Jump to content

Which Fuel would you recommend for the NC?


MikeBike

Which Fuel would you recommend for the NC?  

146 members have voted

  1. 1. Which Fuel would you recommend for the NC? (ignore factors like there's a shell garage round the corner)

    • Regular unleaded 95 RON - cheapest you find (supermarket etc)
      88
    • Regular unleaded 95 RON - brand (Shell etc)
      28
    • Premium Unleaded 99 RON - cheapest you find (supermarket etc)
      10
    • Premium Unleaded 99 RON - (e.g. Shell Vpower etc)
      20
    • Other
      2


Recommended Posts

My understanding is that the engine management on the R1200 can actually make use of the higher octane fuel, or more strictly it is optimised for the higher octane but will operate in a safe mode when lower octane is used (usually just a slightly retarded ignition map), triggered by a knock detection system.

Link to post
  • Replies 118
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • embee

    11

  • Rev Ken

    9

  • Tex

    8

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

As Mark says, always a topic of debate and everyone has an opinion. Opinions are like ar$eholes, everyone has one but you don't usually want to hear it.   Here's mine.   Octane rating of itself

It’s the language of the over 70s and not for you youngsters😂

It wouldn’t be the first time we didn’t have a clue either..  

I once did a Scandinavian tour on a GS and hoped to pop across the Russian border near Kirkenes then back into Finland further South.  Research led me to believe that fuel on the Russian side was of a much lower octane and, well, a bit dodgy.  BMW reckoned the GS can cope with a wide range of quality when it comes to fuel.

The scarcity of petrol stations in that region put me off.  Just as well as it was touch and go in Finand sometimes.

Link to post

I use exactly the fuel recommended in Owner's Manual.

 

(yup, i've tried the "mid range," and/or higher octane stuff. Haven't noticed a lick of difference in performance or fuel consumption)

Link to post

On the race bikes we run a 50/50 mix of Av-Gas (aviation fuel) and Race fuel. It's a tedious, time consuming process. Expensive too. On the Integra I just chuck in the cheapest slop I can find. And it runs like a champ. God bless you, Mr Honda. :yes:

  • Like 1
Link to post

You can boost the octane rating of petrol by adding toluene, around 121RON.

 

Back in the days of the 1.5L turbo F1 cars I believe they were using anything up to 75% toluene. I don't think current F1 rules allow such things. There are a couple of issues though, compatibility of rubbers is seriously compromised, toluene is relatively expensive (though some paint solvents are principally toluene and xylene, which will also work and is much cheaper than industrial toluene), and since you won't have paid fuel duty on it the amount you would be free to use in a road vehicle is strictly limited.

 

When looking up the RON for toluene I looked at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octane_rating and realised in my earlier post I gave the descriptions of the molecules the wrong way round, iso-octane is the branched one and n-heptane is straight, Apologies if this upset anyone's breakfast.

Link to post

Murray

I may be wrong here and will bow to your knowledge.

But I seem to recall when I did my Hazchem training many years ago that Toluene is highly toxic and exposure to it and its vapour can cause severe kidney,liver and lung damage.

Just as a warning if I am right in case anyone tries to buy any and handle it.

  • Like 1
Link to post

I'm sure you're right. I wasn't recommending anyone dabbles in home brewing of fuels, just describing what can be done with fuels.

 

Much of what's in fuel is not very pleasant stuff, especially the likes of benzene etc.

 

Quote from one safety data sheet for toluene

HMIS Ratings: Health: 2*    Fire: 3    Physical Hazard: 0 

Hazard Scale:  0 = Minimal  1 = Slight  2 = Moderate  3 = Serious  4 = Severe   * = Chronic hazard

so it is a moderate health hazard with potential chronic effects, as you describe.

 

"DO NOT TRY THIS AT HOME"

Edited by embee
  • Like 1
Link to post

I'm sure you're right. I wasn't recommending anyone dabbles in home brewing of fuels, just describing what can be done with fuels.

Much of what's in fuel is not very pleasant stuff, especially the likes of benzene etc.

Quote from one safety data sheet for toluene

HMIS Ratings: Health: 2* Fire: 3 Physical Hazard: 0

Hazard Scale: 0 = Minimal 1 = Slight 2 = Moderate 3 = Serious 4 = Severe * = Chronic hazard

so it is a moderate health hazard with potential chronic effects, as you describe.

"DO NOT TRY THIS AT HOME"

Murray

Never thought for one minute you were recommending anyone try it.

  • Like 1
Link to post

Murray

I may be wrong here and will bow to your knowledge.

But I seem to recall when I did my Hazchem training many years ago that Toluene is highly toxic and exposure to it and its vapour can cause severe kidney,liver and lung damage.

Just as a warning if I am right in case anyone tries to buy any and handle it.

 

Its probably carcinogenic as well (chocolate eclairs were thought to be recently).  The tri-nitro variety will make your bike go with a bang also. 

Link to post

To put it into context, this is from the safety sheet from BP for their unleaded pump fuel.

 

Hazards identification2 .
HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE. DANGEROUS GOODS.

Statement of hazardous/dangerous nature

R12- Extremely flammable.

R45- May cause cancer.

R46- May cause heritable genetic damage.

R63- Possible risk of harm to the unborn child.

R65- Also harmful: may cause lung damage if swallowed.

R38- Irritating to skin.

R67- Vapours may cause drowsiness and dizziness.

R51/53- Toxic to aquatic organisms, may cause long-term adverse effects in the aquatic environment.

 

Risk phrases

S2- Keep out of the reach of children.

S16- Keep away from sources of ignition - No smoking.

S23- Do not breathe gas/fumes/vapour/spray.

S24- Avoid contact with skin. S29- Do not empty into drains.

S36/37- Wear suitable protective clothing and gloves.

S45- In case of accident or if you feel unwell, seek medical advice immediately (show the label where possible).

S61- Avoid release to the environment. Refer to special instructions/safety data sheet.

S62- If swallowed, do not induce vomiting: seek medical advice immediately and show this container or label

Link to post

Ah. so when I wash my hands with it or add some to a mangy old tin of antifoul paint to kick some life into it you are saying

its not ideal l!!

Link to post

If someone invented petroleum spirit for the first time now there's no way they'd get it through Health and Safety! :D

Link to post

its a good idea to fill up with 98 octane just before your mot testwhatever vehicle ,because it burns better so lowering your emissions...just saying

Link to post

They don't test bike emissions on the MOT, but it may be worth trying on your car.

 

Back when I was in full time work, yes, I had a 'proper' job and don't miss it for a second, we had a fleet of diesels and one model was a bastard to get through the MOT emissions test. We had to run a tin of 'injector cleaner' through them (and thrash the tits off them on the way to the test!). All good fun.

Edited by Tex
  • Like 2
Link to post

They don't test bike emissions on the MOT, but it may be worth trying on your car.

 

Back when I was in full time work, yes, I had a 'proper' job and don't miss it for a second, we had a fleet of diesels and one model was a bastard to get through the MOT emissions test. We had to run a tin of 'injector cleaner' through them (and thrash the tits off them on the way to the test!). All good fun.

Well you learn something every day,I did,nt know  a bike did,nt need to have emissions checked.!!.   yeah I used it to get the car though,plus I used that Seaform stuff into the cylinders  and the old water trick,,she sailed though.....                        My BM, they recomend 98 but I use 95,,seems to run ok

Link to post

V W seem to have the best method for passing emission tests

 

Yeah, sneaky bastards. But their system won't get a car through an MOT test. Emissions on an MOT are checked by revving the engine with the vehicle at a standstill. VW were able to cheat the government 'standards' (which are done on a 'rolling road') by having the car recognise when it was being tested and go into 'low emission' mode.

 

They've actually done the same thing before and were heavily fined (1973, I think) but the arrogant buggers thought they'd get away with it this time. Hah!

Link to post

I wonder how long it will be before someone makes available a plug in unit that you fit to tweak the engine management ........... ah........a  power commander , doesn't that alter your emissions.  Now all you need is a m o t. map! 

Link to post

Hi, as said previously, I use the premium fuel just because I don't want to put cheaper supermarket fuel in a brand new bike. I am sure that after a year if assessing the gains over the costs I'll drop to standard Esso Or Shell petrol but never, ever, Asda or Tesco fuel. One must maintain standards lol.

Link to post
Rev Ken

Yeah, sneaky bastards. But their system won't get a car through an MOT test. Emissions on an MOT are checked by revving the engine with the vehicle at a standstill. VW were able to cheat the government 'standards' (which are done on a 'rolling road') by having the car recognise when it was being tested and go into 'low emission' mode.

 

They've actually done the same thing before and were heavily fined (1973, I think) but the arrogant buggers thought they'd get away with it this time. Hah!

I'm not sure they would fail an MOT as I guess the limits for emissions are not as strict as the artificially low emissions ALL manufacturers claim when tuning their cars for statutory emission tests. VW have just taken it one step to far!
Link to post

VW haven't cheated the emission tests per se. What they've done is engineer the systems so that when used under conditions not seen during the emission cycles the control of regulated pollutants is substantially away from what they should be if the same principles of control were being applied. This is what in legal terms is referred to as a "defeat device". The vehicles will have passed the certification tests, that cannot easily be cheated due to the way it is supervised and monitored.

 

The term "defeat device" is a bit of legalese jargon. It doesn't necessarily mean any sort of add-on or extra stand-alone device, it refers to any sort of application of control to the emission system which would make it operate in a way substantially different from that which enabled it to comply with regulations, breaking the spirit of the law rather than the letter, if you like.

 

My guess is that what VW has done is essentially drastically reduced the EGR rate in order to improve the driveability and fuel economy when off cycle in the real world. This made their products more user acceptable and attractive. This will have been achieved, I suspect, simply by calibration of the control system, no add-on or "special", as it has been described, software will have been required, just calibration. As such I would think the executives at VW will almost certainly have been unaware of much of this, anyone outside powertrain calibration won't know the ECU calibration to that level of detail. But I'm just guessing.

 

The pollutants we are dealing with are the so called "regulated" pollutants, CO, HC, and NOx. Note that CO2 is NOT a regulated pollutant, it is fuel consumption  by another name and is used as a tax measure, but it is not regulated (there are no mandatory limits). In the VW case it is specifically NOx (oxides of nitrogen, described as NOx because it can be in a number of forms depending on how the combustion works) which was the problem.

 

Nitrogen is normally fairly inert, 79% of the air is nitrogen and it doesn't react with much. When inside the cylinders at high temps and pressures it will however react and combine with oxygen to produce a number of oxide forms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrogen_oxide . The production within the cylinder ("raw emissions") can be lowered by slowing down the burn, reducing peak temps and pressures. This can be achieved by adding another inert gas, a convenient source is the exhaust gas itself, principally H2O CO2 and N2, so some is recirculated back into the intake (exhaust gas recirculation EGR).

 

Diesel engines inherently produce a lot of NOx because of the high combustion pressures and there is always excess air, and hence free oxygen, in the combustion. In a petrol engine the air/fuel ratio can be controlled to be at stoichiometric, with essentially no free oxygen, so raw NOx levels are generally much lower than diesels. Petrol engines also use EGR, formerly this was done with external valves and pipework but now it is usually achieved internally by increasing valve overlap using variable valve timing systems. External EGR systems are used on diesels principally because they are usually turbocharged and thus intake gas blows through, preventing internal EGR from being achievable. External EGR systems tend to have quite a lot of mechanical problems due to temperatures and contamination with soot etc.

 

In petrol engines running stoichiometric air/fuel, a 3-way catalyst can re-arrange the raw pollutants of HC, CO, and NOx (hence the term 3-way) and turn nearly all of it into CO2, H2O and N2 which are all non-toxic. It must run stoichiometric to minimise the total pollutants because if there is any free oxygen in the raw gas the catalyst can't get the oxygen off the nitrogen so the NOx breaks through essentially untreated, if it runs rich the NOx will be lowered but then there isn't enough oxygen to clean up the HC and CO. Diesels always run wit excess oxygen so a 3-way catalyst won't work, other techniques for catalysts are used (selective catalytic reduction SCR, and urea additives etc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_catalytic_reduction )

 

The question of fuel economy or CO2 is a different ballgame. If you can artificially reduce the friction or power requirement to run the vehicle you can achieve lower numbers than any real production vehicle ever could. All manufacturers optimise their test vehicles for this, which you are allowed to do within the spec for the vehicle by making sure tyres are at the best wear point and tracking is correct and pressures are as high as they can be, brakes are not dragging, bearings don't have too much grease or tight seals etc, it's just that some "optimise" them more than others. This is basically what is behind the CO2 disputes, but that's a different issue to the NOx business.

  • Like 1
Link to post

Well, I'm glad we cleared that up.. :lol:

  • Like 1
Link to post
fred_jb

What concerns me is that by activating a different control regime during testing VW have been able to gain a competitive advantage by being able to claim emission performance which they do meet in normal running.   I strongly suspect that if their cars were to use the same settings in normal running as they do to pass the tests, then they would not meet the claimed performance specs and would also be horrible to drive.

 

VW have therefore been able to save on development and possibly construction costs for their vehicles compared to their competitors, while apparently meeting similar emissions and performance specs.  If the competitors are as squeaky clean in this respect as they claim, then I could see a lot of pressure being put on the authorities to prosecute VW, and maybe also private class action legal moves.

 

I no longer own a VW vehicle, but if I did my concern would be that any mods VW make to make it retrospectively "legal" with regard to emissions might well negatively impact on performance, economy, and driveability.   I think this is why it is not simply a case of removing the "defeat" functionality in the software, they also have to make the car actually capable of meeting the emissions targets in tests while still meeting all the original performance and economy claims in normal use.   I read somewhere that this might mean retro-fitting to all the affected cars the expensive hardware being developed to meet forthcoming Euro 6 regulations on future models.

 

It now turns out they have also been accused of cheating on CO2 emissions figures, at least cheating more than the industry norm!

 

I wouldn't like to be a VW shareholder!

 

Fred

Edited by fred_jb
Link to post
fred_jb

First sentence should of course say "which they do NOT meet in normal running!

 

Fred

Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...