[Discussion] Which type of petrol do you pump for Phantom?

[Charlton]

Phantom engine is designed for 9:1 compression ratio, so according to this gentleman's analysis at http://www.carbibles.com/fuel_engine_bible_pg3.html

 

 

 

95 should be used according to carbibles' analysis but it also depends on the engine design. Phantom manual says 92 is fine... in which case my old ride (125Z with 6.5:1 compression) had best results with Esso 92 (2000).

 

It gave the same smoothness as Shell V-Power minus the hole in wallet.

 

Still waiting to collect my "new" phantom

 

o,o really? i tot lower octane petrol will harm engine cos its dirty?

[Charlton]

hey petrol is never dirty...no matter the grade...

what comes out of ur bike behind is..hahahaha

phantom is a low compression bike..92 can ride liao..

 

haha... icic... thx bro...

[dark_angel]

end of day, this is wat i concluded

1) got money pump 98/vpower

2) no money just pump wat is on the manual

[Pandoras Kitten 3]

Was running Shell95 since I collected bike on Thursday. Rode at moderate speed with occasional full power blasts and no complaints. (Do not imitate my riding style unless you dare to do performance break-in. :3)

 

But as I'm now "training" for top acceleration and speed I'm going to use a few tanks of V Power. Purely vanity and TLC induced decision as this is "only" a 9:1 compression motor but as max compression is only attained at max power I'd like to help the engine as much as I can.

[aitch52]

Hi Guys

 

On my Thai instruction manual is a big 91 in a red circle. Honda Thailand maintain that the bike is designed to run on 91 octane gasoline so that is what I have used for 20,000 Kms with no problems, touch wood.

 

It seems to me that the fuel you all in Singers should be using is 92, but entirely up to you.

 

Happy Trails

 

Aitch

[kmjoe]

so far the lowest we have is 92 if im not wrong, so that will be the minimum for us... i'm using caltax 92, no difference in performance compared with 95 but cheaper

[Pandoras Kitten 3]

My bike hates idling with 92 and 95. She thinks she deserves 98 or better :3

 

Runs brilliant though!

[ahcaibiker]

the myth regarding using lower octane lvl fuel will damage the engine is entirely false.

 

as phantom engine compression ratio is low, octane 92 fuel is more than enough to propel it, using any fuel higher than octane 92 does not give the engine an output power boost significantly if any.

 

the reason why bikes in motogp or even formula one cars use high lvl octane lvl fuel is due the extremely high compression ratio.

 

in layman's terms, the higher the octane lvl the higher the resistance to knocking (predetonation).

 

you do not want the fuel to combust during the compression stroke (as the piston moves up towards TDC, the air-fuel gets compressed and heats up to a very higher temp) and before the power stroke (piston moves down towards BDC) (i.e: the spark plug ignites causing the air-fuel to combust and expand driving the piston towards BDC)

 

in an event of such a situation, the engine will lose power and in severe cases the engine will ki chia (up lorry).

 

for phantom's engine octane 92 fuel is more than good enough, using any higher lvl octane fuel is akin to burning $$$.

 

in a nutshell, if your engine compression is very high and requires fuel of at least octane 98, you go and pump 92, in this case you will be doing harm to your engine.

 

if your engine compression is low, it's requirement is only octane 92, you go pump 98 or even v-power. that is wasting $$$. of cos if you have $$$ to burn and don mind burning $$$. it is really up to the preference of the individual.

 

just sharing my limited knowledge on fuel octane lvls what it means and how does it affect combustion in petrol-propelled engines.

Edited April 8, 2010 by ahcaibiker

[blurcock]

the myth regarding using lower octane lvl fuel will damage the engine is entirely false.

 

as phantom engine compression ratio is low, octane 92 fuel is more than enough to propel it, using any fuel higher than octane 92 does not give the engine an output power boost significantly if any.

 

the reason why bikes in motogp or even formula one cars use high lvl octane lvl fuel is due the extremely high compression ratio.

 

in layman's terms, the higher the octane lvl the higher the resistance to knocking (predetonation).

 

you do not want the fuel to combust during the compression stroke (as the piston moves up towards TDC, the air-fuel gets compressed and heats up to a very higher temp) and before the power stroke (piston moves down towards BDC) (i.e: the spark plug ignites causing the air-fuel to combust and expand driving the piston towards BDC)

 

in an event of such a situation, the engine will lose power and in severe cases the engine will ki chia (up lorry).

 

for phantom's engine octane 92 fuel is more than good enough, using any higher lvl octane fuel is akin to burning $$$.

 

in a nutshell, if your engine compression is very high and requires fuel of at least octane 98, you go and pump 92, in this case you will be doing harm to your engine.

 

if your engine compression is low, it's requirement is only octane 92, you go pump 98 or even v-power. that is wasting $$$. of cos if you have $$$ to burn and don mind burning $$$. it is really up to the preference of the individual.

 

just sharing my limited knowledge on fuel octane lvls what it means and how does it affect combustion in petrol-propelled engines.

 

That may not be the case for all PK. I tried 95 to V-power for my TA 150 and the diff is great. 95 gives slightly more power but is louder at 90kph than 98. I dunno y, but 95 gives me some prob when starting in the morning, but 98 is totally fine. But V-power to 98 is not much of a diff(only on pick-up), at least not for my bike.

 

95 gives a fc of abt 24km/L, but 98 gives abt 27km/l(i hit 30 before on 98). so by spending another 80cents on petrol, i can travel another 25km+/-, which is another litre of petrol on 95(i save $1 per top-up). not much, but think its worth it..

 

burning $$, case to case basis..

[kmjoe]

for me i initially pump shell 98 than switch to shell 95 and now caltax 92... for some reason i feel smoother with caltax 92 or petronas 95 than shell 95, duno y... but for my fc wise

 

petronas 95 -> ard 35km/l

shell 95 -> ard 37/l

caltex 92 -> ard 36/l

 

fc will not always be the same after every pump due to riding style etc... but no matter wad, boleh land petrol is always the cheapest and best option, if not clatax 92 is good enough

[Pandoras Kitten 3]

I got the best ever recorded mileage from V-Power but the cost of it and spending 4-6hrs on the bike each day discouraged me from it. Non vpower still gets me where I need to go.

 

Using SPC98 now because of the DBS/POSB mastercard discount.

 

SBF forumer YangKru recommended SPC for its smoothness on his bike and I didn't have any complaints despite losing some FC. For my old and new bike Shell does indeed give better FC for a given cruising speed and RPM.

 

Anyways the Shell station near my place is run by some pretty terrible staff at night so I stay well clear.

[Charlton]

Erm... i try some experiment on my bike... dunno got 70% accurate anot. I try to ride as per normal and de route is from my camp to home only everyday. Lets say everytime i pump 10L (Esso only). This is the total mileage the 10L give me.

 

92 - 1.726 - $17.26 - 21km/l - 210km

95 - 1.783 - $17.83 - 23km/l - 230km

98 - 1.862 - $18.62 - 26km/l - 260km

 

The cost per KM is:

 

92 - $0.0821

95 - $0.0775

98 - $0.0716

 

Erm... dunno like this calculate correct anot... Pls advice... Thx!

Edited April 28, 2010 by Charlton

[Pandoras Kitten 3]

Without questioning your competency in recording the figures above (thats a very good study!), I must say that I'm quite impressed to go that far

 

It raises an interesting question regarding octane... 98 gives better mileage (and performance?) for a high-revving motor?

[wazizi]

Basically, you’re wasting your money if you buy high octane fuel. You should start off with the octane level your bike's manual(ron92) calls for; if you still hear knocking or pinging, you might try the next step up(ron95). If the problem persists, you’ll probably need to have a tune-up or some diagnostic work done. Don’t think that putting high octane fuel in your little Phantom will make it run like a race bike – it just doesn’t work that way.

 

Pretty much all of the fuel grades commercially available have cleaning additives in them, so you needn’t choose a high octane fuel with the idea that it will clean your engine better.

Edited May 14, 2010 by wazizi

[wazizi]

Erm... i try some experiment on my bike... dunno got 70% accurate anot. I try to ride as per normal and de route is from my camp to home only everyday. Lets say everytime i pump 10L (Esso only). This is the total mileage the 10L give me.

 

92 - 1.726 - $17.26 - 21km/l - 210km

95 - 1.783 - $17.83 - 23km/l - 230km

98 - 1.862 - $18.62 - 26km/l - 260km

 

The cost per KM is:

 

92 - $0.0821

95 - $0.0775

98 - $0.0716

 

Erm... dunno like this calculate correct anot... Pls advice... Thx!

 

High octane fuel (for high compression engine) which is actually more difficult to ignite compared to lower octane fuel might be the reason.

[Pandoras Kitten 3]

I agree on that but in reality there are a number of us who don't mind investing in the more expensive fuels for the additives. And it does stop the knocking on mine as I'm running a lean engine but the reward is gauranteed 42+km/l FC on the highways each day (and if you know me, that's full throttle riding).

 

So math wise the Esso 8000 with 'friction reducers' is mucho cheaper than the V-power (also with 'friction reducers') and performance wise, well, it feels good to me if she can accelerate from 80-100 in less than 2 seconds!

 

There is the vanity factor too, like full synthetic oil. There are some who go wtf synthetic on a slow chopper? But have you seen some elder gentlemens' old Phantoms running at 130kph? Those conditions (high rpm, high temps) do call for investing in superior lubrication.

 

And I have destroyed mineral EO in under 1000km hehe. (whoops strayed into oil territory here but you get the vanity point, si senor?)

[wazizi]

I agree on that but in reality there are a number of us who don't mind investing in the more expensive fuels for the additives. And it does stop the knocking on mine as I'm running a lean engine but the reward is gauranteed 42+km/l FC on the highways each day (and if you know me, that's full throttle riding).

 

So math wise the Esso 8000 with 'friction reducers' is mucho cheaper than the V-power (also with 'friction reducers') and performance wise, well, it feels good to me if she can accelerate from 80-100 in less than 2 seconds!

 

There is the vanity factor too, like full synthetic oil. There are some who go wtf synthetic on a slow chopper? But have you seen some elder gentlemens' old Phantoms running at 130kph? Those conditions (high rpm, high temps) do call for investing in superior lubrication.

 

And I have destroyed mineral EO in under 1000km hehe. (whoops strayed into oil territory here but you get the vanity point, si senor?)

 

running lean on a phantom? good luck then

[Pandoras Kitten 3]

Since when did personally-owned vehicles conform to strict running conditions?

 

I've seen bikes that were never serviced for years, a 4 stroke running on 2T like Energizer Bunny despite a gang of protesters in tow, and being fed over the counter additives that probably harm the engine.

 

All of them perform to their owners' specifications, they haven't given breakdown reports (as the culture goes if we get a breakdown we usually report online FAST), and most importantly, it's their bikes.

 

Not relying on standard 'rules' and not relying on mototiam expertise to run my machine is part of the adventure.

 

Most don't know the simple, effective forms of tuning or use an air pressure gauge when they fill my tyres, so from the Phantom on, it's hands off for them

[wazizi]

Guidelines is there for a reason. Those who wants to maximize their bike potentials would go beyond(upwards) the guidelines not beyond(downwards) as part of the adventure.

[Charlton]

ur calculations is A1...std..

but your method is just statiscally sh-itty.

 

haha... okok...

 

hmmm... but any of u experience that higher octane can give more mileage? or is it me only?

[Pandoras Kitten 3]

Me too. 95 - rev away roaring maintaining top speed. 98 w friction reducers, smoother acceleration and nicer sound.

 

I had a main tank of Esso 95 and a reserve of Esso 98 last night it seems (no idea how that turned out, from partial refuel last time?). I ran down the main tank to zero, switched to reserve and suddenly the engine sounded and felt much better.

 

Whatever advertised "friction reducer technology" is in things like Vpower and Esso98 do make a difference, the question is whether you're willing to pay for them. I'd rather go Esso98 because it's always less than $2/L.

[BlackDawn]

I had a main tank of Esso 95 and a reserve of Esso 98 last night it seems (no idea how that turned out, from partial refuel last time?). I ran down the main tank to zero, switched to reserve and suddenly the engine sounded and felt much better.

There is only 1 physical tank on the phantom with 2 outlets; the higher one is the "main" and the lower one the "reserve". It is not possible to segregate the fuel in the "main tank" and "reserve tank"

 

It kindof shows how subjective it is to judge fuel performance.

People will believe what they want to believe.

[Zhi Ming]

haha... okok...

 

hmmm... but any of u experience that higher octane can give more mileage? or is it me only?

 

i feel that for 92 , shell is better then caltex which is better then SPC.

 

Currently running on SPC cause of their 15% discount till May 31st...after this will swtich back to caltex or jb's shell again

[manfred]

I noe use 95 is enough for phantom bt can somebody tell me which brand is better?

[Pandoras Kitten 3]

LOL. For those stuck in Singapore I think Esso gives the most 'bang for the buck'.

 

I used to like Esso 2000 (that's their 92) for my kup.