[gsx]

I run 93 in my kat. Its only $1-1.50 difference a tank full. It makes me feel better and it sure beats 16mpg in my silverado so $20 a week is better than $100 and i go twice as many places as the truck does

[arsenic]

That's $1-$1.50 you just totally wasted. The GSXF engine is designed to use 87 octane.

[Drinknthink]

I run prem. In my post 750. It runs faster and feels better, no lie. It's a huge difference.

[92GSX750]

That's $1-$1.50 you just totally wasted. The GSXF engine is designed to use 87 octane.

Curious as to why you say that. The Vehicle Emission Control sticker that use to be located under my seat said 91 minimum. Personally I like to run 93. From my understanding of fuels 93 has more cleaners ( detergents ) making it burn cleaner and more efficient.

[arsenic]

Because I'm not the sticker under your seat. I actually know what gas you're supposed to use in a 11.3-1 engine. That's not how higher octane works by the way.

[TRPUT]

Oz delivered bikes are possibly jetted differently. Our min octane fuel is 91. Both my 750s love 95. Definitely smoother, more responsive and better economy. They hate 98 and run too rich. But when I pulled the pre carbs apart at 155 000kms and after 40 000kms since last carb service and they were like new, I reckon the $2 per fill difference is more than justified. As stated above, the benefits are probably not in the higher octane rating, but in the quality and cleaning properties of a better fuel.

[cintidude04]

I used to run premium, but that was before I working on dialing in the af mix a little better.
Now I use 87 and the engine is loving it. And for people that think bolt on performance mods will mean you have to up the octane, yea I thought like that once too, it is not necessary at all. I have all the common bolt on mods for the 600 and it makes no difference with these engines. Just my .02

TRPUT- I'm sure down under they rate it differently so I would just use what I was comfortable with over there, no big need to calculate which of your grades hit closest to the US standard of 87.

[arsenic]

Since I joined this site in November of 2004, there is always some guy that swears his bike runs better with 93 octane fuel. You know what, that's cool with me. 93 octane fuel and K&N pod filters rock.

[scottynoface]

I run prem. In my post 750. It runs faster and feels better, no lie. It's a huge difference.

Um no, false.

[arsenic]

example I bet your K&N air filter is the sizznit too.

[HemiKat]

93 octane fuel and K&N pod filters rock.

Well look at that, Chris and I finally agree on something.

That quote has gotta be my new sig!

[arsenic]

[scottynoface]

example I bet your K&N air filter is the sizznit too.

Mine is, but I have a sportbike with aggressive cams...

[arsenic]

I'm aware, I was talking about dudes KATANA.

[hardlydangerous]

after testing a claim I have heard from several people now
Shell nitrogen enhanced fuel

my friend was bitching about his bike running rough and slightly surging at steady speeds.This should not be an issue on a low mile new FI bike. Sometimes it was fine other times it was really noticable. A friend mentioned his Vrod did the same thing and had a noticable performance/running change when he started using Shell fuel instead of Sunoko and petrocan, pioneer etc.

After hearing this I ran shell fuel all weekend just to see what if any changes I got.... and my bike ran amazing it was a noticable difference from the petrocanada and pioneer fuels i normally run.
Today I had to run over to buffalo and I was almost on reserve. I filled up at Pioneer and all day I noticed the bike was not as responsive as on the weekend and the mid range steady speed buzz was back.

I ran 87 as always and I am impressed with the noticable difference shell fuel made.