Comments on: New Shell FuelSave Unleaded 95 and 97

By: oh my

oh my — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 17:40:41 +0000

i think esso is the best. shell is just crappy fuel and it makes my engine roar. which i dont want it to.

i have been using shell for the past 15 years. when they change to RON 95, my car has been roaring ever since (engine sounds really coarse)

0 0

By: lmst

lmst — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 10:00:33 +0000

mobil 1 liter = 15.46779661 km -

caltex 1 Liter = 14.85714286 km -

bhp 1 liter = 14.7666666km – (1st try)

petronas 1 liter = 14.5880597 –

shell 1 liter: 14.53846153km –

mobil 1 liter = 15.176649km (2nd try) this one worse (but still good compare other brand) maybe because valve dirty after using shell… what a waste

mobil 1 liter = 16.170490km (3rd try)

mobil 1 liter = 16.218367km (4th try)

from the data, i can see everytime i fill mobil, i got more mile age… did u see same??

0 0

By: shien

shien — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 17:09:35 +0000

apparently BHP and esso gain the higher score among the users.

i've tried shell (previous ron95 and the latest fuelsave formula), petronas and caltex.

caltex: similar driving experience as ron97

petronas: not so impress

shell: the fuelsave formula did improve engine smoothness, but no different in the mileage.

will try the BHP and esso shortly. hard to find at my area.

0 0

By: vipervr

vipervr — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 17:09:32 +0000

Was a strong supporter for Shell RON97 but RON95 is just so bad in terms of perfomance (not much difference in fuel save), after trying all the RON95 in the market, this list goes like this:

Car: Nissan Sentra SG (1.6L Auto)

My preferences after taking in the performance/fuel save considerations.

1st. BHP

2nd Esso / Mobil

3rd Petronas / Caltex

4th Shell (it is now the worst among the lot)

0 0

By: exedy

exedy — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 10:48:45 +0000

i try already for shell fuel save…

no more engine loud, good performance, more mileage

full tank for saga blm 32Liter…

370km for rm56….yes more kilometer….proven..good job shell

now i got two choice for ron95 petrol..

1st – esso

2nd – shell

0 0

By: Safetybear

Safetybear — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 09:18:42 +0000

Esso Mobil, should be a good choice.

0 0

By: lmst

lmst — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 10:02:13 +0000

caltex 1 Liter = 14.85714286 km

bhp 1 liter = 14.7666666km

mobil 1 liter = 15.46779661 km

petronas 1 liter = 14.5880597km

p/s i’m using iswara lmst 1.3 carb

updated:

shell 1 liter: 14.53846153km.. using shell lebih kilometer..don't want to try new formula coz i thinks it's only same..just wasting money …( beside this, marketting dept in my factory always do like this when some product not sold…marketting strategy.

for sure i switch to mobil now… bye bye shell ( regular costumer since 4 years ago)

0 0

By: Zarin

Zarin — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 23:02:02 +0000

just used Shell Fuelsave 95 and i felt it got better performance compared to Pet95 or BHP95. I'm using Waja Campro-E 07 Manual. Better pickup and can reach faster to 130km/h compared to old formula or other company. Later give you the mileage.

0 0

By: andy

andy — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 22:45:18 +0000

hope the new fuel is better. if not need to change other brand. my place have only shell. petronas, bhp, esso, mobil very2 far…… terpaksa use shell lor…….

0 0

By: Safetybear

Safetybear — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 10:01:50 +0000

Anyone noticed that before the RON 95 hit the market, there would be an advantage list below the RON 92 pump and a longer list for the RON 97 pump.

However, both listings have mysteriously been omitted after RON 95 hit the market.

Have been using BHP before the 95 was introduced and so far no major differences felt compared to other brands.

The 92 and 95 grades felt a bit underpowered and noisier so I am now back with 97 until they decide to increase the price again.

0 0

By: ReplyTo_ReactiX

ReplyTo_ReactiX — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 18:19:34 +0000

IMHO, more to concern rather than the RON info you've got. What about the fuel quality, fuel additive package, the entire fuel content, the ACTUAL RON of the particular brand's fuel (may be its RON94.55, RON94.98), your engine's present compression…etc.

From my experience, I have found my car's engine has different performance on RON95 than using RON97 (could it be RON96.98 only, lol) even though it suits to use RON95.

Just use whichever brands of fuel that you think that's good for your car or your pocket.

0 0

By: persona5610

persona5610 — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 17:19:00 +0000

can someone tell me whether the BHP petrol good or not?

0 0

By: ShaolinTiger

ShaolinTiger — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 16:43:21 +0000

I've always used Shell, used to pump V-Power exclusively but it got too expensive.

Then switched to Shell RON97, didn't find it too good.

Using Esso/Mobil now, seems great so far. Will do some mileage tests.

So far tho Esso seems to give more power than Caltex RON97.

0 0

By: Coolguru

Coolguru — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 15:53:41 +0000

Whatever the RON and saving is my main concern is the sluggishness of Shell's Ron95 – that is definitely has to do with their addictive.

I've a normal VTEC City (just normal ride for anyone) and been a loyal Shell Ron97 user for years until recent change to Ron95. It was shocking to me that my car goes really sluggish in power BUT yes better savings. Generally I'm getting 13KM/liter as shown with Shell Ron95.

Since it's sluggish, I tried other Ron95 like Esso, Petronas and Caltex – in this case, Esso is the worst but still better than Shell Ron95, Petronas rank second and Caltex gives me very similar to Shell Ron97 performance.

I might be wrong but would like to be proven on this case – until then I'm not turning back to Shell Ron95 unless Shell can prove that whatever addictive in Ron97 is in Ron95.

But generally, other brands Ron95 gives me at 11KM/litre vs Shell Ron95. Got job on this BUT also good luck on the sluggishness!

0 0

By: ReactiX

ReactiX — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 14:58:57 +0000

another interesting reading on the RON number myth:-

http://www.carsales.com.au/advice/2008/myth-busti…

0 0

By: ReactiX

ReactiX — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 14:39:36 +0000

well, seeing all of your comment, i make a research and end up with wikipedia. this is what Wikipedia tells on RON number:-

Many high-performance engines are designed to operate with a high maximum compression, and thus demand high-octane premium gasoline. A common misconception is that power output or fuel mileage can be improved by burning higher octane fuel than a particular engine was designed for. The power output of an engine depends in part on the energy density of its fuel, but similar fuels with different octane ratings have similar density. Since switching to a higher octane fuel does not add any more hydrocarbon content or oxygen, the engine cannot produce more power.

0 0

By: chew ban

chew ban — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 12:03:48 +0000

CALTEX IS THE BEST

0 0

By: drivers

drivers — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 11:20:49 +0000

mmh..seems like the result is getting clear:

1) BHP

2) ESSO/Caltex

3) Petronas

4) Shell

Infact, this RON95 helps to bring the traditional RON97 Shell/Petronas users to the alternative due to market competitiveness! which is a good thing, since only with competitive, there is improvement.

Imagine big name like SHELL rolls out lousy RON95 product and care less about the quality due to market share. We drivers are the victim if we have no choice! Brand cant sell, quality do when the battleground is equal.

Lucky the BHP/ESSO/Caltex still around to give us alternative. Imagine the country only has Petronas and Shell monopolized.

0 0

By: gen y

gen y — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 10:19:49 +0000

1. I get LESS kilometres with RON 95.

2. RON 95 costs me the same as RON 97 previously, if RM1.70 then it is still acceptable.

3. The G and the newspapers keep saying RON 95 is better for the environment –> yeah right!! are you saying RON 97 is worse for the environment because it has higher tolerence for engine knocking? how that sums up?

4. I COULDN'T find RON 97 around PETRONAS station at my place (Rawang). This su*ks big time!

5. I get LESS kilometres again with RON 95!!

0 0

By: ReactiX

ReactiX — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 10:06:59 +0000

the girl on right looks hot!

0 0

By: wochomi

wochomi — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 08:30:24 +0000

Yes, agree with Ronnie. It's all bout branding your fuel with 'special terms'…. stupid marketing gimmick. But the chicks are real, man.

0 0

By: Ronnie

Ronnie — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 01:41:31 +0000

Petronas=Dynamic Diesel.

Shell =Efficiency Improver.

BMW =EfficientDynamics.

It's all abt branding plus if u throw in a contest (with attractive cash & cars) then the whole view point is changed.!!

0 0

By: Terence

Terence — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 00:40:48 +0000

I guess damage is already done. I think is difficult for Shell to regain back its customers. I was using shell for 20 years until 2 months ago. Engine was rough and pick up was pretty bad. Its BHP for me now. Sorry Shell.

0 0

By: helmi

helmi — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 23:41:07 +0000

Tested on my car RON95, Esso and Petronas are good and feel no difference with the previous RON97. BHP feel slightly sluggish but its ok. Agreed that Shell your car feel no pickup.

0 0

By: Cps

Cps — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 23:37:02 +0000

lazyf said,

October 7, 2009 @ 9:48 pm

The best of RON95….

1. BHP

2. Esso/Mobil

3. Caltex

Yesss lazyf!!..I totally 200% agree wifv ur ranking..my cps engine is very smooth and excellent pickup when using BHP..good milage too..

0 0

By: wrongturn

wrongturn — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 23:32:46 +0000

i drive KIA sportage and whenever I fill up the car with Shell RON95….the car feels sluggish….and this never happened before (used to Shell Ron97)!

I thought I was wrong until I read the comments..above!

Now, I am switching to Petronas Ron95 ( almost 2 months now, since), and my car feels smoother like it should be..

Tried Esso Ron95.. not that bad either!But no miracle either..

So far, shell is the worst!

On the other hand, my other car (the Honda City) is less fussy in what brand or type of fuel you fill it up with!

0 0

By: chanel

chanel — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 23:16:59 +0000

i think Shell marketing dept has lost it….barely 1 months plus they have came out with another "fuel save" formula….common sense if products is good, would you introduce a "better" product in less than 2 months period??? surely this is desperate move…..

other theory could be that they fail to finalized their product b4 sept 1, taking for granted their market share thus they simply came out with marketing gimmick , assuming it was sure win strategy…..now eat dust lol……

my self haven't tried shell for full tank since sept 1, due to my tank was full & when i need to pump, there were lots of bad comment about shell fuel already….i only topup 15litre on highway, sure can't feel any different.

0 0

By: roadservice

roadservice — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 23:03:29 +0000

Govt supposed to phase out RON97 & introduce RON95, and then price RON95 RM1.75. This way rakyat have choice of either cheap RON95 (RM1.75) or cheaper RON92 (RM1.70). High performance cars like Ferrari that require RON97, owner must be super rich thus can buy after market octane booster for their cars.

0 0

By: jiN

jiN — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 22:40:41 +0000

to me.. tested on my wira 1.5 auto. only caltex 95, bhp95 amd mobil 95 can be used..

0 0

By: Jason

Jason — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 22:13:19 +0000

http://2hard2lie.blogspot.com/2009/09/which-ron-9…

above is my study of FC.

I am surprise the Saga BLM that posted above has just 10km/l

my ten yrs Iswara 1.3M with 100% city drive has a near 15km/l FC.

I just think you may need to use the prudent way to check ur FC.

0 0