Suzuki Burgman USA Forum banner

1 - 20 of 32 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
689 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I know this has been talked about in some length but today I was up at Bear Mountain NY my usual riding spot and came across 2 Burg 650 riders from Boston and we got to talking among another things about what grade of gas to put in and these two Guys swear by the higher octane gas.

They both are old time bike riders and said that they have done there own test on the 650 using different grades of gas and claim that the higher octane does not only give a little more pep as one put it but also made the bike run much smoother especially at idle.

Now I do not claim to know much about the different grade of gas but I have a S55 AMG Benz and this car calls for 93 and up now I only put in just that and once my now X girlfriend made the mistake of putting in God knows what gas and I could not wait to get a new tank of better gas in this beast, I also have a new Chrysler Pacifica and the book called for 87 and I have tried the three different grade of gas in this SUV and it does run much better with the higher grade and of course there is my jet ski what only loves the 93 gas so I really wonder if our Burgman would not benefit from a higher octane gas that a lower grade. O by the way I sure do not care about cost, 15 cents more per gallon to me does not make a difference when we are talking about only 4 gallons.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
240 Posts
burg650 said:
They both are old time bike riders and said that they have done there own test on the 650 using different grades of gas and claim that the higher octane does not only give a little more pep as one put it but also made the bike run much smoother especially at idle.
I also found the engine brakes harder at lower speed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,385 Posts
Like you said it has been "talked" about before and while the general thinking is it 's a waste of money I still feel that your two Boston rider are right.
Like a lot of riders I go by "seat of the pants" , and while I know from tests that the mpg does not improve I still feel that I get more pep out of high test
So far I have been using mid grade but may go back up to high , like you say it's not the money.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,363 Posts
The 650 will run fine on regular 87 octane, but I did experience the exhanced performance with mid-grade 89 octane gas on my recent tour. It was real, and very noticable in the higher speed ranges. Mileage was identical. I've never tried the high test (92 octane).

I let my AN650 sit for a week or so - I've been riding my V-Strom lately while trying to come up with a new front tire for the scooter. The AN650 had mid-grade in the tank, which is laced with 10% ethanol here in the mid-west. Today, I took it to run a few errands. When I first started it, it ran roughly, and at only 800 rpm or so. After about a minute, it went to fast idle and smoothed out - and a minute later it dropped to normal idle rpm. It never ever did this before - even after sitting for longer periods during the Winter. So I am wondering if the ethanol-laced gas left some gunk in the injectors when it evaporated. Maybe it took some fresh gas running though the injectors to clear it out - after which it ran normally.

An added bonus of running the "ethanol" enhanced mid-grade gas here in the mid-west is that it is usually cheaper than the 87 octane regular. So I was starting to think about using it regularly - but that rough startup today is giving me second thoughts.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
51 Posts
High Octane fuel contains additives to SLOW DOWN the burning process and thus prevent pinging in high compression engines. It will actually REDUCE performance on most vehicles that do not require it and INCREASE carbon deposits in the combustion chamber. I think, what your friends are seeing is the placebo effect. You THINK it must be better, so it is.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,363 Posts
Dodger said:
I think, what your friends are seeing is the placebo effect. You THINK it must be better, so it is.
Nope. I used to think that too. But I was cruising at 85 mph on the interstate is South Dakota with the 650 loaded for touring. Passing a semi with regular 87 octane in the tank, accelleration would drop off at 99 mph and go into "creep mode" for the remainder of the pass. After putting 89 octane in, I did the same thing, and it was still accellerating strongly at 104 mph at the end of the pass when I rolled back the throttle. Terrain, elevation, wind - all similar. If that's "placebo effect" - I'll have another tankful. :wink:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22 Posts
High octane gas?

I use only Sunoco Ultra 94 in my AN650.

Why?

Well, the Burgman's 638cc parallel twin IS, if I recall correctly, a high-compression engine (11.2:1 ratio, no?) and will benefit from the higher octane since it'll prevent engine knock (preignition), which could eventually damage/destroy the engine.

If the engine has knock sensors which retard the timing a bit (and reduce power output), that would explain why 87 octane gasoline is usable, but why do it? It's not like an extra 20-25 cents a gallon when your tank holds only 4 gallons is going to bankrupt you.

FWIW, I used precisely the same fuel in my old KYMCO, for similar reasons -- a high compression engine needs high-octane gasoline, but more importantly, the Sunoco Ultra 94 tended to NOT gunk up the KYMCO's carburetor. One time I put in a tankful of BP/Amoco Ultimate 93, and knew, the next time I tried to start the engine cold, that I had made a bad decision. It was VERY hard starting for most of the rest of that tankful.

Once I filled her up again (with Sunoco U94), the People 150 started first attempt, every time.


PWB
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,411 Posts
Old-style high compression engines had to have high test gas to prevent pinging.
Mid-style high compression engines used knock sensors to retard timing under a load.
Suzuki's engine uses advances in fuel injection, head design, ignition timing, etc. to allow 87 octane without degrading performance.

Paul, it may be the presence of ethenol, not the percentage of octane, that accounts for your better acceleration. You might not find the same boost if you went to your area's non-ethenol 92 octane. (How about a test, and let us know?)

Also, I think you may be right about the reason for the rough start. Ethenol is hydroscopic (absorbs water), unlike petroleum-based liquids, and if there was water in the fuel (common with gasahol) the gasoline in the fuel injection system/fuel lines would have evaporated faster than the water, increasing the water:fuel ratio which could have caused the effect you're describing.

Even if you're trying to save rubber, you might want to put it on the center stand and run it for a few minutes a day. Will also keep a little more of an oil film on the parts.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,363 Posts
Thanks Brian,

Now that I've got a tire headed my way, I rode the AN650 a little yesterday and today. I got it down to 1 gallon of fuel left, and filled up with the trusty old 87 octane. Next time I feel like playing with octane, I'll throw the 91 octane high test in. The BIG difference is that the ethanol blend is cheaper than regular, while the high test more expensive. I'd have to see a dramatic difference to use it regularly. Barring that, I'll probably just burn the 87 octane around here - and the mid-grade when I'm traveling.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
120 Posts
I use to be an octane skeptic. My burgy seemed to have acquired a slight shake at idle. Made noticeable by the increased vibration of the plastic above the display. When I pulled in for my last tankful, I thought "what the hell" let's use 92. Since the tank was quite low, it did not take long to see and feel the effects.

The vibration at idle is gone and the bike has a smoother acceleration. It also has more low end power at take off and the slight hesitation when I need more power to pass has also disappeared. All the changes in performance are quite real.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,363 Posts
ksmall1998 said:
I use to be an octane skeptic.
Me too. But I noticed some differences when I put mid-grade (89 octane) in my 650. Very definite performance improvement. I haven't let her taste that 92 octane stuff yet - but for the sake of science, maybe I will next fill-up.

Now... If we could just come up with some of that aircraft fuel... :twisted:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22 Posts
High octane fuel, etc.

Well, I just got my Burgervan 650 back from Northwest BMW Suzuki Ducati in Hilliard, OH.

600-1000 mile maintenance... $257.09 including tax.

Apparently, the reason for the rather high price tag on the maintenance is the insane amount of tearing-down of bodywork that's required for them to perform the scheduled maintenance. They do flat-rate based on Suzuki's service guide... and the first maintenance calls for 3 hours labor plus parts and supplies... $210 labor plus $31.47 parts/supplies/other, plus tax.

Ouch.

On the other hand, it is running VERY smoothly now, and I finally don't feel guilty about running it hard.


PWB
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22 Posts
Oh, yeah... high octane fuel.

I still give the Burgman 650 nothing but Sunoco Ultra 94. It might be overkill, yes, but the bike seems to like it, so who am I to argue?

PWB
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,363 Posts
Re: High octane fuel, etc.

pboyer said:
Apparently, the reason for the rather high price tag on the maintenance is the insane amount of tearing-down of bodywork that's required for them to perform the scheduled maintenance.
Don't let them kid you. It isn't that tough to remove & replace the body panels necessary for service. Almost all current touring bikes & even sport bikes have some body panels to remove too. To check the air filter on my Suzuki V-Strom they have to remove the gas tank!!! And before they can remove the gas tank, there are two body trim panels to remove.

On the Burgman 650 they basically have to remove the left lower leg shield (four screws and four push pin fasteners, the engine hood (1 screw), and the fuse box to check the air cleaner (4 screws). Insane? I don't think so. Actually not much worse than getting to the air cleaner on a V-Strom.

It's a lame excuse, but one that many customers will buy because they don't know any better.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
793 Posts
And now, Grumpy Old Man Productions Presents > The 2 "Do Nots":

1. Do not use aircraft fuel in your Burgman 400 or 650.
100LL avgas has Lead In It. The Burgy doesn't need it plus
avgas has a lot of components in it to prevent freezing at altitude which
is more stuff that the Burgy doesn't need.
Your Burgy will run but be prepared to view a blackened oil dip stick.
There are plenty of gas stations near drag strips that sell 100 octane
race car gas at a better price.

2. Do not occassionally start your Burgy up to distribute oil throughout the engine.
Starting an engine is the most wear intensive period of running it. Start
the bike and go at least 35 miles on it - to distribute the oil and open up
your own nostrils.
Engine oil has sophisticated properties in it that leaves a film of oil throughout
under normal periods of disuse.
Any longer period than normal disuse and you should follow the owners book
instructions for storing the bike altogether.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,411 Posts
ajwood said:
...2. Do not occassionally start your Burgy up to distribute oil throughout the engine.
Starting an engine is the most wear intensive period of running it. Start
the bike and go at least 35 miles on it - to distribute the oil and open up
your own nostrils....
My suggestion to pauljo was specifically predicated on his problem of possible water in the fuel lines. I only mentioned oil distribution as a side benefit.

Driving at least 35 miles was not a viable option, since he said he was trying to save rubber due to a replacement tire dilema.

And, yes, dry starts are one of the worst problems facing an engine. When I have my 3500 mile service done, I'm going to have 1 qt of Slick-50 added with the engine oil. I've used it on my last three land vehicles, a boat, and a couple of aircraft, and I swear by it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,411 Posts
Re: High octane fuel, etc.

pboyer said:
Well, I just got my Burgervan 650 back from Northwest BMW Suzuki Ducati in Hilliard, OH. 600-1000 mile maintenance... $257.09 including tax.... They do flat-rate based on Suzuki's service guide... and the first maintenance calls for 3 hours labor plus parts and supplies... $210 labor plus $31.47 parts/supplies/other, plus tax.
My 600 mile service was $176.54.

$136.00 for 2 Hours labor @ $68/Hr (only $2 less per hour than your dealer, but 1 hour less)
$10.95 for engine oil filter
$8.99 for 3.1 qts of Honda GN4 10W40 oil
$0.27 for a 14mm washer
$6.80 for "supplies" (not sure what that means. Hopefully the small quantities of tranny and final gear oil would be included. If not, they may have forgot to change those items)
$13.53 Washington State Sales Tax

The Service Report I was given listed the following services rendered:

Tighten exhaust pipe bolts and muffler bolts
Tighten chassis bolts and nuts
Replace engine oil
Replace engine oil filter
Replace transmission oil
Replace final gear oil
Inspect/Adjust idle speed
Inspect/Adjust throttle cable play
Inspect radiator hose
Inspect steering

All in all I think it was a fair price for services rendered.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
61 Posts
Dumb Carbuerator Question

Yeah, I know, we got injectors. Same goal, different means.

On my V-Star 650, carbs of course, it used to get real rough after sitting a week or so. I ended up putting in a short dose of carb cleaner every three or four tanks, seemed to really help with the warmups and general ignition. Is this okay for the Burgie, or will it screw up the system? To me, the difference between the Yamaha and the burgie are like the difference between a '57 chevy and a honda insight, just to big for someone underqualified to be a shade tree mechanic to handle.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,411 Posts
Re: Dumb Carbuerator Question

Franklin said:
... I ended up putting in a short dose of carb cleaner every three or four tanks, seemed to really help with the warmups and general ignition. Is this okay for the Burgie, or will it screw up the system?...
There are fuel system treatments available specifically for injected engines. I don't know if there's any real difference between them and carb cleaner beyond the label on the bottle/can.

While it may not help I don't think it would hurt, so you may want to try some and see if you notice any difference.

Then you can report back to us. :idea:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,296 Posts
Brian said:
...
And, yes, dry starts are one of the worst problems facing an engine. When I have my 3500 mile service done, I'm going to have 1 qt of Slick-50 added with the engine oil. I've used it on my last three land vehicles, a boat, and a couple of aircraft, and I swear by it.
Of course if you like Slick 50 you do your thing.

However there has been a successful class legal action taken against this company on your side of the pond (Texas) with respect to their claims for their product. The company has been fined heavily ( circa $20M) - it is a 'snake-oil' product and the company ( Blue Corral) are unable to produce independent scientific evidence to the contrary.

Reference 1: http://www.blbglaw.com/settlements/quak ... sumer.html

Reference 2:

http://www.chris-longhurst.com/carbible ... tives.html

In fact most of these oil treatments are 'snake-oil' products unless you have evidence otherwise.

NormanB
 
1 - 20 of 32 Posts
Top