Well, it’s been a few days now since the government have officially restructured the price and grade structure of our fuel. RON95 now costs RM1.80, the same price as RON97 before anyone attempted to ‘fix’ the system, while RON97 is now RM2.05.
For those of you who still want to continue pumping RON97 if your car requires the higher octane, are you having luck finding the fuel where you stay or work?
In my neighbourhood, there are only Petronas stations and one lone Shell whose fuel pumps are really slow. So to save time, I usually pump Petronas as the station gets the fuel into my tank faster. Unfortunately, RON97 sale at my station seems to have halted for the time being.
This is just speculation at the moment (though there have been some whispers that there is truth to this), but hopefully that the temporary halt of RON97 sales means a new and better fuel is coming on the way for Petronas to take the place of Primax 3. But for now, let’s share our experiences pumping RON95 in our car.
What car are you using, and which RON95 did you pump? Have you noticed any changes to the way your car drives and how your engine bay sounds? And if yes, have the changes you’ve experienced been positive or negative so far? For those who experience better or worse fuel economy, please share what are the differences in terms of km per litre or litre per 100km, whichever you are more comfortable with.
Sometimes if your car does not have high octane requirements, switching from a RON97 fuel with an inferior additive mix to a RON95 fuel with a superior additive mix may have a positive effect. Of course you need not remind that in the first place we were supposed to have a positive effect on our wallet but no longer as the new RON95 is the same price as the old RON97.
Looking to sell your car? Sell it with Carro.
I still use Ron 97. My car is wira 1.5 year 1997. Old carburetor engine so I opted to higher octane petrol. I dont want to take risk of having my engine break down because of ron 95…
I using kancil and have using SHELL RON95 from kl to ipoh and back to kl. Engine seems fine but the power and mileage seem little bit bad.
errmmm….yup ron 95 is no power when drive long distance….but 5 type fuel operator i better choose TEChRon Caltex coz…more save n powerful accelerate….
I am using Merc C200 Elegance year 93, i think 95 petronas is better than 95 shell…using that 95 shell, even i can't catch up myvi (from static) while the 95 petronas is almost similar performance like 97…but i think it's depending on the engine
Ron95 sucks. My engine roars louder with absolutely no pickup.
i drive saga blm 1.3 and has been using M or E brand petrol for long. start pumping its RON95 from 28 Aug, feel no much different though~ which is also a good thing~
well, i may not really know the theory behind the RON value but after pumping the new Syn5000(R95) fuel from our regular Exxon station, my mum said her car did feel less responsive than the day before. Any idea?
gotta be extra wary…. my car has been warned by HMSB not to use Ron 95… must use Ron97…
Hi guys, when you mention your mileage gets worse, please share your before and after mileage figures.
fuel: shell ron97->ron95
car: myvi '09
results: less pickup, less power, fc worse
really unhappy wit the dffrnce ;(..
mine is 2004 Accent (A), i usually pump with shell ron97, the mileage can go between 170km to 190km (city/hiway)…i tried to fill with shell ron95 last week and i only managed to get only 130-140km (city/hiway).:(..maybe i should try another brand?
'03 Merc C200 Avantgarde. same as before. power delivery, mileage. full tank of about RM100 brings on average 430-450 km for city driving. shell 95. previously shell 97. haven't tested long distance yet, and it will be a while before i do so, as i hardly ever go outstation unless KLIA is considered a "long-distance" drive, in which the full tank will easily clock 500km+ (one return KLIA trip plus city driving).
that 170km – 190km is 16.67litres…sorry forgot that..hehe
My persona having problems starting on the first crank after the engine is warmed up. i would not like to comment on the mileage as my driving patten differ on my moods. but will let u know soon.
Shell low pick up, power & milage
Petronas average power but batter millage
Mobil & Esso almost same as Petronas
Caltec as par as Petonas but get a bit extra power.
Tested on Accord & Savvy.
Same as before..nothing different.. :)
2nd tank of Shell RON95, milleage almost the same but get better respond compare to RON97 on my FOCUS MKII 2.0S…
Saga BLM Mar2009
im regular user of shell RON97,
ya alot of ppl complain abt shell 95….id rather use 97..
Saga BLM Mar2009
im regular user of shell RON97, when they introduced shell RON95, i've been using i then.
i found that the engine sounded a little bit rough and maintaining speed at 140km/hour is not as comfortable as before. The pickup less responsive.
So recently i tried the Petronas RON95 instead. I found it a little bit better than Shell RON95. Im quite suprise as the different was quite obvious.
So im going to try around for other brand after this till i find the best one. Im going to try Caltex as they really2 put all out for their new RON95 promotion.
So hope from others to do the same so we can share opinion on several brand.
Saga BLM Mar2009, im regular user of shell RON97,
when they introduced shell RON95, i've been using it since then. i found that the engine sounded a little bit rough and maintaining speed at 140km/hour is not as comfortable as before. The pickup less responsive. So recently i tried the Petronas RON95 instead. I found it a little bit better than Shell RON95. Im quite suprise as the different was quite obvious.
So im going to try around for other brand after this till i find the best one. Im going to try Caltex as they really2 put all out for their new RON95 promotion. So hope from others to do the same so we can share opinion on several brand.
Paul, maybe u need to ask for specific effect, such as pinking noise when using R0N95… N is it true RON97 n/a @ this moment? I'm yet to refill petrol since 1st sept, my car need @ least RON95, need to maintain RON97, although theoritically less diff btween the 2 value… my understanding is lower octane value faster fuel burning, higher octane value slower fuel burning, i follow the latter
Despite what Honda said, i filled 3/4 tank of 2005 Jazz with Shell 95 with remaining 1/4 of Ron97. Engine noisier and rougher, but consumption seems ok.
Full tank with 95 for 1985 Merc 230TE perahu – seems better power and mileage, but slightly more vibration.
My kid's using the Ron 95 for their '01 Kembara and '06 Savvy – cursing ++. I told them its all in the head! Eldest kid dare not change with his '09 Civic, don't bother since he's eaning enuff to barely survive.
Missus got Co. car, so who cares!
Current assumption – better on old cars, but a miss for post modern ones.
Car: 2006 Suzuki Swift (A)
CON-sumption: RON 97: Ave. 14.4 km/l
RON 95 : Ave 13.8km/l
Higher consumption due to lack of power(noticeable esp at high speed), since will be pressing the throttle more. Slower pickup to speed of 160km/h or so. Engine sound the same(luckily).
Definitely a much inferior fuel grade is all I can say. And what ticked me off is that we're paying the same as RON 97! Happy 52nd Merdeka(losers!)
Australia has 3 different grades for just the fuel itself:
– B20 (RON95 + Biodiesel)
– RON95
– RON 98
(not to mention Vpower or any other brand specific product)
I have tested the difference and in a nutshell, B20 have less mileage compared to RON95. Similarly, RON98 has more mileage compared to RON95. Mileage wise, its (I'm driving Civic 1.8 '07), for a full tank it would yield:
B20 approx 550kms
RON95 approx 600kms
RON98 approx 640kms
Whatever addictive they claim to add, you guys are paying for lower grade fuel for the same price you used to pay for RON97 (whoever has the statistic on Civic's cost of running in Malaysia can testify to the mileage difference in a full tank if the addictive works).
The government just conveniently increase the price for you guys with the change.
Kenari (A) ,
engine sound louder + rough
lack of power especially when pickup
current using 'S' brand, never try for others brand yet.
2006 Honda City VTEC:
The average meter on the dashboard so far showing 13.5km/l on RON95 (Caltex), 14~15km/l on RON97. [1/2 City, 1/2highway] Will have more result after finish this first tank of RON95.
First impression on RON95, my car feels like driving i-DSI. My wife told me the car don't response to her, no power at all! I think this is because before this we use V-power from Shell.
Sad, this is petrol price hike, because RON95 is to replace RON92 la.
I'm using Toyota Opa 2.0 and tried Ron95 last week. Power – sucks! Fuel consumption very high. Engines roars louder with absolutely no pickup!
Now I've changed back to Ron97. Much better.
Mine is Perdana V6. No problem with RON95. Only tried Petronas so far and will try other brand too.
Power seem not much difference as well as mileage about 0.25 cts per km.
I only like to complain that how come miserable 5 cents also the gormen want to rob from the rakyat just after 2 days since RON95 is in effect????
This gormen is giving all the empty promises to rakyat!!!!
I'm using Shell 95 for my 2006 smart forfour 1.5 and obtain good results. Previously, with 97, the engine would knock at certain RPMs. But now, no more knocks and while initial pick-up is slower, cruising has improved where I can stay at 6th gear longer than last time.
Perhaps, changing the fuel filter might help?
i m driving a 1996 Honda Accord, and i realized that using the Shell Ron95 has resulted a slow initial pick-up (as what other readers said) but it starts picking up later…i feel that my car is much responsive than using ROn97…is it just me or the car? :D
i used shell ron95 for my 13 years old ex5 motor
feel more power, better pickup, lighter weight, more mileage :D
thanks shell
My one Myvi 2005 (first model)..
Using Primax95 more milleage. Previously 1bar can go up to 55km, but now can extend up to 63km.
But engine sound noisier..
I own 2 types of modified car. Both has JDM engine transplant. My daily cruiser is a Daihatsu Charade Espri, fully converted to DeTomaso, including the HD-E engine while my other car is a Proton Waja with 4G92 MIVEC engine (Lancer CK4 half cut).
The HD-E engine of my Charade has no problem using RON95 fuel. There is hardly any change in terms of performance and mileage. But it is a different case with my MIVEC. The engine noticeably felt sluggish when I use RON95 fuel. I've immediately change back to RON97 as I fear it might damage the engine. Most probably the high compression nature of the MIVEC engine requires higher octane fuel to work optimally.
I managed to go till 370km using Ron 95. The engine roars louder than before, but i can live with that. Oh, im using Saga BLM 1.3. Why don't u guys pour some X1-R.Last time when i use Ron 97 without X1-R i only get to reach 300++km. Not trying to promote the product, but it really works.
Car ; Savvy 05
Fuel ; Primax95
Millage ; As for me, primax95 give more millage compare to previous primax Ron97. In city driving, full tank can clock 490km ++..
From Ampang to UKM Kampung Baru..KL.. UKM Bangi… Less power power for sure but millage is better. I usually drive about 90kmj – 120kmj.
what's RON95 again? owh.. that lower octane fuel that's making my car sound like a bus..
just exaggerating..
Shell Ron 95 on Civic, would say no pick up..less responsive..top speed haven't tried and the same goes to other petrol provider..dare not try it anymore..
I drive an '05 Savvy manual. Shell 95 on my tank right now and by far i have more fuel economy. Normally a half tank of Shell 97 will take me about 150-170km. But right now, half tank of Shell 95 is giving me 210km! i'm waiting to see how far a full tank can go.
Savvy 06,
travelled from Kedah to Perak.
Slightly improved on RON 95 on mileage.
Pickup… I have no idea cause savvy 1.2 does not have good pickup and i just changed the clutch.
For RON 97, i cannot overtake an EVO. With RON 95, i still cannot overtake an EVO.
driving a Proton Gen-2 1.3 Auto 2006.
before: Shell 97
Now : shell 95
feel nothing really change. Engine is just as smooth as before. FC is almost the same. able to accelerate at proper rate.
The sluggish performance could be due to the mixed between the previous RON92 petrol with the new RON95 petrol that now resides in the same RON92 tanks.
I'll give it a month or 2 before switching over.
RM2.05 is a bit expensive for now. And paying RM1.80 for a lesser product seems we're being cheated.
Funny how the Sec-Gen of Domestic Trade mentioned you save 25cents by downgrading from RON97 to RON95. He must think everyone is a fool.
http://biz.thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/20…
Anyhow anyone tried BHP?
Kia Spectra LS 1.6..using Shell RON 95… performance of the engine looks no different.. but RON95 reduced pick up a little bit!!
Petronas 95: Mileage 460km/full tank (36 Litre of petrol). Before 400 to 420 for 36 litre on Petronas Primax 97. Driving P1 G2 2005 MT, Mileage 148K. Commute daily from Shah Alam to KLCC.
For those who are unlucky and force to use RON 97, are we going to suffer paying RM2.05 per/l or higher for petrol until the G is change?
For those motorbike owner who have to pay extra for RON 95 now, no comments?
Who will care about us?
P1 Wira 1.3(M) 94
Petronas Ron95
Better mileage compared to Ron97. 50 buck for Ron 95 can travel up to 300km++ while Ron 97 is around 250km++. Pick-up better compared to 97 but slightly vibrat. Look like no ppl try BHP Ron95. The next fuel i goin to try. THX!
Drive a 1991 BMW 318i, manual only calls for RON 91.
Before: Primax3 (RON97)
Now: Primax95 and BHPinfiniti95 (RON95)
Only on my 2nd tank of RON95 now, but no significant difference so far, in performance/noise/FC. Engine still sounds the same and hits the redline as per usual. Will probably stick to RON95, but now just trying out the few different brands.
Car : Renault Espace 2.0a 8v 1999, Renault 19 1.8i m 1995
Petrol : Petronas RON95
Consumption : Quite the same compared to RON97
Power / Pick up : Less but not significant.
Others : The MPV seems a little slow off the line and sometimes "hiccups" during acceleration. Changed new petrol filter and put concentrated petrol cleaner. But overall seems fine. Both cars require minimum RON95 octane rating.
my problem is the near by Mobil station duno hv enough RON95 pump… RON97 alot
I am still doubt in the statement made by gov that we need more $$ to buy petrol after USD has been deflated. But should that also means we need less Ringgit to buy USD to buy petrol?
I usually pump Petronas but opted for the MObil Ron 95 as i was rushing back to hometown (Muar) last weekend.
Filled up a full tank, from almost an empty tank in my City Vtec 2008 right to the border, which i usually do.
At first when i switched on the engine, there was a lapse in the ignition but it did eventually turn on after a quick scare… the engine seems slightly louder during my drive down the highway but i did realise my tank lasting for much longer than usual.
My Average speed down to Muar was 135km to 150km./hr which on my previous experiences would bring my tank to almost slightly above half full.. but this time, reached destination with 3/4 tank full.
Now i dont have the mileage/km so pls dont ask. but if any of you had any similar experiences with mobil, that would mean im switching from petronas very soon.
filled up my ex5 cub with shell ron95. no noticable power/milage loss…will keep on monitoring the needle
if the car agree on 95, -using 97 is nothing,
like using brake fluid agree at dot 3. using dot 4 is not improve anything.
well psychologically people would say using dot 4, brake is grippier.
using ground cable car is pick up
super 4 bosh more pickup.
using nitogen gas for tyre car is more pickup.
—-phychology—-
nothing is change
except for the rich get richer
while the poor get poorer…
Please check your car's compatibility in this web
http://www.motortrader.com.my/NUS/articles/articl…
my car: persona se 1.6 (2008)
During my experience
Shell Super Ron97
Full Tank (RM70) = 480km distance
Petronas Primax 3 Ron97
Full Tank (RM70) = 500km distance
Shell Ron97 with Formula Penjimatan Minyak (KONON)
Full Tank (RM70) = 390km with less pick up.. my car bit more heavier
Petronas Ron97
Full Tank (RM70) = Still under experiment. hehehe
During my experience
Shell Super Ron97
Full Tank (RM70) = 480km distance
Petronas Primax 3 Ron97
Full Tank (RM70) = 500km distance
Shell Ron97 with Formula Penjimatan Minyak (KONON)
Full Tank (RM70) = 390km with less pick up.. my car bit more heavier
Petronas Ron95
Full Tank (RM70) = Still under experiment. hehehe
During my experience
Shell Super Ron97
Full Tank (RM70) = 480km distance
Petronas Primax 3 Ron97
Full Tank (RM70) = 500km distance
Shell Ron95 with Formula Penjimatan Minyak (KONON)
Full Tank (RM70) = 390km with less pick up.. my car bit more heavier
Petronas Ron97
Full Tank (RM70) = Still under experiment. hehehe
* Sorry salah taip yang sebelum nie td..
During my experience
Shell Super Ron97
Full Tank (RM70) = 480km distance
Petronas Primax 3 Ron97
Full Tank (RM70) = 500km distance
Shell Ron95 with Formula Penjimatan Minyak (KONON)
Full Tank (RM70) = 390km with less pick up.. my car bit more heavier
Petronas Ron95
Full Tank (RM70) = Still under experiment. hehehe
Car: '03 BMW 318i e46
it feels same like before in town use. no noticable decrease feeling on the acceleration/power.. haven't tried long distance yet.. this is maybe because the engine build… the car can use RON 91-RON 99… so RON 95 should be no problem.. for now at least…
Gen2 1.6 Manual 2004. From Primax3 -> Primax95. Felt little power loss. Mileage gained for long distance travel. Not sure for short trips. No different on engine sound.
I drive year 2004 nissan sentra sgl 1.6.For me i can feel my engine much more quiet and smoother when using ron 95 frm petronas.Mileage more or less the same for me
On first tank of Petronas 95. Stupid station closeby no longer offers 97.
Pings. Had to drop timing 2 degrees (back to normal), resulting in power loss and drop in responsiveness primarily in the 1000-3000rpm torque band.
Driven accordingly, should expect a slight drop in fuel consumption due to the power loss.
Satria 1.8 Sohc manual. Lucky for me, engine is the low compression type so no other issues with that unless going too aggressive with timing.
Dunno if this is because of the fuel quality is bad, but I had PON88 Esso (equivalent to RON92) with my 4G63 DOHC NA Galant and it works better despite the same compression at 9.2:1. RON 95 can already be classified as a premium PON91 fuel in most stations in North America.
For those who complain about less pickup using RON95, blame it on your car coz have less horse power.
hahaha.
accelerate n power decrease.
i don't care much bout FC.
Helo all! Tested Shell Ron95 with company 2004 honda civic 2.0….not that smooth when driving, fc didnt test cos it is not a big deal as my company paying for the tank…hehe….but overall i can say 95% as of ron 97…while havent and will not test my own car (1995 Wira 1.3 M) on ron95 as i still pump with V-power but sometime adding my tank with Caltex and BHP Ron97.
The biggest impact is those who own JDM vehicles as they were tuned for RON 100…. had they pumped RON 92 before engine might not even start ….
BMW's are another problem as their engines run very lean which means danger of knocking is high if you pump lower ron petrol. so better pump RON 97 and pay the extra …
Using shell RON95 on my 5 yrs ols Hyundai Elantra. Pick Up is bad, fuel consumption seem like getting a bit worst…also engine seem like rough…ai..i wan RON97..perhaps i will give Caltex and Petronas a try.
Aku pakai Proton Saga 1.5 (M) Sedan Tahun 1990, karburetor. Lepas isi RON 95, enjin bunyi bising sikit adakala macam berdengung dan agak kasar walaupun perjalanan agak lancar. Memang pick-up kurang sikit terutama masa memotong. Enjin bunyi lagi 'mengaum' masa tu. Kalau siapa yang ada duit lebih sikit, baik pakai RON 97. Walau harga mahal, insyallah jangka hayat kereta lebih tahan lama. Tak payah nak buang duit repair enjin selalu breakdown.Kereta nak tahan lama yang penting kualiti petrol dan maintain servis & safety.
I have pumped primax95…and using BLM now
Generally only difference is the lower power especially on the pick up…..
So, with low pick up, then you need to press the pedal harder and FC
become bad compare to before especially in city driving…
When in higher speed is not much difference thought.
Civic 2.0S.
Using Shell95, ..No difference so far for acceleration, FC and engine noise. Same same…But forTop speed..dont know yet..bcos never try…
Car : Honda City Vtech 2005
Travel : Kl – Kangar
Before : Normal Engine Oil, Petronas Ron 97, Full Tank ~ 500km
After : Semi-Synthetic Engine Oil, Petronas Ron 95, Full Tank ~ 580km ;)
Paul you need to pump RON 97….
Is it for your BMW 3 series?
hi savvians, im hv savvy amt 09, is ron95 compatible with it?
Car: Proton Waja (2001)
Fuel: Shell RON95 (Previously Shell RON97)
Result: Slower acceleration and less throttle response.
Fuel comsumptiom not certain, just started using.. but seems to be
more or less the same.
Honda City IDSI (Caltex RON95)
1st Tank RON95 80% + RON97 20% = no pick up, less power, but consumption no different.
2ng Tank RON95 99.9% = GOOD PICK UP, GOOD RESPOND, BETTER POWER THAN RON97 and GOOD CONSUMPTION.
I think is not a good idea to mix 2 type of different RON. Performance will be better as you DRAIN as clean as you can before u pump RON95.
Ok. I used to use RON92 (mainly Esso and Caltex) for my Yamaha 125z bike (2-stroker & the most powerful moped bike around, FYI). Occassionally I use RON97 (before most recent price hike). I first filled up RON95 with Esso. To my surprise, power is quite bad, worse than RON92. Don't know why. And the engine will quite easily die while idling. On the next refill, tried RON95 Caltex. Performance is ok; same as before. It may be a freak occurance, but I think I'll avoid Esso RON95 for the moment. Next, I'll try other brands. My cars are still full with RON97: haven't tried RON95.
Paul, can we get some gas sponsor to make some in house testing?
Mostly the feel from driver is very subjective.
If we can get a different type of engine with different compression ratio and performance to run a power & torque test.
I still remember either Japanese or others tested a WRX STi using different RON and the result is RON100 give best result and RON98 give significant same as RON100 but RON95 give a not very acceptable result. So the conclusion in the video is, if you pump in more than required RON, you won't have any edge but pumping lower than what you need, you get in trouble. Pump whichever fuel your engine appreciate.
Using 95RON on my Kancil feel a little bit underpower and lower milage. before this using 97RON still ok. Last time try 92RON BHP, it's cheaper but less pickup. By the way, the 95 is way better than 92 but maybe we are not used to it. Its like if u are regularly using pentium2 PC you used to it, but when your used to core2 duo and switching back to pentium 2 you feel very sluggish. Just like that.
Car: 2006 Honda Civic (FD) 2.0 (stock)
Fuel before RON95: Synergy F-1 (RM1.80)
Fuel consumption: 1 liter for 10.01KM
How I drive: Maintain at 2000 rpm (because want to save petrol)
Fuel after RON95: Synergy 5000 (RM1.80)
Fuel consumption: 1 liter for 10.2KM
How I drive: Recently busy, rev a lot, between 2500 and 3000 rpm
Conclusion, after using Synergy 5000, although I rev more, but my statistic shows more millage than previous. Reason why Esso or Mobil? Because their royalty card can redeem petrol, some more can transfer point between cards. Performance wise, last time engine used to be noisy, quite revvy, but just won't move. Now slightly quiet, and it does move.
Speaking of responsive, not so, but my opinion is, this is car problem. Honda Civic FD has this problem with low rev, a slight press won't move the car. Due to their drive-by-wire kind of stuff, some electronic throttle device can help.
Additional info, 1 full tank usually costs me around RM73 (around 38 liter), since I don't take risk of running out of fuel, so I usually top up when the amber light is on. According to Honda, Civic fuel tank is 50 liter. I can only say, the remaining 10 liter is reserved. Maximum millage I ever achieved is 420KM (when amber light is on).
With RON95, reduced acceleration, increased fuel consumption and there is more vibration sent to dashboard. I revert back to RON97 due to the above though it is more expensive. Now, petrol vendors get more revenues or sales due to the increased fuel consumption or reduced mileage. Government did a good job to increase its revenues!
Zidane said,
September 4, 2009 @ 2:35 pm
Savvy 06,
travelled from Kedah to Perak.
…….
For RON 97, i cannot overtake an EVO. With RON 95, i still cannot overtake an EVO.
____________________________________________________________________________
this is funny! :)
Car: '97 1.3GL satria. Cab engine.
Petrol: Shell RON95 for past 2 weeks. Full tank.
Definitely noticed slight decrease in pickup from standstill. No change in engine sound & responsiveness once going. FC may or may not have improved due to driving less aggressively and not go over 100km/h on highway.
Before: RON97 delivered 11+ km / 1 L
After: RON95 delivered 12+km / 1 L
Underwent full engine overhaul / de-sludging before the switch, and definitely played major role in FC.
Will tune the engine timing to better tolerate new petrol grade and minimise chances of knockings. Can live with the possible decrease in pickup.
on Myvi 08 1.3 auto on 95 – 30% – 40% loss of power during acceleration (yes a lot). top speed still reachable easily but of coz lah need more time than 97. serviced after 3 times filled with 95 full tank, found that spark plug (changed 5 months ago), is now totally destroyed. (probably of that also the car performance dropped that much but with 97 before still ok wat?)
frens Myvi 08 1.3 manual on 95 – wadafak? stil perform same with 97? =(
guess its lucky for manual users. miao
savvy '05 manual. mileage 125k+ with badly need change of air filter!! :)
don really filled up until full tank.. and just started using RON95.
FC
using RON97 22.222l =RM40(before 1st Sept) clock 300km++ and the warning light lit (route Kajang To Kelana Jaya, via Besraya-EWLink-FedHighway-PJ17-Sprint)
using RON95 22.222l =RM40(coz same price) just filled with RON95 for the first time, but until today seems like the same if not better FC.
Performance.
not much different,
acceleration from 20km/h in 2nd gear still the same(after going thru Smart Tag)
acceleration from 60km/h in 4th gear still the same(after lane hogger change lane)
acceleration smooth until 110km/h no problem.
Cruising @ 90km/h engine still as quite as before, no sound intrusion.
Footnote: I'm using Exxon Syn5000 and previously Exxon SynF1. I would actually prefer BHP Infinity97(tried it before for 2months) for the like of its performance and fuel saving and I believe the same for Infinity95 2x. (manage to clock extra 50+km before the warning light lit with 22.222l) but swith back to Exxon due to Smile bonus point that can redeem petrol. Need to stretch my RM. Eventho thru massive calculation and in long run I can achieve more km with BHP, but I rather have the Smile point something like a saving for rainy day(or stormy one!)
Dont you guys realise. Its an indirect way of the government increasing the price of fuel. The best part they further increased 5c per litre the day before implementation. Will they ever have the brains to serve the people and not themselves. Screw merdeka, cause now were entrapped by idiots… what sort of merdeka is this. Tuk Haji also can catch malays if they drink beer. where is the freedom. Merdeka my arse.
By the way RON95 sucks. Tried on my Vios. Modification 2 inch exhaust system with drop in k&n airfilter. Car sounds so much louder. Loss of torque. Top speed still can go but u just dun have torque. Engine becomes lifeless. Will be going back to RON97. And yes i pay more money to the government. Ridiculous.
savvy '05 manual.
mileage 125k+ with badly need change of air filter!! :)
don really filled up until full tank.. and just started using RON95.
FC
using RON97 22.222l =RM40(before 1st Sept) clock 300km++ and the warning light lit (route Kajang To Kelana Jaya, via Besraya-EWLink-FedHighway-PJ17-Sprint)
using RON95 22.222l =RM40(coz same price) just filled with RON95 for the first time, but until today seems like the same if not better FC.
Performance.
not much different,
acceleration from 20km/h in 2nd gear still the same(after going thru Smart Tag)
acceleration from 60km/h in 4th gear still the same(after lane hogger change lane)
acceleration smooth until 110km/h no problem.
Cruising @ 90km/h engine still as quite as before, no sound intrusion.
Footnote: I'm using Exxon Syn5000 and previously Exxon SynF1. I would actually prefer BHP Infinity97(tried it before for 2months) for the like of its performance and fuel saving and I believe the same for Infinity95 2x. (manage to clock extra 50+km before the warning light lit with 22.222l) but swith back to Exxon due to Smile bonus point that can redeem petrol. Need to stretch my RM. Eventho thru massive calculation and in long run I can achieve more km with BHP, but I rather have the Smile point something like a saving for rainy day(or stormy one!)
alamak.. double post! sorry
Waja 4G18 with Shell RON 95 = less pickup & more vibration :(
so whats the conclusion? it sounds like all psychological without any real scientific or empirical test :P
I notice lot of Petronas station don't have RON97 why ? also there were no V Power form Shell station Why?
I use my 28 year old junk Toyota to do test, RON97 engine more powerful but the big noise from engine and less mileage; RON95 quiet engine less vibration more mileage distance but less pick up power.
Neo 2006 M/T,
RON 95 PETRONAS/BHPETROL/CALTEX = no significant difference in mileage n pickup(minor feeling of smoother engine and better fuel consumption from instrument n L I need to pump), used ron95 caltex during track day, no power lost. havent tried shell, no comment on that company.
If petrol stations starts to stop selling RON95, it just means we basically when 1 step foward and 2 step backwards.
Car: Kancil wif JB-JL 16v DOHC Turbocharge 660cc
Mods: Open Pod filter only…
RON92 usage = 330km avg mixed road condition and boosting
RON95 usage = 350km avg mixed road condition and boosting
RON97 usage = 360km avg mixed road condition and boosting
when using RON92, the engine sounded corse… but when using RON95 and above felt smooth…
as per engine lubes, I used Magnatec 10W40… if I used 10W30 like Daihatsu recommendation I can clock up to 400km when using RON97
Was wondering they petrol vendors go put all those detergents and fuel-saver and all the cleaning agents, minyak sawit and all… heck those things don't burn… itu semua tukang cuci bukan bahan bakar…. how to contribute to combustion… dunno if they overdose thing non-fuel ingredients or not… then charge us….. enjin bersih… .
Tried 3 tanks of BHP RON95 on my 1.5(A) Swift (Minimum RON91 required). No difference.
I always believe that the oil companies will not simply launch a kind of petrol that would damage our engine, loads of tests & experiments being carried out before introducing a new type of petrol.
As long as you pump in the petrol that >= your minimum RON rating according to your car manual, it is definately safe. And do not forget that most modern cars are equipped with an Octane Sensor that will adjust the engine ignition timing to prevent engine knocking just in case you pump in the lower RON rating petrol.
Just imagine all types of high performance sports car here (ferrari, porche, aston martin, jaguar, etc), I believe their minimum RON requirement would be at least RON98 and above or maybe RON100, so do you think pumping in RON97 previously will damage their engine? No complaint from these super cars owners but so many complaints from the normal car owners that pump in RON95 while their engine only need minimum RON91 or perhaps RON95 to operate. In fact before this most of the cars including Hondas can take RON92 but I think only ~1% of Honda's owners tried RON92.
We need to have a mentality to believe that not everything that is expensive is better. Just like when you only need to do some paper work and emails and some casual internet surfing, a 1Mbps line is more than enough, do you need to get a 2Mbps line that you "think" is faster?
wochomi said,
September 4, 2009 @ 5:33 pm
less carbon deposit in ur combustion chamber gives u better power n fc, it definitely has a lot of difference in mileage if u compare between bhpetrol n shell, shell is like petrol kosong -.-"
Ok here is the findings:
RON 97 fuel no more offered in SiBu state (Consumer already complaint to Borneo post but no action taken by our government).
RON95 on older car (1980's range to 1990) 1300cc Toyota Corolla Station Wagon
Good millege RM50 travel 350 compared to RM50 RON97 only travel 230km cooler engine operating temp and not so harsh engine noise.
If fill with RON97, the fuel indication will goes hair wire and show "E" even already fill full. (So normally drive using regular Shell RON92. Since RON92 no more in the market, RON95 works good for it)
2nd car Proton Wira with 4G92 MIVEC engine.
RON97 fuel is the regular fuel for this car. Since Sibu no more offer RON97, tried on RON95 and engine ping and really harsh engine vibration and idling even when it is fully retarted timing. Millege for RON97 RM50 travel 280km while RON95 RM50 travel 220km same distance same speed and same route/time/condition travel – non trafic jam time.
3rd car Viva 660 (Wife car)
Regularly use RON97 fuel from petronas RM30 travel 400km. Now using RON95 fuel from Petronas called Primax95 RM30 travel 320km. Engine harsh vibration, loud and laggy feel on hot afternoon (even already send to Perodua service center to complain on it and nothing can be done already).
4th car Perodua Myvi (Father's car)
Regularly use RON92 Shell Regular fuel. Now using RON95. Millege still the same and not much different. However the engine more quiet in cold morning but very harsh and loud in hot afternoon. (Already send to Perodua service center to checking and found nothing wrong – luckily no charge due to car still under warranty)
5th car Proton Saga BLM (Manual trans)
Regularly using Petronas Primax3 (RON97) fuel. RM40 millege 430km. Now using RON95 (Primax95) RM40 millege 350km. Same conditions of driving. Engine very laggy and harsh sound. (Already send to Proton edar to tunned and still same.)
So overall in conclusion, Caburetor cars using older technology are good for RON95 fuel while newer generation with lots of electronic controled car are better off with higher RON especially in the hot climate Malaysia.
By the way, Paul, could you help to get enquire from the government why is it they not only remove RON92 but RON97 as well? Especially in Sibu.
read here :
http://www.brudirect.com/index.php/The-Borneo-Pos…
or Malay version
http://www.mysarawak.org/2009/09/02/tiada-lagi-ro…
Message to the Government: Please take care of us Sarawakian here as well. Don't neglect us.
from all the brothers' above, it seems like
ron95 works better or won't affect 'old' car ..
but new car definitely being affected~
can anyone tell me why is tat so??
sorry, lack of knowledge in tat~~~
after reading all the comments, it seems like
RON95 works better or won’t affect ‘OLD’ car ..
but NEW car definitely being affected~
WHY????
can anyone tell me why is tat so??
sorry, lack of knowledge in tat~~~
Anyone here has a solution for cars that have minimum Ron 98 requirement ?
Last time I use Ron 97 …now even RON 97 is not easily available.
How ? Migrate tp other country ?
toyota supra 3.0 twin turbo,year 1997, a bit hard to start at morning & get white smoke each time start the car,except this not changer between this 2 type of fuel,but suprisingly my brand new BMW 230i run smooth with ron95, hmmmmmmmm!!!
Anything got to do with Carburetor and Fuel Injection?
People telling me cars on carburetor lost power when using RON95.
Dunno lah.. anybody can help?
I drove Waja 1.6MT 2005 with newly overhauled on engine
STRESS TEST:
With 97
– Easily reach 160km/h
– Pickup was good
With 95 (Pump after tank is empty to ensure no mixture of 95/97
– Reached 150km/h and couple of tens second later to reach 160km/h
– Pickup rather like brand new Myvi
NORM TEST ON CITY:
Both 95/97 not much in different in term of mileage and price.
NORM TEST ON HILLY ROAD:
Different is significant on performance especially climbing +10' road where 97 is can be drove a shift gear higher than 95.
The petrol price increase is due to the global petrol price hike..nothing to do with the gov..and i believe if they dont introduce RON95..the price of normal RON97 will be increase by now..
Car: 08 Myvi 1.3 Manual
Before: Shell Ron97
Now: Shell Ron95
Feel the same, nothing different.
top speed that i tried around 160km/h same for both.
Pick up same as Ron97
FC full tank 450km++ same as Ron97.
Hi all,
I'm driving Saga BLM 1.3 an old timer Ford laser TX3 DOHC
I've tested 3 types of brands so far on city driving
Saga BLM 1.3
Shell 95 – Sucks! (worse fuel consumption and power)
BHP 95×2 – feels lack of power(have to severaly step on the pedal) but fuel consumption is ok
Petronas Primax95 – best so far! almost feels no different..then 97..but feels lack of power a bit.
Ford TX3
No choice…have to use 97…95 will feel very under powered..but petronas 95 is toleratable for FC n power is average./
caburator js need to tune the a/f ratio, Air/Fuel ratio. fuel injection is adjusted by ecu, so shouldn't be a problem as long as the engine equip with knock sensor. Carbon deposit accumulated all these years can increase compression ratio which in turn increased pressure(which might create knocking due to higher pressure increase the risk of pre ignition for caburator engine).
lost of power is depending on the state of tune for ur engine, if ur engine is tuned to advance ignition, it might cause u trouble(e.g. knocking), in performance perspective, ecu retard ignition timing to compensate ron95's lower tolerance to ignite might lower the performance.
other than that, there might b other reason to lost of power, perhaps some sifu can shed some light on this topic?
Went to Thailand last week and pumped Ron 95 , my car was surely thirstier than before , other than that no problems . Sounds what sound?? always thought that the louder the better like my Alfa ( sweet ) and some people even modify their butt pipes to sound louder. Have to agree with Hiu though that some people will be richer and many will be poorer.
If our G is so 'CONCERN' about the citizen, then bring the RON91 and various car company would not have problem bringing in US market car! Problem solve! ow…forgot that Proton might need 25 years to come up with an engine that is compilable with RON91 then… and again…the G will revert it back to the current system to help their 'konco' at Proton because they are more important than the citizen. As much as I love to support Malaysian product, after owning 3 Proton in my family, I'm finally lost hope.
Car: Honda City Vtec 2007
Result with Ron95:
1. RPM drop immediately when I lift my foot from the pedal.
2. Engine gets noisier
3. Some vibration when idle (none with Ron97).
The mileage of my Teemah was quite bad when i switched to RON95 initially, However, after few fill-ups with RON95 (Petronas & Shell), the mileage seems much better compared to when i used RON97 (also Petronas & Shell),, Roughly about 7%-10% better mileage than before.
Powerwise, feels slightly less power than before.
2008 Honda City 1.5 VTEC
Full tank = 38 litre can go 480 to 500km on RON97
Full tank 38 litre can go 500 to 510km on V-Power
Full tank 38 litre can go 425km on RON95
Gen2 1.6 2004,
Been using RON97 from shell , RM60 can hit average of 380KM
start using RON95 from shell last week, it's seems like i can't hardly reach 350KM with RM60
Just pump second round RON95 yesterday at petronas and see see the result..Hmm not sure whether it's psychological due to RON95 and cause my right foot slam harder on the pedal ….
Just finished entire tank of ron95 petrol (RM70) and the results
ron97 : 530KM
ron95 : 490KM
Acceleration also dropped a little bit.
Driving a 1999 Satria M/T
end of the day i think using ron97 saves me more money that the ron95
MyVi EZi '06
Switch frm BHP, Caltex (RON92) > BHP, Caltex (RON95)
Overall: Quieter from the engine bay not like BHP RON92 got knocking sound.
Mileage: estimate about 10-15km extra for full tank.
Will try ExxonMobil later on.
My car a SAVVY 2005. Use ron95 Petronas. No difference so far. The fuel lid says, use not less than Ron95.
I would like to know, for those that had bad experience with ron95, sound like u guys need to test further to verify ur result. dont just stick with 1 brand, especially shell(notoriously famous for selling something not as advertised). after a few more tanks(preferably 3 tanks/refill).
just to make things more scientific, remove all variable :P make sure ur air filter is clean, engine lub is still within service interval :) sorry, scientific is troublesome, but it also should be repeatable to make it valid, else, i'll just say its BS claim
Car : Iswara 1.3 A/B (Exhaust system modified + 15in Tyres)
Before:
Shell RON97 = 11.0km/l (power is good mileage is bad-due to big rims and big exhaust)
Now (so far):
Shell RON95 = 10.8km/l (loss of power greatly, but mileage bad)
BHP RON95 = 10.6km/l (power is good as Shell RON97, but mileage bad)
Primax 95 = under testing.
Weird stuff happen…my saga blm can go for a very consistance of 300km from a full tank of RON 95 instead of 240-260km per tank of RON 97… BTW I'm using CALTEX Premium 95…din try out others yet…
i'm driving wira 1.5 injection
primax 97 = 0.14++ cents/km
primax 95 = 0.13++ cents/km with mostly rough driving
so far my car has become more responsive and better pickup..hehe
here is my experience with my two cars and my dad's car……
average mileage with full tank…..for both city and town drive….
Shell V Power :
Honda Accord 3.5 V6 ( 550km )
Honda Civic 2.0 ( 370km )
Peugeot 207cc ( 220km )
Shell RON 97 :
Honda Accord 3.5 V6 ( 620km )
Honda Civic 2.0 ( 350km )
Peugeot 207cc ( 250km )
Shell RON 95 :
Honda Accord 3.5 V6 ( 580km )
Honda Civic 2.0 ( 380km )
Peugeot 207cc ( 330km )
PLEASE NOTE :
* due to some reason,we dont support PETRONAS….
* i drive my pug 207cc in sports mode most of the time……
* the accord gives good mileage since it has the VCM technology,so i dont
think different fuel give much difference….
* according to our car manual,it states that :
– Accord can run on RON 91 and above
– Civic also can run on RON 91 and above
– Peugeot 207cc ( BMW PSA Prince Engine ) can only run on RON 95
and above……
PLEASE DONT ASSUME :
* that myself and my dad work for honda,we dont,i am a lecturer and
my dad's a head of eng dept….we are not promoting honda,just that
we love honda cars….
* we use shell because we we get bonus link points…….
Can all the repliers state the condition like how % city % highway.
Most important is quote by km/l or l/km as oil price is not a good measurement since it is variable.
WEIRD STUFF HAPPEN… My Saga BLM can go for a consistant of 300km from a full tank of RON 95 instead of 240-260km per tank of RON 97…
Almost a 10km/l (spend most time in city!!!)
BTW, I'm using CALTEX Premium 95…din try others yet… :)
so far i test my persona se 2008 auto a major different between petronas ron95 and shell ron95.
Petronas Ron 95- Smooth engine but a bit rough on the acceleration.. by the way the power quite same with 97 and better in fc.
Shell Ron95 – Smooth also but no power in acceleration.. i feel more heavier of my persona.. need more acceleration for good move.. So i think thats why it bad in fc
ok test millage for even tne same ron number in different day would not get the same fc reading. lot of factor involve.
it can be done at least with 2 same car running togather at nearly the same driving style where both in different ron. this would be valid comparison.
i did't try yet..maybe this sunday i will try ron 95…from what 1 read above, brand Kerang is worst…caltex get more credit here…so my 1st try will be caltex as a benchmark before test other brand.
1994 Wira Auto:
—–
Short ans:
No knocking, can move. Just engine not that smooth and louder.
—–
Long ans:
First time pump in RM30 Caltex RON95 to tank full of Caltex RON97, car transforms to absolute sluggish. Lost all the pick up at once. It was really bad.
2nd time pump in RM52 Shell RON95, and wow, RM52 [email protected]? I usually pump RM40+ [email protected] every 250km, because my fuel gauge isn't working. But could be caused by me trying to test out RON95 and did a bit of flooring.
Still short of pick up, sometimes must engage 2nd gear to overcome slight slope like going up flyovers.
Pumped RM30 during the night of fuel price hike, just trying to enjoy the last drop of RM1.75 RON95.
Then car went for service, change yellow Shell oil, change sparks(totally black), change air filter, change fuel filter, change coolant…
Now I gain back a little bit power, now can accelerate on gear 3. But still, car has became sluggish.
Meh, I used to be able to overtake on up hill on 3rd gear on Caltex RON97.
Gotta try Petronas RON95 after reading ezudine, Shell really boh power.
Persona M Line 2008
Using ron95, can feel car underpower, less pickup. but still can maintain 140-160km/h.
Really hurt driving in town, high consumption :-(
For RON 97, most of the time I used Mobil, sometime I use Petronas. For RON 95, currently I am use Petronas RON 95.
Initially after full tank top-up with RON95 (There is some RON97 fuel balance in the car), the performance of the car drop; especially during harsh acceleration, but after the fuel had consumed about 1/4 of full tank, the performance return back to the original state. The car can accelerate normally. By the way I am using Proton’s Gen2 CPS – manual transmission.
Any P1 Gen.2 CPS owners here ?
Care to share yours ?
Car: Myvi 1.3 A
Year: June 09
Using Shell Ron95, my GOD! Acceleration power lost significantly. I tired to push push push the fuel pedal, my car just don't want to go :(
my dad used waja cps.. his comment same also with me.. Used petronas 95 better than shell 95..
but i really miss PROJET huhuhuhu
I means it don't want to run, it just "walk" slowly… :)
Those who are using 100k car and above.. better to use RON97 la.. pakai kete mahal xkan xleh isi minyak mahal kan.. hehehehe.. takat golongan marhaen like me.. nak xnak gune je la RON95… nasib badan…
currently driving Suzuki FR80. a bike.
after using the RON95 fuel, bike feel really lack of power compared to using RON97 ..
I wan my 97 back !!!
kelisa EZi first edition.
RON 95?
better milage… louder engine…
I wonder if its really RON95 when it feels like I pumped a tank of RON92.
I'm just sitting and waiting for a slew of engine failure reports.
so conclusion? im getting a split result here…
some say lower and higher..
I really don't know what is the fuss about? Most my petrolhead in the south country drove most Japan (Jazz, Fit, Swift, Vios etc etc) to continental ( Renault CC, VW Golf Sport, etc etc) used RON95 yet they feel no different between RON95 and RON98.
Yet just drove a few day you already complain RON97 is way superior. To all driver, allow your engine to run in longer. Using psychological to judge is too subjective. There are tests scientifically to shown higher RON don't give superior performance if your engine don't appreciate.
And most reply I read here all talk about only Proton and Perodua can't perform. Daihatsu Sirion is proven to run well in RON95, so MyVi the clone shouldn't have any issue. Proton Campro got issue with RON95? Do they need higher RON to run best?
People, take a break and be neutral when judge the RON performance.
Good idea to set up this "RON 95" thread Paul!
_____Car No.1 My Fuel Consumption_____
I'm driving Proton Persona IAFM, Manual Transmission.
Shell RON 97 = Same distance, 0.75 Meter Bar.
Shell RON 95 = Same distance, 1 Meter Bar. So its about 25% loss in mileage.
Conclusion, Shell RON 95 sucks.
Sorry guys, I didn't record my mileage, but my fuel consumption meter stats 7.3L/100 km before and after RON 95. So I have to rely on my meter bar which is quite okay too.
_____Car No.2 My Fuel Consumption_____
I'm driving Proton Gen 2 CPS, Auto Transmission
Shell RON 97 = Same distance, 0.75 Meter Bar.
Shell RON 95 = Same distance, 1 Meter Bar. So its about 25% loss in mileage.
Fuel consumption meter stats before and after RON 95 is 7.9L/100 km, so I have to rely on the meter bar again.
Conclusion, Shell RON 95 still sucks.
_____Another Fuel Consumption Story_____
My friend driving Toyota Wish – say no difference at all, Toyota Wish minimum Ron requirement is said to be RON 88. So switching from RON 97 to RON 95 may have very minimum effect on low RON car engine, which is good. Good engineering by the Japanese as usual.
_____Just a theory/opinion_____
Most probably Proton CamPro engine minimum RON is 92/95, so when switching from RON 97, the effect is very significant, about 25% loss of mileage, which is really bad! So, the way the car engine is engineered is a major contribution too.
_____Test Car Conditions_____
Both Proton Cars up there are still new (less than 1 year) and properly maintained. Toyota Wish is a second hand car.
End of report.
well said…..its all about psychological stuff…..
my car is satria 1.3 GLI…
i'm not sure why,but i feel my car get better performance with RON95
Millage is almost the same ..
I drive a Proton Persona 1;6 IAFM Manual,
RON95= Sucks! I feel that my car accelerate more weaker..and really anoyying when tring to over-tack a car when driving..phetathic..better RON97..
With my Saga/Iswara, I got less mileage per full tank. With RON 97, usually I can go up to 480-500km, but RON 95 I only managed to get around 400-420km per full tank, not to mention that it also felt more underpowered as compared to when I was using RON 97. Overtaking a lorry is more a painstaking experience nowadays with RON 95. No problem with Hyundai Grandeur, the mileage with RON 95 is almost comparable to that of RON 97.
What I meant with RON95 = Primax 95, and RON 97 = Primax 3. Rarely use any other brands.
For my old classic carburetted car, ron95 makes no difference, but the missing ron92 prices I used to pump my daily driver with will be sorely missed. The trick to making lower RON fuel to work is retarding the ignition. Running 16+ static with aggresive ignition on an engine that's going to run RO92 is a no-no.
However, for my turbo car, there's no way I can fill up on 95 without any adverse effects. Of course, a retune (and the marginal loss of power) would be one solution, but still RM2+/litre is insane! I'm lucky I have a second car I drive daily, but how about others? I'm curious what are you going to do with your turbo-charged/performance rides, esp. those with only one vehicle.I used to drive mine quite often, but the new prices means I'll relegate mine to a weekend ride, for now.
94 Toyota Camry 2.2 GX
Previous: BHP97
Current: BHP95
Less engine respond, Less power
p/s: Shell 97 worked bad on my engine, no power, so will not try Shell 95 at all.
Agreed with most of you… i felt a sudden less responsive pick-up right after filling up Shell's RON95.
RON95 really sucks!!! Much Louder engine noise & sluggish pick-up! This will be last time using RON95!
Kudos to Gomen for conning its citizens again! Damn…
Lots of complains on performance, but are all of you willing to fork out RM2+ per litre? It adds up in the long run, doesn't it?
Pick up ?
Mahu pergi mana………………….? I think all the attitude in driving that's all.
: )
After 52 years…………still pengsan attitude ! Not all lah of course.
i wonder is it really that big difference?
or is it psychological?
if the engine is not a high compression ratio engine, it shouldn't be of much difference.
Quoting from an article on octane number: "Octane rating does not relate to the energy content of the fuel. It is only a measure of the fuel's tendency to burn in a controlled manner, rather than exploding in an uncontrolled manner."
so even if there is difference in the performance, it should be more/less knocking. not more/less power. right?
maybe it's psychological.
our mind think RON95 is inferior, hence we tend to depress the accelerator more, which lead to higher fuel consumption.
and our mind override our senses by giving false information that the car is accelerating less than usual.
anyway, all this tests bear too many variables. we dont know whether our driving conditions are the same before and after.
Perhaps psychological has its own role, but one thing for sure, numbers don't lie.
Some comments up there (including mine) comes with actual fuel usage consumption versus mileage. The observation I did, as I presume, is a "controlled linear test". Variables are fixed, example, we use same type of gas (say Shell's RON 95), drive to the same work place and back home (strictly point A to B only), same driver (means similar style of driving), same time (say in the morning between 7am to 8am), which means similar kind of traffic jam congestion. The only variables left is; types of RON used. It's not the best accurate test, but one thing for sure, there's a significant loss in mileage (at least for my case).
chevrolet aveo 2005.start beli kereta sampai kini guna v-power&ron97. ron97.Bila cuba isi ron95 enjin knocking,kasar. pas tu x jimat langsung.today saya isi v-power enjin senyap,lancar,lebih power dan lebih jimat
ron95-full tank boleh pegi 380km
v-power-full tank boleh pegi 550km
ron97-full tank boleh pegi 400km
Reading through the comments, more or less it doesn't make any huge difference between RON95 and RON97. It's more towards 'feeling'.
I do 'feel' a slight difference after using RON95…but it's too subtle..I didn't even notice them until I read these comments above and tried to 'feel' it myself..
Yes, the engine does rumble a bit more but it's not tearing my ears off.
Yes, the power does lack a bit but still can move my car.
Yes, the mileage does drop a bit but I can still reach my destination. It's not like I'm traveling 300km++ everyday.
The main point of concern is just the price. Am I right? Be honest la.. :)
_________________________________________________________________________
Zidane said,
September 4, 2009 @ 2:35 pm
Read more: http://paultan.org/2009/09/04/share-your-ron95-ex…
________________________________________________________________________
Lol..I think what Zidane said sums up everything…
SY0H said,
September 5, 2009 @ 1:09 am
I dont agrees on same driver, its the same driver, but very different mindset, especially when that person thinks ron95 is inferior. that is the worst variable. all I can say is, set a predetermined trip, with same amount of weight distributed, but do a placebo test ;) u'll be amazed how human minds can trick themselves.
As for power test, best test is dyno. I bet there is very minimal loss in normal everyday transport, perhaps 1~5hp. U cant feel a thing like what some myvi drivers claim(40% performance reduction?! wow tat must be a retarded ecu that retarded the ignition too much just to prevent knocking?)
Really guys, RON number dont directly related to ur car performance unless ur car needed it. be reasonable guys, n please, scientific. psychological effect can be a huge factor, as it might not even affected anything, but just bcz u think of it that way, u'll c it the way u want.
Most of u that complains about lower fc, what company's fuel u used? perhaps can tell us? n perhaps its time to stab some of the company(in a bias way, I say mostly shell)
give it a few tanks, please dont be too pre-judgmental n be experimental with different brand of fuel. please dont be afraid to try new things, dont take authority as truth, n dont take what u heard as truth, question everything
before drive not feeling of hantu present car very smooth but
after drive when hear hantu story car feel very slugish (due to scare)….
hahahaha
sori joking
but ron95 feel no different in FC though with my car saga…at traffic light accelarate better than evo, camry, civic, and tuned car but they overtake later la kan coz they hav more power maa….
No matter how…what..I will stick with RON 97 for my 8th generation 2.4V Accord. I will use only shell. for both my accord & waja 1.6.
Regards.
hai guys…
the main point is, i hate using ron95, coz low power n consume much more fuel…
but, to use the ron97, seem like very expensive nowdays n not affordable for me to use daily with my persona…
hope gov able to bring the old price tag for consumer…
its burden people , gov just want to raise the fuel price by producing much lower octane grade for the higher price…
this is meaningful merdeka for malaysia…
Thanks for the reply guys, I have ruled out the "placebo" effect as well. Luckily I have another "controlled test subject" my wife (a woman) a human species who never care what type of fuel the car is using, suddenly complains after few days that the fuel is depleting faster than usual (versus the same mileage). The good thing about this, she doesn't know at all that I have fueled up the car with RON 95. And she doesn't know what's RON till explained it to her later. All car fuel pumping has always been carried out by me.
Notes: This is the best technical thread I've been so far, most of the time it will be harass off topic with politics and slandering, haha. Keep up the momentum guys!
'07 Gen2 Auto,
Noticeable loss in power, need to stick the pedel to the metal harder… BUT
Mileage has improved! Where i normally got ~360KM out of rm 65 of RON 97, I got just over 390KM out of RON95.
Mine Waja CPS . Using Petronas RON95 :
Engine Power : Same as RON97
Noisy : Same as Campro engine damm noisy
Mileage : Poor ! As CPS engine not fuel economy , both same at any mileage (RON95 or RON97)
WAJA 2001, Full tank
Primas 97-600km
Primas 95-480km
Urban area
Less power
Engine sound
WAJA 2001(A), Full tank
Primas 97-600km
Primas 95-480km
Urban area
Less power
Engine sound
I pump Shell all this while.
Getting the Shell 95 unleaded… after 3 full tank… decided that it is lousy.
I get less pickup, hard to reach top end, less mileague, petrol drains faster.
Not going for shell 95 again after my last drop. I'll try petronas or caltex after this..
It sucks with their advertisement .. more mileague for your car… where got…
just to inform you guys, here in Saudi even Super car like Porsche using RON 91. So no woories..
hi, i drive savvy n wira, as for savvy the jerking effect reduce tremendously. MAY BE DUE TO RENAULT ENGINE WAS DESIGNED FOR RON95 AS FOR WIRA I NOTICE BETTER FC LESS POWER AS WELL. USING SHELL
To me everything is the same except the pricing. It's 10 sen/L more than what was promised. I am forgetful but I am yet to forget this.
I'm driving Vios J brand new, using shell RON95, i can achieve 18km/litre no problem, driving is smooth. Power wise is not much of a difference. going up slopes on highways or flyover no drop in rpm n speed at all at any speed.
my 10yr old wira 1.5 manage to get 14km/litre. note that 70% highway 30%city driving time. wira max distance per tank is 600km with soft pedalling, vios easily 700++km normal driving style. Both using RON 95
I'm driving Mitsubishi Grandis and first time filling up Primax 95. Previously I'm getting around 9.0 to 9.5 liters per 100km but with this Primax 95 I'm getting around 10l/100km. Even though most of the time my driving style is quite sedate and always take it easy on the gas pedal, I feel a bit underpowered with Primax 95 (was always filling up with Primax 3 before) in a sense that I have press further on the gas pedal in order to get the same smoothness when driving.
I also noticed the Petronas station that I always go to just changed the Primax 3 sticker with Primax 95. Everything else are pretty much the same… green pump handle (not yellow), same price… so some people probably thought they're still getting the old petrol if they're not aware all this RON stuffs.
haha.. funny comments above. Makes me wonder whether people really understands the terms of engineering these days..
How many of us really understands how fuel is ignited in our engine? How combustion happens?? To me it make no sense that RON 95 is not good. My dad's old carburetted rusa works fine with all fuel. People in Saudi are using RON 91 for their supercars or hypercars. Hello??
and keep the comments going.. funny ba
for gen2 campro, based on manual book, only RON97 or higher are recommended…i'm afraid to pump RON95
any gen2 owner experienced something bad using RON95?
using caltex 95.
fulltank is almost the same as shell 97 = 530km
shell 95 drains a little faster around 480km.
using Satria Neo 1.6 Manual 2007 with Caltex Engine oil.
1malaysia, 52nd merdeka….1negara's ppl kena con……save u 5cen kono…now we save our voice & exercise it on next GE…..lets be inspire by Japan's election…..
whoa, we sound like a bunch of americans, addicted to power? kidding guys. hehe
refill my gen2 2004 last night….(after more than 2 month)…RM30 for petronas RON95…
result = errrrr….dont know yet…coz….FULL TIME NGV..MORE RON >>MORE MONEY ON MY POCKET…….HAHAHAHHAHA
(ketawa sehingga price of ngv naik)….
happy fasting…
ehm…the last time i pump full tank was 1.75/RON95..how come now 1.80 a??can someone tel me?
Driving MyVi EZi with NGK G-Power spark plugs.
Comparing PETRONAS RON97 with RON95
RON95 drives smoother and quieter than RON97 and gives more mileage.
The spark plugs already made a lot of difference before on RON97 but on RON95, it drives like a dream.
PROTON WIRA OWNERS:
ACCORDING TO MANUAL BOOK, CAR ONLY ACCEPTS RON97 & ABOVE.
**OTHERS, I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY YOU GUYS DON'T JUST CHECK THE MANUAL GIVEN. TRYING WITHOUT IT WOULD DANAGE YOUR CAR ENGINE, SIMILARLY PUTTING DIESEL INTO A PETROL RUNNING ENGINE.
USE YOUR COMMON SENSE!!
Yo Nic, WELCOME TO MALAYSIA.
I guess truly psy on this RON problem…. and political thinking trying to blame everything to gov. while I think it's ok to introduce RON95 since my car can't use less than RON95 if not I already used RON92 ;)
for those who think RON95 will make car 'lembab'
1. for modified exhaust, unaware push accelerator more.
2. for auto car, unaware push accelerator more.
or
japanese engine mapped to fully perform using RON97 since it is a default fuel in Malaysia before. now RON95, knock sensor still work but less performance. While continental car tuned to fully perform with RON95 or RON91 so they work well.
It is my guess only, no scientific calculation whatsoever… guessing Saga BLM for Saudi Arabia mapped the IAFM to work with RON91, in Malaysia test track used RON97, look and sound better.
maybe lah~~
Test on Motorbike Modenas Kriss.
Petronas 95 engine damm noisy, low pick up.
I wouldn't test on my car ;)
hi guys,
recently i'm using RON97 in my fish tank
after defuel RON97 & refuel with RON95..seem a bit lost power n a bit lag of accelaration
maybe engine combustion not smooth enough compare to RON97.
i thought, wanna get turbo car after this but RON95 doesnt support any of my favourite turbo car.
nvm..as long as i can travel around with my car ^_^
Petronas Primax95 basically still RON97 until the new stocks coming. That's why some of you guys said that Primax95 performed better than the rest. Wait till it's really RON95 inside Primax95.
Govt must not cheat the rakyat anymore. Or else car owners must sue the govt for risking the car engines and claim repair damages. Just because other country claims RON95 is OK, well not really applicable here. Govt must do comprehensive, real test basis on vehicles in Malaysia before selling RON95.
At the end of the day nobody will pay for the engine repair except yourself. RON97 must be made available to all but RON95 kept as second choice just like RON92 before. We got no choice but to use RON97 honestly speaking, or else the impending damage to the car engine would cost more than the perceived savings of some what, 20cents per litre to switch to RON95 ?
Car: Honda Accord 2.0 2001
Used Primax 95 twice – pumped full tank from near empty.
The first time, the acceleration was very obvious. No power and fuel consumption was bad. However this was done in a city environment. Normally I get about 500km/52liters, but I only achieved 450km and the fuel light start lighting up.
Imagine the dissatisfaction…
The second time on full tank, still no power. Went up and down Fraser's hill, performance is not as good as when on Primax 97, overdrive was poor. However, I was surprise when it hit 320km for half tank (~28 liters), which is as good as on the highway without the uphill drive. Driving style is mostly cruising at 90km/h.
Hence, I came to this conclusion: If you are accelerating frequently, RON95 is rubbish. If you are cruising at most efficient speed for your car (say 80-110km/h), RON95 provides a little more fuel economy. The power part is understood from how RON95 affects the engine (i.e ease of combustion).
A theory to test is that, perhaps your engine needs to adjust to the change in petrol, as it has always been using a single type of RON.
Paul, what say you?
with shell's ron95, its the absolute worst compared to petronas.
bhp95 never fails to amaze. no noticeable difference. keep up the good work.
i hope the greedy petrol companies are reading this, and quickly formulate new additives and all the marketing bullocks. wonder if they watered down the fuel (not stations fault, could be at site ie. port dickson), many including myself have been complaining of worse f/c 2 weeks earlier…
better change your fuel filter too, mine seems darker since the transition period… (iswara fuel filter very obvious to monitor ;) )
My Oct 2009 Saga BLM seems fine with RON95 fuel.. Was already using Shell Regular before this anyway..Full tank about 400km before, now still similar. Yes, power is lacking a bit, but then again, i'm used to the RON92 fuel, so, I feel it is better than that.. You just need to retard the timing a bit when switching over.. Then you will have power all across the rev range. If you don't want to do that, you can, but you'll get pinking at 4000+rpms la.. It's up to how you drive the car..
I guess there's no Lamborghini or Ferrari owners reading Paultan.org eh? Heheh.
was using BHP 92 for a year or so, very satisfied, felt better response and fc compare to ron97 from shell and esso mobil
tried ron95 bhp and caltex recently, not too please with lower pickup but quite the same fc.
my car Kia sportage 05
No power and no pickup. Ron 95 suck.
i am driving gen2 1.3 auto…filled in my tank with shell RON95 with about 20% RON97 left…power no good…the gear downshift a lot..still using the same tank…dunno the consumption yet..
use viva 2007
change from primax 3 to primax 95.
less pick up, but not so much different.
top speed same as before, about 150km/h
fuel consumption also not differ so much…
I've been driving a Kelisa, and since using ron95, the car has sounded louder and rougher. And of course, the car lacked the usual pick-up and "Ohhhmmm"… Really dissapointing…
my cars seem less responsive and the milages also feel leeser…due to much more fuel consumption..engine a bit roaring then tipical ron97…
donno what gonna happens next to our consumer right..
based on all the comments i read, my conclusion are,
RON97 is far more better than RON95.
SHELL97 is better than PETRONAS97
PETRONAS95 is better than SHELL95
how bout other brand? anybody already made a comparison? CALTEX BHP ESSO?
the haha dude said,
September 5, 2009 @ 10:07 am
haha.. funny comments above. Makes me wonder whether people really understands the terms of engineering these days..
How many of us really understands how fuel is ignited in our engine? How combustion happens?? To me it make no sense that RON 95 is not good. My dad’s old carburetted rusa works fine with all fuel. People in Saudi are using RON 91 for their supercars or hypercars. Hello??
and keep the comments going.. funny ba
———
People are giving their opinions not based on some research rating, but based on their real mileage and wallet. You find it funny because you are being ignorance, like that minister who suddenly classify fuel into "regular" and "premium".
what pisses me off is petol stations that do not sell RON 97 anymore. Is like the whole damn country just took a step backwards. Just because my car run RON95 minimum does not mean i want to use RON95.
>>firdaus said,
use viva 2007
…
top speed same as before, about 150km/h
…
============================
Tak terbang ke?
I have put in RON95 almost half of the tank. Pick up seems slow but overall performance is ok. Dunno whether the fc affected or not. Have to put in 3 or 4 times first. Engine noise is a little bit louder but dunno for sure. My car is Kia Rondo 2L.
people.please its just psychologic
just maybe initially u'll feel a bit different but later on it will be ok
im using 95 primax n everythings seems fine.
no reduce acceleration or increase fuel consumption
recommend primax though
using ford focus 1.8
as said before in other country eg saudi theyre using much lower RON
rexis said,
September 5, 2009 @ 5:14 pm
the haha dude said,
September 5, 2009 @ 10:07 am
haha.. funny comments above. Makes me wonder whether people really understands the terms of engineering these days..
How many of us really understands how fuel is ignited in our engine? How combustion happens?? To me it make no sense that RON 95 is not good. My dad’s old carburetted rusa works fine with all fuel. People in Saudi are using RON 91 for their supercars or hypercars. Hello??
and keep the comments going.. funny ba
———
People are giving their opinions not based on some research rating, but based on their real mileage and wallet. You find it funny because you are being ignorance, like that minister who suddenly classify fuel into “regular” and “premium”.
Read more: http://paultan.org/2009/09/04/share-your-ron95-ex…
_____
rexis, Gosh u has the energy..ppl like me don't even spend our energy to reply an ass hole like 'the haha dude'..maybe they're righteous?
Car: Proton Waja (2001)
My experience: Caltex Ron95 offer better performance/pick up than Petronas, Esso/Mobil, Shell…
for power:
Caltex95>Primax95>Esso/Mobil95>Shell95
my favourite was d Mobil Synergy97 that offer better performance/pick up.
hope Esso/Mobil will do something.
rexis said,
September 5, 2009 @ 5:14 pm
the haha dude said,
September 5, 2009 @ 10:07 am
haha.. funny comments above. Makes me wonder whether people really understands the terms of engineering these days..
How many of us really understands how fuel is ignited in our engine? How combustion happens?? To me it make no sense that RON 95 is not good. My dad’s old carburetted rusa works fine with all fuel. People in Saudi are using RON 91 for their supercars or hypercars. Hello??
and keep the comments going.. funny ba
———
People are giving their opinions not based on some research rating, but based on their real mileage and wallet. You find it funny because you are being ignorance, like that minister who suddenly classify fuel into “regular” and “premium”.
—–
I don't think above writer is ignorance. Understand basic RON has nothing to do with performance. It is the addictive from each petrol make the differences.
The comments from all users are too subjective and not tested in a control environment.
The price different between RON95 and RON97 is because the manufacturing cost, nothing to do with whichever is premium or which is superior.
The ignorance is person who don't understand the basic knowledge and quote basic on personal feel. As long it meet min RON to operate as according manual, it will work fine if you maintain as according to recommended service manual.
Im using Iswara year 2000. I feel Ron 95 is much much better for my engine.
Ive to say it gives better power and acceleration, my ride is also much smoother…On top of that, the comsumption is far better. So far ive been using Shell's Ron 95, ive got nothing to complain about. Im yet to test other brands.
i believed Paul did ask about the experience using RON95, so when they give honest and valuable feedback, we must appreciate them, even though some of them look illogical…
we have little time to perform actual & unbiased test (sapa ade masa boleh buat), so this is the best feedback we could give…why r u become so judgmental..
old timers said,
September 5, 2009 @ 7:55 pm
Some of us became judgmental when feedback ended with a conclusion like "ron95 suck, g conned rakyat again". it is not about when u have time only do it kind of test, for ur own mileage sake, n to demote/promote/credit some fuel company doing good/bad job in the transition. Stop the tak apa attitude will u?
My Waja 2002 suffers using Ron95. Less power.
I wonder later if with introduce of Ron98 at price RM2.1, it complete the transformation of changing from Ron92->Ron95, Ron97->Ron98, but price increase. What a strategy to benefits the Rakyat.
We all feel cheated as RON95 and RON97 price increased after Sept 1 due to crude oil price skyrocketting to USD72++. This is another form of increase petrol price indirectly. My Civic Type R FD 2.0 can't use RON95. Thus no comment.
@fastcx
Old timer is not tak apa, we try to Upholding our Rights here. We are the boss, G need to listen to their Boss. We are also trying very hard and striving to live better and provide better quality of life to our beloved family each and every day.
primax 95 so great…give more mileage than mobil or shell…using saga megavalve 92…
Using Primax95 is almost same as Primax3..feel less acceleration but maybe this is a psycological only.
The only things i know about Research Octane Number (RON) is higher compression ratio of your engine needs higher RON number..RON is not related to power generation. what i'm understand is, if your car has high compression ratio, your engine is design to spark late a bit due to allow the piston compress the air-fuel mixture to a designated level.the higher RON petrol is less tendency to burn while the lower RON is v.versa…from my findings, the car that has 10.0 and lower compression ratio only required RON95..for example, Suzuki Swift Sport 1.6 has 11.1 Compression ratio and required RON98 (looks like swift sport must needs Vpower all the time)
In addition, higher compression ratio is design to boost more power output from the engine.and to meet the designed power output is to have higher RON number.
By the way, i drive Savvy '06 which has 10.0 compression ratio and required RON95 and above.
Hopes you guys understand.
haha..most of us got a bad experience with RON95..this what gov call.."BOLEH GUNA PADA SEMUA KERETA"..hehe..i'm happy with RON97 even it was RM2.05..for me its worthy..
Used RON95 in my Optra, lost of power from the moment i step the pedal, engine was noisy and i could feel the car was dragging himself…luckily i only top up 30.00 to test it and im so not going near it again…wht a waste!!!
so far have been using RON 95 for city driving, no considerable changes in stop and go traffic. gen2 on shell, jazz on primax.
if driving sanely, i dont think there is any significant changes to the engine characteristic unless you have high performance car.
Drive and fill up to your affordability.
wira SE (2005)…fill PRimax 95…less power but more mileage as compared to RON 97..so far engine smooth and sometimes a bit noisy…eventhough in the manual book stated that minimum RON for wira is RON 97, i'll stick to RON 95..nothing much different between both RON…
Automotive Jury said,
September 5, 2009 @ 9:41 pm
haha..most of us got a bad experience with RON95..this what gov call..”BOLEH GUNA PADA SEMUA KERETA”..hehe..i’m happy with RON97 even it was RM2.05..for me its worthy..
———-
Oh man, u r so wrong about it, did u even read ur instruction manual? even my neo n even old iswara stated, the minimum RON rating for ur car. N G did not said, SEMUA kereta. Even paul posted an article summarizing brands n models of cars that may n may not able to use ron95 without retune.
Ofcause, sudden change of price pissed me off, but when u guys talks about fuel efficiency, did u guys even know how to drive efficiently? All instruments/equipments, no matter how technologically advance, weakest link is always the user. There are more to learn in hypermilling, lookup ecomodder.org for teaching urself some basic stuff about driving efficiently before u talks about how bad the fc is, perhaps its just how bad the driver u are instead.
If u cant adept to the new environment, u will fall behind, but i believe most ppl here, when they fall behind, they just know how to complain for unfairness n restrictions. Simple fact is, there is not free lunch, n no matter how strict anything is, there is always a hole. Cheers!
Car: Saga BLM 2008 Model
Fuel: Shell Super 97 to Shell Unleaded 95
Comment:
Shell Unleaded95 SUCKS compare with Shell Super97. Pick up very slow in Shell Unleaded95. Going up in hill area, loss of power compare with Shell Super97. Cutting lorry in highway little problem when using Shell Unleaded95.
Conclution:
Better USE Shell Super97.
p/s: don't Want to change to other brand because have Bonuslink Card. (petronas-gov owned-sure no RON97 bcoz wanna help gov "jaga muka". Thats why some ppl complain petronas stop selling RON97)heheheh :)
ron95 gives lower comsuption to my wira..
shell RON97 full tank = 430km
shell RON95 full tank = 360km
very obvious reduction in term of pick..
can feel instantly the car is not responsive as before..
going to try Petronas 95 after this. hopefully gets better millage!
sweat!
i bought waja cps 1.6 feb last year,
i think no there is no diff. between ron97 and ron95.
but i've notice that since im using ron95, my waja cps got better and smooth when it clocking above 140km/hour and unbelieveble its can go futher to 180km smmoohtly than ron97..
Let me clear this nicely for carburetor cars. Alot of people driving old cars are worried about RON95 or questioning RON95.
Those who runs on carburetor need not worry the least with the introduction of RON95. Your engines are capable of running RON as low as 89, if not, on rare occasion on certain models, RON 92 minimum (presumeably these are last advancement in carburetors that has an injector instead of a needle jet). Most carburetor cars have very low compression ratio of 8.9:1 or 9.2:1 or whatever the figure is. Moreover, carburetor engines runs rich. The reason why cars run higher octane is because they run at higher compression ratio and leaner. The higher the compression ratio and leaner the engine operates, the higher the RON required. Also the need to understand ignition timing comes into play. Old engines have one fixed ignition timing while modern cars are ECU controlled. In carburetor cars, if you run higher octane then recommended, you do not get any more extra power other then having a cleaner combustion chamber and in some case, smoother engine operations. The reason is the car has no capability to adjusting the ignition timing with the help of a knock sensor. Therefore, if your carburetor engine requires RON89 minimum, you can put RON100 if you desire or can get hold of it and the only thing you will benefit out of it is a cleaner engine when you strip it (less deposit) and maybe a smoother running engine.
So in conclusion, those who are on carburetor engines, the introduction on RON95 is actually never a concern to your engines at all!
I'm using both PETRONAS PRIMAX95 to my Perdana V6 and Volvo S60 T5. So far the performance difference is rather negligible. I was initially sceptical but after twice pumping in, not much difference in performance. HOWEVER, the mileage is rather down as compared to RON97. Before this I could get around 300-350km for my PV6 and 450-500km for my S60T5 (both are mixture of highways and towns), now its more like 280km and 380km respectively. Or maybe my foot lately is rather heavy.. haha. Need another few rounds to confirm it.
Paul, maybe you can come out with accurate experiment conducted from professional associate such from any well known automotive industries. from this experiment we can have accurate result for millage and power differences between this two RON. because such feedback from users somehow not accurate. because they have no data to prove it. I think if it slightly different in performance human aren't detect it unless they use some device.
ron95.. is hampeh dot com, no pick up, no quality, no satisfaction…
tak payah pakai ron 95 tu macam ron 92, tak yah isi yg petronas.. kalu nak isi gak / guna ron 95 jgn isi kat petronas isi kat esso / mobil…
maramiea: will continues with V-power.. better performance and satisfaction..
I rode a Yamaha Lagenda 110cc.
Using Ron95/Primax 95 since its launched.
Fuel efficiency? Never even care.
HAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHA!!!
What means RON?
Cheers from chile
Shell RON97 – Shell RON95
Renault Megane II 2006
Conclusion: Not much difference in term of consumption and acceleration, but with noticeable engine noise level increase.
No power. Acceleration is sluggish compared to RON97. Performance on par with RON92, except, with RON95, my MyVi engine is louder, jerky.
Wah problem getting serious.
All boils down on yourself. Attitude and driving.
If you think the 95 is crap then you can always go back to 97.
In the long run and especially economy like this………………it's gonna cost $$$. The attitude of pick-up, my car top speed……………..or etc…….pay more lah………..since your objective is performance.
For those on budget, trying to save $$$ for your family or etc……..no difference lah. Ignore those who talk bad about the fuel. Not much difference lah unless you floor the pedal all the time.
Don't forget the worse is not over in our economy………and the worse might come soon……………USA is chopping 10% jobs every month. Europe and Japan not looking good too.
People in the construction, manufacturing, service industry will be hit hardest.
$$$ vs attitude…………..go figure………….
: )
Owned Saga 2005.
Previously using RON92 – no problem
Now RON95 – no problem.
Drivin a 2 yr old viva ezi. Makes no noticeable difference between RON 95 and 97. mileage and power seems sama saja
Tried RON95 Shell and Petronas for My Wish 2004.
Engine a bit loud now but in term of pick up or millaege I think its almost the same as RON97 (only me!!?)…
But Petronas give me better millaege I guess, albeilt a narrow margin.
For me I not really concern about accelaration or power loss given that I'm not driving a sport car… As long as it can drive me and family to my destination… then I'm happy already… :)
Nevertheless, tend to agree with some of you, our Gov play dirty here… :(
Have a Camry/Altis/Vios and was using Shell/Petronas R97 all the while for all the cars with no complaints until underwent BHP pre-launch test for R95.
Paul, had filled out survey form thru yr website & got selected to perform the test some time ago.
Hv to say that am actually impressed with the result. Decided to choose the Vios for the BHP R95 test. Result was quiter & smoother engine with about 15-20km more per full tank. Decided to try on Altis/Camry as well. Altis results were similar to Vios while Camry was not affected much in terms of FC but engine still performed the same, mayb because it's big c.c engine.
Out of curiosity did try Shell/Petronas R95 but found engine to be a bit sluggish on all the 3 models so switched back to BHP. Recently tried Esso R95 & have to say the results almost the same as BHP. Only problem is BHP doesn't hv many stations around. Luckily there is one near office so just hv to make it a habit to fill up on the way home.
Vios: 11/2 years old
ALtis: 6 years old
Camry: 1 year old
From reading the comments so far, conclusion is cars tuned with lower RON (88-92) is not greatly affected by switching from RON 97 fuel to RON 95 fuel. But if cars are tuned with RON 95, then the effect is more noticeable. My opinion is there are differences between RON 97 and RON 95 fuel no matter what RON a car is tuned too because there is no perfectly tuned cars. With the same addictive in both RON 97 & RON 95 fuel, RON 97 is a better fuel, that is why RON 97 is more expensive to produce, otherwise why the petrol companies come up with different RON fuel if both are the same? Don't be taking in by the govt or petrol companies claims that both RON 95 & RON 97 fuel are the same. RON 97 with the same additive as RON 95 is better fuel, however, if a car tuned to a much lower RON than RON 95 fuel, the effect will be minimal until you couldn't feel much difference. There is a risk to a car that is tuned with RON 95 to use RON 95 fuel for the reason stated above, ie. no perfectly tuned car & RON 95 fuel may not be 100% RON 95, could be lower or higher in the real world. Theory is just theory, until the fuel pumped into a car.
im using Iswara sedan 1.5i yr 2003
its seem lik shell RON95 is more smooth during pickup compare to RON97 b4.. fuel consumption on RON95 quite realible than b4.. b4 my car travel with RON97 at 100km/h with 3200rpm, now with 3000rpm.. =)
Persona 1.6 2009,
Shell RON 95.. ok. but engine is more noisy than before.. the first filling is a mix with 97.. the second filling is what make me notice the engine disturbing sound.
I pump at BANTING Shell station. FC not yet check.. will update later.
Will try Petronas next.
year 2000, proton wira 1.5 MMC auto (fuel injection)
tried RON95 on Shell..
engine sounds 'rattling'…like a diesel engine…
pickup surely can feel 'degraded'…mileage no much diff from v-power
daily driving route on NKVE to Klang and back home (around 127km mileage per day..)
2003 civic 1.7
After 3 fill-ups of RON95, the engine sounds abit rougher now and there is noticable drag while cruising. Truthfully I fill short changed for having to pay the same price for a lower grade of fuel.
Harrier 240 G, Y2004. Loc: Bintulu, fastest growing township in Malaysia :). Fuel: Shell U95. Reason: NO CHOICE!!! Not a single station here sells RON97!!!??? :((
From my observation i feel that
Proton cars have to run on RON97 fuel
its clearly stated on the manual 97+.
My Persona & Gen2 engine not smooth especially Gen2
since its a hard revving engine, fuel consumption has risen
and poor pickup when at traffic light.
Maybe Proton should do some test and retune the Campro engine.
Hi all, can anyone feedback on Toyota Avanza with RON 95 ?
Viva 660
From shell super97 to shell unleaded95.
Results sucks.. less pick-up, need to pump more fuel for same distance. Overtaking is painful esp in highway. Already car under powered, with this RON95 more under power…… Very Angry with Malaysian Government.
Cannot use other brand because in my hometown area, only have Shell station nearby. Petronas is very2 far at least 15Km away, BHP around 20Km away. Esso and Mobil around 18Km away.. So can use Shell only. Now I want to change back to Shell Super97 even the price is more expensive. Better power and more mileage.
RON = Research Octane Number.
As petrol is formed from hydrocarbon molecule, thus these hydrocarbon give indication on the octane definitaion.
Noticeable power performance decrease with RON 95. With RON 97, the engine is free revving.
I drive a mitsubishi lancer 2.0 gt. No significant changes except louder engine notice, but still negligible though.
On my honda civic EX 1.5 (with carburetor), no changes at all. probably cleaner engine, but surely I can't tell that for sure unless I strip it off.
Shell RON97 is everything..
Shell RON95 very very weak.. no pick up, no more power, bad FC & etc…
Lagi lama pakai.. engine buleh hancur… (my yamaha legenda now give strange noise…)..
my saga lmsti just try caltex 95…1st 15 km, no -ve feedback…so far ok, idle , pickup, engine noise all ok…next week i will give update.
Shell V-Power Racing is very good
Shell Super97 is good
Shell Unleaded95 very very bad
Conclusion: 1. If wanna save petrol money, use RON95 2. If wanna keep the car long time(10++), longer engine lifespan better use RON97 3. If got the money, wanna super smooth ride, longer lifespan of engine then Use V-Power Racing.
I cannot afford V-Power Racing & most Shell Station don't sell V-Power anymore, so I can Use Shell Super97 only.. For my car. I want longer engine lifespan, So need to spend little extra but not as extra as using V-Power Racing. heheheh :)
I have been using RON92 for my '08 Vios all this while. With RON95 I do not notice any increase my car's performance or any different in fuel consumption. Maybe my car now accelerates faster in 0-100 kmh dash by a few hundreds of a second, but it is hard to tell. What I can confirm is that I am now financially worst off since I have to fork out 10 sen more for every liter.
Aiyoo…. quite pissed off.
I just came back to JB from Malacca after spending several days there.
Went to 5 Petronas station, non offered 97. Quite surprising even in Malacca Petronas offer 95 & 97. Petronas in JB should understand that there is still customer who want 97 for one reason or another. Wah…. as if they shoving the 95 down our throat.
Anyway your loss Petronas, Esso gain.
Surprising there is still quite a number of people pumping 97 when I pump there.
Tested Caltex, BHP, Shell and Petronas.
Persona 1.6 auto. Petronas 95 is the best so far for my car. Noticable smoother engine compare to others. But pick up suffer. Nevermind because never drive aggrasive.
Shell is the worst
Same Here in My place. Quite a number of people still pumping RON97 when I pump in Shell Station. Most people I meet say They use Shell Super (RON97) because of it's the best and the car won't be under power. They all have tried Shell Unleaded 95 and said the power loss, less mileage, louder Engine sound etc. as the main problem. I Thought it's only me that think RON95 gives more problem for my car, but most people say the same thing. There must be something wrong with the RON95 Fuel. hmm:?
Same Here in My place. Quite a number of people still pumping RON97 when I pump in Shell Station. Most people I meet say They use Shell Super (RON97) because of it's the best and the car won't be under power. They all have tried Shell Unleaded 95 and said the power loss, less mileage, louder Engine sound etc. as the main problem. I Thought it's only me that think RON95 gives more problem for my car, but most people say the same thing. There must be something wrong with the RON95 Fuel. hmm:?
Waja 1.6 manual (2005)
Before – Petronas RON97, full tank, 580++km
After – Petronas RON95 full tank, 600++km
Average is 0.15 cents per km
*disadvantages-less pickup & power
sound like some station wan2 have better ron97 sales, not sure what they do to their ron95 to make it worse than other's, dont u think of that instead?
Toyota Innova
FC no change from Ron97 and Ron95
However, NO PICKUP!!!! Engine already loud, made louder.
Reason because I drove my relative's Innova loaded with Ron97 and compared it at the same time. Pickup suffered, engine roared louder, with Ron 95.
I'm going back to Ron97.
On my 318i e46, felt no difference on petronas ron95, compared to the previous ron97, until i filled up with shell ron95, it felt a tiny bit sluggish, but nothing significant la, so have been filling up petronas ron95 ever since…
On my other car, a Civic EP3 type-r, i was afraid at first to fill her up with ron95, but after finding out that ron95 was the minimum for the car, i tried it on petronas ron95, and it was fine, felt the same and most importantly, no knocking…
i got lost in power after pumping ron95 in my car…*sigh
so far i've tried Petronas, Esso n BHP RON 95…
BHP better…engine feels smooth…
I used Shell RON95, Primax 95, Esso/Mobil Synergy5000..
My thumbs up goes to Esson & Mobil for their Synergy 5000..
.. KL to Pasir Gudang and from Pasir Gudang to JB ( RM44.00 with my City 2009 i-VTEC). At first, like others sounds noisier maybe due to the mixture of my previous RON97 and 95 in my tank but after a while the sound not much noisy). Then i recovered they got SMILE card where u can redeem your point with petrol which is great.
fyi: I used to be a shell and petronas frequent user. but now i'm totally with the ExxonMobil (Esso n Mobil) products.
im using Shell RON 95 on my 6 year old 1.5 satria SE and i noticed the engine sounds a bit louder and less pickup. also i am using it on my new Honda City i-vtec,so far nothing about the engine sound (coz still new).for the pick up, yes…less.very much less.i havent tried any other brand.will keep posting once i get the result.
Hello Paul, i notice my mums Honda City i-vtec 2009. Before it was pumped RON 95, the reading on my computer was 12.6km/l until it was pumped in RON95, it dropped significantly to 12.3km/l. WTF?
Sorry, driving condition was extra urban/urban 80% highway 20%.
i do think pet95 is far more better than shell95.. for my daily driving, rm30 of shell can last up to 2/3 days.. but pet95 can last up to 5day.. =)
i still didnt try bhp, caltex n esso.. is it okay with myvi?
Hi Paul
Honda City 1.5 2009
IMHO RON95 sucks. Was using BHP RON92 and getting 14.9km/l. Now after two full tanks its down to 14.3km/l on BHP RON 95. Its crap.
why not have a blindfold test experiment and see whether ppl can actually differentiate between the two RON95 and RON97? haha..since i hear everyone keep saying RON95 sucks
The weird thing is my fren actually says he feels more powerful and can reach top speed faster with RON95 in his waja…cos he actually thinks the new petrol is a better one until i told him what this are all about..
or the oil companies could just put RON97 for both and see whether people still have the same comments..and then they can say GOTCHA!
Point is i think anchoring is present and a lot of these observations are already biased cos u KNOW u r pumping a cheaper and lower grade petrol..
If you want more power – just put in higher OCTANE.
You cannot have the luxury of both world, cheap and power. If you want cheap, use RON95 (more mileage) or if you need power, use RON97.
Enough of those stupid comments.
For JDM engines, get nothing lesser than RON97. Add in HKS octane booster for more power.
Math equation : More HP = Higher RON = more $.
Car : BMW E46 325i
Use : Petronas ron95
No difference in performance or milage.
Engine sounds the same to me.
Full tank rm100 gets about 480km
half tank on RON97 plus
half tank on RON95
more power than full tank RON95
more cheaper than full tank RON97
for sure RON95 will not same as RON97..
Come on!
I drove Waja 1.6 2002
I just change to Shell , RON 95
inspite of all the Waja users said my car respond better, more quiet but mileage is still under testing…I'm not a fast driver,highway 120 to 130km/h
But compared to RON 97 my Waja easyly reach 110km/h
Hearing that some users give a good review of Pertronas Primax 95, i'm going to try it after, previously i use RON 97 (Shell) due to the "Formula Penjimatan" it's actually really save…
I believe all 268 commentators have own labs, with own test vehicles equipped with all test gadgets to verify the difference between RON97 and RON95. Otherwise, all inputs are purely based on FEELING and BS … keh keh keh
iswara 1.3 manual
petronas RON95
– better mileage
– RM 30 (170km)
pertonas RON97
– RM30 (130km)
city distance
Proton iswara 1.3 manual
Petronas RON95
– better mileage
– RM30 (170km)
Petronas RON97
– RM30 (130km)
acceleration almost same
city driving
I'm driving 1996 Proton Satria .. engine model 4G13P. I've using RON95 for quite some time now and I really can feel the difference between RON95 and 97. When I'm using RON95, I can feel the acceleration is quite slow to compare with RON97 but I think it's ok for normal and highway driving but not so suitable for long journey on trunk roads. There's no knocking problem heard so far..maybe it's because my car is UK Spec model and it can tolerate RON below 95 but I'm not so sure.
On my yamaha sport motorcycle, petronas95 actually feels very good. I mean totally different from petronas ron97. Smooth and more pickup. It's like getting a whole new engine. Very impressive.
Same does not go with my car. Petronas ron95 have less pickup. I've tested shell95 and it even worse pickup. But caltex techron 95 quite good. No noticeble loss of power and feels almost the same like caltex 97. Strange though that on all petrol ron95 I've tried so far all are giving a little bit extra mileage. Except techron which is roughly the same as before. I can feel the engine knocking more with shell95. Sorry but I'm not attacking shell, I;m a frequent user of their petrol. Havent yet try BHP and Essomobil.
To people who thinks that this is all due to psychological mindset. Think again. Even people who are ignorant of the RON are feeling the difference. So what kind of psychological effect you want to assumed to this people huh? Like my father who doesnt give a rat about this RON thing, but even he ask me why the yellow pump at petronas feels not so good when driving. So now he thinks yellow pump is what red pump used to be. To him it's minyak merah maa.
Car: 1995 Proton Iswara Aeroback
Use: Shell ron95
Effects: underpower, kurang pickup. kena selalu refuelling sebab kena tekan lebih untuk pergi laju. very dissappointed :-(
Drive Honda City 2008VTEC
RON97=38litre can go up to 480 to 500km
RON95= 38litre can go to 420km (First trial)
Feel no power and response.
Common Sense says:
I believe all 268 commentators have own labs, with own test vehicles equipped with all test gadgets to verify the difference between RON97 and RON95. Otherwise, all inputs are purely based on FEELING and BS … keh keh keh
Malaysia is full of Test Engineer on vehicle's fuel system :p
So now does changing from RON 97 to RON 95 for carburetor engines give any effects?
As for the Proton Wira case, some of them commented that P1 Wira's manual book stated minimum is RON 97 and another comment made by Ichan said that it does not matter. Bear in mind that the newer P1 Wira is fuel injected (that's y the model has an addtional prefix of an i…e.g. 1.5GLi) and the older ones maybe 1993 – 1997 is carbureted (model would be 1.5 GL as an example)
So now for P1 Wira owners, which fuel is suitable? So who's right and who's wrong?
p.s. Wira used to be one of the most popular choice of car in M'sia, now taken over by P2 Myvi
I used Waja 1.6 2004, I pumped RON95 on 30/8 during lunch time, around 5 pm my car broke down and had to towed, Mechanic said fuel pump koyak (coincident?) Even after replace the fuel pump I felt my car berat like no pick-up. After a week still using the same fuel, suddently my car slowed down by it self but didn't stop but jalan mcm biasa after that but it keep repeated many time. Sent to different workshop..he said fuel pump!aiyo… What's going on?Is it possible left over RON92 (since they replace RON95 fromRON92 tank) sudah kacau my car RON?
strictly common sense and my 2 cents speaking, seriously i really doubt that a difference of small octane levels in the fuel will contribute that much to performance. Of course theoretically speaking, RON97 is better than RON95…but seriously guys do u really think u can feel the difference? I mean does your car engine even be able to exploit the higher octane levels? I m sure most of us are just driving economy- type vehicles with less than 2.0l displacement. The fact that some ppl felt the difference and some ppl don't shows the immateriality of this.
There are tons of variables that affect fuel mileage and the 'feel' of performance, such as the weather for instance. I m sure differences of temperature will affect whether your car can pick up better,….or the load of passengers, traffic jams, and even how often u get drunk (and drive more aggressively :) etc. Unless someone can do a an experiment and hold everything else constant, and prove indeed that the puny 1.6 litre engine that most average common people are driving sucks tremendously on RON95, i found little grounds to base my value decisions on biased opinions that people have
FYI i m not working in any oil company nor does i trying to support what the government has just done..
best RON 95 is from petronas.But still cannot beat ron97 as tested on my myvi auto and BLM 1.6. fuel comsumption is bad on 95. power is bad too, engine feels lazy.
Im really doubt those that says fc is bad actually knows how to drive efficiently, n most commenter also stated "pressed more". U guys really dnt know the power of mind? when u think of it that way, it will be what u thinks. do placebo experiment, n same brand of fuel from different station, especially, those stations that has ron97 n 95 together. My hypothesis is those stations tend to have worse ron95 just to make ppl wants to get ron97 instead to increase ron97 sales.
Let's do this test ok? Too many merchant focus on short term profit too much. And please do it scientifically, make it repeatable, n able to quantify. Please dont tell me u guys duno what im talking about -.-"
for me i think nid to refill few time of RON95 only will know the result.. engine also nid time to get used to it of RON95..
Totally agree what xatomic said, for me I don't feel any differences in term of performance and fuel comsumption. I pump Primax 95 for Civic 2.0 and Swift.
model:proton iswara 1.3
petronas primax95
very satisfied…hehehe..even tough underpowered…biasalar…haha…but get more mileage compare to other
kacman/xatomic … all commentators that said (wrote) that they could feel the difference are actually SELF-CLAIMED (in Japanese, they said either Jibun-kate or zen-zurik) QUALIFIED VEHICLE TEST ENGINEERS
numbers don't lie…perhaps, different style of driving led to different fc
for me, no differences. Tried it on carburator / fuel injection vehicles, still feel the same… in terms of money saving, none…since we've been cheated earlier by fuel price hike..
Ron 95 experience. I filled up the tank full last week (1st week of September). Really full until a little spill over. The temperature when I filled up was 22 degrees C. It was raining at about 9am.
Here are what I did:
1. 130km/h at a distance of 90km (highway)
2. 110km/h at a distance of 300km (highway)
3. 140km/h at a distance of 200km (highway) + full load of people
4. City driving for about 110km
Total driving for last week = 700km
I filled up my tank on Sunday (until a little spill over) up to 65liters with ron 95. Temperature was about 30 degrees C. I drive a 2400cc car with an automatic transmission.
Last time, when I filled up with the RON 97, I managed to reach 800km KL-Penang trip on a single tank at an average speed of 140km/h. Temperature at the time of filling usually 25 degrees C (morning).
I'm using a 2006 Honda City VTEC.
Well, after switching to RON95, I have noticed absolutely no difference whatsoever. All the hoo-ha for nothing. This entire frenzy reminds me of Y2K. Yawn.
The Petronas station that I frequent doesn't sell RON97. So I had to fill up my car Nissan Sunny (about 20 year old car) with RON95. To be honest, I actually don't feel any difference.
My wife received her new Innova on 26/08. I filled her up with Shell95. 1st I thought is was becos the Innova was a heavy vehicle until I filled her up again with BHP95. On BHP, the pick up was smoother, faster and the gears changed faster (auto).
My friend's Wira '00's fuel pump went kaput on his 1st tank of Shell95. I wonder it was just an coincident. But there were quite a number of vehicles with kaputed fuel pumps last week at my friend's garage in Sunway.
Me driving Grandis ,
50 ringgit of fuel ( 27.5litres ) pure city driving only 150 km with RON 95 …
Previously i got about 170 km …&^$&$%$
I know some people said that the difference felt between RON 95 and 97 sometimes just psychological but most of the time we are driven by our psychology. So our money spending also will be determined by psychology… no matter what the truth is in science.
Anyway just to relate my experience. I drove 3 cars but the one that matter is my Honda Odyssey Absolute RB2 2004 (Recond from Japan). This car has high compression engine because even though it has the same engine of the 2.4 Accord, Honda managed to squeeze out more power using higher compression setup. Thus, this engine require higher octane. I dont know the minimum (Japan is 91) but it is recommended to use premium unleaded petrol. Anyway, I used Shell RON97 before and has no problem whatsoever.
I switched to RON95 and did not notice any difference at first. But then my second tank of RON95 surprised me. The engine felt really sluggish. Also it feel jumpy (knocking?) when idle. I think the first tank was still mixed, both inside my own tank and also at the station tank therefore I did not notice the difference.
I went back to hometown Muar with the full tank of RON95 and really felt sluggish. Normally I have no problem at all tailgating even Merc and BMWs but this time I struggled to catch up with a new 2.4 Camry which has less power than my car. I cannot tell difference in mileage since I decided to just use the autocruise most of the time (since it is not fun to drive fast anymore).
At the end, I felt the car ECU has adapted to the new fuel and the jumpy idling is not really noticeable but the pickup still missing a bit. I dont want to take my chances so I decided to switch back to RON97 once I finished the RON95 this morning. And everything goes bacck to normal
So my conclusion is that in most modern car, the ECU will eventually adjust to the new fuel and eventually you cannot tell the difference if you drive a normal car. If you have high compression engine, you might have some problem but your ECU might be able to adjust or just need some retuning.
But still, most people drive with their gut, so switching back to ROn 97 might be better for your feeling.
polex
Maybe if someone really want to see true scientific approach then perhaps paultan have the right idea on how to do it. Our local universities and colleges should take this opportunity to really test the difference between ron95 and ron97.
So far readers' response are quite mix. Some have worse mileage but my experience is different since I;m getting a little bit better mileage. Although I do agree there's a drop in performance. Maybe I'm getting better mileage because of the fact that although my car feels underpower i still drove the same. If i drove more aggressive to get the same power as before of course fc will be affected.
However driving in highways or city roads the car's power might not be important. Even motorcyle can reach 110km/h on highways. The case is different if you frequently use the state roads like me then your car really need to have the power to overtake all those long lorries, 30 tyres trailers, buses, slow cars etc.
wei5119 said,
September 6, 2009 @ 1:59 pm
im using Iswara sedan 1.5i yr 2003
its seem lik shell RON95 is more smooth during pickup compare to RON97 b4.. fuel consumption on RON95 quite realible than b4.. b4 my car travel with RON97 at 100km/h with 3200rpm, now with 3000rpm.. =)
—–
best joke of the year!!
wei5119 said,
September 6, 2009 @ 1:59 pm
im using Iswara sedan 1.5i yr 2003
b4 my car travel with RON97 at 100km/h with 3200rpm, now with 3000rpm.. =)
———–
LOL
i own a 2007 camry, user manual indicated ok to use RON95, so i did. well…. no difference vs RON97 so far. i believe should be problem to use RON95 as said by manufacturer. unless ur car spec not allow to.
I'm using kelisa 2007.
I think that RON95 is killing my engine. the engine starts roaring..
the only reason for the change to ROn 95 is fo rthe government to HIKE the fuel price while telling the people ROn 95 is acceptable. If the fuel does not affect the performance of the car, then why the differenc in price? No brainer isnt it?
The 1997 H.City car manual said it can take RON 91. So I guess it is ok to use RON 95.
Compared to RON 97, mileage is fine but the power loss is quite apparent.
The 2007 Proton Saga has a higher compression ratio of 9.5 : 1 and the manual clearly recommended RON 97 only.
Experience loss of pick-up. Idling much better than RON 92 which made it shiver.
Will continue to use RON 95 for normal use due to budget constraint, RON 97 for outstation drives.
tested for on my modenass kriss 2 110
(with high cams, open air filter, others std)
low engine speed just ok (noisier than RON 97 usage)
cruising at high engine speed, veeery sluggish, slow response,
low rpm to high rpm transition not smooth, engine sounds like dying.
i thought the spark plug was the culprit.
changed to new C6HSA, same result.
dunno if using C7HSA, will try later.
thats for now.
i m not denying the fact that RON95 is a cheaper grade of fuel and therefore it should make sense that it should gives less performance & mileage for the same money. But is it really so? Is there any conclusive and concrete evidence rather than the gut feeling and anchoring bias that most people seems to be giving now?
i am just astonished on how people seems to able to exaggerate and amplify the difference. Can common people tell the time difference between a Casio and a Rolex watch? Between a cheap wine and expensive vintage wine? The computing performance between a Pentium and AMD? How do u ensure it is definitely coming from the fuel and it is not u who eat more and put up a few kgs which makes ur car pickup suffers? How do u know whether ur small engine, low compression of yours can really take the benefits of higher octane? Just like people putting fully synthetic oil in their small engine car and think their car rev smoother, mileage and performance better laa when in reality it make no blardy difference. If u ask me, i have no idea but I will only believe either a specialist (which i doubt the most of the ppl are) or a scientific study. I do not want to spend on something extra if the marginal benefits do not apply to my car because my car engine isnt a high revving, high performance V12 that sucks all the oil and air and octane there is in this world
Point is there r too many external variables an circumstances that surround a car performance that is not convincingly being discussed and taken into account.
I m pretty sure if all the petrol stations were to change to RON95 frm RON97 without anyone knowing it, most of the people will just go on wt their lives without even noticing any difference in their car…will anyone come up and say "hey wait a min..something wrong with the fuel!! it has made my car more sluggish, pick up sucks, mileage is bad.."
Why? cos people have confirmation bias – the tendency to find information to confirm their preconceptions that they are using a more inferior fuel..
totally agrees with xatomic. From personal experience, even during ron97 time same station can still give me different kind of feeling everytime i refill there. Perhaps it just that batch of fuel isnt refined well, or just tyre pressure dropped or other variable. 1psi difference in tyre pressure can mean around 5% drop in fc, due to more rolling resistance. I can tell u I got worse experience when using ron97 b4.
But now just because station label it as ron95, n consumer perceived it as ron 95 + previous long miss conception towards ron meaning can be a very strong reason y ur mind is messing with u now.
Once the refinery is doing full force ron95, perhaps future batch of petrol will be more consistant
I am sorry, i am stupid, arrogance that I do not listen to the consumer feed back. This is probably due to the reason I do not need to deal with competition in the market, and I am monopolized most resources in my business. So whether consumer like it or not, consumer still need to pay the higher price and pump the petrol of lower grade. Why can the consumer do?
I don't know how to distinguish a Bin wine compare to Cheap wine, that is why I think most people in the world does not, since I do not want the public knows the fact the petrol, I mean wine we are selling is cheaper grade. I just hope the public will be stupid and agreed by my comment.
fren, what the govt did by increasing the price of RON97 and replacing with RON95 is a separate issue with whether it really affects a typical car performance or not. You are truly biased in the sense that because you are unsatisfied with the price increase, you are trying to find faults on using the cheaper grade of petrol.
On that separate issue, u can blame the free markets and traders that makes oil prices so high, can blame the OPEC for forming cartels and controlling oil prices, you can blame the govt for putting all the stress on the people eventhough we are producing oil, blame the auto manufacturers for producing not enough fuel efficient vehicles , blame all the ppl who voted perhaps wrongly, ….or maybe u shud blame urself why are not earning enough to even give a damn bout the price increase.
The public is not definitely not stupid and has been much better informed compared to decade ago :)
Yalor, since I can't get any AP to earn enough to give a damn of the increase of petrol price, but I just showing some concern to the public who is driving cars before Y2000, and suffered by the cheating of lower grade of petrol, and increase the price of the original petrol, and effect the inflation of common products again, by giving so-called promise of saving some pterol price. What price of petrol did the public saved? Zero. and all 92 users gota use 95 now, by paying 97 price. I have a Y2002 Toyota Celica cost only UKPounds 2,000 to sell, but hell it cost RM80K in Malaysia. If I got an AP, i don't care the petrol price hike:)
frankly, i felt no difference in our 18 year old mercedes 190e, but then since this was an import from US where the octane is much2 lower if for the premium, i feel no difference
feel no difference in the sound and pickup of the myvi
still waiting to find out the viva, accord and ria.
Xatomic: you are indeed a big fool. You are trying a really dumb analogy (especially on the Rolex and Casio) and hypothesis. So are you telling me that there are no absolute difference between Coca-cola and Tesco Cola, when all you pissed is urine? Or why don't you tell us how your wife feels like before and after she gave birth?
When a passenger of mine who has been sitting quietly for 1 year plus, who doesn't drive and normally doesn't give a hoot about cars and performance, suddenly mentioned that "Eh, how come your car no pick-up and no power", isnt that something?
People just share their experience. You are just crapping.
RON don't influence performance if your minimum required is meet! Only those pumping RON95 into a performance engine such as Type R, Evo X, STi, etc etc will have issue.
If there is performance different is probably the addictive from the gas manufacturer. Why consumer still so stubborn and ignorance when relate RON=Performance measurement?! Please don't include GOV action when judge, too bias and not fair.
Commenter, maybe my analogies are not perfect but its more bout discerning differences rather than the key noticeable differences between things…unless you are so confident to tell me u can get 100% right in a test comparing RON97 and 95.. Tesco Cola and Coke is a different ballgame…(Pepsi v Coke is perhaps a more palatable as discerning difference test :)
Fair enough one of ur passenger felt something….but give me a sample size that represents the population in tests performed under a variety of conditions, that would be more convincing..
Just for your thought, if you are selling inferior things but charging the same price as superior things that you are selling earlier, would you tell your customers that the inferior things are actually inferior, chances are you will say similar or even better. If your business need consent from certain people to conduct your business, you will find yourself under control from these certain people and say whatever they want you to say.
paul…do poll on how many people have good FC between 95 and 97
xatomic…xatomic, if people can tell the difference between pepsi cola & tesco cola, i believe people especially who has driven his car for many years…able to differentiate between ron 95 & 97..
furthermore, as point out by stupid-xatomic, why we have to pay the price of ron 97 while our car can use ron92…is that blatant cheat?
http://cilibo.blogspot.com/ —> PENILAIAN TERHADAP RON 95 DAN RON 97, SHELL DAN PRIMAS..PENGALAMANKU
i m using iswara 1.3 1996 model…..ron 95 shell gives more miles compared to bb
I wonder how some drivers can get more mileage using ron95 0.o. I'm using viva850, and filled up RM42 Ron95 from esso. first time i filled up, i can see the difference that the car lose some pick-up power, more worst than using ron97, and the engine sound louder and harsh.
You may tell me viva850 engine always sound louder, but you will know the different if your 850 owner. True enough, RM42 Ron95 from esso only able to get around 380km, while tested with ron97 from petronas twice, only managed to get around 392km, and shell ron97 406km.
Yesterday just filled RM20 ron95 from esso again, and the engine sound much better, i guess the engine able to adopt the new fuel probably. Will need to open the bonnet and test again after work today =]
Mileage might not accurate, but confirmed ron95 give me less mileage and power =/
entahla,
used shell before… fc and pickup very sluggish. Shell RON97 feel like Caltex RON 92. Petronas is far better than Shell. Can get extra 50-60km than Shell.pick up is far better.
Myvi 1.3 manual
Previously using Esso ROn 97 get me 90 to 100km for the first bar.
Now after using RON 95 manage to obtain 80 to 90km.
Power is lesser, but smooth as the previous one. No knocking sound heard.
Nissan Sunny 1.3
So far so good. No complain
so far i feel the almost the same for ron 95 and ron 97. mileage also almost the same.
but the point is… why we pay the same rm1.80 for ron95 when previously we get ron97?
useless government as usual
Wira 97 1.5 carburettor. More noise, less milage, less power. BHP.
Naza Ria, no difference.
Charade GTTI, haven't tried RON 95 yet. Can or not?
Some of the better engines can retard timing automatically when RON drops, maybe those cars are faring better.
The older tech ones, we just cross our fingers and hope for the best.
If RON 97 is around RM 1.90 to RM 1.93, i think many will still choose it over RON 95.
Better safe than sorry.
The Proton Car Manual did not state the car can take anything below RON 97 which would be the best for it. Maybe 95 is Ok except not the best as designed.
do anyone know where the additives are added? at the petrol station itself or at the factory? because when i was using RON97, every full tank at different petrol station gives me different FC and feel.
i mean same petrol station company. different branch.
Now seems major people using old cars, where the menu told us better use RON97 is suffering by using this so-call advance petrol of RON95. Is this the strategy to kill off all old iswara, wira on the road and force people to buy new car…btw, it seems no much new proton saga owner comment in here. I wanted to hear the new proton saga, exora owner to comment here hopefully so we can know more about the real situation in this so call new-cars. Seems those imported car does not effect much since the engine is capable, but we pitty proton owner suffers most….*sigh* save $$ ? where? it seems cost more to travel the same mileage now!!
Charade G100 CB23
tried Primax95 RM20,
top speed achieved 130km/h
average speed 90km/h-100km/h
mileage 100++km/h
less power,less horsepower,more fuel efficiency..
sometimes my car "melompat-lompat" everytime i change gear..
hi. did my experiment with esso, BHP and Shell. All RON 95.
My car kancil 850 year 2002. No major overhaul yet.
previously on regular trip back to Penang from Ipoh i filled RM 20. Mileage i got about 160km. Minyak usually habis.
Last time i filled RM 20 of RON 95 from BHP…total mileage is 240km. Highway and kampong driving.
I only drive 90km/h on highway…kampong driving is like traffic lite every 5 km..seberang jaya, kepala batas, butterworth and penang island tour…
I love BHP. Previous experiment with RON 97 BHP predates price increase also tells about the same result.
im using BHP also in my 13rs old mazda lantis.fc remain,no unusual noise,power also same,perhaps a little bit better if placebo effect isnt playing games on me.this is all good,except the price is also same when i expect it to be lower.
so far bhp is the best fuel.just need more stations
VIOS 2008, Esso RON 95. No difference AT ALL as compared to RON97.
I think we need some quantitative analysis for the sake of comparison. Not how we FEEL. Human being is a lousy instrument. Can any petrochemical engineer gives some comment ? My chemistry knowledge is only until STPM. I remember RON 95 should be MORE powerful than RON 97 due to higher heptane content.
1883 said,
September 9, 2009 @ 2:50 pm
Yup, I notice that earlier too, you'll need to know there're other variables affecting fuel quality and grades.
For instance, when I went to Shell somewhere in D'sara, the pump attendant told me to get that RON95 as the Shell Station fuel supply was just recently replenish BUT, there's one third (1/3) of blue colour V-Power RON97 left over old stock when the refilling work is done. So the V-Power was added together with RON95 thus giving us that false impression that there's nothing wrong with RON95.
Vice-versa. Same goes with our car, if our car has still some substantial left over of RON 97 fuel and suddenly you fill it up with RON 95, the affect on your car's performance can't be seen clearly yet. This is purely chemistry understanding.
The situation above I described is as "Users Experiencing Transition Point between RON97 to RON95". We'll need to give our cars at least few more weeks to gauge its performance and mileage properly. This could only be done after all the Petrol Station in Malaysia has totally phase out their old stock of RON97 from the RON95 fuel reservoir.
Notes: Before RON 95, some Shell Stations have 4 main underground fuel reservoir; 1) Green RON97, 2) Blue V-Power RON97, 3) RON 92, 4) Diesel. So when RON95 is introduced, the RON 95 is filled up in the item no. 2) and 3). Mixing of new and old stock can affect quality and grades of fuel. Need to wait few more weeks until next replenishment by the fuel station.
first of all i m not saying RON95 is equal to RON97. Maybe it does give less power…or maybe it is just the same on an average car…i dunno. I m speaking from a point of an average car owner, not a owner of a high performance car. I have used it and i m not confident enough to qualify the conclusion based on gut feeling and indiscernible differences.
However I see two major flaws and bias here in people's assessment
1) People are still anchored to the old price of RM1.9 for the RON97 and since now it has increased in price. A lower grade fuel, which is RON95 is offered at close to the old price and becos of that, people are feeling that they are getting less for the same buck and hence all the dissatisfactions bout what the govt did. Because of this, human beings being human, trying to maximise their utility, will find reasons to fault the lower quality petrol, just to satisfy themselves. Nonetheless who is to say RM1.9 is the right price for a RON97 fuel? All along we are paying an artificial non-market price and oblivious to the fact that oil prices are volatile. Price is entirely a separate issue and i dont understand why people are still linking it on comparing the technical performance of RON95v97
2) Before even using the RON95, people have preconceptions that is a lower quality petrol. It is normal to believe that more expensive = better. Therefore when driving on this fuel, people will tend to 'confirm' their beliefs. They will unconsciously try to find reasons like lack of power, worse mileage, worse top speed. Maybe the car is behaving normally, but ur mind is focused and sensitive to negative changes while ignoring other positive changes….think bout it and dun tell me it havent happen to u before.
This is not to say people who felt the differences are fools here. We humans are just very susceptible to such psychological biases, including myself. U may agree or not agree with me but i feel that is happening to majority of the people. I m just speaking rationally from my views and trying to paint a clear picture here.
Kancil 850EX
RON97 = good launching @ 1st gear
RON95 = launching like @ 3rd gear hmm
i think dun blame the RON number, or the additives inside… we also need to know the composition of the fuel itself. how many % petrol, alcohol etc etc.. if the fuel quality of RON95 is worse than RON92 quality… than it is bad lah…
Noted some driver/car OK with Petronas RON95 and not so on Petronas RON97. Others not OK with Shell RON95 not but power up with it's RON97. Could this all be business strategies ? If you know majority of your sales of driver will go for RON95 (it's cheaper)….improved your RON95 to be better than your competitor..=more business=$$profit. Make sense??
Xatomic, I dont understand what are you trying to defend the fact that majority users experience the drop performance of switching petrol, and you think people will FEEL just because of the price? That is the fact man of what we experience!, and we dont need rocket scientist to prove that.
And RON95 is selling at RON97 price, and what are you trying to say that is is close to last price. It seems you are similar to the Government of ignoring the public's benefit, and care about own self only. This is oil drama, there is 2 facts undeniable:
1) RON92 users are force to pay higher price for RON95 since there is no other option. Where is the saving now? My old proton pump in Ron92 no problem, but hell now I gota pump in RON95 for higher price.
2) RON97 optional car users is worst, either compromise the car performance to pump RON95, which some experience oil finished faster. No saving, but need to pump more to have more mileage
3) RON97 must use users: You have no choice to pay the same grade of price at higher price. Wait till RON98 to introduce to replace RON97 and you will probably pay higher price.
Where in this whole agenda SAVE $$ for the public has the minister claim? Who save $$ ? or maybe we should say WHO earns $$ in this whole episode?
I am driving the City Vtec '98 and Ron 95 from Shell sucks big time for me… the moment it's in my engine, I can feel the lack of power when i press the accelerator…. (it really feels like driving my old wira of 15 years again…) and it's clocking around 11km/l on the highway. The engine is roaring like mad just to accelerate to 60km.. arghhh…..
Waja 1.6(A) Campro 2007.
Been a regular user of Petronas RON97 before RON95 "drama" came into the picture. Fuel consumption went UP by 10-15% after i switched to RON95. Noticed some improvement in pick up but whats the point….. its $$$$ that matters more to me….
to xatomic, I;m painting my picture slightly different hehe.
My digital mileage doesnt have anything to do with my preconditioned belief. Maybe I have to check with puspakom to see whether my car's digital mileage is wrong and it's trying desperately to confirm my beliefs that ron95 is slightly less better than ron97. However that's definitely not the case. My meter is not wrong and it shows that somehow ron95 is different from 97. How different is depends on driver. For me it gives little more mileage at a cost of engine performance.
Oh and my father suffers from postconditioned belief since he only discover ron95 not so good after using it. The only thing about fuel that concerns him is the price. And he's not too happy the price not down further for a fuel he feels same quality like minyak merah.
I m MYVI 1.3 Ezi driver, previously same driving condition at highway with 90km/h I manage to get 120km for first bar using RON97, now after fueling RON95 shell, definitely I m losing pickup power and the first bar only can get me around 70km which is a lot difference. Same as usual this government is lying and trying to make a fool of RAKYAT, they are just trying to increase the price of petrol indirectly.
Previously when world crude oil price drop they don't want to reduce fuel price ( as they've promise to float the petrol price base on market price) instead they impose tax when the world crude oil price is low and earn more from it, but when petrol price increase they increase our price of petrol again, previously promise RON95 will be priced at RM1.75 which is reasonable since we are paying lesser and we got lower grade oil which is acceptable, now we are paying same price RM1.80 per liter and we are getting lower grade of fuel. AS USUAL BN=BARANG NAIK
No matter WHAT the government is saying about RON95, I can be assure with you that RON95 is a lower grade petrol and definitely gives much lower mileage. Example a normal trip with constant speed from Klang-Ipoh using RON97 at my myvi 1.3ezi would give me 120km for the first bar, after refueling with RON95 at my car, with same constant speed of 90km/h I m getting max 90km for the first bar.
This government claim that PAKATAN RAKYAT aka PENIPU RAKYAT is giving empty promises to RAKYAT, but I think the present government is even worst and always FLIP FLOP with their decision and also giving empty promises to RAKYAT as well, MIC internal conflict, MCA internal conflict, BN coalition is breaking apart. The government can purchase a few billion ringgit of submarine which is not needed and yet subsidize RAKYAT is deemed as waste of PUBLIC FUND. The spending power in MALAYSIA is too low, car expensive, house expensive, salary just enough to clear all debt.
With the slow economy, the government still want to increase the price of petrol even 5 cent. What is deemed unacceptable is we are paying the same price of RM1.8 but we getting lower grade ( which means indirectly increase the price of petrol ). A simple MALAYSIAN would know how to do this calculation, by fueling RON95, you get lower mileage hence you need to pump more petrol, so in the end the price you are paying is higher than RM1.8 per liter of petrol. YES TRUE MOST OF THE CAR CAN ACCEPT RON95, BUT HOW'S THE MILEAGE DIFFERENCE ? Racial issue everywhere, cow head protester, teoh beng hock sudden death after being questioned by MACC all this just sickening. I think RAKYAT will be clever to choose who will rule this country in the next general election.
Finally, Kazami has proven with figures.
Went to a Shell station and they did not have RON 97, just a pasted notice it cost RM2.05.
So I used the the “V-Power” pump thinking it should be RON 97 as the outside Advert was Blue……it was V-Power and it cost RM 2.25 a litre.
I stopped pumping after it hit 5 litres……….that is what I call…..expensive.
Getting used to the RON 95 like everything in life, yearly haze and all.
Car: Saga 2009 auto with (8k mileage).
Details: Using Caltex RON 95… city driving + highway. Driving style: mix of smooth & steady + aggressive at times.
Noted difference from Shell & sometimes Caltex RON97 which I always use:
-Mileage is around 9km/litre
-Smoother rev
-Easier to reach 120-140km/h on highway
-Pickup same but smoother
Current conclusion: Satisfied. Will update again next week (just fill up 28litre of Caltex RON95 today)
RON97 0-100kph time clocked 8.3secs
RON95 0-100kph time clocked 9.7secs
RON97 100-160kph time clocked 14.9secs
RON95 100-160kph time clocked 18.2secs (WTH?)
Finally, Kazami has proven with figures.
Went to a Shell station and they did not have RON 97, just a pasted notice it cost RM2.05.
So I used the the "V-Power" pump thinking it should be RON 97 as the outside Advert was Blue……it was V-Power and it cost RM 2.25 a litre.
I stopped pumping after it hit 5 litres……….that is what I call…..expensive.
Getting used to the RON 95 like everything in life, yearly haze and all.
Went to a Shell station and they did not have RON 97, just a pasted notice it cost RM2.05.
So I used the the "V-Power" pump thinking it should be RON 97 as the outside Advert was Blue……it was V-Power and it cost RM 2.25 a litre.
I stopped pumping after it hit 5 litres……….that is what I call…..expensive.
Getting used to the RON 95 like everything in life, yearly haze and all.
When I go to Kangar yesterday, with the intention of purchasing V-Power Racing at the only station in Perlis that sells it, I was very dissapointed.
No more V-Power!!! The reason: Need to make room for the new RON95, and to promote it (gov. order). WTF!!! How can this happen!!! Can't they just add one more pump booth / oil tank for that stupid product?
Now I can no longer happily rempit to my workplace every morning. No more the feel good power of V-Power. FUCK YOU NAJIB!!! FUCK YOU FOR INTRODUCING RON95 & INCREASING RON97 PRICE!!! (What a good Metallic… No, screw that. Merdeka present you give us! 1Malaysia?! Kiss my butt!)
Car: Latio Sports
Before: Shell 97
Now: Shell 95
The pick up and mileage is bad compare to previous Shell 97. The minimum RON can be used on Latio is RON 95.
common misconception i read from internet: "if your car's engine is tuned and recommended by the manufacturer for a minimum of RON92, then you are not going to get increased performance using RON97 or RON99. Just because the octane is higher does not give you more 'power' because it does not work like that in combustion."
So wrong! car manufacturer's Recommended and Minimum RON you can use is different!
Recommended is a number, where if you exceed, wont give you extra improvement – example, if you thirsty for 1 cup of water, but you drink 2 cups, it is the same, no improvement to you body. BUT if you thirsty for 1 cup of water, but you drink 1/2 cup, you can still keep alive (hence minimum) but you will not be performing as well as if you drank 1 cup (recommended)
i personally believe that any RON level below the Recommended (but above Minimum) will give you different performance.
xatomic,
RON97 previously was priced at RM1.80….. RON95 now at RM1.80.
pls check ur fact.
————-
xatomic said,
September 10, 2009 @ 2:13 pm
first of all i m not saying RON95 is equal to RON97. Maybe it does give less power…or maybe it is just the same on an average car…i dunno. I m speaking from a point of an average car owner, not a owner of a high performance car. I have used it and i m not confident enough to qualify the conclusion based on gut feeling and indiscernible differences.
However I see two major flaws and bias here in people’s assessment
1) People are still anchored to the old price of RM1.9 for the RON97 and since now it has increased in price. A lower grade fuel, which is RON95 is offered at close to the old price and becos of that, people are feeling that they are getting less for the same buck and hence all the dissatisfactions bout what the govt did. Because of this, human beings being human, trying to maximise their utility, will find reasons to fault the lower quality petrol, just to satisfy themselves. Nonetheless who is to say RM1.9 is the right price for a RON97 fuel? All along we are paying an artificial non-market price and oblivious to the fact that oil prices are volatile. Price is entirely a separate issue and i dont understand why people are still linking it on comparing the technical performance of RON95v97
2) Before even using the RON95, people have preconceptions that is a lower quality petrol. It is normal to believe that more expensive = better. Therefore when driving on this fuel, people will tend to ‘confirm’ their beliefs. They will unconsciously try to find reasons like lack of power, worse mileage, worse top speed. Maybe the car is behaving normally, but ur mind is focused and sensitive to negative changes while ignoring other positive changes….think bout it and dun tell me it havent happen to u before.
This is not to say people who felt the differences are fools here. We humans are just very susceptible to such psychological biases, including myself. U may agree or not agree with me but i feel that is happening to majority of the people. I m just speaking rationally from my views and trying to paint a clear picture here.
xatomic,
u r painting a very cloudy picture….. rakyat r not dumb…….
First ROn 95 is RM 1.75
petrol stations buy at RM 1.75
on 1st september it is RM 1.80
petrol stations sell it at RM1.80 pocketing the extra money!
Who owns petrol stations?
Bloody cut throat UMNO cronies…
In the end the Malaysian ppl suffer! Especially the poor who used RON92.. and the goverment still claims it helps the poor and poor malays…
Pure Bull…
Come next GE, goodbye BN, PKR might not be better but we need a change, atleast who ever governs will understand the people put them there and that their position is not their right
hmmm… although everyone here keep saying shell ron 95 sux, somehow i am getting a slightly better mileage from it. normally 12.1 sen for ron 97 to 11.9sen per km..
actually it is quite insignificant increase also, just a few more km, could be caused by alot of reasons..
tried both primax 95 and techron 95.
conclusion ==> engine sound rougher when using primax 95, mileage almost same as ron97.
techron 95, almost same as ron 97, smooth engine, same mileage.
will try out shell ron 95 later.
Car – Civic FD2
So far, have run for about 13,000km (PG-JB-KT) with numerous filling with Shell RON 95 since 1st launch…honestly..I had tried my best to differentiate the SHELL RON97 n SHELL RON 95 performance..but I gave up..
NO difference at all!!!
I believe most people tends to forget about basic things:
1. tires pressure ( I checked with 3 days)
2. Engine cleanliness (high carbon residue in the combustion chamber will change the burning characteristic, dude)
3. Car maintenance (every 10,000km – synthetic engine oil – Shell Helix Ultra)
4. Unnecessary load to the car,
5. Unnecessary speeding or braking
6. of course, pre-plan route to destination (to avoid traffic jam..for me, it's very important..as myself in Sales role)
which would cause extra fuel to move the car. Hope it helps..
hi friends, iv been u, i have been using ron 95 for quite some time already. can say that ive at least filled full tank of 95 for at least 4 times. it went fine, no problem, slightly low pickup but nothing serious. but yesterday, as ussual, i filled up ron 95.. the first journey was fine (50km), bt when i get bck, the engine becomes unsmooth, knocking, jerking.. super-big difference. i am now a bit paranoid, scared to drive the car. btw, all these time, iv been only filling up the shell 95 only.
just to let u guys learn from my mistake, dnt say ron 95 is good etc, try using it for few times w/out changing it to ron 97. see what happens..goodluck
btw, im driving savvy amt 1.2, not golf gti or merc compressor..its not like its a sports car or anything..u be the judge..
Malaysia is the country with the most expensive fuel prices, among all the oil producing countries in the world.
why?
because our high-quality oil are all exported, while the government imports in low quality oil for local consumption. This is why we are at the mercy of the world oil prices! This is like you grow rice, sell your rice to others while you feed your own children with poor grade rice you bought from the market.
Have used RON 95 for sometime and mileage seems fine so far but the engine sounds harsher when dragged at higher revs.
My friend uses RON 95 in his 1 year old Vios and he did not feel any difference.
My results of switching from Petronas RON97 to RON95 with 3 different cars:
Car 1 = Nissan Grand Livina 1.8, 1yr, 40K km.
3rd tank. Better FC, but slightly less pickup.
Car 2 = Honda Jazz 1.5 DSI, 5yrs, 98K km.
1st tank. Slightly less pickup, occasional knocking.
Car 3 = Perodua MyVi 1.3 EZi, 2 yrs, 29K km.
1st tank. Sluggish pickup.
My car is Viva auto.
When I use RON 97, full tank RM42.00 can run for around 280 km
When I use RON 95, full tank RM42.00 my car can only run 240 km!!
So now I have to pump RM48.00 into my car when I use RON97 to get to 280km.
So what do you think?
Zoe Lye,
That means:
When u use RON 97, 20L takes u 280km (14km/liter)
When u use RON 95, 23L takes you 240km (10km/liter)
That is a very big difference in mileage.
(p/s: Guys/gals, the term 'full tank' can be misleading. Many ppl have different versions of 'full tank' on the same car. The best way to measure a full tank it to compare how much u fill to the maximum tank capacity as mentioned in your car manual.
Many ppl think they are filling up a 'full tank' but actually only filling maybe 40L out of 45liters. Hence the misconception about the term 'full tank'.
Even the manual is not exactly accurate. My 2003 Vios manual says my full tank is 42L but ive filled up to 46L (basically almost dry in an emergency). Ppl tend to get worried when they see the fuel indicator blinking but usually when the light comes on you still have about 4L of petrol left (which can take you another 30km depending on your car make and driving conditions). But of course its not advisable to allow your tank to go to near empty.
Car : Honda City 08 (VTEC)
On my first tank of Primax95, here's my score compared to PRIMAX 3:
Engine noise: 3/10
Acceleration: 5/10
Mileage: 4/10
Car: Kelisa (A)
My view when using RON 95 you have to drive the car below 90km/h then you will feel okay. However, if you are the type of driver like to rev your engine then RON 95 will not be suitable at all.
Another thing I observed that the needle in temperature gauge will be slightly higher when using RON 95 compared to RON 97.
Yes RON 95 based on my estimation is 20% lesser in term of performance and fuel consumption than RON 97.
For me RON 95 is actually RON 92 but with one or two additional additives were added into it and now it called RON 95.
In short, I vote RON 95 has failed and there are more cons than pros.
I feel that we have been cheated in some way. This is my experience. Driving a 2007 vios….car bought Jan 2009…E spec….let me share the differences in FC.
Im using Shell btw.
Stock 14" rims-48x-495kms/tank/ron97
15" taiwan rims-470-480kms/tank/ron97
15"taiwan rims-420kms/tank on ron95!!….tested twice…tried 2 diff stations
-car is really sluggish….engine feels out of breath at times
-x power out of corners when compared 2 ron97
*same driving style,i drive the same route 5times a week….rain or shine…
*switch back 2 Ron97, better performance but dont hv figure 4 mileage yt
So people, do u feel cheated?I certainly do!!….if ron95 is d same as ron97, why bother maintaining the sale of ron97 & raising the bloody price?
using shell 95 for both my cars kembara and hyundai sonata….fuel meter goes down very fast…had to send my car for inspection…found no leaks…so shell ron95 sucks..changing to others now.
RON 95 (no matter which brand) is so far inferior than the ROn97.
No matter how the G said RON95 will not affect the engine perfomance and mileage and somemore save $$….this is all b******t…
Proton Waja Campro 1.6(A) – 2006
Standard City Driving
RON97 – 48Liters = 460 ~ 500km (Shell/BHP)
RON95 – 48Liters = 370km (BHP)
Noticed increase in consumption, so I changed from Shell to BHP. Even with BHP, I get the same result.
Today I have used Primax95 (Petronas).
Let's see how that goes.
The loss is about 20%, but the price difference between RON95 & 97 is about 14%.
Therefore I will still save $$$ if I continue to use RON97.
I will make my final judgement once I get the Primax result.
I use Avanza 1.3(M) 2007
Before
With RON 97 RM 60 can go up to 450km (mix)
Now
with RON 95 RM 60 can go max 350km
When first time I figure out this thing, I don't believe…I though may be my mistake in reset the odometer…
but….after ……many times…the results are same……and I noticed my engine sound more loudly from before……Less pick-up with RON 95 compare to RON 97. need to push the pedal more than before……
Go for routine 5K service …hope the situation will change …but..sadly……scenario un- change……. Badly feel un-happy with RON 95…….
wow 100 km mileage difference oso got
then no need to argue d la..just use RON97 la….since most ppl here has 'proved' that RON97 gives u more bang for your buck…doesnt matter increase in price d or not.. stil have to drive right?
car : proton waja 1.6 M 2002
use : Shell RON95
occupation : student
driving condition : (campus life) need to maintain at 2nd or 3rd gear everyday (to many "bonggol" lar)
result : i just fully service my car but after using RON95 (full tank for 3rd time), engine noisier and rougher, no power like before especially after 'bonggol'. pick up reduce badly, but fc seems like little bit better than before. will try another brand especially caltex (some of my friends recommended that brand)
Finally decided to switch back to RON 97, car engine too noisy and weak.
Car used, Honda City 1.3 A, 1997. Old car sensitive to power loss.
Honda City Idsi (08)
after 2nd tank of RON 95 (Esso)
FC almost same, but no pick up, cant over take car, like 1.3 auto car.
hardly over 110km/h…. like pull cow up to tree…
decided to use RON 97.
BN suck…. force you to use only RON 95 as All Petronas only carry Ron 95.
Always come out stupid idea without thinking…
Thought all people dont have eduction…
next election u will know…
Honda CIty VTEC 2008
Just serviced my 20k and pumped Primax 95(for the 2nd time)
Obviously still underpower and yet the bad milage still showing.
Previously Primax 3 RM60 = 530km (city and highway)
Now Primax 95 RM60 = 420KM (city & highway)—> this is bad..!!!!
G force RAKYAT to use RON95 and if u wanted to use RON97, PAY MORE!
They need to get more $$ from RAKYAT to own their first F1 team… :(((
Just drove my Nissan Grand Livina 1.8 up Genting Highlands with Primax95, no noticeable difference in engine performance compared to Primax3.
here's a tip to get higher octane by spending rm5 or less, you know moth ball?? the poison use to kill cockroaches and other insect, find a liquid type for this poison poor it in your gas tank, 100% work been done in Mythbuster and tested.
Moth balls will only make your car more powerful if it is already powered by moths with no balls. A testosterone laden moth is a much more powerful moth.
xD hahaha sorry about my spelling mistake poor=pour and what's up with moth with no balls @@ you making a joke??
Not happy at all on the price!
i hv switched back to ron97 after to sickening tanks of ron95…..here r the results….
shell ron95-indicator started blinking at 420kms…both times, d same mileage).sluggish acceleration.engine sounds out of breath at times…average rm0.16x/[email protected]/l………cant rmbr the exact amount
shell ron97-indicator started blinking at 480kms….refill to full tank at 495kms….rm76 worth of fuel..average rm0.154/[email protected]/l….performance wise…im very satisfied with it….plus increase in mileage :lol: :lol: :D …so what i can conclude here is that my dugong doesnt work well with shell ron95…(didnt test any other brands)….i think im definitely sticking to ron97 for the moment…
*1st fill up of ron95-shell Bxxxxx
*2nd fill up of ron95-shell Kxxxxx (sm 10kms away frm top)
*1st fill up of ron97 after ron95-shell Bxxxxx again…
This is just to share my experience with both ron95 & ron97 fuel..sadly, i m rili disappointed that i have to pay more for ron97…..ron95 just doesnt do it 4 me..BTW im driving a 2007 vios….car is 9 months old
City vtec 08
Primax 95
After the 3rd tank of Primax 95, finally my milage is now better/same as previous Primax 3.
Meter showing 12.8km/liter (roughly same as RON 97)
But still, the engine noise is loud and sluggish! sometimes it's harder to overtake even a kancil with this RON95. I guess money for quality…
I dun mind if the RON95 if selling cheaper than the previous RM1.80.
I pump it into my new Latio, since it's new, there's not need to consider whether the engine was used to higher RON petrol. There's obvious knocking sounds when the engine is still cold. FC stays on 11km/little..Which ends up RM0.16-0.17/KM..Sounds ok for 1.8l Latio..So far I'm satisfied with the FC, don't really know it's the petrol who caused it, or Latio itself is good in it.
Reading today's news that PDAM says did not receive any one complain about RON95 and 90% motorist is switched to RON95…I am totally speechless. And most surprise found out, in the Damansara Shell, RON97 is totally out of stock and RON95 pump only. (What does this shows!?, RON95 cannot even replace RON92!, and the oil cannot fit into all cars as said!)
It seems like the G is forcing people to pump RON95 regardless there is any problem to your old wira or not!
I still using RON 97 even after price adjustment. I want to see first the result and feedback from people. Luckily I didn't change to RON 95. I always have the attitude of seeing the situation and feedback of newly introduce products before buying it. Cars,Petrol, etc. always see results/feedback after 1 – 6 months after introduction before buying. We all know if buy the 1st batch of cars or others products sure got some problems. Now i know that my attitude is for good. After few weeks can see people complaining about RON95. Loss of power, Pickup problems etc. So now not thinking of changing my RON97 petrol to RON95, just use the usual RON97.
Anybody try to tune the ignition timing after change from RON 97 to 95?
I think that might help.
The mechaninc said he tune it to ignite more early(Wira 1.3, 1997). Seem like more power, but cool start seems a bit sluggish but after warming up ok!
And different brand does show different. Petrnas fuel always give me better millage than BHP. I normaly filed at these 2 station cos convinient.
I have switch back to RON97. I'm driving old Wira 1.3 (M) 1995.
2 tank of Ron95, terrible, engine very rough, the knocking sound is serious, no pwer, even changing gear is not smooth (i don't know where is the logic).
But anyhow, once i switch it back to Ron97, everything back to normal, the power is back, gear is smooth. Just paying same amount, but getting less petrol…..
People, if you are having problems with ron95, just switch back 2 ron97….what's d point of paying less 4 smthing that doesnt work?….if im x mistaken, there's no need 2 adjust the ignition timing…a toyota technician told me that the ecu will relearn by itself….(if your car has fuel injection)
Ron 95 = Ron 92 no pick up is one thing but FCis BAD, really BAD. Shorten Engine life for sure. Done on my 4 cars The 3 fill with ron95 and one with 97. 97 is better in FC and overall performance. The Rm diff is RM 0.25 but then you prolong engine life, better FC. less maintenance ect.
Better use ron97, better pick-up, got "power" for cutting lorries in highways, longer engine life etc. We can see the difference between RON95 & RON97.
hye..i tried shell, petronas and caltex, all are ron95 respectively. so far i found that caltex is the best, second is shell and worse is petronas; this is based on performance point of view.
i drive sentra n16. last raya, i drove home on caltex ron95 and found that the FC is about 20km/l with average speed of 110km/h. previously on primax3, the FC is about 13km/l with the same average speed.
driving xperience using primax3 and caltex95 is about the same (acceleration/pick up).
using Petronas Ron 97 my 08 Perodua Viva I used mainly on highway 100+kmh only half tank when past 300km mark. now using Petronas Ron 95 half tank at 240+km for recent 3-4 full fill. Shell Ron 95 slightly better 2 full fill. Tried Esso Ron 95 1 full fill and averaging 80-90kmh only half tank at 400km. still 3 bar out of 8 bar on fuel meter gauge and km travelled 500km just now. Will test the 2nd and 3rd full fill with Esso later.
Ini Terbaru Dari Saya
Kereta : Savvy Manual 05
MoD : Muffler R3
Minyak : Petronas Ron 95
Perjalanan 1: Balik BerHari Raya
Laluan : Mujur – Tok Bali – Kuala Besut – Jerteh – Jerangau – Jabor –
Gambang – Endau
Jarak : 495kmj..
Speed : 90kmj – 120kmj.
Perjalanan 2: Balik Bekerja.
Laluan : Endau – Mersing – Kluang – Lebuhraya PLUS – Sungai Besi –
Ampang – Sri Nilam (aka KL)
Jarak : 404km
Speed : 90 kmj – 120kmj. = 40%
130 kmj – 160 kmj = 60%
Kesimpulan . Bagi Pengguna Savvy , memandu antara 80kmj-90kmj akan menjimatkan lagi penggunaan minyak. Ini long distance punya perjalanan.
Sekian.
Endau? Sayapun berhari raya kat endau. Hari raya pertama dan kedua di Jalan haji ariffin. Kenapa tak guna jalan Kuantan Pekan ke Endau? Rasanya jarak lagi dekat jalan pun tak banyak kereta.
From Kuantan to Endau is 160Km.
Cost of fuel was RM20 using petronas RON95. Speed averaging 90 to 100 km/hour only. On my car Petronas ron95 is slightly better than shell 95.
Been using Shell and Petronas Ron95. Honda Odyssey 2.4L. Verdict is the latter gives a smoother, quiet ride and can go 450km on full tank (240 at half tank) while the former 400km only (200 at half tank) with a loud roar on engine! very scary! Guess the i-vtec engine is working well for Petronas 95! Ron97 of Shell is on par with Petronas Ron95. That's the only two options in Kuching!
City Vtec 08
Latest: 490KM for 33 liters of Primax 95 (after the fill up)
Comparison: 556 for 33 liters of Primax 3
Conclusion:
1) No doubt, mileage suffer a bit + lack of acceleration.
2) Engine noise is louder from the cabin
3) No engine knocking felt.
Tried to pump Primax 3 but out of stock as only 2 Petronas station available in the whole Miri, Sarawak (too bad)
p/s only having Shell and Petronas station around so didnt get to test other fuel…Too bad for sarawakian.
i dont understand why many ppl out there claiming less mileage when using ron95. my myvi auto has been filled the ron95 for 5th time already, but the mileage make no different, about 0.135 cent per km.
fyi, i do speed and sometime heavy foot =p
no doubt, pick up is slower comparing with ron95. overall i'm ok and used ron95 already =)
Tested all brand of RON95 on New Proton Saga:
S…l 95 – 10.5km/liter
P……s 95 – 11.5km/liter (12km/liter on 2nd try)
C….x 95 – 10.3km/liter
E..O 95 – 10.8km/liter
B.P – 10.8km/liter
Seem like P……s 95 gives the best fuel consumption & acceleration power. Using B.P 95 gives the loudest noise during acceleration. Just switch to P……s 97 this morning and immediate can feel the difference, automatic gear switch upward faster and less noise during acceleration, still can accelerate at 4th gear without switching back to 3rd gear.
Considering permanently using RON97 as New Proton Saga is tuned to RON95, not worth the risk of potential damaging the engine.
i'm use Gen2
Shell Ron97 – more pickup, max speed 180KM/j ( tested at highway), smooth
Shell Ron 95 – less pickup, max speed 120KM/j, on hill just like snails….
is it true ron95 Esso/Mobil/Petronas more pickup and better for GEN 2 engine
need some expert opinion on ron 95 for my gen2
Share my data, hope this will help
09 Persona 1.6AT HL
City drive between 60 – 100km/h
Shell 95 – less pickup & feel very heavy, engine smooth, mileage 340km/36lt
Mobill 95 – pickup as 97, engine a little louder, mileage 320km/36lt
Caltex 95 – pickup strong, engine very smooth, mileage 352km/36lt
Petronas 95 – on test… 2nd tank (very close to caltex)
K00018…….which one do you suggest the best RON95 to use for my Gen 2…..
Mobil? Caltex? Petronas?…..
Senior, I suggest you try Caltex or Petronas (convenient to you)
hello, using ViVa 1.0 manual, been using petronas primax 95. i can squeeze out 23liter of petrol for 342km. Currently experimenting esso 5000syn.
Using nissan march supercahrger turbo 1984.
when switching to shell ron95, can feel the performance drop.
less boost and acceleration.
after 1 month of using ron95, my car suddenly broke down on my way to work. really sucks.
good thing a fellow colleague stopped by and gave me a ride.
i had my mechanic tow my car.
heard another case of a kancil also broke down while driving.
think i'll switch back to ron97, that is if my car is ok. (keeping my fingers crossed)
I'm using petronas 95 for quite sometime. When using petronas 95 the engine sounds like normal and FC almost the same. But i try petronas 97, the engine starts to vibrate and the engine sound rough. I straight away change to petronas 97, everything back to normal. By the way i drove kia citra II rondo 2.0.
Driving a Vios E. My car travels approx 200km a day..journey from Seremban > Cyberjaya >TTDI and back. Before this, with a full tank I manage to get 600 – 620km but now since using Shell's RON95, it has reduced to 520 – 550km. Also, I can feel there is loss of power.
Got something to share. Using shell super (ron97) for my car. When pump shell super in different pump station, i have different results in the car pick-up. certain shell pump station when i pump petrol the pickup for car is little bit bad, when go to another shell pump station (bigger one-lot of pump) the pick-up is good. Why there are difference in the same shell super RON97 petrol???? Are the shell pump stations operators mixing the Ron97 oil with the lower grade Ron95???? please anyone can give feedback or same experience with me???
Honda City VTEC 08
After 4 continous RON95, i finally gave up and pump RON97 and amazingly all the previous complain (underpower, rough engine noise, less mileage) had been solve.
I guess will stick to RON97 for the meantime until the G raises the price somemore..
Saga BLM had problem with Ron95. Could not start the car yesterday. Having checked by the proton guys and they told that the fuel was mixed with Ron97 so it caused the failure. How come? Saga minimum needs is Ron95. They advised if still having the problem, i must stick to the Ron97. RM????????????pokai la aku!
I have been using petronas 95 for quite sometime. The engine is getting noisier. Dunno coz before this, the noise is not noticeable. Then i mix with esso 98 (singapore) the engine becomes quieter. Now have to mix the 95 with either 97 or 98. I think the 98 fuel should be introduce in malaysia. I drive kia carens rondo 2.0
Myvi 1.0
been using ron95 since its out in malaysia. few months after using found that rpm not stable – car jerking – spark plug black already (denso iridium). change spark plug (NGK- rm20) car straight away become stable.continue using rom95. Today, after one month changing spark plug only, car start to jerk- rpm not stable up and down even if its idle… take out spark plug and see, spark plus burn already.. change again spark plug today (NKG-rm20) car return back to normal.no jerking and stable.. i think its because of ron95… will be using ron97 after this…
Switched to 95 then to 97 and back to 95 and finally, 97. All BHP.
The cheaper price very tempting unfortunately the car shivering too much.
There is a visible difference the moment you switch grades but after that it is not so obvious.
Get free back massage whilst driving and palms too.
My car Iswara 1993
no problem using RON95 or RON97 – same performance, because iswara spec only require RON92. RON97 more power? no laaa just in our mind only.
because my Iswara also run on RON130, no extra power pun.
been using r95 twice.power drop almost 30%.
switch back to r97 ans immediately power restored.
using city idsi 06.
petrol type is bhp brand.
RON 92 – change to RON 95.
RON 95 – change to RON 97.
All Malaysian including Myself been fooled yet again by the GOV.
Think Malaysian!!!!! Don't be fool again. Never again.
All The Minister B.S about the Euro standards all Absolute Lies Lies Lies. The Gov does not care about the people. They are using our monies to pump petrol into their personal cars and Gov's. There is no such thing as upgraded fuel in Malaysia.
So at theend of the day we are forced to use the higher price RM 2.05 RON 97. As everybody know we produce over 600000 barrels of crude oil every day and a petroleum producer, and still we pay higher price for our petrol Saudi Arabia petrol per liter is RM 0.60 per liter. Diesel is RM 0.20 1 Rm = 1.1Saudi Riyal.
very simple
the root is the petrol price is to be raised
but this will be objected
how?
by creating another 'new lower grade' product to substitute the new product at the same price.
got it?
then wait for all the psycological turmoil, upset…..people will start to beg for the ron 97…
okla, okla
later same old ron97 will reappear officially at higher price…no every stupid one will against it anymore.
110% logic right?
my home,
B13 by sister reported ron 95 need to crank twice to start
iswara by mom ron 95 same.
kenari by wife i meassured mileage from previous 11.9-12.4 to 13-14/ liter.
N16 my self mileage previous 12.9-13/ liter turned to have bigger margin 11+-14/liter.
maybe ron 95 optimal at certain condition, which made the variation.
but ron 97 always provides stable performance less dependent on the other factors.
i knew this is all about it, higher ron is for the more stable and predictable combustion.
lower octane tend to explode rather than stable combustion, especially in higher temp, leaner Air:fuel ratio. this two is all the criteria for modern engine.
Using RON95 my car, which is Myvi, it is sluggish. Poor pick up. There is wastage of fuel because the car is sluggish
RON95 SUCK…!!!!
I'm driving ford laser 92 1.6 SOHC. The result is less power, less pick up, engine knocking.. VERY..VERY BAD. RON97 more stable and pick up in performance.
RON95 IS REALLY VERY DISAPPOINTING.
SAME LIKE RON92
HOW COME SOME PEOPLE STILL CAN SAY RON 95 IS GOOD FOR THEIR CAR?
SWITCH BACK TO RON97…POWER IMMEDIATELY RESTORED.
Guys try using RON97 at Caltex. Feel different from others and much better. Lately using RON97 at Esso but feeling like RON95. Beware coz some operator is cheating us. Never try BHP yet. Anyone use BHP here?
razax,
i am using bhp97 for 2 tanks already.
power and pickup is good.
try it and feel the difference.
don't use ron95 if possible…powerless..
My wife refill from empty RON 95 shell which i didnt know at all. Cos she know I insisted to pump RON 97. She didnt tell me at all until she laughed when I said something :
"You must have pump V-Power, it's so powerful."
I think, all our views on RON 95 might affecting us to judge the power itself. Sometimes, when we pay less, we think it is surely lower quality than the others. Which i think is stupid enough.
The FC wise, no change. I still getting 480KM from it. Usually is 490KM. Which i think it become less because I rev it alot cos is fun! hahaha
TATA,
What car you drive anyway? I suggest here everybody should mention what type of vehicle used. Mine is Ford laser 1.6 year 92, Nissan Sylphy 2.0 and Honda 125 Motorcycles.
try read this at another blogs
http://imdavidlee.com/try-it-out-new-cheaper-petr… http://www.miricommunity.net/viewtopic.php?f=19&a… http://www.smartwheels.com.my/swforum/discussion/…
and also read this Effects of octane rating
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_Octane_Numb…
for me RON95 is hopeless… TQ
and don't forget to mention your pump station location. very useful believe me.
My Waja just can not respond well with Ron 95, underpowered …so i switch to Ron 97 and i can really feel the diffrence, more power,,frankly Petronas Ron 97 is much much better than Shell or any other brand
I have tested all RON95 CALTEX, PETRONAS, ESSO, MOBILE, SHELL AND BHP. Guess what! BHP is the most satisfy so far. Do you know which petrol the worst?
IS PETRONAS!
well my brothers..
all u need to do is a little mod of your throttle body @ carburetor..
i've done mine at my GEN2 and CHARADE + my fathers UNSER..
it turned out to have much more satisfying performance rather than the unmodified setting..
*please,use the brain,not blaming the petrol company
-i'm 18,but wise..
CY I agree with you.
As far as I know, all the petrol company use the same raw gasoline and then the company such Esso, shell or others just add their own chemical (additive) / Gasoline additives to increase gasoline's octane rating and also depend on how much the usage of additive been used (no one know for sure) which makes the different. What make it worst is some of the Station will illegally add with kerosene or paraffin (minyak tanah) just to gain more profit. It is also advisable to use another gadget for performance such as magnetic, compressor, grounding cable and voltage stabilizer.
Here is the info from http://jasswin.blogspot.com/2009/09/petrol-ron-95…
I copy and paste here just in case some of you are lazy enough to click the link.
Petrol RON 95 vs 97 Price is Cheaper but Under Power for Most of the Cars.
A lot of people already tried to use the Petrol RON 95 since Malaysia implemented it from 1st of September 2009, but after compare the Petrol RON 95 vs 97, the price is cheaper than RON 97, but a lot of cars performance is under power. In another word, you may get the same price vs mileage if you are using the RON 95 now versus you used the RON 97 previously.
Existing price for Petrol RON below:-
RON 95 = RM1.80/litre
RON 97 = RM2.05/litre
RON = Research Octane Number. RON is a rating number and a way to rate the petrol in a test engine with condition, then get the rating number after compare the results for mixtures of iso-octane & n-heptane. If you see the higher RON number, mean the petrol have higher resistance toward pre-ignition or detonation. Most of the F1 racing cars or Airplane are using the RON 100 or greater RON / MON / AKI.
So, it means that
RON 95 = MON 85-86 = AKI 90-91
Today, I had lunch with my friends and we talked about this Petrol RON 95. All of us already tried the RON 95, but our conclusion is the price for RON 95 is cheaper, but we all agreed the car performance really underpowered. They also share the experience from his / her friends or family, and so far most of them not really like the RON 95. If you are using below car models, then you may need to monitor it as most of the people (friends or friend of friends) complain the car is under power after use the RON 95. If you compare the price (full tank / mileage) for RON 95 vs RON 97 after few tries and the result is not much different, then propose you to use back the RON 97, as is good for your car engine for long run and better performance.
Car Models (especially Car with Automatic Transmission):-
Proton Savvy, Perodua Myvi, Proton Wira, Honda Civic, Honda City, KIA Optima, NAZA RIA, Nissan SENTRA, Perodua Kelisa, Proton Waja, Toyota Vios, Proton Saga, Proton Persona, Perodua Kenari, Nissan Cefiro, Naza Suria, Kia Spectra
Replace the RON 92 to RON 95, although provide a better Petrol quality for most of the transportation, but if most of the cars consume the Petrol RON 95 fuel more than RON 97 fuel, then means that it put the burden back to us and help the Petrol companies gain more profit. I think this is the strategies from Petrol companies and government, as if government try to control them not to increase the petrol price, then I believe this is another way to help the Petrol companies. We use it, we pay it, they gain it! :)
ENJOY…
I'm driving Avanza 1.3 (2006)..
The Owner's Manual stated that .. fuel type recommended is..unleaded gasoline, Research Octane Number 90 or higher…
… in my understanding… the word 'higher' at the end of the statement means.. the higher the RON value will give better effect for my car..
any idea…???
if your car manual stated fuel for RON 90 or higher, then just use RON95.
I have try three type of RON. RON 95, RON97 and RON130 (only at Petronas), no different using my ISWARA 93 except for RON130, I have to use TAP (device that changing timing for engine using RON130). without the TAP, using RON130, my ISWARA lost some performance. Ye laaa, RON 90 to RN130 very big different on RON number
My Nazaria and kancil also using RON95.
My petrol station = PETRONAS
what Encik Razak say is true, all RAW oil are the same. The different only
additive.
I’m driving a 2005 Wira SE Manual. Currently I’m on BHP RON95. I’ve tried all petrol available and I’ve come to a conclusion.
BHP 95 – RM50 will take me anything from 300-400km depending on driving condition.
I’ve always reached 400km on normal driving conditions on BHP 95 but have not been able to get the same mileage on other petrol.
Please try urself if u dont believe my words. I’m saving $$ everyday I drive and smiling feeling to have saved on petrol.
FYI. I’m staying in Bangi and travels a lot to KL for business.
I believe in some cars the ECU needs to be tuned in order to accept lower RON petrol. Lucky in my case Proton Wira SE with VDO Siemens ECU & fuel injection system is self diagnostic. ECU will callibrate itself with whatever RON petrol used. Too bad for kaki tuning coz cannot tune ECU for performance.
Hari raya recently I went back to Ipoh and used up RM35 of RON 95 BHP petrol from my home in Bangi. I was doing max 180km/h whenever possible but average about 140km/h due to traffic condition.
Hope u guys can get good FC from using BHP Ron 95 like me.
hell reading all the comments made me to think that all these petrol price hike, RON95vsRON97 & whatnot are part of a conspiracy between oil Cos + our beloved 1Malaysia gomen.
can someone of professional calibre or organization do a proper research..i can donate RM10, if the rest of us drivers an each give rm10 & set up a trust fund to kickstart project…we could hv millions to do a PROPER research whether this is myth or not. make the research free from gov or any oil-related Cos interruptions……even if the guy/woman is a respected/qualified oil engineer/mngr/topshot with years of exp..I WONT BUY HIM/HER….as these people more or less are similar with people who do business & keep saying they’ree making not-too-much profit from selling things to you…..go die i say to these people….
so the public can get the benefit from this sickening doubt-of-which-RON-is-better & put issue to rest. i know i may sound like cock-talking & understand that talk is cheap but this is just my 2cents.
chiaoooo~
i suggest why not fill with octane booster only cost around rm 15 – 30 and then fill up ron 95 full tank.the milage will be better and u will have better respone on your engine…..+ suggest to use better quality engine oil
Ok this is my result…
Papa’s Toyota Harrier 2.4 (Recon, bought around 2004)
Ron97 – Low Power… more fuel consumption
Ron95 – POWER!!!! Less fuel consumption
My Saga LMST
Ron97 – Power! Less fuel consumption
Ron95 – Lousy…
My Toyota Celica 7th Generation
Ron97 – Cool!!!!
Ron95 – ZzZ
My mom’s Kia Karens
Ron97 – Low Power…
Ron95 – Power!
Hello there! I simply wish to offer you a huge thumbs up for the great information you have right here on this post. I am returning to your blog for more soon.
Good post however I was wondering if you could write a litte more on this topic? I’d be very thankful if you could elaborate a little bit more. Many thanks!|