Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

95 Unleaded in an ER5?

Discussion in 'Technical and Troubleshooting Torque' started by pancreasboy, May 10, 2012.

  1. Is this a bad thing in a 2001 Kawasaki ER5 which usually has 91 Unleaded petrol?

    I wasn't concentrating and accidentally put some in my bike this week and now it's idling real low (ie around 1000 rpm) and blowing out blue (oil smelling) smoke on start up.

    When I eventually get it on the road it's fine, but low speed is a bit dodgy.

    My manual says any fuel above 91 is fine, but this doesn't sound or look good.

    Thanks in advance.
  2. Doing it once won't hurt. Do it too often and it will hurt your wallet.
  3. Hmm ok, it just seems weird today the bike has decided to behave itself but the past couple of days it's been a dog :(
  4. I think the principle is that going down in RON in a vehicle that needs higher is more of an issue than going up. Its to do with anti-knock capabilities from memory. Usually any engine will tolerate a tank of any common RON fuel (91-98) but the only caveats to that are based on ethanol content which needs more specialised internals with high concentration ethanols.

    Thats my basic understanding.

    Cheers Spocky
  5. Yeah i was getting slight knocking noises at whilst idling.
  6. What RON does the manual say to use?
  7. My manual says any fuel above 91 is fine.
  8. An interesting bit:

    And then this one:

    So, basically, you're not going to hurt anything running higher octane fuel, but you're better off running whatever your engine is designed to run, as you most likely won't get any benefit running higher octane stuff.
  9. Yeah I won't be making this mistake again. Can't wait to fill it up next with 91 :)

    Thanks guys for the help.
  10. I always run 98 in the DL650 even though it only requires 91 for a few reasons.
    I get 50-60kms more out of a tank of 98 than 91.
    98 will also be a cleaner more refined fuel than 91.

    The 95 you put in would not have made the engine detonate (knocking), using a lower rated fuel in an engine with high compression will cause detonation.
  11. GreyBM is right, for the most part, using a higher RON fuel than required just ends up hurting your wallet.
  12. Calorific value of higher Octane fuels is higher which gives the improved economy. They also tend to burn slower so can sometimes cause issues in engines designed for lower octane fuels.
    Usually any pinging from too low an Octane fuel will show up under load or when trying to accelerate.
    Are you sure the noise you heard wasn't a bit of piston slap or tappet noise?
    I reckon a compression test may be in order.
  13. It cost me $2.80 more to fill up on 98, and I get 50kms more per tank, so for me it is worth it.

    98 contains cleaning agents where as 91 doesn't, and as 98 is used in higher compression and higher performance engines the tollerances in refining are more consistant than 91.
  14. Its true, Premium is more dense, but whether you get better economy is really a bike/carby specific thing. I got next to no difference on my GPX250. That's not really a surprise for a carby bike tuned for a lower RON.

    As to whether PULP is more refined, where did ya hear that?

    - - -
    Tapatalking loud, saying somethin'
  15. Da Doo Ron Ron Da Doo Ron Ron

    I read the Ron manual
    • Like Like x 1
  16. pancreas boy, you asked if 95 RON would hurt not wheter it would make the bike run better. It won't hurt. It may or may not affect the performance of the motor. If it does affect it, it may be worse rather than better.

    Anyhoo, this question has been asked and debated a thousand times before. Search is your friend.