[TheGunner]

This is a little personal project I am undertaking in response to all the RON 95 and RON 97 debate. I will putting my car, a 2007 Proton Waja Campro 1.6E M/T, through a series of RON 95 vs RON 97 tests, recording the car's performance and consumption.

The testing will be done across several brands, so I will start comparing Shell RON 95 vs Shell RON 97, then Petronas RON 95 vs Petronas RON 97 et al.

For each brand, I will test the car running on two tanks of RON 97, followed by two tanks of RON 95. The reason for using two tanks is that for the first tank, there is still a sizeable mixture of fuel from the previous tank, and that the 2nd tank would somehow be slightly "purer". Each tank in my Waja lasts 550 - 600km, though these days it's closer to 550 than 600.

I'm currently starting with Shell RON 97. I will be pumping another tank tomorrow, then the two tanks after that would be on Shell RON 95, after which I will be switching brands and repeating the test.

I will post consumption figures as well as a review of the experience on this thread, may be occasionally feature a write-up on the Emzine.

[flee]

Thanks for testing but I think the differences you will get will be small and within testing margins of error. The Waja is tuned for RON 95 petrol and using RON 97 should not give it any significant performance and economy differences.

Where you will find a difference is when a car is tuned to run on RON 97 but is capable of running on RON 95 because it has a knock sensor and its ECU can adjust the engine timing to suit the lower octane fuel.

In the UK people from most motoring publications and TV programmes like Top Gear have already conducted this kind of testing. E.g. a Subaru WRX will be able to exploit higher octane fuel while a Ford Ka might not find much difference from higher octane petrols.

Good luck with your testing!

[Esky]

Others can also share their results here, for comparison. I'm sure certain cars will show more noticeable diff than others.

As for myself, since I've been on Esso RON92 (which Proton claims their carbureted engines can't use) for some time & with the FC figures recorded, I'll also be closely monitoring my upcoming FC on Esso Synergy 5000 RON95. Previously, RON92 FC ranged btwn 15~17 km/l, average is just over 16 km/l.

[TheGunner]

Thanks for testing but I think the differences you will get will be small and within testing margins of error. The Waja is tuned for RON 95 petrol and using RON 97 should not give it any significant performance and economy differences.

Where you will find a difference is when a car is tuned to run on RON 97 but is capable of running on RON 95 because it has a knock sensor and its ECU can adjust the engine timing to suit the lower octane fuel.

In the UK people from most motoring publications and TV programmes like Top Gear have already conducted this kind of testing. E.g. a Subaru WRX will be able to exploit higher octane fuel while a Ford Ka might not find much difference from higher octane petrols.

Good luck with your testing!

flee... no choice lor, Waja is all I have mar..

but the objective of the test is to demonstrate to the average Joe drivers whether or not RON95 will adversely affect their engines or not.

Others can also share their results here, for comparison. I'm sure certain cars will show more noticeable diff than others.

Yes, please do. This thread should not be a one-way traffic of information.

[TheGunner]

Yesterday, the fuel warning light came on after about 450km on the tank. Pumped full this morning, with the tripmeter reading 476.6km.

Volume of petrol pumped: 51.55 litres (RM92.79)

This translates to an FC of:
- 10.8 litres/100km
- 9.25 km/l

I'll be heading to Melaka this weekend with my colleagues, and I expect this tank (usual range 600km) to be able to take me there and back. After this tank, I shall be filling in with RON95, and see if there is difference.

[limking]

Keep up the good work , KON . Guess all of us here are waiting to see the result of all fuel brands of RON95 & RON97.Would be better if you could describe the effects in a more speciflied details on the engine as well eg. smoothness , pinging , increase/decrease of HP , city / highway driving on the mileage/litre .......etc.

[gjrforce]

actually, should use the FC monitoring device for this kind of test.

there is too many factor though out the whole 450KM..


i am trying to figure out the formula for injector pulse rate, speed sensor related info to generate the real time FC, wait and see.

[Esky]

Alternatively, get the average FC figure over a longer period, & discard the worst & best figures. Better to get the average for 5 or more tanks.

[vr2turbo]

actually, should use the FC monitoring device for this kind of test.

there is too many factor though out the whole 450KM..


i am trying to figure out the formula for injector pulse rate, speed sensor related info to generate the real time FC, wait and see.

Agreed. Different route traveled, time of the day, traffic jam etc. etc...will contribute to different mileage.
But for a start at least some data is better then none.....

[Esky]

Yeah, it'll be ideal if the tester's FC is quite consistent with almost identical route, traffic condition & driving style.