Premium Fuel

I have tried both to see if there was a diference. What I found was that I would use up the premium 92 faster than the 87 Octane. The bike seemed to run a little better on (87) but not that much of a difference.So I use the 87 most of the time but run a tank of 92 once in a while.

 

I have tried both to see if there was a diference. What I found was that I would use up the premium 92 faster than the 87 Octane. The bike seemed to run a little better on (87) but not that much of a difference.So I use the 87 most of the time but run a tank of 92 once in a while.

Thank you sir, this is good to know.

 

I always get better mileage from 87 octane than 91 or 93. Every single time. And noticeably too, like 3-4 mpg better, easily. A common misconception is that "premium" literally means "better" but if your bike doesn't need such a cold-burning fuel, you're just throwing money away.

 

I always get better mileage from 87 octane than 91 or 93. Every single time. And noticeably too, like 3-4 mpg better, easily. A common misconception "premium" literally means "better" but if your bike doesn't need such a cold-burning fuel, you're just throwing money away.

That's some interesting numbers, and is huge on long trips, will remember this. Do you ever use any fuel additives?

And I seem to only have gas stations that have the crappy 10% ethanol added? Were you running the ethanol blend? Does the ethanol blend affect our bikes if you know?... not like I have a choice really!!.....

 

I didn't pay real close attention to be honest, but early last summer I know I was getting about 53 mpg riding 2-up on 87-octane from Chevron, which, at the time, contained no ethanol. They stopped running ethanol-free at the end of September, if memory serves. The last long trip I took I got about 51, but that was mid-October, and they start adding a freeze-prevention additives to the fuel storage tanks around here by then. My cars always start getting crappier gas mileage about that time of year too. I haven't ridden any long distances since then, so I can't speak for certain, and it'll be a couple more months before I ride more than a few miles at a time.

I haven't used any additives in this bike. I used to put Sea Foam in my old VN700A1, but I never saw the need on my '09 Classic. One thing I do for my cars AND my bike is run name-brand fuel. Some of the discount places here (Maverik, Flying J) always turn in crappier fuel mileage. Flying J fuel used to make the 460 in my '73 Ford vaporlock from time to time. I'd rather pay the 10 cents extra a gallon and get the extra mile or two per.

 

wow 53 mpg I need to get my bike checked my light turns on at 121.5

 

Hi Vic, looking at those engine mods you have I'm gonna guess that your bike was set up to produce more power not more fuel economy. Your not gonna see those kind of numbers on your bike. I'm sure your fuel consumption can be tweaked some and your numbers will come up a bit but not drastically.

 

Do you need to run premium in your '09 VN900? Based upon my three years of running 87 in my VN900, the answer is "no."

 

You can use any grade gas you want. Your mileage will vary from grade to grade and from station to station. I've found that name brand gas generally gives better mileage than no name. I try to stick with Shell and Chevron or my local 7-11 store. It doesnt advertise the brand but it is Citgo. Not everybodies favorite chain but they are open at 3am when I go to work. I only buy gas from Murphy, Race Trac or Flying J in an emergency. They always give me terrible mileage.

 

I work for a gas company what people dont know is all 87 gas is the same, all comes from the same plant, The only diffence in gas is 89 or 93 is that big name companys add there own additves, like shell or sheetzs but the gas still coming from the same place. and what people need to rember if u get mid grade, most not all places give u a mix of reg and super to make the mid grade. so its a 50/50 shot u get good mid grade.

 

Hey VicFlo, the light on the 900 Classic turns on somewhere not too far below half-full. That's just another Kawasaki design flaw like the speedometer error. There is a fix posted on one of these forums to change where the tank low light comes on by adding resistance to the circuit. If you can't find it and really want to do the fix I can probably come up with it.

 

My light comes on about 210 - 220 miles and she will begin sucking air around 260-270 miles. never been modded.

 

This is probably in the top 10 of topics bantered around this forum while I have been a member so I will offer my opinion. I have an 06' 900 Vulcan and have tried many different brands of gasoline. I live in the northeast and I can only find 10% Ethanol blends and I'm not going to go crazy searching out "pure gas"
I check the mileage on every tank of gas I run through my bike and have found that Citgo, Shell and Sunoco seem to produce the best results for the kind of riding I do. I have used all octanes and regular "87" seems to produce the worst results not only in performance but mileage as well. I'm not sure if it's just me or not but my bike sounds noisier also. I stick with 91 and up octane on all the gas I buy. Yes it costs more but the extra 40 or 50 cents per tank full isn't bothering my purse any. I now have 40k on her and continue checking my mileage. I keep a pencil in a leather pouch and write my mileage on the pump receipt and the brand of gas that was purchased for that particular reading. When I have a calculator handy I calculate the mpg's and watch for trends developing for different brands of gas. The age of the gas you have in your bike is a factor also. During riding season I am filling my tank twice a week so my fuel is always fresh. If you only ride once on the weekend then your gas isn't going to be as fresh as it was a week ago when you purchased it. Yes it makes a difference! Ethanol blends vary a lot and don't store well. Where you live, the climate and elevation all play a roll as well. I don't think a rider in the northeast is gonna see the same numbers as a rider in the desert southwest. A rider on the shoreline of New Jersey isn't gonna see the same numbers as a rider in the mountains of Colorado, I think you see my point. I have come to realize from doing this for a few years now that The tread pattern and air pressure play a large roll in fuel consumption with everything else staying the same. When I ride 2 up of course the mileage will suffer and will vary so i use the mileage data from when only myself is on the bike. I generally average between 50-51 mpg's so when I notice a drop off in economy I start asking myself questions why? So I check my air filter and tire pressures and also have I been a little more aggressive with the throttle lately. The latter seems to be a bit of a problem with me. It certainly is worth mentioning that 2 identical bikes can experience different economy readings and you will hear different results from many people on this forum. My advice is monitor what you use and stick with what produces the best results for the kind of riding you do. I started out using regular gas and my bike ran so poorly one morning that while pulling out into traffic she almost stalled. When something like this happens I see if I can duplicate the issue and always when I use regular gas the bike runs poorly. The owners manual always generates lots of debates when this question comes up and then all of the scholars give their input. Bottom line is stick with what works for"YOU". Sorry for the long story my wife thinks I always have too much to say about everything!

 

BTW, one other thing to remember is that if you are running the OEM 180/70-15 on the rear of your 900 Classic your MPG estimates are about 6% off in that your mileage calculations are not as good as you think they are. An upgrade to a 200/70-15 will get you a little closer with only about 1% error. That would suggest that 50 MPG on a 170 is probably really closer to 47 MPG while 50 MPG on a 200 is more like 49.5 MPG. Just my 2-cents worth. Additionally, a move in the other direction, say to a 170mm tire, skews your calculations even worse.

 

I run 87, ran one tank of premium just to try and no noticeable difference in power. Actually seems to have gotten less mileage, so 'NO".

 

I asked my dad, and his explanation worked for me. He said the only reason you need to run premium is to ward off detonation. These engines have a knock sensor, so if there were detonation, the computer would adjust the fuel accordingly, so why pay for more expensive gas if you dont have to.....

 

It does this be retarding the timing and adding more fuel (because more fuel means a colder combustion chamber). By your reasoning, you are willing to sacrifice power and fuel mileage to save 50 cents a tank?

On a personal note, this question bothers me. If you look at the difference in cost between 87, 89, and 91 (those are the three local to me) its 10 cents per upgrade. With a 5 gallon tank, its costing you, at most, a dollar. Your bike was designed to run 91 octane (or whatever premium is where you are), that's what those really smart engineers decided. They spend a lot of time designing an engine and making sure it can last 50,000-100,000 miles. Higher octane ratings prevent detonation (technically its called pre-detonation. When your spark plug fires, you get detonation in the combustion chamber, the problem is when it ignites too early.). The 900 has a compression ratio of 9.5:1. That's pretty high by automotive standards. In reality, is it worth 50 cents to risk running into problems? I don't think so and run what the manufacturer recommends (91). And so we are clear, I get ~55 MPG, so the fuel mileage complaint doesn't work for me.

I'm sure I will piss a bunch of people off, but there are a lot smarter people than me who said to run premium, and since they get paid to design engines and build motorcycles, I will heed their advice.

-Hayes

 

I never looked at the manual, mine had the premium sticker on the tank. If the owners manual says 87, then that is fine.

 

I copied this page from the manual you can download form the Kawi site. I will be the first to admit that I don't completely understand the whole octane thing. There is the one sentence that I highlighted and isn't it saying the minimum is 90 or is that talking about something else? AKI and Octane rating two different things? This stuff can be confusing!!!

 

The box to the right of the one that you highlighted gives you the answer you need, which is the method used in the US. You can do a search too, of course. This subject has been beaten to death on this board before.

 

Ethanol fuel.... that is the question!!

Here in Oz, we have a different dilemma. Not so much with octane choice but to use fuel with ethanol added or not. In city and 'burbs all 91 (the lowest octane available in Oz) has 10% ethanol (you can get 'pure' 91 in the country but you need to travel about 200kms to get it!!).

When I first picked up my bike, I rang around the city Kawasaki dealers service depts and they all said the same thing - use 95 not E10 (91 + 10% ethanol). Cruiser and Trike magazine also ran an article recently on the merits of ethanol fules in motorcyclers and stated that Kawasaki Australia do not recommend E10 in ANY of their motorcycles.

I have always run 95 in my '07 custom and have not had any problems to date. Would be interested to hear from any other Aussie riders on what they use/recommend.

 

As I understand it, more octane slows down the fuel burn rate. If you have more octane than your engine needs, you get less efficiency from the fuel and carbon up your engine more (because of incomplete fuel combustion). Bottom line seems to be to burn the lowest octane that doesn't make your engine ping.

 

Mine runs like a clock on regular.....

 

87 here... No issues. Problem in California is E10... Kills fuel economy and jacks the price up. Almost tempted to start a gas station that runs E5 or 0% ethanol...

 

I'd like to do that in Oregon, but thanks to the Legislature and ex-governor we are legally obligated to have only the 10% crappahol gas. The only exemptions I am aware of are for boats and aircraft. Thanks to the garbage gas our miles per gallon have decreased. I think that it's partly a plot to collect more tax money with the state tax per gallon of the garbage gas.

 

Agree with the "beaten to death" statement earlier. If you need to know more, do a search.

As to a new subject, am seeing some, not a lot, of stations with E15. Being sold cheaper too.

As I hate E10, and it has demonstrated to be a problem with carb's, I haven't tried it.

Anyone ??

 

Yes, this one has been beaten to death.... So I suggest we hang with it and SETTLE THIS ONCE AND FOR ALL !!!!

 

a note !!octane # is directly proportional to engine Compression Ratio.I have been using 87 for a long time no prob ,vulcan 900 has a cr of 9.5 .In the US the capitalist as programmed the population to believe --the more expensive the better-- if u know science u will always be on top

 

I'm Speechless! Iv'e been programmed.

 

My 900 runs on both, I used high test for 2 seasons. Someone told me that regular gas works better. I tried it and get better gas mileage and a better running bike. Only regular for me from now on.....except the final tank of the season where it sits over the winter, I use high test to keep the octane level up.

 

I doubt the octane will change in a month or two. Gasoline loses the butane that's in the blend but that's about it.