RON95 & RON97 Myths and Facts

[twistedichc]

Now I get it. He and SF purposely mix up each other's car name. Jetta for SF. Altis for kcng.

still can't figure out SF's Jetta is what car

 

[Supra_Fanatics]

still can't figure out SF's Jetta is what car

---------------------------

Anyway, found a better article here which I think many might have already read it.

RON 95 vs RON 97 fuel test - which one should you use?

 

[vr2turbo]

---------------------------

Anyway, found a better article here which I think many might have already read it.

RON 95 vs RON 97 fuel test - which one should you use?

No conclusion also, both have mixed result....

---------- Post added at 07:38 PM ---------- 6 hour anti-bump limit - Previous post was at 07:38 PM ----------

still can't figure out SF's Jetta is what car

1.8 NA.....lol

 

[6UE5t]

But yours is GDi, right?

Yes mine is GDi, Japan recommendation is to use 98.

---------- Post added at 08:16 PM ---------- 6 hour anti-bump limit - Previous post was at 08:14 PM ----------

No conclusion also, both have mixed result....

...

Got conclusion: not worth the price difference! So they'll stick with 95.

 

[kcng]

altis turbo meh? why hp low only? but torque is really good

Now I get it. He and SF purposely mix up each other's car name. Jetta for SF. Altis for kcng.

hahahaha....
G.O.T.C.H.A...

 

[vr2turbo]

Yes mine is GDi, Japan recommendation is to use 98.

---------- Post added at 08:16 PM ---------- 6 hour anti-bump limit - Previous post was at 08:14 PM ----------



Got conclusion: not worth the price difference! So they'll stick with 95.

But some mention GDi less problem with knocking as petrol is injected direct.

But for me, got to stick to 97 for my VR.....

 

[Supra_Fanatics]

No conclusion also, both have mixed result....

1.8 NA.....lol

Kcng's one is 1.4VVT-i. ma not TSi. His model is limited imported model from US. 1.4VVT-i with turbo.

Yes mine is GDi, Japan recommendation is to use 98.

Got conclusion: not worth the price difference! So they'll stick with 95.

Ya conclusion seems that for NA, RON97 seems to consume more fuel than RON95

 

[6UE5t]

But some mention GDi less problem with knocking as petrol is injected direct.

But for me, got to stick to 97 for my VR.....

Well that's the main advantage & purpose of the GDi design, to be able to apply higher compression (to make more power and better efficiency) while more tolerant to normal RON fuel.

 

[vr2turbo]

Kcng's one is 1.4VVT-i. ma not TSi. His model is limited imported model from US. 1.4VVT-i with turbo.

Ya conclusion seems that for NA, RON97 seems to consume more fuel than RON95

Already mentioned many times already, when engine don't require the higher, no point using it....

 

[twistedichc]

if manual say min 95, how?

 

[Supra_Fanatics]

Already mentioned many times already, when engine don't require the higher, no point using it....

Ya, felt the same in RON95 when I pump for Kelisa xD

 

[6UE5t]

if manual say min 95, how?

Then just use 95 lo.

 

[vr2turbo]

if manual say min 95, how?

Use Min loh! save mah! using lower priced fuel.......hhahahhaha

---------- Post added at 05:46 PM ---------- 6 hour anti-bump limit - Previous post was at 05:45 PM ----------

Ya, felt the same in RON95 when I pump for Kelisa xD

Then use 95 period, no need think about it anymore.....

 

[Supra_Fanatics]

Use Min loh! save mah! using lower priced fuel.......hhahahhaha

---------- Post added at 05:46 PM ---------- 6 hour anti-bump limit - Previous post was at 05:45 PM ----------



Then use 95 period, no need think about it anymore.....

Ya, kelisa sticking to RON95 if mileage is gonna be same...

But I tried RON97 from Caltex...mileage is real bad if compare to Petron. Seriously bad...about less than 100km mileage.

 

[vr2turbo]

Ya, kelisa sticking to RON95 if mileage is gonna be same...

But I tried RON97 from Caltex...mileage is real bad if compare to Petron. Seriously bad...about less than 100km mileage.

Aik! so much difference? someone siphon your petrol is it?

 

[gunnerzz]

Ya, felt the same in RON95 when I pump for Kelisa xD

Fill in RON97 again and then chase the redline on every gear.
Then tell me.if there is any difference.

 

[clepetpro88]

Im using 1.3 neo. Ron97 starting 1 feb 2015 until now (7) feb 2015 got convo from singapore to pattaya. REALLY BIG difference. Satria 1.3 ron95 bad at highways really sucks

About 1 min from 120km/h to 180. For 95 starting at rev 4k rpm .

For 97 : 3k rev. 30 sec 120 - 180km/h. Blast meter at 7k rpm . 200++

For 1.3 no CPS .

Minyak also jimat kawkaw when using ron97 at higways.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[kcng]

u need to refuel a few tanks only can see the diff ler...

else mostly just placebo...

like those who go kedai abang and install exhaust tip cover and claim car feel faster...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAH

 

[Izso]

If we think logically, RON basically just tells you how easily the petrol ignites under load (generally laaa) and RON95 ignites much earlier than 97. So the ignition timing needs to be retarded (usually automatically by the ECU) to avoid knocking (or was it advanced? Uh..) so technically you're talking about slightly less power. 97 on the other hand resists early ignition and the ignition timing can be adjusted to be more aggressive (later) so technically there is a difference in power. However in some if not most cars that power gain is so minimal it just doesn't make cost effective sense to use the higher octane since there's probably a lot of loss at the transmission anyway.

Anyway, just me rambling at 7am

 

[vr2turbo]

u need to refuel a few tanks only can see the diff ler...

else mostly just placebo...

like those who go kedai abang and install exhaust tip cover and claim car feel faster...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAH

Fuh! I want to fit that exhaust tip too. Means if fit two can get twice the power.....hhahahhahahhaha

---------- Post added at 08:53 AM ---------- 6 hour anti-bump limit - Previous post was at 08:49 AM ----------

If we think logically, RON basically just tells you how easily the petrol ignites under load (generally laaa) and RON95 ignites much earlier than 97. So the ignition timing needs to be retarded (usually automatically by the ECU) to avoid knocking (or was it advanced? Uh..) so technically you're talking about slightly less power. 97 on the other hand resists early ignition and the ignition timing can be adjusted to be more aggressive (later) so technically there is a difference in power. However in some if not most cars that power gain is so minimal it just doesn't make cost effective sense to use the higher octane since there's probably a lot of loss at the transmission anyway.

Anyway, just me rambling at 7am

Not rambling mah! What you say is the fact. The only thing is, if the car is not high compression the Ron 95 will not ignite early anyway, therefore the ECU would not adjust or retard the timing. If high compression then is different case, that is why it is mentioned there is no difference using Ron 97, if your car requires the lower Ron to run. However if it requires higher Ron to run then the ECU will retard your timing....