Interesting finding on FC & grade of petrol used

[Chevyoptrag]

After slightly more than 2 years (since the day I collected my ride till now) non-stop monitoring of FC for my Optra 1.6A, I discovered some interesting result on choice of petrol grade used.

 

Average mileages per liter when on Ron 95 petrol is 10.55 km

Average mileages per liter when on Ron 98 petrol is 11.64 km

 

My current overall average FC is per litre 11.46 km, and I have already clocked slightly above 44 K (to be precise is 44,004 km), and have pumped 3840 litres of petrol so far.

 

So if I were to on only one grade of petrol, I will not have any saving if I were to use only the Ron 95 petrol, and instead I may have to pay more on this

[Alpha78]

Unless over the two years you have traveled using the exact same roads and under the exact conditions everyday, it's really not very conclusive.

 

Personally, I have only used one grade of petrol (RON 95) over the last few months of driving my Latio, and the FC I have depends more on the distance and traffic conditions. During normal travel from home to office which is about 60% highway 40% city (18km each direction), with peak hour speed, I get between 13.2km/l to 13.5km/l. Throw in one journey from east to west,90% highway, and the FC for that tank reaches 13.9km/l to 14.2km/l. So, if I were to travel east to west everyday, my FC could possibly hit 15km/l or more.

 

So, I believe the 1km/l difference in FC can be achieved with the same petrol grade, when driving under more ideal traffic conditions and less start-stop traffic.

[Friendstar]

i agree with u, totally.

[Chevyoptrag]

Yes, the traveled route and pattern are the same.

I actually do not have the intention to make such comparison in the first place, it was discovered only when summing the total petrol cost then I have realized that. It surprise me too.

[Alfc]

I did a similar calculation too for my previous ride (a sunny) over 3 years of usage with 95 and 98 and reach the same conclusion as you too. So i am not surprised by your findings. But somehow, there are reports and others who may yield different results. If it works for yourself, then good for you.

[Boyboy]

well, i believe u, considering that u did the calculation over an extended period of time. some pple try for only a few tanks and make the conclusion (either way as to whether higher RON is beneficial), not "scientific" enuff

[Kilomatrix]

I actually did a comparison and the end results were similar to yours.

[Chrissng]

actually... most people would calculate their FC based on per litre.... but we forget that we can do so by km per $ as well... given the ok price difference between 92, 95 and 98... if the mileage difference is substantial, it might be more worth it to pump a higher grade petrol

[Kilomatrix]

At first I thought I could save some bucks from using RON 95. But after doing the comparison, I found it's not a wise idea. I've reverted to RON 98 since.

Edited December 26, 2006 by Kilomatrix

[Chrissng]

i tried ron 98 but the mileage is the same as ron95.. both 14.5kml for my colt..... so i was wondering if i should switch...

 

any bro can advice... is it because the ecu needs time to adapt to the change in ron?? if so, how many tanks are needed for the ecu to adapt? I tried 2 tanks and the results are the same...

[Chevro]

I doubt the Ron will change FC, they all from crude oil, by same material. Some may say the addictive helps. Then you tell me those addictive help on startup or cruise (as they are under different burning condition)? If you can get additives working for both, pls let me know, I will buy it right away.

 

The best way to save is control your right foot to get the petrol burn less and more effectively, follow the engine's characteristics. How? I don't know. Just follow the engine tech and tips from all guru here.

 

Some ppl may not happy and would chase me away, if they mean to sell high profit for high Ron petrol. I hope this is not the case.

 

The topic starter may be in some effect with some high Ron petrol, as his/her driving pattern matched the addictive thus works a little bit, but some still no effect. We all know only the control right foot to match engin characteristic that works for all!!!

 

I may be wrong, but i will glad to hear that.

Edited December 26, 2006 by Chevro

[Jujul]

Well i tried using the V-power and the normal 98. i got better milleage 16.5-17km/l for 98 and 15.5-16km/l using v-power. but the pick up for V-power is more shiok! eheheh

[Chevro]

That is good news for you.

 

I tried 98 first, then drop to 95, now use 92 only. I didn't see any difference, within these two years. But not on V-power.

 

I should try V-power next few tank, see anything different.

 

BTW, what is your make, give such good FC.

Edited December 26, 2006 by Chevro

[Chrissng]

how about this way... some bros claimed higher ron means better pick up with the same rpm (eg ron 92 vs V power)... so if we use v power and want to go for equal pick up as the ron 92, does it means that we step less on the pedal.... and thus, meaning that lower fuel is consumed???

 

ya.. its the right leg... but you are supposedly using less petrol for the equal amount of pick up....

 

just a thought... any debate???

[Chrissng]

hi.. .just to check.. your driving habit almost the same??? i wont say the city to highway ratio must be the same... coz a bit of difference also not a big impact if you go for smooth acceleration...

 

i ask coz my finding almost the same as yours.. acceleration smoother.. but FC almost the same ....

[King]

that why manual still the best

[See_nik]

Do it blinded, i.e. get someone to pump the petrol without telling you that it is 98 or v-power.

 

If you can't tell the difference, then, v-power is just treating your brains/hormones. Just because you pay for v-power it must be more powerful ........sigh .....

[Hicksau]

i think it also has to do with various things too ..

 

cold weather like nowadays also uses less fuel too on certain road driving .. all these have to be in consideration.