Joined
·
5,055 Posts
In Nebraska, 89 octane is cheaper than 87 octane. That is because it has a fairly high percentage of grain alcohol in it, and there is a law here that they can't charge as much for grain alcohol as they do for gasoline. But I won't run it in any of my vehicles - based on articles I've read in the past that argued that the alcohol is not really good to put in a vehicle. I think it had something to do with causing fuel lines and gaskets to deteriorate over time - I don't remember exactly. Anyway, back when I read those articles, I made a mental note to avoid that stuff.
So my choices here are 87 octane and 92 octane. Since all my vehicles run well on 87 octane, including my two high compression Suzukis - I can't see paying for 92 octane. I believe that any performance gain would be very slight, and from some folk's reports, fuel mileage might even drop a bit. I did try a couple of tanks of high octane in my V-Strom last year and it actually ran worse on the high octane. The V-Strom engine has slightly higher compression than the Burgman 650.
If 92 octane made an "Oh My God" difference in performance - you know I'd run it. But the rider reports I've seen don't indicate that. A barely perceptible gain in performance is not worth the additional cost in my opinion.
So my choices here are 87 octane and 92 octane. Since all my vehicles run well on 87 octane, including my two high compression Suzukis - I can't see paying for 92 octane. I believe that any performance gain would be very slight, and from some folk's reports, fuel mileage might even drop a bit. I did try a couple of tanks of high octane in my V-Strom last year and it actually ran worse on the high octane. The V-Strom engine has slightly higher compression than the Burgman 650.
If 92 octane made an "Oh My God" difference in performance - you know I'd run it. But the rider reports I've seen don't indicate that. A barely perceptible gain in performance is not worth the additional cost in my opinion.