MAZDA 6

[richard_crl032]

Not sure if I am the only one but I have tracked my FC over the last 6 tanks and found that RON98 gives better mileage over 95.

 

I pumped 2 tanks on 98 and got about 8-8.4L per 100km. The. Swapped to 2 tanks of 95 and got about 9.7-10L per 100km. Recent 2 tanks went back to 98 and got 8.2L per 100km again.

 

Same route and driver throughout...

Hi Hobbes,

 

For my fxt and past experience, I did not see such big difference or even hardly any difference on FC.

 

For sure octane98 feels quieter, smoother and with marginally betta pick up ... think with resulting less forceful acceleration which may explain your reported difference.

 

Clearly also you are not the sedated driver else I believe you will not find such difference.

 

Cheers.

 

Richard

[Hobbes187]

Hi Hobbes,

 

For my fxt and past experience, I did not see such big difference or even hardly any difference on FC.

 

For sure octane98 feels quieter, smoother and with marginally betta pick up ... think with resulting less forceful acceleration which may explain your reported difference.

 

Clearly also you are not the sedated driver else I believe you will not find such difference.

 

Cheers.

 

Richard

Not sedated for sure... But my numbers are for 2.5L. I believe 2.0L has better fc. Actually besides the mileage I don't feel much difference between 98 and 95.

 

Maybe I will switch back to 95 for another few tanks to see if the pattern continues...

[richard_crl032]

Not sedated for sure... But my numbers are for 2.5L. I believe 2.0L has better fc. Actually besides the mileage I don't feel much difference between 98 and 95.

 

Maybe I will switch back to 95 for another few tanks to see if the pattern continues...

Hi Hobbes,

 

Oh no ... octane98 can only be as good if not betta including more comprehensive detergents, additives etc.

 

Whether if it is worthwhile is subjective since different bros got different priority and wallet size .. I would go for 100% octane98 like when I had the estima and younger but the already powderful and 8-9km/l as well as more prudent spending towards twilight career days makes me swap between octane95 recently.

 

Chèers.

 

Richard

[St83]

Not sure if I am the only one but I have tracked my FC over the last 6 tanks and found that RON98 gives better mileage over 95.

 

I pumped 2 tanks on 98 and got about 8-8.4L per 100km. The. Swapped to 2 tanks of 95 and got about 9.7-10L per 100km. Recent 2 tanks went back to 98 and got 8.2L per 100km again.

 

Same route and driver throughout...

 

I also has this observation and now using RON98 for smoother and better pickup. 

[ER-3682]

I also has this observation and now using RON98 for smoother and better pickup. 

Actually our Cars got very high Compression,high Octane Petrol will give Benefit if budget allow.

[SZ_ford]

Not sure if I am the only one but I have tracked my FC over the last 6 tanks and found that RON98 gives better mileage over 95.

 

I pumped 2 tanks on 98 and got about 8-8.4L per 100km. The. Swapped to 2 tanks of 95 and got about 9.7-10L per 100km. Recent 2 tanks went back to 98 and got 8.2L per 100km again.

 

Same route and driver throughout...

 

hello, i did something similar as well. but i dont feel any FC or smoothness difference between 98 and 95 in FC.

 

probably +/- 20km per tank. I'm getting 7.4-7.6l/100km for both ron

[andrewyewkc]

Not sure if I am the only one but I have tracked my FC over the last 6 tanks and found that RON98 gives better mileage over 95.

 

I pumped 2 tanks on 98 and got about 8-8.4L per 100km. The. Swapped to 2 tanks of 95 and got about 9.7-10L per 100km. Recent 2 tanks went back to 98 and got 8.2L per 100km again.

 

Same route and driver throughout...

Thanks for sharing. Not all cars will see this same result otherwise everyone will be pumping 98 as it would then be overall cheaper to pump 98.

There is also a difference between the brands. You are pumping Shell?

[Banz86]

Hi Banz.

 

Agree, there's a car for everyone's tastes.

 

Just that, when you look at the price point of the so-called smaller premium makes, you have to start making objective comparisons with other cars at that price-point (i.e the higher-end Jap makes, the only Korean premium brand thus far is Genesis).

 

Because really, besides paying for that very nice-to-have Premium German Conti badge, what else are you objectively paying for? Features? Build quality? Engine prowess? The drive?

 

I have driven the CLA 200 belonging to a relative, for an extended time, and the conclusion I had after driving it was:

When you pay for half a "proper" Mercedes Benz, you get half a "proper" Mercedes Benz. The interior is cramped, the suspension virtually non-existent, horrendous in-car entertainment, and bluetooth that keeps disconnecting from my phone. It doesn't shout "premium German quality" when you consider that Mercedes prides itself as "The best, or nothing".

 

At the end of the day, to each his own. It is very tempting to get a premium German just for that badge (even the 3-pointed Swastika, YES!!!), and I don't deny there's a certain snob factor to owning and driving one (I sure did feel that driving the CLA). But for a mere mortal like myself that doesn't have unlimited money to throw away, really need to sit down, think hard, and make objective comparisons.

 

In SG, the car is arguably the 2nd most-expensive thing we'd ever spend our money on (next to our home). So it really does pay to be prudent. Also need to consider the fact that the turbo conti engines can ONLY drink RON 98 petrol (for whatever reason). This drives up the cost of ownership down the road (no pun intended).

 

Got nothing against conti brands. You know that they're doing some things right when the Japs and Koreans are trying hard to copy them. So if I had "proper" money, I'd go for a "proper" Mercedes Benz like the E-class or even CLS or something, just to show that "I'm rich enough to own this yo!". It's nice to be able to dream...

 

 

I do like your argument on the proper MB as well as the decision to make objective comparisons. I have tested the CLA and I too find it a bit too un-MB like in their driving comfort. Suspension is just too hard with disappointing NVH for that price point.

 

I have sat down with a friend and talked about going for a high eng Jap car or for a conti (getting a mid range, to me is the A4, C, 3 series).

 

Looking at the Mazda 6 executive model, it seems like a no-brainer buy as compared to my idea of "mid-range" conti, but I think Richard has mentioned before, go for something you like first even though you're spending a bit more.

 

My heart now is with the A4 and Mazda 6.

[SZ_ford]

I do like your argument on the proper MB as well as the decision to make objective comparisons. I have tested the CLA and I too find it a bit too un-MB like in their driving comfort. Suspension is just too hard with disappointing NVH for that price point.

 

I have sat down with a friend and talked about going for a high eng Jap car or for a conti (getting a mid range, to me is the A4, C, 3 series).

 

Looking at the Mazda 6 executive model, it seems like a no-brainer buy as compared to my idea of "mid-range" conti, but I think Richard has mentioned before, go for something you like first even though you're spending a bit more.

 

My heart now is with the A4 and Mazda 6.

 

are u still in a dilemma?

 

best way to decide, assuming the price are quite close......ask yourself, will u buy the mz6 and keep thinking about the a4 and vice versa?

 

once u have the answer, problem solved hahaha

[Hobbes187]

Thanks for sharing. Not all cars will see this same result otherwise everyone will be pumping 98 as it would then be overall cheaper to pump 98.

There is also a difference between the brands. You are pumping Shell?

I pump esso. Overall it's about the same - the savings from the mileage is matched by almost the same increase in cost of 98 vs 95.

[andrewyewkc]

I pump esso. Overall it's about the same - the savings from the mileage is matched by almost the same increase in cost of 98 vs 95.

 

Thanks for sharing again!

 

Normally the 98 will feel better because of the additives added (e.g. detergents, etc) as mentioned by Richard.

[DK3410]

Thanks for sharing again!

 

Normally the 98 will feel better because of the additives added (e.g. detergents, etc) as mentioned by Richard.

 

I normally just pump the minimum RON as specified by the user manual. Save money for the ones that matter (like the wife!).

 

While the Skyactiv G is a high compression ratio engine, do bear in mind that here in SG we already tend to use the higher RON number fuel as compared to other countries like the U.S for instance.

 

The Skyactiv G turbo that the Mazda 2.5T is able to use RON 87 petrol (with less horsepower) and RON 92 petrol (for max horsepower).

 

In SG, you can't find anything less than RON 92. So I'm curious as to why the 2.5L NA engine demands a higher RON petrol than the Turbo according to the user manual, since forced-induction engines typically have much higher compression ratios (when turbo is active) and hence have greater tendency to "knock" than their NA counterparts.

 

The quirky chemistry of petrol and RON means that a higher RON petrol is LESS easy to burn and hence it "resists" knock better by being able to tolerate higher compression before it will combust (without a spark).

 

So it's going to be interesting what kind of petrol the new Skyactiv-X engine will demand, given that it switches between spark-controlled ignition and compression ignition.

[Carhorn]

I normally just pump the minimum RON as specified by the user manual. Save money for the ones that matter (like the wife!).

 

While the Skyactiv G is a high compression ratio engine, do bear in mind that here in SG we already tend to use the higher RON number fuel as compared to other countries like the U.S for instance.

 

The Skyactiv G turbo that the Mazda 2.5T is able to use RON 87 petrol (with less horsepower) and RON 92 petrol (for max horsepower).

 

In SG, you can't find anything less than RON 92. So I'm curious as to why the 2.5L NA engine demands a higher RON petrol than the Turbo according to the user manual, since forced-induction engines typically have much higher compression ratios (when turbo is active) and hence have greater tendency to "knock" than their NA counterparts.

 

The quirky chemistry of petrol and RON means that a higher RON petrol is LESS easy to burn and hence it "resists" knock better by being able to tolerate higher compression before it will combust (without a spark).

 

So it's going to be interesting what kind of petrol the new Skyactiv-X engine will demand, given that it switches between spark-controlled ignition and compression ignition.

US petrol grade uses AKI while SG is using RON as measurements

 

AKI is a rating derived from (MON + RON)/2

 

In US 92 octance is around SG RON 97. US 92 is around SG RON 97

 

there is difference if u say IS 92 is like RON92 in SG

 

later the mazda owners all follow wat u say and pump RON92 here. and all engines knock and knock

[DK3410]

Not sedated for sure... But my numbers are for 2.5L. I believe 2.0L has better fc. Actually besides the mileage I don't feel much difference between 98 and 95.

 

Maybe I will switch back to 95 for another few tanks to see if the pattern continues...

 

Fuel economy depends on a few factors, including driving style and engine.

 

A smaller capacity engine does not necessarily mean a better FC. A good example would be a comparison between the 2nd-gen Prius (the one I had) and the current-gen (I believe is 4th or 5th gen le). My old Prius was a 1.5L Atkinson cycle, the new one is a 1.8L Atkinson cycle.

 

The advertised FC of the 2nd gen model was 23.2 km/ L, which comes up to roughly 4.3 L/ 100 km. With my driving style (sedated), I was able to achieve 4.4 L/ 100 km.

 

The advertised FC of the latest model is 25.6 km/ L, which comes up to 3.9 L/ 100 km.

 

The big reason for the difference is that the new gen prius is able to, in conjunction with CVT, keep the engine at the "sweet spot" for optimal torque delivery, and because the 1.8L engine has a wider optimal torque band, less revving is required to get the power needed for acceleration from the bigger engine.

 

When you couple that with driving style (the usual mantra with hybrids is "pulse and coast"), you can actually achieve close to the advertised FC figures.

[DK3410]

US petrol grade uses AKI while SG is using RON as measurements

 

AKI is a rating derived from (MON + RON)/2

 

In US 92 octance is around SG RON 97. US 92 is around SG RON 97

 

there is difference if u say IS 92 is like RON92 in SG

 

later the mazda owners all follow wat u say and pump RON92 here. and all engines knock and knock

Hi Carhorn.

 

Thanks for the correction and clarification!

 

Forgot that the Americans like using different units of measurement from everyone else.

[Fishy]

Just booked a M6 Executive 2.0. Hope it’s going to be a good choice!

[ER-3682]

Just booked a M6 Executive 2.0. Hope it’s going to be a good choice!

It is a good Choice....mine already near 6 Years,[another 3 months]no regrets.

[xiaogao88]

Just booked a M6 Executive 2.0. Hope itâs going to be a good choice!

Just collected mine and been driving it for 2 days. I’m sure you won’t regret it. Even when I’m not driving it, it looks stunning just sitting there in the parking lot. Because it’s new and still relatively rare on the roads, I noticed that it’s been turning quite a few heads.