SiliconAngel
1 AYC Bar
Hmm fair enough. What's the effect on fuel economy then? Does it use measurably more fuel to compensate for the lower octane? Or as long as it doesn't register knock it should fuel as normal?
bradc
1 AYC Bar
When it starts to knock it just dumps in fuel like mad
king_panther
Gettin' tanked
- Location
- New South Wales
- First Name
- Brad
- Drive
- 2012 VW Caddy 1.6TDI 7-Speed DSG. Still crappy DSG.....
I tried running on BP 95 & Caltex 95 & I got pinging bad every time.
I guess it would be ok if you were driving in a straight, flat line, but I have numerous terrain differences to cover & everytime it went uphill - PING !
Nothing but 98 ever since. Or 95 with octane boost when I'm out in the country & they've never heard of 98..
I guess it would be ok if you were driving in a straight, flat line, but I have numerous terrain differences to cover & everytime it went uphill - PING !
Nothing but 98 ever since. Or 95 with octane boost when I'm out in the country & they've never heard of 98..
cyber_scriber
1 AYC Bar
- Location
- NSW
- First Name
- Bruce
- Drive
- 2000 Galant; metallic dark blue; manual; Recaros; Momo steering wheel; and sunroof!
Dumb question from me but why would you sacrifice power, economy, driving style, response and risk your engine, just to save a few bucks a tank by pouring 95RON instead of 98RON?
I'll answer that one.
Over the past 18months, I've chewed through 3,922.84 litres of fuel.
At an average price differential of 11cents per litre (7cents, +4cent Safeway discount) that's a saving of $431.
The bulk of the driving I was doing (long highway kms), 95 was perfect. The engine did not knock, it did not ping - and any difference in fuel consumption was negligible. Why wouldn't I use 95?
/
cyber_scriber
1 AYC Bar
- Location
- NSW
- First Name
- Bruce
- Drive
- 2000 Galant; metallic dark blue; manual; Recaros; Momo steering wheel; and sunroof!
Andy.
The saving of $431 over 18 months doesn't reflect the decreased economy of using 95RON as opposed to 98RON.
The higher octane and denser fuel should give better mileage. This is the experience that Mungel had and this is also reflected in my testing with my current car.
Assuming that you get 50klms more with each tank of 98RON fuel (Mungel's experience and mine) and assuming a 12 litres/100klms consumption rate, you would need to pour an extra 6 litres of 95 RON fuel each tank to match the economy of a 98RON tank.
Therefore, let's run the numbers on the assumption that:
a) we went through a tank a week;
b) 95RON fuel selling at $1.20 a litre; and
c) 98RON fuel selling at $1.34 a litre (a greater difference than your stated average difference of 11 cents because in Sydney, Shell V power seems to cost about 14 cents more).
Our weekly fuel bill would be as follows:
d) 56 litres of 95RON x $1.20 = $67.20; and
e) 50 litres of 98RON x $1.34 = $67.
You will see that the 98RON petrol actually works out cheaper overall.
Even if we take the (mistaken) assumption that there is no economy benefit in using 98RON fuel, the price difference is just over $7 per week more with 98RON.
In my view, $7 a week is very cheap insurance and a small price to pay for more power, better response; cleaner engine; reduced potential for pinging and engine damage; and better economy.
In fact, I shudder to imagine what we would do if we knew there was 95 RON in the tank, we were coasting on the highway and suddenly got caught behind a semi trailer. Imagine overtaking on the wrong side of the road and thinking to yourself "must not go over 4,000rpm, must not go over 4,000rpm" whilst another car was coming in the opposite direction!
Just to be clear, I'm not having a go, mate. I'm just thinking out loud about the pros and cons of 95 vs 98 fuel in real world terms and conditions.
The saving of $431 over 18 months doesn't reflect the decreased economy of using 95RON as opposed to 98RON.
The higher octane and denser fuel should give better mileage. This is the experience that Mungel had and this is also reflected in my testing with my current car.
Assuming that you get 50klms more with each tank of 98RON fuel (Mungel's experience and mine) and assuming a 12 litres/100klms consumption rate, you would need to pour an extra 6 litres of 95 RON fuel each tank to match the economy of a 98RON tank.
Therefore, let's run the numbers on the assumption that:
a) we went through a tank a week;
b) 95RON fuel selling at $1.20 a litre; and
c) 98RON fuel selling at $1.34 a litre (a greater difference than your stated average difference of 11 cents because in Sydney, Shell V power seems to cost about 14 cents more).
Our weekly fuel bill would be as follows:
d) 56 litres of 95RON x $1.20 = $67.20; and
e) 50 litres of 98RON x $1.34 = $67.
You will see that the 98RON petrol actually works out cheaper overall.
Even if we take the (mistaken) assumption that there is no economy benefit in using 98RON fuel, the price difference is just over $7 per week more with 98RON.
In my view, $7 a week is very cheap insurance and a small price to pay for more power, better response; cleaner engine; reduced potential for pinging and engine damage; and better economy.
In fact, I shudder to imagine what we would do if we knew there was 95 RON in the tank, we were coasting on the highway and suddenly got caught behind a semi trailer. Imagine overtaking on the wrong side of the road and thinking to yourself "must not go over 4,000rpm, must not go over 4,000rpm" whilst another car was coming in the opposite direction!
Just to be clear, I'm not having a go, mate. I'm just thinking out loud about the pros and cons of 95 vs 98 fuel in real world terms and conditions.
I hear where you're coming from, but respectfully disagree.
Over 60,000kms, I just have not found any difference in fuel economy between 95 and 98 on the highway.
Now that the highway drives are a thing of the past for me, I only use 98.
However, from experience, I wouldn't hesitate going back to 95 for planned long drives.
edit - a quick glance at my records show a difference of less than 1ltr/100kms between 95-98. When I get more time I'll have a better look and break the stats down by fuel type and octane rating...
Over 60,000kms, I just have not found any difference in fuel economy between 95 and 98 on the highway.
Now that the highway drives are a thing of the past for me, I only use 98.
However, from experience, I wouldn't hesitate going back to 95 for planned long drives.
edit - a quick glance at my records show a difference of less than 1ltr/100kms between 95-98. When I get more time I'll have a better look and break the stats down by fuel type and octane rating...
cyber_scriber
1 AYC Bar
- Location
- NSW
- First Name
- Bruce
- Drive
- 2000 Galant; metallic dark blue; manual; Recaros; Momo steering wheel; and sunroof!
Hi Andy.
I think we can agree to disagree on this one!
As I previously mentioned, even if there was no difference at all, I still wouldn't use 95RON fuel. I'd be terrified of the thought that potential damage to my engine is only one rush of blood or inadvertent stab on the accelerator away. Further, I'd hate the idea of driving around with an artificial limiter keeping the revs under 4,000rpm, which in unexpected circumstances, could be quite dangerous (more on that later).
I find that with highway driving, I actually prefer to have the best response and power available. It's often in highway conditions and/or on long journeys that unexpected hazards arise. This can be in the form of overtaking long trucks, cars towing campervans or self appointed speed nazis who speed up when you try and overtake them on the wrong side of the road because they've been holding you up in the twisties. If I had to purposely keep the revs down and baby the accelerator, I reckon it would be very dangerous trying to deal with the foregoing circumstances.
The final consideration for me is a simple one. Don't we want our cars performing at their best at all times and in all situations? Isn't this why we (should) keep our cars in tip top shape via servicing and using quality parts? To me, it kind of defeats the purpose to use top notch iridium plugs, synthetic oil etc and then pour what is arguably substandard fuel into the car. If I'm not mistaken, our cars were actually designed with 100RON fuel in mind. To go down to 95RON for a relatively minor saving at the expense of our prides and joys just doesn't make good sense to me
I think we can agree to disagree on this one!
As I previously mentioned, even if there was no difference at all, I still wouldn't use 95RON fuel. I'd be terrified of the thought that potential damage to my engine is only one rush of blood or inadvertent stab on the accelerator away. Further, I'd hate the idea of driving around with an artificial limiter keeping the revs under 4,000rpm, which in unexpected circumstances, could be quite dangerous (more on that later).
I find that with highway driving, I actually prefer to have the best response and power available. It's often in highway conditions and/or on long journeys that unexpected hazards arise. This can be in the form of overtaking long trucks, cars towing campervans or self appointed speed nazis who speed up when you try and overtake them on the wrong side of the road because they've been holding you up in the twisties. If I had to purposely keep the revs down and baby the accelerator, I reckon it would be very dangerous trying to deal with the foregoing circumstances.
The final consideration for me is a simple one. Don't we want our cars performing at their best at all times and in all situations? Isn't this why we (should) keep our cars in tip top shape via servicing and using quality parts? To me, it kind of defeats the purpose to use top notch iridium plugs, synthetic oil etc and then pour what is arguably substandard fuel into the car. If I'm not mistaken, our cars were actually designed with 100RON fuel in mind. To go down to 95RON for a relatively minor saving at the expense of our prides and joys just doesn't make good sense to me
Bear in mind I owned my Galant back in a time where there wasn't any 98 RON in Australia Ran it for four years on 95 without a hitch. Having said that, I always run the best fuel available in all my cars, which is now 98.
Ran it for four years on 95 without a hitch. Having said that, I always run the best fuel available in all my cars, which is now 98.cyber_scriber
1 AYC Bar
- Location
- NSW
- First Name
- Bruce
- Drive
- 2000 Galant; metallic dark blue; manual; Recaros; Momo steering wheel; and sunroof!
So Chef, what you're basically saying is that given the choice, you'd always go 98RON?
what servo's do 98? i work for woolies (staff discount card biatches lol) so i go to caltex for fuel for conveinence sake, does bp or shell do 98? independants?
So Chef, what you're basically saying is that given the choice, you'd always go 98RON?
Hehehe, yes, but also stating that 95 will not do any damage to your motor
Stick with BP Ultimate or Shell Vortex, and go to the servo where they turn over the most fuel. I could go into all the reasons, but I can't be stuffed typing it all lol
G
Guest
Unregistered
- Thread starter
- #36
This is a few years back but dyno results on many mitsubishi rally cars were best achieved with Mobil 98 as it has that polyurathane or some crap like that.
Car ran very nicely on mobil personally shell was ok and so was bp but really hard to tell with a highly serviced car as only dyno results could really show the truth.
Car ran very nicely on mobil personally shell was ok and so was bp but really hard to tell with a highly serviced car as only dyno results could really show the truth.
Similar threads
