[Xyzzy]

I'm always curious to see how far I can push a tank of gas. Sometimes I end up pushing the bike, though!

So far my best tank to date was today:

255.1 miles
5.186 gallons
49.2 miles per gallon

I've been getting around 49 miles per gallon for the last 2 or 3 tanks. My low fuel bar started blinking at 233 miles. I started to get a bit worried but I made it to the gas station. In the end, I could have gone another 40 miles I bet.

FWIW, I run 87 octane ethanol-free gas.

How far have you milked a tank of fuel?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TuEdU_lrtZk

 

[eljay]

About 220 miles on my 2nd-ever fill up. Bike has about 450 miles, now.

 

[Bebo]

What is that compared to what Honda says the Valkyrie is supposed to give you as far as fuel efficiency. Are you over or under the official rating?

 

[Xyzzy]

What is that compared to what Honda says the Valkyrie is supposed to give you as far as fuel efficiency. Are you over or under the official rating?

The Honda web site does not list the expected fuel economy for the Valkyrie. They do list the Gold Wing, which is very similar to the Valkyrie, at 35 miles per gallon. On my Gold Wing I typically average 42 miles per gallon solo. Since the Valkyrie weighs about 150 pounds less and doesn't have a huge fairing to push through the wind the increased mileage makes sense.

I rode 175 miles today and got 49.7 miles per gallon. Maybe once the engine is more broken in I will be able to break the 50 mile per gallon barrier!

 

[Xyzzy]

As a test I ran two complete tanks of 93-octane ethanol-free fuel through my Valkyrie. The weather has been very hot here lately so if pinging was an issue, it would show up! Plus I have put the bike into situations likely to cause pinging, like going up a long steep hill at 35MPH in 5th gear.

Not-very-scientific results:

1) No perceptible change in power.
2) No improvement in the otherwise very stellar fueling.
3) More $ out of my wallet.
4) In a blind test, I would not be able to discern which octane was in the tank.
5) Slightly less MPG, about 2MPG.

I ride very similar roads and speeds every day so the load presented to the bike was as close as a non-scientific test could be.

Interestingly, it was 104 degrees today (with humidity or whatever) and I ran through a tank of 87-octane ethanol-free fuel and got 51MPG.

YMMV

 

[Chadleys1]

Yes ! I have only ridden one of these for 20 minutes or so, but came away with the impression that it could be efficient if ridden with that in mind. Good to know.

 

[Bebo]

As a test I ran two complete tanks of 93-octane ethanol-free fuel through my Valkyrie. The weather has been very hot here lately so if pinging was an issue, it would show up! Plus I have put the bike into situations likely to cause pinging, like going up a long steep hill at 35MPH in 5th gear.

Not-very-scientific results:

1) No perceptible change in power.
2) No improvement in the otherwise very stellar fueling.
3) More $ out of my wallet.
4) In a blind test, I would not be able to discern which octane was in the tank.
5) Slightly less MPG, about 2MPG.

I ride very similar roads and speeds every day so the load presented to the bike was as close as a non-scientific test could be.

Interestingly, it was 104 degrees today (with humidity or whatever) and I ran through a tank of 87-octane ethanol-free fuel and got 51MPG.

YMMV

Well good for you for putting the effort in though. At least now you know you aren't missing out by using regular gasoline.

 

[Xyzzy]

With a 9.8:1 compression ratio I didn't expect anything, but it is remotely possible the engine could pull some timing under high stress. The engine has knock sensors that will detect "pinging" way before you or I can hear it. (So if you can hear pinging, something is not right!)

I suppose a better test would have been all of the above, with a passenger.

There are many threads on the various Gold Wing forums about fuel quality, octane ratings and fuel additives.

My opinion:

I prefer ethanol-free fuel but I will run ethanol-laced fuel if there are no other choices.
I feel confident running 87 octane fuel.
I will add 1/2 a bottle of Chevron Techron to the fuel tank when I do oil changes.
I will try to keep the tank as full as possible at all times, to prevent the tank from rusting.
I will not overfill the tank because that will mess up the charcoal evap canister.

 

[Xyzzy]

Here is more info on the evap cannister.

 

[Xyzzy]

262.8 miles
5.243 gallons
50.1 miles per gallon

 

[Xyzzy]

271.6 miles
5.287 gallons
51.4 miles per gallon

 

[Xyzzy]

280.8 miles
5.435 gallons
51.7 miles per gallon

 

[westgl]

Quite surprising to see the big GL18 Valk get 50+ MPG.

What style of riding is that?

Any city riding stop and go riding?

Or is that mostly rural riding with very little stop and go?

Impressive to say the least.

But I was also very surprised to see the New CB1100 get 70 MPG.

 

[westgl]

Also you dont say How many miles is on your bike?

That would tell us the MPG you are getting at a certain overall mileage on the bike.

I have see new bikes get better mileage as they get significantly more miles on them and get broken in.

But I am noticing your MPG getting better with every tank.

 

[Xyzzy]

Quite surprising to see the big GL18 Valk get 50+ MPG.

What style of riding is that?

Any city riding stop and go riding?

Or is that mostly rural riding with very little stop and go?

Maybe 15% highway at 70MPH and the rest rural at 50-55MPH. There are no cities where I live.

If I ride at 75MPH+ I get around 47MPG.

Also you dont say How many miles is on your bike?

That would tell us the MPG you are getting at a certain overall mileage on the bike.

I have see new bikes get better mileage as they get significantly more miles on them and get broken in.

But I am noticing your MPG getting better with every tank.

I have 5700 miles on it now. I think I am getting better mileage now because I ride it (acceleration & braking) easier. When I first had it I rode it a bit hard just because I was "getting used to it".

If I run ethanol gas my mileage drops 2-3MPG easy.

I keep the tach under 3K most of the time.

 

[Richmonder]

I was talking to a former Rune owner today (my dentist). He walked out to the parking lot to look at my bike for the first time, and came back in and said "WOW. I had forgotten what a BEAST that is. BE CAREFUL!" He then questioned me whether I was using premium gas, and said I should because it burns better and the engine runs more smoothly. I have talked to many people about this, and MOST say to use whatever the manufacturer recommends. I have never seen a perceptible difference in performance in any vehicle that was intended to run on regular when I used premium. I just can't see throwing away money on premium if it doesn't result in tangible improvement. But, some swear by it.



I have no intention of throwing away money on premium when the manual says regular.


Interested in other's perspectives and experience.


Richmonder

 

[JackB]

I've ran 87 octane since new and I never have gotten close to 50 mpg usually low 40's.
As far as higher octane I have a Mustang with a 2.3 Turbo and it will run on 87 octane but if you use 93 octane you will gain about 30 horsepower. So that's what I've been using, don't know if it true or not.

 

[Geepers]

I wonder if manufacturers say 'lower octane is fine' just so they don't scare people off yet higher octane actually gives a bit more zing...certainly seems to in my car. I run premium in the Valkyrie (98 octane)

 

[Crabballs]

I wonder if manufacturers say 'lower octane is fine' just so they don't scare people off yet higher octane actually gives a bit more zing...certainly seems to in my car. I run premium in the Valkyrie (98 octane)

Always use the cheap stuff in all my vehicles, don't see the point in putting in the "better" stuff in vehicles where the manufacturer doesn't recommend it. Even my F150 with the twin turbo EcoBoost lawnmower engine makes 365 HP on the cheap stuff and never has and never will see the high octane stuff.

 

[JackB]

Always use the cheap stuff in all my vehicles, don't see the point in putting in the "better" stuff in vehicles where the manufacturer doesn't recommend it. Even my F150 with the twin turbo EcoBoost lawnmower engine makes 365 HP on the cheap stuff and never has and never will see the high octane stuff.

Ford rates my Mustang at 310 HP and it is also rated for 87 octane but from what I read it needs the high octane for the 310 HP. It ran great with 87 but I've been using 93 since the second tank. Maybe it's true on your F150?
I have no proof if any of that is true.