View Poll Results: What fuel do you run?
87 grade
84
45.41%
89 grade
21
11.35%
91 grade
59
31.89%
Race fuel
6
3.24%
I'm from a European country, my ratings are different
15
8.11%
Voters: 185. You may not vote on this poll
Poll: What fuel do you run in your Superhawk?
08-12-2009 | 04:36 PM
#1
Thread Starter
Who are you?
SuperSport
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 731
From: Las Vegas, NV
Poll: What fuel do you run in your Superhawk?
So I'm curious to know what you guys run in your SuperChickens. So let's see what people run.
Edit: It appears what is posted under the seat is 91 RON, which is equivalent to 87 grade here in the US.
Edit: It appears what is posted under the seat is 91 RON, which is equivalent to 87 grade here in the US.
Last edited by Just_Nick; 08-13-2009 at 11:46 AM.
08-12-2009 | 05:06 PM
#3
Senior Member
Back Marker
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 219
i used to be all "91 or 93 if you got it" and then i did some reading. there is no real gains to be had with a higher octane on our motor due to the very low compression. 87 is the ****. stop wasting money on the other stuff
08-12-2009 | 06:20 PM
#6
I could ride in
SuperBike
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,729
From: Dayton, TN
the whole thing...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octane_rating
87 is sufficient here in the US as a R+M/2; but since I often lug the beast, I run 89. Whatever. It's like oil. Or tires.
08-12-2009 | 08:01 PM
#10
Senior Member
SuperSport
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 987
From: San Diego, CA
91 RON (Europe) = 87 octane (US)
Makes perfect sense. Riding my 'hawk requires me to wear a helmet, so I just wear it while driving my car too.
Makes perfect sense. Riding my 'hawk requires me to wear a helmet, so I just wear it while driving my car too.
08-12-2009 | 09:48 PM
#12
Senior Member
SuperBike
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,611
From: Belgium, WI
My car runs diesel...
Anywho, don't lug the beast, let her breathe. Run it above 4k rpms and you might see better fuel mileage. Anything over 5 is diminishing returns. My buddy noticed it with his sv650 as well.
Anywho, don't lug the beast, let her breathe. Run it above 4k rpms and you might see better fuel mileage. Anything over 5 is diminishing returns. My buddy noticed it with his sv650 as well.
08-13-2009 | 02:59 PM
#19
Senior Member
Superstock
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 308
I ran 91 because I thought that's what I was supposed to used. So I switched to 87. Right away I had problems starting the bike. after a few tankfuls, Went back to 91...start up problems went away.
Makes NO SENSE, since LOWER octane fuel should ignite easier than higher octane fuel. So the 87 octane should have started the engine easier than the 91...
Anyone have any idears?
Makes NO SENSE, since LOWER octane fuel should ignite easier than higher octane fuel. So the 87 octane should have started the engine easier than the 91...
Anyone have any idears?
08-13-2009 | 04:32 PM
#20
Member
Squid
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 65
Gal Darnet... I thought I read in my haynes manual that the bike needed 91 (R+M)/2... and I was sure of it. I thought half you folks were nuts. But there were so many posts saying that the bike was spec'd there so I checked it out... and I was wrong... 87 it shall be so long as I don't get knocking from the bike.
I double on the higher gas mileage at closer to 4k rpm. I started driving with cars that would get great gas mileage if you lugged them about but I definitely got ~6-8mpg better by sitting at a higher rpm on the bike. I haven't been pushing it to 4k on average though, more like 3.5k. Maybe I will try it out for a tankful!
Sorry folks... I just felt like keeping the 100th thread on gas octane alive. Just felt like it deserved it since it proved me wrong.
I double on the higher gas mileage at closer to 4k rpm. I started driving with cars that would get great gas mileage if you lugged them about but I definitely got ~6-8mpg better by sitting at a higher rpm on the bike. I haven't been pushing it to 4k on average though, more like 3.5k. Maybe I will try it out for a tankful!
Sorry folks... I just felt like keeping the 100th thread on gas octane alive. Just felt like it deserved it since it proved me wrong.
08-13-2009 | 04:56 PM
#22
Senior Member
Back Marker
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 219
I ran 91 because I thought that's what I was supposed to used. So I switched to 87. Right away I had problems starting the bike. after a few tankfuls, Went back to 91...start up problems went away.
Makes NO SENSE, since LOWER octane fuel should ignite easier than higher octane fuel. So the 87 octane should have started the engine easier than the 91...
Anyone have any idears?
Makes NO SENSE, since LOWER octane fuel should ignite easier than higher octane fuel. So the 87 octane should have started the engine easier than the 91...
Anyone have any idears?
08-13-2009 | 06:01 PM
#23
Senior Member
MotoGP
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 3,451
From: San Clemente, CA
The octane of the fuel has nothing to do with how "easily" it ignites, since ignition is started by a spark.
Higher octane prevents detonation, which is a condition where 2 flame fronts collide eventually blowing a hole in your piston. The second flame front is not caused by the spark, but by a hot spot in the combustion chamber, like the edge of an exhaust valve.
Since the SuperHawk has only 9.5:1 stock compression, 87 octane is Honda's recommendation. Some new cars with direct injection can run on 87 with up to 11:1 or more compression, since direct injection provides a cooler charge.
Octane of gas in the 1920s was 60 to 70, but a Model A Ford had only 4:1 compression.
Higher octane prevents detonation, which is a condition where 2 flame fronts collide eventually blowing a hole in your piston. The second flame front is not caused by the spark, but by a hot spot in the combustion chamber, like the edge of an exhaust valve.
Since the SuperHawk has only 9.5:1 stock compression, 87 octane is Honda's recommendation. Some new cars with direct injection can run on 87 with up to 11:1 or more compression, since direct injection provides a cooler charge.
Octane of gas in the 1920s was 60 to 70, but a Model A Ford had only 4:1 compression.
08-14-2009 | 09:27 AM
#25
Senior Member
SuperSport
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 987
From: San Diego, CA
Have you tried additive? I just run this stuff straight, engine is super quiet due to the hydrolocking compound they use.
08-14-2009 | 12:13 PM
#28
Senior Member
SuperSport
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 987
From: San Diego, CA
I think everything in California is E10 now, or close to it. Interesting that it's cheaper for you, because it costs more to produce.
08-14-2009 | 12:41 PM
#29
BeautyHawk
Squid
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 26
From: Nebraska
I'm definitely not an expert and could very much completely wrong... but I'm guessing it has to do with there being no oil refineries in nebraska, and a lot of ethonal plants... cheaper to produce than to truck in the gasoline...
