I've been seeing a lot of government bashing with the petrol RON issue. What plot to increase price la etc. Well I came across some articles about facts, and lets see how the debate goes.
Personally I think its a good move by the government. Ron95 is cheaper to produce, and most of the cars on the road dont need any higher than that to run optimally anyway.
I forgot where I read this, but keep in mind that for our current Ron92 fuel, the petrol companies did not invest in R&D for additives in it, because the demand is low. Because of this our RON92 petrol underperforms in power and fuel efficiency compared to RON97. The real performance of petrol comes from the additives and chemical processes, not from RON figures. Thats why you see petrol companies occassionally updating their fuel. But does the RON rating change?
RON is simply the fuel's ability to resist pre-detonation. It has no meaning whatsoever when it comes to performance. A well developed good RON95 petrol will perform the same as a good RON97 petrol, if your car is not designed to utilize petrols above RON95. Since most of our cars are developed to run on petrols lower than RON95, we can benefit from this cheaper petrol, and we wouldnt lose any performance if the petrol companies focus on R&D for RON95.
The only real losers out there are you high compression runners with advanced map settings lah. But the government is seeing that you pay for what you want, i.e. performance cars, while passing the benefits to the public who drive normal cars. I think its a fair move. Dont misunderstand, I used to drive high compression cars too. But for us who take cars as a hobby, it was all along normal for us to pay more, compared to those who take cars as transport and a basic necessity. It makes no sense to charge the whole population for RON97+ fuel, when less than 10% of the population actually needs it.
If anything the government should have done, it is to provide the choice of RON95 for normal people, and proper RON98-RON100 for the performance cars. Then the premium is justified. Although i suspect, they're keeping RON97 because if they were to change it to RON98-100, the development costs wouldnt be justified for the low demand it would get. RON97 on the other hand, we already have the facilities and R&D.
Well, I basically want to say if you want to bash the government, atleast try to make some valid points. Because as far as I can see the government did nothing wrong. Of course, if I missed out anything, or you have facts that the government is indeed running a ploy, debate away.
Peace.
Personally I think its a good move by the government. Ron95 is cheaper to produce, and most of the cars on the road dont need any higher than that to run optimally anyway.
I forgot where I read this, but keep in mind that for our current Ron92 fuel, the petrol companies did not invest in R&D for additives in it, because the demand is low. Because of this our RON92 petrol underperforms in power and fuel efficiency compared to RON97. The real performance of petrol comes from the additives and chemical processes, not from RON figures. Thats why you see petrol companies occassionally updating their fuel. But does the RON rating change?
RON is simply the fuel's ability to resist pre-detonation. It has no meaning whatsoever when it comes to performance. A well developed good RON95 petrol will perform the same as a good RON97 petrol, if your car is not designed to utilize petrols above RON95. Since most of our cars are developed to run on petrols lower than RON95, we can benefit from this cheaper petrol, and we wouldnt lose any performance if the petrol companies focus on R&D for RON95.
The only real losers out there are you high compression runners with advanced map settings lah. But the government is seeing that you pay for what you want, i.e. performance cars, while passing the benefits to the public who drive normal cars. I think its a fair move. Dont misunderstand, I used to drive high compression cars too. But for us who take cars as a hobby, it was all along normal for us to pay more, compared to those who take cars as transport and a basic necessity. It makes no sense to charge the whole population for RON97+ fuel, when less than 10% of the population actually needs it.
If anything the government should have done, it is to provide the choice of RON95 for normal people, and proper RON98-RON100 for the performance cars. Then the premium is justified. Although i suspect, they're keeping RON97 because if they were to change it to RON98-100, the development costs wouldnt be justified for the low demand it would get. RON97 on the other hand, we already have the facilities and R&D.
Well, I basically want to say if you want to bash the government, atleast try to make some valid points. Because as far as I can see the government did nothing wrong. Of course, if I missed out anything, or you have facts that the government is indeed running a ploy, debate away.
Peace.
Last edited:
