Share your RON95 experience

blue · Posted: Fri Oct 23, 2009 6:43 pm Post subject: Share your RON95 experience

So, RON 95 has been in use for some time now. Can you share what you PERSONALLY experienced?

_________________
Manifesting a Dream

blue · Posted: Mon Oct 26, 2009 11:30 pm Post subject:

Wah, for those who are getting better mileage with Ron97. Just curious. Did you install any mod like Spark Earth etc.?

_________________
Manifesting a Dream

zxcvb · Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 7:37 am Post subject:

best recorded FC using Ron 95 = 13.3 l/km

(cruising 50%, crawling in jam 50%) going to and back from work in kl......

car = stock FD1

_________________
-~ eX gHoSt rIdEr ~-

blue · Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 8:23 am Post subject:

That's very good, even for a FD1. A lot of 1.8 owners in the Singapore forum trying to achieve this but could not.

What is your secret bro?

My car is a FD2.

Consumption on Ron97 = 11.25 l/km or 18.2c/km @ today's prices
Consumption on Ron95 = 10.00 l/km or 19.2c/km @ today's prices

So, for me, Ron95 is more expensive. Noticibly, acceleration is not as smooth, and engine vibrates more.

_________________
Manifesting a Dream

toda6866 · Veteran Joined: 14 Jul 2007 Posts: 513

erm, i honestly did not feel any difference, i can accelerate easily out of corners n overtake..........mayb my butt dyno not sensitive enough Laughing

anyway, i do notice my fuel consumption has dropped.....but it could b due to my driving style, it changes very much according to time i leave for appointment

early - ah pek hogging the left lane
on time - drive smoothly, keep constant highway speed
late - drive like I got 'P' license

so conclusion is Wink

_________________
VTECster

zxcvb · Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 9:48 am Post subject:

blue wrote:

That's very good, even for a FD1. A lot of 1.8 owners in the Singapore forum trying to achieve this but could not.

What is your secret bro?

My car is a FD2.

Consumption on Ron97 = 11.25 l/km or 18.2c/km @ today's prices
Consumption on Ron95 = 10.00 l/km or 19.2c/km @ today's prices

So, for me, Ron95 is more expensive. Noticibly, acceleration is not as smooth, and engine vibrates more.

i believe smooth driving is key major factor bro..and minimize braking...and off course rpm constantly < 2k...hehe

noted that the figure i posted is the best i can get so far...and most of the time i get 11 - 13 km/l ... Razz

_________________
-~ eX gHoSt rIdEr ~-

blue · Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 10:41 am Post subject:

Bro Toda,

Honestly, my car the difference felt is big. Not only for me, my wife said the same thing. We were on Ron95 for two weeks. Then one day, I asked her to switch back to Ron97 as we were getting poor consumption. Her response later that day was "car going zoom zoom again".

Wonder why for some car no difference, some car like mine big difference. That's why I suspect, it could be the mods I added in -- those mods are all efficiency enhancement devices -- perhaps they perform better with higher RON. This is my theory. I'm on larger rims and tyres yet am getting stock consumption due to these devices.

_________________
Manifesting a Dream

toda6866 · Veteran Joined: 14 Jul 2007 Posts: 513

blue wrote:

Bro Toda,

Honestly, my car the difference felt is big. Not only for me, my wife said the same thing. We were on Ron95 for two weeks. Then one day, I asked her to switch back to Ron97 as we were getting poor consumption. Her response later that day was "car going zoom zoom again".

Wonder why for some car no difference, some car like mine big difference. That's why I suspect, it could be the mods I added in -- those mods are all efficiency enhancement devices -- perhaps they perform better with higher RON. This is my theory. I'm on larger rims and tyres yet am getting stock consumption due to these devices.

hmmm....anyway, probably those mods make a difference, or probably its your car/engine itself.....

all of our cars have a wee bit variant.....nothing is 100% identical even manufactured by robots

that's wat I learn when I worked for cycle & carriage 6 yrs ago. Back then.... every MB engine has an individual map for their ECU n its hooked up on a test bench, then revved till u can see the exhaust manifold glow red (no joke) engineers will be in a separate room with all the controls and meters like a airplane cockpit but viewing the revving engine on a thick glass.

This individuality is to ensure that all engines can run fully-optimized maps. This also mean u can remap the ECU if you have the necessary hardware.

after so many years, I believe our beloved Honda should have sort of ECU that is programmable like theirs.

_________________
VTECster

blue · Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 3:32 pm Post subject:

Our ECU IS programable. You can take my word for it. Very Happy

_________________
Manifesting a Dream

brianchoon · LvL 2 Joined: 07 Aug 2009 Posts: 87

wah....y those of u's car is FC is so good. for my car full tank RM75 only can go 380-410km...100 town use....i think next time i will try to off air cond try try... Razz

blue · Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 9:25 pm Post subject:

brianchoon wrote:

wah....y those of u's car is FC is so good. for my car full tank RM75 only can go 380-410km...100 town use....i think next time i will try to off air cond try try... Razz

If 100% town/city use, sure your consumption will be higher. Smile

If u want, install Pivot 3 Drive, and use Economy mode for city driving. Might help.

_________________
Manifesting a Dream

mcwk · Committee Joined: 17 Apr 2007 Posts: 2116 Location: Melaka

I have used Ron92, Ron95, Ron97, Vpower on my FD2.

Cannot feel any difference in power or measure any significant difference in FC. Tried Ron92 and then Ron97 (refuel half time @ Petronas station nearby) on track. No loss of power, or knocking / vibration at full throttle / redline.

If there is any difference in HP, would probably need a dyno to measure it.

Only apparent difference is the price, and marketing across different brands. Use to go for Caltex (which promoted Techron in Ron92). Now going for BHP 95 (x2 additives).

_________________

brianchoon · LvL 2 Joined: 07 Aug 2009 Posts: 87

blue wrote:

brianchoon wrote:

wah....y those of u's car is FC is so good. for my car full tank RM75 only can go 380-410km...100 town use....i think next time i will try to off air cond try try... Razz

If 100% town/city use, sure your consumption will be higher. Smile

If u want, install Pivot 3 Drive, and use Economy mode for city driving. Might help.

if i got 3-drive can run how many km per full tank...now i normally is rm75 for Ron95...

blue · Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 11:56 am Post subject:

mcwk wrote:

I have used Ron92, Ron95, Ron97, Vpower on my FD2.

Cannot feel any difference in power or measure any significant difference in FC. Tried Ron92 and then Ron97 (refuel half time @ Petronas station nearby) on track. No loss of power, or knocking / vibration at full throttle / redline.

If there is any difference in HP, would probably need a dyno to measure it.

Only apparent difference is the price, and marketing across different brands. Use to go for Caltex (which promoted Techron in Ron92). Now going for BHP 95 (x2 additives).

Bro, how come for you no difference btw RON92 and VPower? What did you do to your car until like that? Laughing

There's another thread under "Engines Upgrades" that talks about various petrol branding. Here, I wanted was just focusing on RON value of the same petrol. There's just so much advertisement around saying ROM95 will give you better consumption while RON 97 is for "power". I just think that this is total crap and bulls#!t.

I've stuck to Petronas all these while, so I compared Petronas Ron97 with Petronas RON 95. Ron 95, clearly gives me less kms per gallen as I've indicated above. That's my experience lor.

If going to different brand, then cannot compare RON to RON already.

I've decided to try Caltex actually. This will affect our fuel filter apparently. Using different brands cause my cousin's Accord to have fuel filter issues (he doesn't stick to any one brand) after 100K service.

_________________
Manifesting a Dream

mcwk · Committee Joined: 17 Apr 2007 Posts: 2116 Location: Melaka

Actually, I have tried Shell from Ron92 all the way to Vpower too. For consistency and sake of evaluation.

Purpose for mentioning Vpower, just want to state that there is no noticeable difference between it (premium Ron97) and *normal* Ron97 for me.

My driving routine is fairly consistent - drive to work and back every day. Melaka roads normally no jam (at least when I am driving on the road), so it is easy to keep a consistent driving style. With same driving style, the FC does not vary much.

Hence, I arrive at conclusion that the significant main effect is the driving style, which masks any little effect from fuel brand and Ron, if any.

_________________