It has been a challenging start to the year for Malaysians, with fuel prices going up in both January and February. As of now, a litre of RON 95 will cost you RM2.30, while it’s RM2.60 for RON97. Analysts are predicting that this gloomy trend will continue into the year, with further hikes expected to be announced in the coming months.
As with every increase in fuel prices, Malaysians will no doubt come up with creative methods or “wise tips” to ensure they minimise their fuel consumption. A more recent, and popular tip being passed around states that using the more expensive RON 97 petrol will provide better savings, as it is claimed to provide more efficient combustion.
However, is there any truth to such claims? Well, our colleagues (Farid and Durrani) from paultan.org/bm decided to perform a real world test together with other media members from the automotive segment of Buletin Utama, to see if there’s any truth to this theory.
Similar to our previous test (RON 95 vs RON 97), the team used two identical cars – a pair of Proton Saga sedans – to ensure it remains relevant to most Malaysian car owners who may not have the means of owning a more expensive car, and is likely more affected by fuel price hikes. Both Saga cars used here are the Premium CVT variant, powered by a 1.3 litre naturally-aspirated four-cylinder petrol engine mated to a CVT.
The day before the test, both cars had their fuel tanks completely drained before being filled with petrol to ensure the cars’ ECU is adjusted automatically to the type of petrol (RON 95 or RON 97) that will be filled tomorrow. The grey car received RON 97, while the black one would represent RON 95.
To ensure maximum parity, the tyre pressure on both cars were adjusted to meet Proton’s specified amount of 220 kPA or 32 psi. Additionally, all cargo spaces in the cars were emptied out to ensure no excess weight tampered with the findings, and the air-conditioning settings were set to be identical as well.
On the day of the test, the team assembled at the Petronas station in Taman Tun Dr Ismail (TTDI), and filled both cars using the ‘three click’ method (wait until the pump nozzle stops automatically, repeat for three times).
After filling up the cars, the team departed at about 10am towards Kuala Lumpur to simulate the usual jam associated with driving in the city centre. The drive within the city covered a distance of about 30 km, where Farid and Durrani swapped cars at the 15 km mark to counteract the difference in driving styles. The position of both cars, whether it is the lead or follower, was also changed so any gains from ‘drafting’ is negated.
After the tour of KL, the team made their way to Hulu Yam via Gombak, followed by Batang Kali and Tanjung Malim, opting not to use the main highway and instead, use the old trunk roads. As before, driver changes took place (after 50 km) and the position of the lead car changed every 20 km.
From Tanjung Malim, the team then made the journey back to Petronas TTDI via the North-South Expressway (NSE), adopting the same driver and lead car swaps as mentioned. By the end of journey, the RON 95 Saga (black car) covered a distance of 171.4 km, while the RON 97 Saga (grey car) notched up 171.8 km, with an average distance 171.6 km between both cars.
Both cars were then refuelled using the same ‘three click’ method from the same pumps as in the morning, before any math can commence. The result, the RON 95 Saga used 11.701 litres, while the RON 97 Saga used 12.240 litres.
Crunching the numbers, the Saga that ran on RON 95 consumed 6.8 litres of fuel per 100 km (or 14.65 km/l), with the total refuelling cost amounting to RM26.91 or 15 sen per km.
Meanwhile, the RON 97 Saga recorded a fuel consumption of 7.1 litres per 100 km (or 14.04 km/l), costing RM31.82 in total or 18 sen per km. The conclusion from this test is using RON 95 is 3 sen per km cheaper compared to RON 97.
What about the other aspects? In terms of performance, the team did not notice any substantial differences while driving both Saga cars, including in terms of acceleration. This is pretty consistent with the English team’s test involving Volkswagen cars previously, which ended in similar fashion – cars with RON 97 used a little bit more fuel compared to RON 95-filled cars.
So, what is the technical explanation behind the results of this test? While most would believe that the fuel with the higher RON number is “cleaner,” and will burn more efficiently to produce a bigger bang, this isn’t the case.
RON or Research Octane Number is associated with the fuel’s resistance to detonating while under high compression, without any form of ignition (spark plug). The higher the RON number, the more compression the fuel can withstand before detonating.
Should the fuel detonate before it is fully compressed and ignited, this will cause pre-ignition followed by engine knocking. The disadvantages of this are engine damage, wastage of fuel, sub-optimum power output and higher maintenance costs.
Among the factors that can cause engine knocking are carbon deposits that accumulate in the engine, taking up space that is usually important for the fuel and air to mix properly. These deposits can raise the compression within the cylinder, which can cause pre-ignitiion and thus, knocking. A more obvious reason is using a low RON number fuel in engines that are designed for higher compression and require higher RON fuel.
For regular passenger cars, most engine have a relatively low compression ratio – in the case of the Saga, the 1.3 litre VVT engine has a ratio of 10.1:1. The usage of RON 95 will not result in any engine knocking, even if you used RON 97. It is always recommended to follow the factory-suggested fuel type for your engine, which should provide optimum levels of performance.
Consider this, if you’re working in an office and barely take part in any sporting activities, should you suddenly decide to eat like Usain Bolt, will the sudden change of diet immediately turn you into an Olympic sprinter? Not likely. Unlike a human being that can be trained to be one, you can’t force your car to continuously do sprints and one day hope it accelerates like a sports car, even with RON 100 but that’s a story for another day.
What type of engines have high compression? Normally, high-performance ones that are naturally-aspirated like the K20A DOHC i-VTEC from the Honda Civic Type R (FD2), which has a compression ratio of 11.7:1. Mazda’s SkyActiv-G engines are an example of high compression engines found in non-high-performance cars (14.0:1 in the Mazda 2), although they have been tuned to accept RON 95 and above fuel.
Another example are NA engines that have been modified by skimming the cylinder heads, which in turn provides a higher compression ratio – a common practice among car and motorcycle tuning garages. On the other hand, turbo- or supercharged engines have lower compression ratios (9.6:1 in the Volkswagen Golf GTI) as a higher compression ratio and boost from forced induction can shorten the life of the engine.
Most modern engines are equipped with a fuel injection system that come with sensors that are capable of detecting engine knocking, and can then adjust the engine’s spark ignition timing to “fix” the issue. In the process of doing so, the engine may not operate in the most optimum manner, which can result in power and efficiency losses.
Aside from this technical explanation, Mohamad Hafiz Abd Aziz, product technician at Petronas explained that there are plenty of factors that affect a car’s fuel consumption.
“To determine that fuel consumption of a vehicle, there are other factors that affect it aside from the type of petrol used. For example, the car’s engine management system, amount of weight carried, tyre pressure, traffic conditions and others. Generally, if we’re focusing on cost savings, I believe RON 95 has an advantage.
“The results obtained from the test of both Proton Saga 1.3L cars, with the difference of 3 sen per km between the unit using RON 95 and RON 97 is deemed as a normal reading and expected from both types of petrol,” he explained.
“On the assumption that using RON 97 will provide better driving performance and a further range, there is some truth to it. In terms of performance, certainly. However, looking at it from a cost standpoint based on the amount of ringgit spend per km, RON 95 would provide better savings to users, especially when the price difference is 30 sen per litre currently,” he added.
Looking to sell your car? Sell it with Carro.
Difference of 0.3L/100km or 4.2%. That’s less than a can of Coke. What is the margin of error? Is the 4.2% within this margin of error? Would be more significant if test was done over a longer period & distance. But I get your message. “Premium fuel does not give significant fuel saving”
Why la so particular? Do it yourself then present as case studies. Trying to look like an expert.
He wasn’t trying to be an expert, all he did was recommended Paultan to use a longer period and distance to get more significant results. What’s wrong with that? And also, Do it yourself? There’s a reason why people read Paultan articles, for tests like these being one of them. Don’t make yourself look ridiculous.
Look who’s talking! Haha
Don’t talk abt Ron 95 or 97, our Ron 95 still Euro 2M and still very poisonous and toxic for the rakyat.
When are we getting clean Euro 5 Ron 95?
Harga petrol dijangka akan naik lagi, ayuh beralih kepada pengangkutan awam.
Kita dapat menjimatkan perbelanjaan, mengurangkan kesesakan lalu lintas, penggunaan petrol, dan risiko kemalangan jalan raya.
You are absolutely right. Dont see why you get so many thumbs down.
Any Science tertiary educated graduate would be able to do simple data analysis and have simple understanding of standard deviation, sample size and probability error. Science Masters & PhD graduates are indeed masters of the above if their thesis involves actual research over the period of their course.
Impressive. Maybe can start with confidence intervals and P value before we arrived at null hypothesis. To simplify things, after time consuming data collection and long list of parametric tests, the null hypothesis is wrong so we conclude that there’s no difference between ron 95 vs 97 as proven in the article above.
No need to be an expert la.. guys. It is common sense. Malaysian average are all fat comparing to our neighboring country. Wanna save fuel? Go & reduce ” lemak berlebihan” in your body. Don’t hate me because I am beautiful.
Beauty is not on d outside but also hold what inside same goes as fuel… if fuel $ keep rising (blame on our policy maker 4 downfall our own myr)while tech trying 2save fuel we back @ 2sq 1.beauty outside ugly inside.
Oh My! cannot beat Daihatsu DVVT engine!
If the weather is relatively warm and you are running high performance engines (turbocharged or free revving VTEC) then you will appreciate the higher Ron petrol to prevent self ignite and knocking
Yes. Not forgetting to factor in the weather and ambient temperature which will affect the end results. Especially when your are stuck in jams during hot and humid day in downtown areas…
Of cause you’ll need more petrol in jams during hot and humid day in downtown areas, as there are no jams in cold uphill areas.
More expensive option?? Surely the current Gomen. Period
Somehow i agreed with the test conducted. For travelling within the city, there are not much difference using ron95/97, in fact i noticed by using ron95, it is the better option, i guess. However for long highway usage, ron97 registered better consumption than ron95. I didn’t do any official testing but from Kerteh to KL, there are more than half fuel in my petrol tank, whilst using ron95, slightly over the last quarter of the tank. I’m driving the 1st generation CX-9 btw, and it does drink fuel too much.
For someone who drive a 3.7 liter V-6, am sure fuel consumption does not affect/concern U.
I may not agree with you 100%..
Those of us who drive big cc cars would still be interested if something that makes scientific sense can offer lower fuel consumption. We just start from a higher benchmark.
I drive a 2GR-FE 3.5l V6 equiped SUV. She is a drinker for sure, but i do know this when i signed on the dotted line years back, and i have another 1000cc car as a daily driver to work.
For a large displacement engine, I doubt the fuel efficiency for RON 95 vs RON 97 will be much. Higher octane numbers are more suited for high compression engines, which accrues better thermodynamic efficiency by virtue of more work done per volume of compression. So, what’s the benefit of RON 97 then? Well, in Western countries, higher octane numbers are added with much more additives to clean up deposits in the ICE. Petronas RON 97 also added a new anti-friction recipe, which explains the 30 cents difference. Which begs the question, is it worth it?
Should repeat the test with the grey car receiving RON 95, while the black one with RON 95. That will negate the car to car variation
Also to ensure both car tire pressure are consistent.
agree. its p1 car summore.
Agree. You never know maybe the black color consumes more petrol since it is darker. Lighter colored car might consume less petrol. Add TRD sticker and it will be faster than the m series.
Make sense…
Make sense………
A black car will always drink more fuel, due to the AC needing to work harder to cool the passenger compartment.
Mythbuster approved
They always forgot the driver’s body weight. Reduce your body weight thus save petrol. Don’t hate me because I am beautiful.
That shows u dont read the article.
Non sense…..
Better sense….
that settles it then. 95 is the way to go.
So, the moral of the story is – Use Ron 95 to save your pocket. Thanks for running an article on fuel saving on a boring Monday.
Yes not really diff in fuel consumption especially city drive. I pump 97 bcos the engine is much smoother, quieter & better power delivery to my civic turbo after several times testing with 95 vs 97.
Want to save fuel? Get the Bezza instead. 20km per liter!
Hidden due to lowcomment rating. Click here to see.
Hey plate bowl, I don’t reason to your reply or logic to your illogical personal attack dumb reply. I am giving an honest consumer advice related to the topic. Oh here’s another thing, Tesla sucks as it doesn’t have a long driving range. Grow up
Hidden due to lowcomment rating. Click here to see.
I personally think Proton Geli’s message is stupid,silly and demeaning. With so many LIKES, Malaysians must indeed be stupid to support comments out of context and endorse downtrodding other brands.
Hidden due to lowcomment rating. Click here to see.
Hidden due to lowcomment rating. Click here to see.
Hidden due to lowcomment rating. Click here to see.
Hidden due to lowcomment rating. Click here to see.
P2 salesman has waaayyy too much time on their hands…
Buy manual alza and demak kapcai,6 people carrier way saving than a beeza.
My principle workshop service advisor suggested me to pump RON97 occasionally. Why? I had them changed the O2 sensor last month due to MIL alert. He said that the cleaner burning of RON97 could help reduce the accumulated dirt on the sensor probe. Is this true?
the fact is, your engine is probably tune to Euro 4 or higher..so the Euro 4M in Malaysia is also Ron 97.
What helps for your car is the Euro 4m standard, not the RON 97. cause Ron 95 u can get all the way to Euro 6 as well in international markets.
Yup….Euro 2 aka RON 95 has 500 ppm of sulfur versus Euro 4M aka RON 97 with 50 ppm.
So what is the conclusion. Will that helps extend the life span of the O2 sensor?
My car manual suggested RON92 and above. Optimum is RON95, when using RON92, engine will adjust by itself and will compromise the performance.
O2 sensor. Interesting topic. Without knowing what car you drive ( whether its a recon model or local model ) and your mileage, its hard to make a good recommendation. Is your car consuming engine oil?
Assuming its like most cars i know, O2 sensors can last >100000km, although some manufacturers do recommend them to be changed out at 100000km.
Assuming it can last 100000k, and using low sulphur fuel can extend its life by another 100000k ( a gross assumption but we need to start somewhere ) , you need to figure out the cost of o2 sensor vs additional cost of Ron97 over that period of time.
I just changed out the O2 sensor of my car myself at RM650 last year. Car milleage was 120000km. Do the math for your car. I know for my car, its cheaper to change the O2 sensor than run RON97 over 100000km.
Peace out man.
Just curious, read before that an engine that usually runs RON95 will need time to adjust if you suddenly change to RON97, especially since some old 95 is still in the tank. So maybe the 97 usage has not yet been maximised? Does anybody know if this is true? Having said that, the tanks were completely emptied, so no chance of a bit of 95 mixed with the 97.
How about resetting the ecu?
Yes, I’m not implying anything but how fast can an ECU adapt to the switch?
Say both Sagas ran on Ron95 before this test was carried out. the grey Saga should have at least ran on Ron97 for a period of time to ensure it’s ECU has been optimized for the said fuel. Doing so would have totally generated a more solid conclusion, PT.
I drive a 1.3 Saga on the same route everyday and i find that it is the second fill that would generate a conclusive result.
How fast? The ECU will know when it senses too much knocking. It will start to adjust timing, normally retard and advance as required.
does it matter? both car still new anyway.
‘but how fast can an ECU adapt to the switch?’
The cycle time of a ECU is 20µs max.
Read, the fuel system was bled of existing fuel before fuel was added. Cars dont need time to adjust as the ECU sees the difference in real time. For instance, lack of air flow will cause the engine to restrict fuel input to avoid a rich/lean fuel mixture and maintain that same compression ration of fuel to air.
Please do a real world fuel test comparison ie. petronas vs shell vs petron vs bhp vs caltex. Which fuel gives us more cost saving or performance?
Totally agree….paultan take note
Wait a minute, wasnt this comparison done by PT before?
Using turbocharged VW cars. Some ppl claimed the test was misleading etc. Bla3
But tebo or non tebo, results shud be no diff from above. Otherwise pipu will demand test for MPVs, SUV, trucks, kapcais, scooters, speedboats, tongkangs, etc…
im using ron100 for my prius 1.8..although not so many different in performance and fuel saving..but i only pump 1times full ron100 in 1month..compare to others if 4times pump ron100 per month..sure pokkai already..just like kappchai..ron95 full and ron97 full..just add on rm1~2 only..why not go premium fuel..go ron95 and let someone earn more only
I personal try 2 Honda City with my wife and mine , 2010 ivtec 5speed and 2014 ivtec CVT (exiting model) , use RON97 you can feel pick up good and engine sound smooth , diffence is consumption about for cost extra about 5% +/- .
The results are proven to be similar for many types of cars. There is no point continue testing
Agreed. Not sure why so many people are so keen to try to dispute the results. Must be the people who tell everyone who cares to listen that they use RON97 because they can afford it, better economy, cleaner, faster.. blah blah like the guy in the video.. hahahaha
Would be more interesting if compare with Ron100 from Petron. That claims to be Euro4M compliance petrol. Then we can show government it is time to change for leaner fuel.
if your car is tuned to Euro 4 and above, the Euro 4M 97 will help. cause the Euro 4M standard fuel is cleaner and more efficient for the cars tuned to Euro 4 and above.
this 95 vs 97 is almost negligible because the Euro standards is different in both.
The sulfur content in Euro 2 (RON 95) is about 500 ppm while Euro 4 M (RON 97) is about 50 ppm. Besides being a cleaner fuel for the environment, it also means less problems to your ICE in the long run.
Bro… 1.3 litre engine on the test again…
We seen testdrive video in uk they test the petrol consumption on 3 different car… Low end, mid end and sports engine… The low end engine (1.2litre) are better in lower RON. But mid end engine shows both are almost same (high octane will give better petrol efficient) and sports car engine will consume more low octane petrol and produce lower engine output.
Last time there is a girl talk about how stupid for malaysian to use ron97… When she get backfired, she use her 1.3 litre myvi for the test… She bragged about the ron95 efficient… But she dont know that there are more engine type and size… Next time dont do only one car… Do it on 1.8 and 2.4litre cars too… The difference are there… Try vpower max too…
Hybrid is the best la…
Our cars are designed to run even on RON91.
Government should provide that option.
can somebody enlighten me on what is ‘three click’ method (wait until the pump nozzle stops automatically, repeat for three times)?
i know it’s explained there. but more explanations. the merit of it, and how to do it (i scared to do until more than a click, or it’ll tumpah la, no?)
3 click means after fuel in your tank settle (no longer being in pumped state)
For example
When you fill your water into small cup you will stop until the water settle itself then you fill until reach the tip or the cup is full
So imagine this but 3 time
pakai Ron 97 kat kereta macam saga memang ah takde beza. Cuba pakai Ron 97 kat keta yg pakai enjin moden macam Merc C Class atau BMW F30, paling korok pun Mazda 3 la baru ada hasil. Pakai Ron 97 kat Saga, sapa la gila nak pakai Ron 97 kat saga
there’s no controlled subject in this test. if both cars ran the same 95 fuel using the same routes and test method, will they return identical fuel consumption readings? better still, if PT crews introduce a 3rd and 4th saga as controlled subjects, will it return the identical consumption? I’m just guessing. good effort by the way. keep it up.
Maybe the “myth” only apply to older cars? Like my 1985 carb Saga, the car feels smoother and slightly better response when using 97 but then again, all depends on the driver
If the charge ignites before the spark ignites, it wont cause pre ignition. Pre ignition is normally caused by hot spots inside the combustion chamber.
Engine knock happens when the end gas inside combustion chamber is ignited before the flame ignited by the spark plug reaches the end gas, this causes high amount of heat the can be destructive to the combustion chamber.
The best way to get the benefit of RON 97 is to use it on engines in which the manual recommends the use of RON 97. If the owner manual recommends the use of RON 95, using RON 97 can cause incomplete burning that can be detrimental to the fuel consumption.
However, there is some exception to this rule and we can try it ourselves; when the ambient and road temperature is really high, using RON 97 for RON 95 engines can be advantageous in terms of engine performance and fuel consumption.
You gotta fill up ron 97 for a few times to clean the engine b4 conduct the test… If fill up one time as per test of course you can’t get the correct results! Just my 2 cent! Tq…
Good job paultan. Although test have been done b4 using vw cars. People still belived otherwise. Hopefully people now understand the thruth after this test result. Apreciate if you could do similar test between euro 5 diesel and euro 2 diesel. I been using euro 5 diesel since it was introduced and hope you could prove whether I have made the right choice.
Need to swap cars/petrol type and do the test again to get a proper result. This will eliminate the cars inherent characteristics.
The test is fair la come on…….
Proven you all are wasting your money on RON 97
Don’t be shy la, just admit if wrong.. don’t seek illogical explanation or say the test is wrong – its perfectly as per real driving conditions and done over a long distance reducing risk of false reading. enough is enough
Try it out with some advance engine. At least I think should test out Honda City, Toyota Camry, BMW E60, BMW F10, Audi and Merz E250 to tell the different. Proton Engine old technology how of course use RON95, since the engine not efficient how to tell with higher RON. An article should good enough to tell the different.
Read the article please in why they use proton
This myth has been debunked many times before, using premium fuel will never improve fuel consumption, period. And those boyracers/ahbengs with zero knowledge about the recommended fuel for their car especially those with small CC low compression naturally aspirated engines, you should also wake up and stop dreaming that you are gaining power (or going faster) by fueling up with RON97 or RON100. If you had pimped up your car with engine internal mods, or turbo/SC, then that’s fine…otherwise, you’re just wasting your money. Leave the premium fuel for cars that really need them, and this is for you EX5 kapchai bikers too.
Also Wira and Myvi that use fully-synthetic oil hahahaha
Okan turut berbangga kerana Malaysia mampu mengeluarkan kenderaannya sendiri dan berjaya di peringkat antarabangsa.
“Saya harap Malaysia terus berjaya dan saya meminta supaya kerajaan dan rakyat Turki terus menerus menyokong kenderaan ini,” katanya.
Manakala salah seorang peminat Proton dari Kuala Lumpur, Muhammad Harits Mukhni, 32, turut berharap Proton kembali masuk menerokai ke pasaran luar termasuk Turki dan Mesir kerana terdapat ramai peminat kereta jenama negara itu di sana.
Jelasnya, sebagai rakyat Malaysia dia mahu Proton terus merintis jalan kejayaan seperti mana jenama kereta luar negara seperti Kia dan Hyundai yang kini menjadi salah satu gergasi permotoran dunia.
“Dengan adanya peminat Proton di luar negara, saya percaya ia mampu berjaya di pasaran antarabangsa.
“Sudah 32 tahun Proton bertapak dalam industri permotoran dan saya teringin melihat Proton memegang pasaran besar di luar negara,” katanya.
wtf, have u tried shell 95 and v power 97? u only tried petronas? with 1 petron car? hw about vios? c200? passat? myvi? if u wan test, pls test all the way! only petronas? how about BHP? caltex? petron? only pump once? pump 3 times and test again.
Comparing the fuel consumption and fuel cost per km is providing good information to car owners. The owners will decide which fuel is suiting them. However, it is necessary to extend the test variables such as in different engine capacity, fuel from different brands, turbo/non turbo, and so on.
How about consumption data versus performance such as power, torque and combustion efficiency?
so many comments not getting the point. This is a good article only not mentioning how many times was the loop done. The test is scientific (assuming the loop was done a few times).
The only difference between RON 05 and 07 is the anti knock index. Both have the same concentration of sulphur and other toxins. Using premium fuel does not make your combustion cleaner, it does not contain additives, it does not make your engine last longer. Its the same with diesel, euro diesel may be purer but still contains the same impurities as regular diesel and does not provide any additional benefit.
Heres something to consider, All modern engines are direct injected, the amount of fuel used is determined by how much you press the pedal and not by the engine rev. For instance in the honda city i get 20km per liter of fuel on average on faster roads, above 10km per liter in the city simply due to the way i drive and having to accommodate for the bad driving of others. I also use RON 95. By global standards, the proton saga is highly inefficient.
wait until the pump nozzle stops automatically, repeat for three times
Is it safe to do so? Fuel will not overflow out?
Im refering to saga flx..
Whats the mileage like on a full tank for this model.. Anyone pls.. And i was ask to change the gearbox fo every 36 month.. Is this releven???