01-01-2015, 02:41 AM
Make sense. Thanks, Mininsx.
|
Octane Rating
|
|
01-01-2015, 02:41 AM
Make sense. Thanks, Mininsx.
06-08-2015, 03:47 PM
I feel like Winston Churchill:
"I always like to learn, but I don't always like to be taught." I didn't know about all the problems with ethanol. I always wondered why it was a good idea to convert food into fuel when so many people go hungry, but I just figured, like Gossman, the good of being renewable, helping farmers, cleaner air must be the reasons. Thanks for the education, I'll do more research but in the mean time, I'll watch what gas I put into my fuel tanks.
06-08-2015, 08:55 PM
While in Robbinsville I tried a tank full of 92 octane non-eth.
Motor felt like it was running razor sharp
06-09-2015, 02:29 AM
(12-26-2014, 04:17 AM)redbirds_imp Wrote:(12-26-2014, 03:43 AM)Django_imp Wrote: Hm, I wonder why you have this low quality fuel in the US? My understanding is that a different standard is used for Euro and US octane ratings. I think the Low number octane rating is about the same octane in both places. The real shame is that Ethanol fuel, which has less energy per gallon, is forced on the American public by politicians that either through ignorance or agri-business payoffs mandate it's use. Lucky for me that I have several local dealers that sell the mid grade non Ethanol fuel. I would simply add that ethanol production creates a larger carbon footprint, reduces the food supply, increases the price of fuel, and reduces gas mileage - a lose-lose situation. ~ The Bee
06-09-2015, 03:37 AM
I have a science back ground, but just trying to learn here.....I had to look this one up: ethanol production creates a larger carbon footprint
At first couldn't figure out how ethanol would produce more CO2 since it burns cleaner than oil, but from what I'm finding, they are saying the converting of land from forest to corn production is where the lost of CO2 conversion by those forest creates an increase in over all CO2....is that correct? More efficient ethanol: http://www.afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/flex...sions.html Loss of forrest: http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Yi_Y...d88a3c.pdf It's like the climate change / global warming debate...so much conflicting confusing data it's almost overwhelming.
06-09-2015, 03:55 AM
The way octane is rated is different usa vs. europe.
06-09-2015, 07:01 AM
It's a discussion about which we should tread carefully given the rules of this forum. Politics plays a not inconsiderable role in this equation.
06-09-2015, 07:46 AM
(06-09-2015, 07:01 AM)Cormanus_imp Wrote: It's a discussion about which we should tread carefully given the rules of this forum. Politics plays a not inconsiderable role in this equation. I agree. The compression in our CBs (I think it's 9.5) is one of the great things about it and a selling point for me simply because I don't have to worry about using high octane gas. In fact, from what I've read on this forum, it's better to stick to the cheap stuff. Combined with the steel fuel tank I think we are in the best position possible give that finding ethanol free gas is not so easy (at least not around here).
06-09-2015, 06:31 PM
Yes, the CB1100 is 9.5:1 allowing pump gas (87 octane) to be run. Running premium will net you no gains whatsoever, other than a false belief that it did.
06-09-2015, 08:52 PM
I'm not feeling the need for high octane, but I do use non-ethanol fuel in about all of my small engines, including the CB1100.
That non-ethanol fuel happens to be 91 octane in my area. It's more of a storage/longevity issue, especially with older engines. I feel the rubber/plastic in some of the older engines doesn't like ethanol fuel sitting for extended periods. |
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
| Possibly Related Threads… | |||||
| Thread | Author | Replies | Views | Last Post | |
| What octane fuel you using? | _imp | 72 | 4,053 |
10-20-2013, 02:15 PM Last Post: Ourfreedom_imp |
|