95-octane could be best choice

[Madsumm]

Hi Genie,

 

Can help answer this question of mine?

 

Why does still some ppl use higher grade RON than wat they need, irregardless of advice given by a lot of ppl not to as its a waste? Fear? Mis-conception?etc..?

 

Like you, I think i go buy oil stocks liao.. looks like the way to go for earning some quick buckaroos.. :)

 

Rgds

[Genie47]

Can't really answer this.

 

Ignorance?

 

Too rich?

 

Don't care?

 

Better than my neighbor attitude?

 

Can't see the forest but only the trees?

 

One thing is certain, those that use RON92-95 sticking to their car manuals have one thing in mind. Cost control. Control the cost, you make your income last longer and maybe have excess to save and invest in better things.

 

The car isn't everything but money isn't everything too. Got to have fun, right?

[Lorrliew]

I uses 98 cause it's only 7cents higher than 95 for Shell that I'm using.

Edited May 4, 2007 by Lorrliew

[Lorrliew]

RON 98 for optimum performance and fuel economy

 

Fuel economy is measured by $/km traveled. With the higher price of RON98, it is very hard to get fuel economy with it. Hence it is correct to use RON98 for optimum performance but not fuel economy.

 

Not necessary, it depends how 'underperforming' the engine behave with RON95; there is a possibility that you may need to step harder to get the same performance as using RON98, then $/km can be higher.

[Nero159]

[reply]Yo Nero159, do assume u driving 159 then.

 

Its ok to go for 95.

I'm driving Alfa GT for almost 3 yrs. Never find the need to go 98. Power/smoother are all in the mind game.

 

My manual too says above 95. But I've never had probs since I've pumped 95 all along. I'm a believer of using what is good enough for the car. Anything higher or better will be waste. Also, save the money and spend it on better brakes and oil. Which will directly protect your car.

 

Also, I realize after testing so many patrols some time back, that Esso/Mobil 95 is still best for Alfa. If not, try it! Thoroughly recommended.. keke

 

Rgds

 

Yup, I'm driving a 159 2.2JTS manual (compression ratio of 11.3:1). Yours a 3.2V6 GT, right?

 

I'm on Esso/Mobil 98 and occasionally, a full tank of V-Power for some extra cleaning. Will take your advice and try Esso/Mobil 95. Anyway, I'm on this fleet card thing that gives me 15% discount (or if station discount is higher, the station discount + 1 %) on all Esso/Mobil petrol, so I've been pumping Esso/Mobil since my 156 days (7.5 years to be exact).

Edited May 4, 2007 by Nero159

[Lucien]

Cuz i always pump 95. Doesnt matter to me. And i pump either Exxon or Caltex. Good Low end power.

[Genie47]

Well, you never know until you find out for your own car.

 

Anyway, the data from a Sunny owner posted in another thread already shows it with numbers. To achieve low $/km, RON98 has very little chance with our daily driving car. Even if you step harder on the pedal, you still burn less $ even if you put a brick under the pedal for RON98. The cost advantage RON95 has over RON98 is really big. RON92 no need to say. It is the cost advantage not so much the engineering advantage when it comes to economy.

 

There is one car I know that performs well with higher octane though. iDSI engines. Minimum is RON91 but if you use higher octane, you see a huge difference. I would attribute this to the amazing engineering from Honda.

[Kanr]

really great n forward to own an Honda car!

[Crusader75]

Anybody still has the links to this Straits Times article?

I would like to see the Dyno results again for across the RPMs for the different brands.

[Ultramega]

go to national library and search for Straits Times dated 28-Apr-07.

[Slowmo]

my only gripe is with caltex not providing 92 with techron.

[Robin]

best is to go with wat the car manual states. if it states min 95 then use 95. anything more is a luxury

[Ghostrider]

haha! take it with a bit of salt. how come they test till 5k rpm and 4.5k rpm. maybe the egine will ping at higher rpms. defintely for the rex.

 

U are right, with 95 if you run at normal speed...its ok even on a EJ20. But once you hit the higher revs at 3500 above, confirm got ping.

 

Anyway...turbo cars always run a bit rich is safer than lean...

 

For the slight price saved (monthly)...I rather be safe than sorry. So my answer is no...I will stick to 98. If the petrol company or manufacturers dare to give warranty on engine for using 95...I dun mind. But if no backup...I rather pay a bit more to be safe.

[Edison]

May i know what's your ride?

[Ghostrider]

JDM Rex Auto

[Zakuii]

RON95 is recommended for the LGT 2.5, so I stick to RON95.

[Curahee]

Did any bro mix? Like 95 mix with V power, or 95 mix with 98 etc??

[Adam251]

RON 98 for optimum performance and fuel economy

 

Fuel economy is measured by $/km traveled. With the higher price of RON98, it is very hard to get fuel economy with it. Hence it is correct to use RON98 for optimum performance but not fuel economy.

 

Not necessary, it depends how 'underperforming' the engine behave with RON95; there is a possibility that you may need to step harder to get the same performance as using RON98, then $/km can be higher.

 

I've tried both 95 and 98 ... price difference is about 3-4% .. but milage difference is about 10% ... I can get 550km per tank full with 98 ..compared to around 500km per tank full with 95 .. initially I though it was calculation error but after several tries and about 1 month test period the result is confirm for my car runs more economically on 98 .. as mentioned above if I use 95 i need to step harder and for longer period of time in order to get to the same speed ... but with 98 my car can run at 2.2krpm and still hit cruise speed 90km/h while I need to press at 2.4krpm to maintain 90km/h if I use 95...

Edited November 22, 2007 by Adam251