heptane.

It is a mistake to presume higher octane-rated fuel has more or less energy. Far too many other variables.

the advantage in higher octane fuels is that you can run more compression or timing to improve the engine ability to produce power,

Basic Carnot cycle thermodynamics. The ideal condition efficiency for extracting work from heat depends on the ratio of high to low pressure. But as a general rule for internal combustion engines the higher the pressure and temperature the greater the production of NOx. This is why diesel engines are fuel efficient but very hard to clean up the exhaust. DEF is a urea solution injected into diesel exhaust to convert NOx into N2 and H2O.

The same thing applies to the 10-15% ethanol fuels, if the motor is tuned to take advantage of the much higher octane available from ethanol you can make a lot more power,

E10 and E15 do not have inherently higher octane-ratings than anything else. E10 and E15 are made with "the cheap stuff". 84 octane pure gas with 10% ethanol is 87 (R+M)/2 and about 2% lower in energy than pure 87 would be.

hat's why a lot of the hot rod guy's are tuning their hot rods to run on E-85 (85% ethanol) because of the higher octane rating of ethanol they can run a lot more compression or boost and timing to make more power

Yes, E85 is in the 100-105 octane-rating ballpark yet oddly not listed on the pumps.

but like higher octane gas there is less btu's of energy in a gallon of each so the MPG's will be less.

Its not accurate to claim 93 octane-rating E10 has less energy than 87 E10.

Also does does anyone know how they calculate "octane" in Europe ? I know that here in the states it's done by averaging the research and mechanical octane ratings, by looking at the numbers I'd say that Europe goes by the reasearch numbers only but I really don't know. All this has been mostly a great discussion though.

Yes, the European numbers are RON only. Ours are (RON+MON)/2.

 

I'm not going to argue with anyone about fuel, ethanol, efficiency, knock inhibitors etc, however I will say that higher octane fuel does without doubt, absolutely, irrefutably does increase the mpg in the FJR and that is an un-scientific fact!

 

Have you tried to reverse the experiment? Same 2 bikes, another similar run, but fill up yours with regular and your buddy's with premium. If it all down to the gas yours should run dry sooner this time.

 

I have tried using non-ethanol fuel a couple of times. In Florida where I used to live it is marketed as Rec 90 or Recreational vehicle 90. {Because so many of our boats have broken down because of the ethanol eating up the insides of the old fuel lines and the debris clogging the jets and FI's. Also, of course because of the water related corrosion in gas tanks.}

Since that stuff is rated 90 octane and no ethanol, instead of the 87 octane with 10% ethanol I usually use, you would think it would add several miles per gallon, but it did not do anything, same 41 mpg as usual. P.S. I check my mileage by dividing the mileage I have ridden, by the gallons used not by the computer, but it always comes in a mpg more or less than the computer says.

Since I paid $1.00 a gallon more for that stuff I felt completely cheated. I wonder if there is someone who goes around checking to see if there really is non-ethanol in those non-ethanol tanks. LOL

I found some non-ethanol gas close to me here in South Carolina and it is only $.50 a gallon more expensive than regular, so I guess I will give it a try again just for giggles.

As far as corrosion goes. A few months ago I pulled my tank and bent the fuel pickup so I could go a more reasonable 220 miles before going on "reserve" and I found the inside of the tank completely spotless and NO residue or water in the bottom of the tank. Just Sayin.

 

If I?m being really honest it doesn?t bother me enough to go through even the slightest hassle of doing that. Everyone?s views and opinions are as usual all very well put, very valid and make sense.

Perhaps it?s riding style, bike set or both which is determining the mpg difference but again I?m not really too bothered.

Everyone has a choice, I use V Power Nitro, just about to switch to Motul 7100 FULLY synthetic oil (controversial), had Metzeler 01s fit, use a Sargent seat, have ASV levers and an Ermax screen.

All quite expensive so perhaps I?m either a victim of good marketing, just like wasting my money or both ..... help!!!

 

Andy in the UK i believe all fuels used now contain 10% ethanol you may have to search hard to find any mention of it though! The IRTE did a report on it some time ago, but some guys who ride bikes with plastic tanks have found out BP ultimate is still 100% ethanol free, and that is the only fuel you can buy different from anyone else.

Been using fully synthetic oil in mine since day1 as i get it the right price but it doesn't matter as the FJR engine is hardly stressed.

As for your other mods they sound great for you but never found a need to modify my gen1 other than the suspension.

We are all different mate and im glad we are :wink2:

 

Without reading the OP or the answers, my answer to the title is: Red Beans and Rice.

Other than that, gas threads and explantions of what octane does have all been completely explained as has the fact that the FJR doesn't have the compression that requires anything more than regular unleaded.

 

Ok, so here's my question: ethanol has been in gas now for quite some time. Are modern engines and fuel injection systems really not designed with "Gas-ahol" in mind? My 1998 Honda CR-V has been running quite nicely for 175,000 miles running on fuel with ethanol. Never had any problem with the engine, fuel system, etc. I run techron through it once a year if I remember, usually put Exxon or Shell gas into it, always "regular".

With the bike it doesn't get use quite as regularly, so I always put some type of stabilizer in it, but again, no issues.

 

Ok, so here's my question: ethanol has been in gas now for quite some time. Are modern engines and fuel injection systems really not designed with "Gas-ahol" in mind? With the bike it doesn't get use quite as regularly, so I always put some type of stabilizer in it, but again, no issues.

tbonesullivan,

Older gear, maybe or maybe not. It's not just the fuel injection, though, it's everything that fuel goes through. It may take years for fuel lines or a gas tank to rust out, or for seals to crumble into dust. "No problems so far" is what the jumper said, as he fell past the fourth floor. If the OEM parts were not built for ethanol gas, we can only hope that the replacement parts are up to the job we now need. For the near future, I would buy stock in the companies that make epoxy coatings for the insides of gas tanks, because those guys will be busy for some time to come, in the USA. Some bike makers (who should have known better) produced models with plastic tanks, which had problems with ethanol. Personally, ethanol has ruined the fuel pump in my car's gas tank twice in recent years, so don't be thinking that everybody has made the corrections needed for using ethanol in the USA.

Google would find non-ethanol gas for you, locally. Stabilizer or not, I would not store anything with a gas tank that has ethanol in it.

 

Guy's, I'll add this that at some point (don't know when for sure) the oe's started using Viton based rubber components in the fuel systems. Viton is unaffected by ethanol and is what is generally used in a pure alcohol fuel system, and other than the ethanol drawing water in like brake fluid there's nothing to worry about in the fjr systems, just ride and enjoy it.

The only other thing I'll add is Yamaha engineering really seems to have done their homework because the fjr has a 11.8-1 compression ratio which they've made run perfectly on regular grade fuel, unbelievable really. The high compression ratio is what gives the fjr its great torque and flexibility, normally that much compression requires premium but quite frankly I've lugged my 14 down to 1200-1500 rpm to see if it spark knocks but it just runs and pulls away no matter, unbelievable. Fill it up and go for a ride.

I guess this wonderful engine and fueling is what causes me so much frustration where they did such a great job here and such a pee-poor job on the weak sub frame, seat, clutch and steering head bearings,,,,,, I think I'll go for a ride and enjoy it.

 

... because the fjr has a 11.8-1 compression ratio ...

Picking nits perhaps but my owners manual says 10.80:1, not 11.8.

 

Ethanol is a bad idea for many reasons but there is a lot of myth surrounding.

"Stabilizers" are more of the same kind of things as ethanol. Strange how one worries about seals and gaskets being safe from ethanol but not from "stabilizers"? Read the MSDS for your favorite stabilizer to put fear in your heart.

The biggest problem with ethanol in gasoline is how it suspends water in solution. Pure gasoline carries very little water on its own, less than 1%. Water immediately falls out of solution to the bottom of the tank where it can be drained off. Gas stations generally use a floating pickup to get gas off the top avoiding water while automobiles draw gas from the bottom of the tank. Motorcycles with petcocks and reserves draw a couple inches from the bottom, then from the bottom on reserve.

When gas stations converted to ethanol-laced gasoline they first needed to purge their storage tanks of accumulated water. Many did not. Many customers had problems. Ethanol rightly got a bad reputation.

Ethanol and gasoline mix, but ethanol likes water better than gasoline. Historically ethanol additives were sold to "dry" ones tank of water. The ethanol would lift the very little bit of water into solution and carry it out through the engine. An ounce of water could puddle in the fuel line and freeze, blocking the line.

Today much greater percentages of ethanol is used daily than of "Heet" kits of the past. No matter the cautions some water is present in solution. And even in solution this water is corrosive, gas tanks used to only rust out from the bottom where water puddled. When enough water is present the ethanol starts preferring the water over the gasoline and phase separation occurs. Gasoline with ethanol is ugly milky white, and excess water with ethanol falls out of the solution and puddles at the bottom of the tank. This water/ethanol doesn't run in your engine but it surrounds the fuel pickup. More ethanol (or other so-called ethanol neutralizers) can return this water and ethanol back into solution but you still have the problem of this water being run through your engine. Often the easiest way to dispose of hazardous waste.

Ethanol test kits provide a test tube where one places about 1 part water to 9 parts fuel. Shake. If the "water" level appears to rise when it settles then ethanol is present. The more "water" the more ethanol. Excess water draws ethanol out of solution with gasoline.

Ethanol-free gasoline is most widely available at marinas because water is so much of a problem. Mixing 2 stroke oil with gasoline and ethanol and water is yet another problem.

Contrary to what some claim automobile fuel systems are not closed/sealed and immune to water. Modern systems are better protected than most motorcycle systems in that there are breathers and hoses and charcoal canisters the moisture must pass. California emission motorcycles are similar.

The best thing to do for ethanol is keep one's fuel fresh, tank full to minimize condensation, and park inside out of the weather and sun. I do not use or recommend stabilizers.