RON 95 vs RON 97 fuel test – which should you use?

“Should I use RON 95 or go for the more expensive RON 97 fuel?” That’s a very common question among our readers and general Malaysian motorists alike.

Needless to say, there are countless theories on this matter scattered across the Internet: some for, and others against the use of higher-RON petrol fuels. We at paultan.org thought it would be much simpler – not to mention conclusive – to just compare the two fuel grades directly, head-to-head against each other.

So RON 95 vs RON 97 – which one’s better, or rather, which one should you use? We gathered two units of the Volkswagen Polo Sedan and two Jetta TSIs to find out.

RON_95_vs_RON_97_Fuel_Test_Malaysia_ 008

Why two pairs of vehicles, we hear you ask? Well, you’ve heard it all before: modern, more technologically advanced engines respond more to higher-grade fuels, you get bigger gains with a turbocharged engine compared to a naturally-aspirated one, so on and so forth. So, we though we’d cover both bases at once.

The Polo Sedan with its naturally-aspirated 1.6 litre MPI (multi-port injection) engine represents traditional, old-school vehicles, while the 1.4 litre twin-charged (turbocharged and supercharged), direct-injection TSI motor in the Jetta plays for the other team here.

First up, the test itself. We arranged a lengthy 230 km-odd route, including heading into the Kuala Lumpur city centre on a regular working week day (during rush hour, no less), then on to equal shares of both highways and twisty backroads to Tanjung Malim and back.

Heavy stop-wait-and-go traffic, clear and busy highways, tight B-road stretches – we covered them all, and then some. It’s as real-world as it gets, we think, as far as single-day fuel tests go, encompassing all variations of driving conditions in Malaysia.

Before we started, we had emptied all the cars’ fuel tanks as much as we dared to, and filled them up with their respective fuels the day before the test. The cars were then driven around for a bit to get the engines accustomed to each fuel type. To maintain absolute parity between the vehicles, each car’s tyres were also pumped up to the recommended pressures.

On to the actual fuel test. For consistency’s sake, each car was filled up to the brim using the three-click method (wait for the fuel nozzle to automatically stop, repeat three times after 10 second intervals) with the same re-fuelling kiosk.

So we now had one Polo Sedan running on RON 95 fuel, with the other on RON 97. Ditto with the pair of Jettas. Off we went, then.

The four vehicles travelled in a loose convoy throughout the entire journey, each taking turns to lead. We changed drivers at the halfway point (between each pairs) to eliminate the effects of different driving styles (and the drivers’ weights too, of course). The air-con settings were kept identical between the two pairs too.

To keep the test as “real-world” as possible, the drivers followed the natural flow and speed of other road users, which meant that we kept a minimal distance to the car in front during traffic jams, and cruised between 100 to 130 km/h on the fast lane through clear highways. It wouldn’t have been realistic any other way, right?

RON_95_vs_RON_97_Fuel_Test_Malaysia_ 052

At the end of the route, the convoy covered exactly 236.7 km of mixed driving conditions. Each car was then re-fuelled to the brim again with the same process described above (identical three-click method, using the same petrol kiosk) to see the exact amount of fuel used.

The results are as such: the Polo Sedan on RON 95 used precisely 18.160 litres of fuel, while the one on RON 97 used 17.612 litres. Those figures correspond to 13.03 km per litre (7.67 l/100 km) for the car on RON 95, and 13.44 km per litre (7.44 l/100 km) for the RON 97 test car. That’s a difference of 3.15% in favour of RON 97 (using RON 95’s number as the baseline).

As for the Jettas, the RON 95 car used 17.505 litres (averaging 13.52 km per litre or 7.40 l/100 km), compared to the RON 97 test car’s 17.857 litres (13.26 km per litre or 7.54 l/100 km). The difference stands at -1.92%, in favour of RON 95. And yes, this surprised us too.

Fuel_Test_Results_WM

Refer to the table above for the full results. In short, with the Volkswagen Polo Sedan 1.6 MPI, using RON 97 fuel brings a fuel economy gain of 3.15%. The Jetta 1.4 TSI, on the other hand, suffered a small deficit of 1.92% with the higher-grade fuel.

Now, the cost factor comes in. As things stand right now, RON 97 fuel (RM2.00 per litre) carries a 17.65% premium over regular RON 95 (RM1.70 per litre). Even allowing for a 5% margin of error either way, this test suggests that the cheaper fuel is still the way to go from a financial point of view.

As for claims that higher RON fuel offers better engine performance, it has to be said that none of the four drivers felt any discernible difference between the two fuels. Read into this what you will, of course, but based on our results, it looks like the paultan.org crew will continue to feed our personal cars with RON 95 fuel. Over to you: do you use RON 95 or RON 97, and why?

Looking to sell your car? Sell it with myTukar.

Certified Pre-Owned - 1 Year Warranty

10% discount when you renew your car insurance

Compare prices between different insurer providers and use the promo code 'PAULTAN10' when you make your payment to save the most on your car insurance renewal compared to other competing services.

Car Insurance

Hafriz Shah

Preferring to drive cars rather than desks, Hafriz Shah ditched his suit and tie to join the ranks of Malaysia’s motoring hacks. A car’s technical brilliance is completely lost on him, appreciating character-making quirks more. When not writing this ego trip of a bio, he’s usually off driving about aimlessly, preferably in a car with the right combination of three foot pedals and six gears.

 

Comments

  • Regular Reader on Feb 04, 2015 at 8:42 pm

    Great article. Good to see you guys make original content with tests and results we can learn from. Keep up the good work!

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 972 Thumb down 22
    • Sammy Vellu on Feb 04, 2015 at 9:51 pm

      When I pump petrol these days, I see all the cars (from big to small) are pumping RON97. Even kancils are pumping it too.

      I’ve done some comparison myself and I feel that there is no difference in terms of FC with both the fuels on my 13 year old 2.0 car. Both managed to clock about 330km per full tank and there is really no difference in terms of performance.

      Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 342 Thumb down 49
      • Nissan on Feb 04, 2015 at 10:33 pm

        My EX5 also drink RON97 only

        Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 202 Thumb down 44
        • Touch in reality on Feb 05, 2015 at 8:35 am

          Paul Tan should use Proton, Perodua cars as comparison test. VW cars are good example but irrelevant car brand here. If not why ignore Ferrari or Rolls Royce cars? Just saying.

          Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 421 Thumb down 82
          • Where is Our CLEAN fuel? on Feb 05, 2015 at 10:11 am

            Hidden due to lowcomment rating. Click here to see.

            Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 340 Thumb down 581
          • Sadiqutp on Feb 05, 2015 at 12:59 pm

            Speaking of bullshit, do you know that USA 88 is not the RON number but the AKI number ?? And 88 AKI is equivalent to about 94 Ron ..
            So maybe you should google your stuff before speaking of bullshit !

            Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 783 Thumb down 37
          • Which Petrol for my F30 on Feb 06, 2015 at 11:27 am

            Mine gets better mileage using BHP.. followed by Petronas.

            Shell is the worst

            Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 169 Thumb down 30
          • Bodoh Malaysians on Feb 06, 2015 at 11:48 am

            We are already paying RM3 per litre of fuel as we have already prepaid the government for the next 30 years with high car prices.

            Malaysia has the highest car prices in the world and yet, our GDP Per Capita is one of the lowest in the world. What this means is that, Malaysians earn very little compared to other countries and our RM has very low purchasing power.

            So, we Malaysians have nothing to be proud off. We are paying RM3 per litre and it is something to be ashamed of!

            Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 157 Thumb down 121
          • persona dude on Feb 11, 2015 at 7:18 am

            I’ve done some comparison on my persona elegance auto on using 95 & 97 petronas. Obviously when using 95, i could only gain 350km before the fuel indicator starts to show up, with 97 i can get extra 50ks. The strange situation is, if i continue to use 97 for another let say 2, or 3 times filling up the tank, i will never get the extra 50ks. I will have to refuel using 95 for a couple of times before changing back to 97 to get that extra 50ks. No idea why.

            Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 65 Thumb down 13
          • Persona dude i think i know why, its because of the carbon deposits. As far as i know petronas ron97 has a good engine cleaning additive compared to ron95. Deposits build up every few thousand km especially on older cars. Thats why even honda n toyota promotes their fuel injector cleaner. Filling with ron97 cleanses ur engine, but then after the next refill its not as if u get better mileage than ron95. So in conclusion, once in a while filling with ron97 will help clean ur injectors etc hence gets u better FC. or just pour a bottle of injector cleaner every few thousand km would do too

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 29 Thumb down 2
          • Ayoyo….why use vw. They are infamous for mileage cheating. Use produa or proton lah

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 7
          • JB_KIA on Jan 09, 2017 at 7:12 pm

            in the first place why believe someone who can’t even spell ‘guys’ correctly…

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6
        • head hunter on Feb 13, 2015 at 10:02 am

          winco80 u should come here in brunei :) fuel oil are much cheaper here in brunei…… if u r wondering where is brunei then google map it :P

          Price: Ron 97 = 0.53 cent per ltr
          Ron 92 = 0.36 cent per ltr
          diesel = 0.31 cent per ltr

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 38 Thumb down 11
        • Ahock on Jan 09, 2017 at 7:00 pm

          Nobody buys VW anymore.

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 8
      • Same L0rrrr on Feb 04, 2015 at 10:57 pm

        Hidden due to lowcomment rating. Click here to see.

        Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 72 Thumb down 425
        • xiper (Member) on Feb 05, 2015 at 12:11 am

          Very sorry to say but the best selling non-national passenger cars in Malaysia belong to i-VTEC family, not VVT-i anymore.

          Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 344 Thumb down 52
          • Curi Curi Malaysia on Feb 05, 2015 at 10:33 am

            Why talk about which is better? Ron 95 or Ron 97? No point talking about this when our Government still overcharges us for fuel.

            If Global Brent is USD50.00/barrel = RM175 (x3.6)
            RM175/159 = RM1.25/ltr (per barrel has 159 litres)

            Before refining charge and petrol dealer profit is RM1.25/ltr

            Our Government keeps on lying to us. Now it looks like the poor will be subsidising the Government for their lavish lifestyles.

            There is no way petrol can even be more than RM1.25 as Brent Crude has fallen to its lowest. So, we Malaysians are paying more than 45 sen extra per litre if pump prices are RM1.70. Why?

            If they are truly doing a proper float system, the actual price is RM1.25 per litre if per barrel is US$50. Now its even lower at US48

            Then there is 2 other elements. 1) Refining cost and 2) Petrol Dealer Profit

            The maximum for refining cost is 10 sen per litre. That is the Maximum ceiling for refining based on global refining charges.

            Petrol dealer profit also is usually 10 sen per litre.

            This is typical Malaysia. Government throw saki baki scraps from the dinner table, the rakyat, like dogs are forced to pick the leftovers and eat. The recent reductions is a big joke and a big rip off to the rakyat because recent months Government increased so much…pandai pandai.

            Critics will argue about sales tax but every single oil producing country sells their oil without sales tax to the rakyat. Except for the UK. But then again, in UK, even the kuli earns about RM2000 pounds and his fuel is 1 pound per litre.

            Malaysia is the ONLY oil producing country (except the UK) in the world charging sales tax on petrol to its rakyat.

            Even at the new price of RM1.70, we will be overpaying the Government over 45 sen per litre. Like the last reduction, government made RM Billions in just one month because the charged Ron 1.90 which was so much higher than global prices. Mana float?

            Every single oil producing country gives their rakyat cheap oil. Only one oil producing country, Malaysia, gives the rakyat above global market price for oil.

            Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 388 Thumb down 180
          • Where is the Pariah MAI? on Feb 05, 2015 at 10:52 am

            What happened to MAI? They said Government promoting EEV. Told everybody to buy Hybrid. Told car manufacturers also to invest billions to CKD Hybrid in Malaysia.

            Honda Malaysia invested billions listeneing to MAI. Now, Government just pull the plug on Hybrid.

            Come on MAI. What is happening?

            Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 80 Thumb down 11
          • Same L0rrrr on Feb 05, 2015 at 11:45 am

            Hidden due to lowcomment rating. Click here to see.

            Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 38 Thumb down 138
          • Buy Badge on Jul 01, 2015 at 8:08 pm

            Ha.. buying cars is not like buying vegetables,test drive like yr’e in Rally, not around the block while the salesman fingered yr’s backend. Then decide to buy badge or car ?

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
          • Winmac80 on Feb 06, 2015 at 5:38 pm

            @CuriMalaysia – why only Malaysian government? You what is the petrol price in Asia? Philippines, Indonesia, Thailand, even Cambodia are selling around US$1 per liter. What bs are you talking about now?

            Are you saying these governments are also corrupt? It is the global market forces. Don’t go count crude oil and refining only because there are other ex-works and costs along the supply chain.

            If you are going to argue that we are a petroleum producing countries, I am going to stop here from arguing with someone who is not worth arguing.

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 86 Thumb down 80
        • BeenerFreak on Feb 05, 2015 at 9:39 am

          Sorry the Axia’s engine does not even have DVVT. It has none to speak of.

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 56 Thumb down 8
          • Mr Sam Loo, you need to get your OWN facts right, i just checked mudah.my the cheapest city vs cheapest vios is only 1,000 ringgit apart from each other.
            Also, why not compare a 2010 city to a 2010 vios?
            Cheapest 2010 city in mudah.my
            Honda city 2010 costs 49,800
            Cheapest vios 2010 is 37,980
            Pffffffffffffffffftt
            Looks like your “RV” days are coming to an end LOL

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 46 Thumb down 3
        • Nah!!!, iVTEC is still the best!

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
      • turbox on Feb 07, 2015 at 6:48 pm

        Lol. You can’t complain that as the newer cars have advanced ECU that will adjust the engine setting accordingly based on the input sensors. Hence, you can see the differences only in the newer cars.

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
      • eh cheah on Feb 10, 2015 at 6:04 am

        I alternate between Ron 95 and Ron 97 every half tank. Is it okay?

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 8
        • Car guy on Jul 03, 2017 at 3:57 pm

          No it’s not ok. U are only confusing your ECU. Best case scenario, your engine may lug a little (feel underpowered).
          Worst case scenario, your pistons or any other engine part will blow up or fail.

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 9
    • Apart fromFC, i am sure there’s other differences that these two grades of fuel will give that warrant their usage. Take for example: which grade of fuel will shorten the lifespan of your car’s oxygen sensor?

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 85
      • You are “sure”?? You need to re-Google what is octane rating. It only pertains to knocking. Oxygen sensor has to do with AIR FLOW, nothing to do with fuel. Do you know what oxygen is? The element you’re not getting enough of.

        Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 177 Thumb down 14
        • Kenny Yun on Feb 06, 2015 at 11:17 am

          AIR FLOW?
          I think oxygen sensor read remaining oxygen in exhaust gas and sending data to ECU.So,ECU can calculate the accurate air/fuel ratio for better combustion.
          But you are right,RON number showing fuel ability to withstand knocking.

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 2
      • RicoT on Feb 05, 2015 at 12:54 am

        In country like Japan, JIS fuel specification for regular fuel is more or equal to RON 89 (typically RON 90), while premium fuel is more or equal to RON96 (can go up to RON 100 based on different pump company).

        For countries like Australia & USA, regular fuel is around RON 91 to 92, while Super/Premium fuel is RON 95 to 97. Shell V-Power Racing in Australia has RON 100 but this is for race cars or high-performance car like Ferrari, Civic Type-R, Lamborghini, etc, and had been discontinued. Ouch..

        In Malaysia, we used to have RON 92 leaded (lead can kill your car’s catalytic converter and can cause stupidness in children). The sole unleaded fuel back then was RON 97 unleaded, but the leaded RON 92 is replaced by RON 95 unleaded, therefore, 2 options for unleaded fuel. So in fact, we are now pumping what other countries termed as “Premium” fuel, RON 95 or 97. That is why there shouldn’t be much difference between pumping RON 95 and RON 97, as demonstrated by paultan.org team. In fact, most cars only need RON 95, even Mercedes Benz E200 and VW Beatle can run minimum RON 92 unleaded. Always refer to your car user manual for the minimum required RON rating for your car. If it says RON 92, pumping RON 95 is more than enough to eliminate the knocking; if it says RON 97 like Civic Type-R, go ahead with RON 97 only. Chances are you get some knocking sound during hard (racing) acceleration. Throw in some fuel additives to boost up the RON to eliminate this problem if you want to race.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octane_rating

        Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 274 Thumb down 11
        • geekfiredog on Feb 05, 2015 at 6:43 am

          After leaded fuel was phased out, there were 2 grades of unleaded fuel available, RON 97 and RON 92. I was using unleaded RON 92 (RM0.10 cheaper) for my car in ~ 2008/2009 before it switched from RON 92 unleaded to RON 95 unleaded

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 6
          • prabowi on Feb 05, 2015 at 9:49 am

            Me too. But RON92 was quite rare in those days so sometimes had to fill with 97. Now 95 n 97 not much difference but the price is way much. If it is 95 n 98 or more then might be acceptable.

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 3
        • Nope you’re are definitely wrong that “we’re using premium petrol”.But most of your facts are right though. :)

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octane_rating

          Please read this up to further improve your understanding. And also go look up Malaysia on that page. You’ll understand why. ;)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5
          • Leftout on Jul 01, 2015 at 8:13 pm

            Wikipedia. Omg since the no…nek…no..nek dialup now broadband there still people use wiki as reference LOL

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 8
      • Righteous Bro on Feb 05, 2015 at 8:21 am

        WTH, The fuel you put into your car has nothing to do with your oxygen sensor. The oxygen sensor is located at the exhaust system to detect emission control by determine the fuel and oxygen mixture in your car. It is just a sensor sending data to your car computer on the percentage of air needed to open or close via the airflow meter or the air mast.

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 29 Thumb down 4
    • valueformoney on Feb 05, 2015 at 1:56 am

      If want to know got power or not. Send for dyno test lah…what so hard?

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 44 Thumb down 7
    • OMG…Conclusion: RON 95 still the better 1. at least u can save $ 1st before start ur engine.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 2
    • alldisc on Feb 05, 2015 at 1:15 pm

      paultan should use the same formula of road tests to gained FC data for other cars too.

      then, make a table for a proper comparision – real life data!!

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 7
    • The performance gains that’s claimed by petrol companies completely a marketing gimmick. RON 97 only have performance difference on higher compression engine or as stated by a car manufacturer to only fuel a car with RON 97 or higher. This is to eliminate engine knocking.

      “RON 97 burns, RON 95 also burns”. So if your car have no problem running on RON 95, there’s no need for RON 97. Otherwise, it would be a total waste of money.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 32 Thumb down 6
      • Tesla on Feb 07, 2015 at 8:31 pm

        YES, RON95 and RON 97 burns… Kerosene also burns, then why not pump kerosene into your car leh hoh?

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 31
    • Really fair & square test..!! TQVM…Pro!!! Not the type of no facts talk..

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Painter on Feb 04, 2015 at 8:45 pm

    Boss,

    A test using good ol’ Myvi with both fuel ratings would be good. You know, majority of Malaysians driving locally made cars.

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 292 Thumb down 14
    • Hidden due to lowcomment rating. Click here to see.

      Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 53 Thumb down 294
      • Regina on Feb 05, 2015 at 12:50 am

        Ben, there is a difference. All these cars are fuel injected cars. Carburettor cars will give a different result.

        Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 61 Thumb down 7
        • calcutta on Feb 05, 2015 at 3:55 am

          which new car in malaysia still using carburettor?

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 46 Thumb down 19
        • BeemerFreak on Feb 05, 2015 at 9:43 am

          Carburetor cars should be condemned to death.bloody polluting to the environment due to the uneven mix causing incomplete combustion.

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 37
          • Frank Martin on Feb 05, 2015 at 10:21 am

            Not all carbureted cars are bad ans waste fuel. A properly tuned carb or carb tuned to burn slightly leaner actually gives you better mileage for your fuel. Don’t slam the carbureted cars if you haven’t driven a properly tuned one before!

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 54 Thumb down 8
          • Boo Hoo on Feb 06, 2015 at 10:59 pm

            Wow bimmerfreakshow,

            I completely disagree with your opinion on carbs, and I don’t need to waste my time debating with people like you.

            It’s like saying a turbocharged car sound better than a V engine, but judging by your earlier comments I don’t expect you to understand what I just said

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 2
          • Patman on Feb 10, 2015 at 4:04 pm

            Hey, guess I’m one of the few who still drives a carburettor car.
            I tried both Ron 95 & 97, even before the price drop, my 1996 Ford Telstar 2.0 did 450km for a full tank of 48 litres with both octane types, hence FCC is similar. However I felt my car lighter when I run on Ron 97. So I alternate between them since 97 is much affordable now.

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1
    • Aero (Member) on Feb 04, 2015 at 11:21 pm

      Actually, the man has a point.

      I agree that this is a brilliant article insofar as originality goes… and I’m quite surprised that the common theories have been proven wrong in the end.

      I can also see the logic behind the choice of vehicles used. But the reality is that less than 1% of cars on Malaysian roads are Volkswagens. Less than 1% of Malaysians will truly benefit from this knowledge. The conclusions from this experiment may not hold true for the common Malaysian who drives a Saga, Myvi or Viva. A three-way comparison between these three popular cars will make a FAR BIGGER impact on Malaysians. The data can be taken at near face value, without as many questions asked.

      C’mon paultan.org team, make it happen ! At the very least, you guys will get wayyy more hits than this article ever will. You guys will untung from the ad revenue, the average Malaysian will untung from more relevant insight.

      Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 334 Thumb down 13
    • rally_fan (Member) on Feb 04, 2015 at 11:48 pm

      thats the whole point of testing with the polo sedan.. it uses a multiport fuel injection n/a engine which is basically similar in design to your Myvi engine.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 37 Thumb down 20
    • Road test on myvi or not, you guys have to understand, cars equipped with EFI (electronic fuel injection) engines, new or old, do have knock sensor in the engine, which will adjust the combustion timing of your engine accordingly, to produce maximum efficiency out of the engine. Therefore, if no mods has been done to your EFI engine, the engine will adjust the parameters of the engine to the original setting, regardless what RON of fuel you use.

      It is true higher RON petrol have higher ignition temperature, which benefits some engine (type r engine etc), the rest of the engine family do not gain significant performance to really justify the premium petrol price over regular ones.

      Honda type r engine for example, is design to run hard on tracks, just like any other high performance engine, need higher RON fuel to prevent knocking, probably detonation as well. However, if you ocassionally rempit down the LEKAS highway, RON 95 pun boleh pakai.

      Tuned engine is a different matter. You can make the engine to make maximum power from specific fuel. Furthermore, I don’t know much about it because i am no tuner.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 34 Thumb down 1
      • kl fella on Feb 05, 2015 at 10:34 am

        i still remember the adverts on the 8th gen honda civic type r had a little note at the bottom stating to achieve the 200 odd hp you need to use RON 99 fuel.. lol

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2
  • takNakP1 on Feb 04, 2015 at 8:46 pm

    new car may be still too good the condition.

    test RON97 on a 10 years Myvi that has been running with RON95 since it is available.

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 99 Thumb down 29
    • Rumah Tol on Feb 04, 2015 at 9:09 pm

      macha..how old are you?

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 47
    • LatukBandar on Feb 04, 2015 at 9:50 pm

      Boy, you 10 years old ah? Last time where got RON95? It is RON92 and RON97.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 38 Thumb down 21
      • takNakP1 on Feb 05, 2015 at 12:51 am

        your common sense should tell you the car uses RON95 when it was introduced and not use RON95 for 10 years.

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 11
        • please read carefully “10 years Myvi that has been running with RON95 SINCE it is available”
          not running on RON95 for 10 years.

          Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 71 Thumb down 3
    • seancorr (Member) on Feb 04, 2015 at 9:54 pm

      Its quite true…all my family cars are well over 10 years old and when they use those fuel cleaners sold by Caltex, the engines performed better.

      I’d reckon that pumping 97 for a couple of times (or more if your engine has been running 95 for a lot of years) would have the same effect as those fuel cleaners as 97 fuel has fuel cleaning agents in it but its a personal preference as my family opts for a RM45 fuel cleaner once in 5k intervals as a more cost effective solution than pumping 97 a couple of times every once in a while to keep the engine clean.

      Just my 2 cents on this wildly debated topic.

      Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 62 Thumb down 10
      • Celicazz on Feb 04, 2015 at 10:11 pm

        i admire your logics… not…

        Thermodynamics deferred your logics

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 15
        • seancorr (Member) on Feb 05, 2015 at 12:32 am

          Oh for goodness sake pls don’t start bringing up energy and heat into this topic. Whoever said about power & efficiency? here I’m talking about carbon build up in old engines and additives to counter it.

          If you want a more detailed explanation read my post below before u comment.

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 4
      • Until someone has concrete figures like what paultan.org has done, every mention of “performed better” automatically brings up two words: “butt dyno”. It’s “feeling” only.

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 6
        • seancorr (Member) on Feb 05, 2015 at 12:39 am

          U do know there are a lot of other detailed studies done out there besides paultan.org do u?

          Butt dyno is relative to the individual on performance gains and u can read my post below on it but when you see it with your own eyes on the R&D these oil companies did with their fuel cleaners can do to your car, u’d get the point why they’re selling and people are buying it for cars which have been running for a good number of years.

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 5
      • idamarinaazman on Feb 04, 2015 at 10:57 pm

        that fuel cleaner, did you use Caltex Techron Concentrate Plus? Is it good? btw, I am using a 10-year old Proton Waja. Have been using Caltex 95 and occasionally 97 almost a year. Money savers.

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1
        • seancorr (Member) on Feb 05, 2015 at 12:23 am

          Yeah family using it on a 2004 Kelisa, 2003 Unser, 1996 Kancil and forgot what year Vanette. So far all shown improvements since these engines have been on the cheaper grade of fuel all along.

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 3
      • Trevox Motorsport on Feb 05, 2015 at 10:51 am

        You do know the detergents in both RON97 and RON95 is the same right? There aren’t any additional cleaning agents (LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
        You also do know it’s not that expensive to bring it to a chemistry lab for a test of both fuel right?
        Your sense of logic is like asking a dog to fly a plane… It doesn’t make sense.

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 12
      • Wan Fazrul on Jan 09, 2017 at 1:18 pm

        RON97 RM50 one time.. Then RON95 RM50 three times.. Then ulang balik.. For better engine performance.. I drove Waja 1.6 MMC 2004..

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
  • Untung Manyak Wang on Feb 04, 2015 at 8:49 pm

    Ron 97 !!!

    :p

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 11
  • rosli on Feb 04, 2015 at 8:57 pm

    I prefer to use Ron 97 as I believe the higher Ron has better fuel efficiency ie burning more completely sans racing driving. Another factor is the manufacturer recommendation to use premium grade petrol. In my case its between RON 95-RON98. Therefore, I opt for RON 97.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 48
    • Nope bro. Higher octane DOES NOT MEAN IT BURNS CLEANER. It just means it doesn’t burn at a lower pressure.

      http://www.nicoclub.com/archives/gasoline-octane-myths.html

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 44 Thumb down 4
  • Semi-Value (Member) on Feb 04, 2015 at 8:58 pm

    no way man, ron 97 makes my myvi go so so much much more power k… – random ah beng

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 135 Thumb down 14
    • mitos

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 14
    • Orang Bulu on Feb 04, 2015 at 11:20 pm

      Yea very funny. Dumbo!

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 14
    • Ah Beng Vios Turbo TRD godcar on Feb 05, 2015 at 11:38 pm

      I only use premium grade v-power. Ron 95 are for poor people driving myvi that smell my smoke everyday.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 44
      • stupidity kills on Feb 06, 2015 at 10:56 am

        hello ahbeng vios turbo trd godcar or whatsoever…why do u envied myvi?my myvi also use shell premium grade vpower…so how about other cars smells my smoke too?so rich and powerful is it can afford only a vios?why dont u buy an audi instead?hahahahaha

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 30 Thumb down 1
        • Ah Beng Vios Turbo TRD godcar on Jan 09, 2017 at 7:31 pm

          I am a rich man driving vios,vios is expensive luxury car,not like u all drive other car

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6
          • Car guy on Jul 03, 2017 at 4:05 pm

            Hello,
            vios luxury CAR?!? Like that means I can buy 100 of them lah!!! hello, if u are not rich just say u not rich. Luxury car is like BMW, and Mercedes ok… And i have one.

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
      • no matter hw u modify ur vios, it will still a vios…
        idiot

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 29 Thumb down 3
      • Honda FD JDM on Dec 08, 2015 at 8:39 pm

        An EK will still beat your vios no matter how you modified you vios

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1
  • sas13 on Feb 04, 2015 at 9:00 pm

    So, it does not have significant differences on fuel consumption whether RON95 or RON97 right? Esok isi RON95.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 44 Thumb down 5
    • All the petrol is same.ron 97 is suitable for bigger c.c. for cars below 1500c.c ron95 is just fine. Try to focus on future engine using hydrogen.. Toyota is still developing. Nissan leaf doesn’t use petrol at all. We should go cars that doesn’t use petrol that saves the environment and owner’s money. Think futuristic.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
  • heybadigol (Member) on Feb 04, 2015 at 9:03 pm

    Indeed, surprising results. What were the mileage of the cars? Were they all properly run in already?

    Another surprise is that the turbo engine was only marginally better than the normally aspirated engine. So much for downsizing.

    Just over 13km/l for all 4 cars wasnt that great either, considering these are “economy” cars. How long was the highway/cruising stretch and the town stretch? Perhaps the traffic was really bad that day.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 24
    • Dude.. cant you read “KL city at rush hour and mixture of twisty road and highway”?

      Even Kelisa takes more fuel in these sort of condition la..

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 1
  • dodgeviper88 on Feb 04, 2015 at 9:03 pm

    Great write up in regards to whether financially it makes sense to pump RON95 or RON97. Hopefully you would do a dyno test on to see whether RON97 provides more power than RON95. If you have the budget you could include true blue V-power to make things more interesting.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 3
  • Excellent job, i cant believe you even changed leads and did the typical malaysian speed which is 120-130kph
    Wow well done!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 44 Thumb down 4
  • Maseratits on Feb 04, 2015 at 9:06 pm

    Malaysian way of thinking doesn’t make sense. I always hear the people I know telling me they pump RON97 and immediately feel more power and better mileage.
    I have tried RON97 before on my own vios, I did not feel any difference at all.

    Just because 97 is a bigger number than 95 does not mean it is better!

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 96 Thumb down 14
    • Yes, agree completely.

      All go by “BUTT DYNO”. That’s why those useless “fuel saver” or tornado or magnets sell so well to gullible people.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 1
    • jamie on Mar 16, 2015 at 5:15 pm

      I think you should use vpower like Ah Beng Vios Turbo TRD godcar.I have read since the first comment and i think his vios is the fastest among others

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
  • If your vehicle does not require you to pump RON97 then dont bother wasting money la. Stupid people keep telling me their car more power and mileage when using RON97.
    It’s called a placebo effect. Mind over matter ok

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 79 Thumb down 11
  • Mozilla Chrome on Feb 04, 2015 at 9:16 pm

    Resourseful article. Maybe you guys should also monitor the rpm of the car on cruising speed on both fuel. Or maybe 0-100km/h time lapse. Anyway from my experience, I find that my car engine ‘roaring’ more (noisier) on RON 95 but with RON 97 it is less effort for the engine to accelerate.

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 110 Thumb down 7
  • Remychandran on Feb 04, 2015 at 9:17 pm

    I use 97 simply because a full tank can last me for 2 weeks easily. House to work and to fetch my kids. I have never use 95 before.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 73
    • semlu on Feb 04, 2015 at 9:39 pm

      if you never use ron 95, then how do you know if ron95 hardly lasts you 2 weeks?

      Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 182 Thumb down 8
  • maybe next time can try using local car that have naturally aspirated and turbo engines.

    such as Exora CPS vs CFE turbo engine.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 27 Thumb down 2
  • Boo Hoo on Feb 04, 2015 at 9:20 pm

    Hi Paultan,

    Great article, very relevant to our everyday lives. I am using Ron97 for long distance, Ron95 for daily driving because I feel Ron97 gives better engine response as it makes the engine feels “lighter”. My suggestion is to use different brands of fuels for similar tests, as different brands will have different additives. Just my 2 cents.

    Keep great and relevant articles like this coming!

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 56 Thumb down 5
  • Revo7 on Feb 04, 2015 at 9:21 pm

    For me, I’d stick with Ron97 because of its higher octane number. Higher octane number means the fuel is harder to ignite means no knocking issue.

    And yes my car consume 7L/km if I really behave on the throttle. The number of litres will definetaly decrease if I WOT

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 28
  • jo jambul on Feb 04, 2015 at 9:21 pm

    Actually the difference between the two is more significance recently in terms of liter that you got.Try this simple calculation. Let say you fill up petrol RM100.

    Pre-jan 2015, ron 97=2.46/liter, you got 40.65 liter
    , ron 95=2.26/liter, you got 44.25 liter
    , the difference = 3.6 liter

    Pre-jan 2015, ron 97=2.46/liter, you got 47.39 liter
    , ron 95=2.26/liter, you got 52.35 liter
    , the difference = 4.96 liter

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 53
  • rozali on Feb 04, 2015 at 9:23 pm

    Saya guna ron95 utk GEN2 1.3 Auto.. ulang alik ke sekolah.. penggunaan minyak berdasarkn meter lebih dr 8.5l/100km… sejak nov 14 saya guna ron97.. bacaan menunjukkan pengurangan 7.6l/100km… utk perjlnan jauh sg petani – melaka – klang – sg petani bacaan menurun kpd 7.1km / 100km… speed 100 -120km/h… mungkin bacaan kurang tepat tp saya rasa ron 97 agak menjimatkn…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 41 Thumb down 12
    • Observer on Feb 07, 2015 at 11:12 am

      Rozali, you are right and wrong at the same time. Most comments here have their weightages as some points are weaker and some are stronger. We have to consider many factors, like driver’s habit (like to break a lot, sudden acceleration and so on), road conditions, traffic conditions, make and model of cars, age of cars, maintainance. Even parking under the hot sun from 9 to 5 is also a contributing factor albeit not very much due evaporation and so on so forth. But I do learn a lot from the comments here. Thanks guys.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
  • arryl on Feb 04, 2015 at 9:23 pm

    paul good comparison. but for me if dont make test I know already thatresult result. if u go for ron 97., before u testing I felt that ron 97 never give extra 20 percent in term of average per km. when u did it just less 5 %. so the assumption that make by public are totally wrong I prove my view.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 6
  • _Anonymous_ on Feb 04, 2015 at 9:24 pm

    then somebody has to give a good explanation why the difference of ron 95 and 97 is so negligible despite a difference of 30 cents!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 2
  • Xerox on Feb 04, 2015 at 9:24 pm

    if you can fetch at least 17% premium in mileage by using Ron97, then its good to use that. Otherwise just stick to Ron95.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 1
  • Nice comparison between the fuel,
    For my experience using this 2 kind of fuel the RON97 give better respon to the engine and it make the spark plug more clean than the RON95, if I am not mistaken its mean the RON97 combustion more better, beside that RON95 feel bit ‘laggy’.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 7
  • For normal (NA) cars the difference is more psychological than anything. For more highly tuned (turbo) cars, higher RON fuel offers better knock protection, less chance of the engine pinking under load.

    My 2 sen.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 4
  • jo jambul on Feb 04, 2015 at 9:29 pm

    Actually the difference between the two is more significance recently in terms of liter that you got.Try this simple calculation. Let say you fill up petrol RM100.

    Pre-jan 2015, ron 97=2.46/liter, you got 40.65 liter
    , ron 95=2.26/liter, you got 44.25 liter
    , the difference = 3.6 liter

    Jan 2015, ron 97=2.11/liter, you got 47.39 liter
    , ron 95=1.91/liter, you got 52.35 liter
    , thee difference = 4.96 liter

    #sorry typo in previous one.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 18
  • therealmaserati on Feb 04, 2015 at 9:29 pm

    Utter nonsense.

    Facts are if u use a car without turbo, u wont feel a huge difference btw ron 95 n 97.

    But I drive a 2.0 turbo car and I can feel a huge huge difference in terms of power delivery especially at speeds in excess of 180kmh.

    Considering you guys had a max speed of 130kmh, i doubt you would have felt any difference especially when your cruising on the hiway at 130kmh in a Jetta .

    Try flooring the gas harder and whacking the Jetta till 200kmh then u cn feel the diff btw ron 95 and 97.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 23 Thumb down 59
    • I feel you.. even a 1.2 TSI can feel the difference..
      I think both jetta are still new.. my Polo is about 3 years, it is smoother on RON97..

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 3
      • Jayden Koo on Feb 05, 2015 at 10:57 am

        Along your ownership, do you face any major issues on your Polo TSI especially on DSG gearbox, mechatronic, car breakdown?

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
        • My unit is fortunately already using Mineral based lub for DSG when I got the car. After 2.5 years ownership closing 45,000km , still at tip top condition.

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3
          • Jayden Koo on Feb 06, 2015 at 9:20 am

            Glad to hear that TSI. Do you get any chance to know for those Polo TSI which has issue on DSG and never use the Mineral lub before, is it too late to use it now or will it overcome the DSG issue once the Mineral lub for the gearbox is in-place? I’m asking this since i’m interested to get a used Polo TSI year 2011/2012, but this is the most concern part for me.

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
        • urban runner on Feb 06, 2015 at 3:24 pm

          i think dsg problems had been resolved by vw. i had saw that article on this paultan.. so maybe that the reason choose vw cars to make their fuel test..

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
    • At that speed you are suggesting, sure you will feel a difference…when you end up inside a longkang.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 39 Thumb down 2
      • therealmaserati on Feb 05, 2015 at 8:32 am

        Sorry John, thats why ppl like me drive luxury cars with turbo engines.

        Dont worry thrs Proton n Perodua for u to drive safe n sound at 90kmh so u wont end up in the longkang..

        200kmh aint for noobs like u

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 54
        • zapruder on Feb 05, 2015 at 9:38 am

          Jetta.. luxury car? *chuckle*

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1
        • Onikuma on Feb 06, 2015 at 8:10 am

          Wow…. Luxury car worr…. Going over 200km/h worr….. So kam cheong worrr…. Like God car, go vroom vroom and piu piu ooohh *chuckles*

          Why bother with peasant fuel cargod-over-200km/h, I know some people that can stock up RON100 for you high flying cargod adventures. Luxury car mah…. Ron97 in your “luxury” vroom vroom cars are like an insult mah.

          But a feller of your exquisite taste and class might want Ron102? My guy in BP might be able to get you some…. And I’d help you strap some nitrous to help elevate your god-ness to fly sky proportions. Yeah?

          Lol…. Noob… Seriously…. Calling other grown fellers… Noob? Sempoi boss. You go! Go go power Rangers and all ya. To 1billion km/p and beyoooooonnnndddd……

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2
    • Krasher on Feb 05, 2015 at 4:31 am

      Do 200km/h on your father’s road…not on our roads

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 35 Thumb down 4
      • therealmaserati on Feb 05, 2015 at 8:35 am

        Ur logic baffles me. If it aint my road, then its definately not urs too. So dont tell me what to do when its not ur road.

        U want to tell me, go and ask the police to tell me . Besides , u cand stick with ur noob 110kmh speed. Nobody cares.

        My car is capable of reaching speeds of 250kmh. I paid for it, i am entitled to enjoy it and Ron 97 allows me to enjoy the power even more.

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 75
        • cendawan on Feb 05, 2015 at 10:00 am

          Berlagak..

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 3
        • Corporal on Feb 05, 2015 at 10:06 am

          Hopefully when you drive at the speeds you mentioned and if anything happens it will not involve any other innocent people lives. Don’t drag other people down just because of your own foolishness.

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 34 Thumb down 0
          • Therealmaserati on Feb 05, 2015 at 11:50 am

            I am very sure u havent driven at 200kmh before because if u have sat in a Solid german turbocharged car, u would hv known that 200kmh can be achieved with ease.

            And it doesnt even feel fast. It is like a cruising speed for german makes. The new benchmark is 250kmh.

            Ppl who cause accidents are not the ones doing 200kmh but instead ppl like John and the rest of his gang who suddenly cut into the fast lane of the NSE doing 130kmh while we using our german machines are doing 200kmh and we have to emergency brake because some ppl cant judge speed using their side mirrors.

            U can go ahead and drive at 130kmh on the highway, but u better make sure u give way when i come thru at 200kmh or else i will overtake u and do the same to u.

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 40
        • SandraYang on Feb 05, 2015 at 10:23 am

          I hope you and your supernoob car burn like that Ferrari at Bangsar. Thanks

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 33 Thumb down 3
          • Therealmaserati on Feb 05, 2015 at 11:53 am

            Awww, okla kiddo. First time see Ferrari burn ar? Go ask ur mama show u more ok?

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 26
        • besensible on Feb 05, 2015 at 1:00 pm

          Do 250km/h on the track, not on the public road. If you do end up colliding with other innocent motorists on the road because of your dangerous driving, God know what other people do to you.

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 23 Thumb down 0
        • Only 250KM/H on a RON97?
          Try harder peasant.

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1
          • therealmaserati on Feb 05, 2015 at 5:57 pm

            Drop me a msg here when u have achieved 180kmh on ur Myvi . Tq

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 14
          • makinen on Mar 05, 2015 at 11:35 pm

            TRmaserati..if u think ur car had power enough let bring it to sepang circuit. My 600hp evo is waiting for ur car.

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
        • You know who owns those roads? The government. Do you know who sets the speed limit on those roads? The government. Entitled or not, if you’re driving 200 km/h on any public road in Malaysia you’re breaking the law.

          There, plain and simple. Perhaps you should have kept your boasts to yourself since only a tool believes tall tails they read on the Internet.

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1
        • joeyuzi85 on Feb 09, 2015 at 2:50 am

          my saga flx SV 1.3 N/A IAFM engine/cvt transmission not myvi can achieved 180km/h..how about that?want more power?drop your msg here Therealmaserati ;p

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3
          • Immaduck on Jan 10, 2017 at 7:39 pm

            Why feed the troll….sigh, its not illegal because he drove that car in game la,

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Great article as always. IMO the only advantage for RON97 over RON95 in Msia market is the superior additives used in RON97 eg Shell 97 is V-power compared to RON95 fuel saving tech. Hence the ability and some claims that engine runs smoother / slightly more power. The only petrol that has similar additive for RON97&95 are BHP n Caltex. Correct me if I am wrong.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 4
  • yup, i do think ur finding using the jetta is very2 similar wt my experience wt my golf tsi…both jetta & golf using the same 1.4tsi engine and i do noticed my golf consume more fuel if using ron97, i’ve tried Shell, petronas & BHP….same result, ron 97 consume more.,,performance wise i do not notice any diff, since the TSI engine min rating is ron 95, why bother wt the 97.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 6
  • Mujahid on Feb 04, 2015 at 9:37 pm

    I used to fill my tank with Ron 95 regularly till the drop in fuel prices I then decided to give Ron 97 a try. Upon my first fill up, I immediately noticed a difference in pickup and engine response as it felt much smoother and some what slightly powerful as the engine became much responsive. Maybe my imagination? Well I decided to test both fuels by filling up RM30 of both fuels. I got to drive a full 113km with the Ron 95 while with the Ron 97 I got to drive a max of 140KM. This test was on the same rout that I use to go back and forth work everyday. As soon as I filled the 95 after having used the 97 I could feel the lack of power and smoothness that I previously had as the engines became quite sluggish and responded much slower. Back to Ron 97, everything suddenly got better. Soo now I’m pretty much attracted to using Shells 97. Mind you I only use Shell, always have and always will :P

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 63 Thumb down 9
    • I used to only pump Shell but my preference changed after BHP….try it

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 0
      • Carrol Ng on Feb 05, 2015 at 8:21 am

        Petronas 97 even better. I tried Shell, not much different, but you may noticed that not all PETRONAS stations have 97, I believes that they might be some hidden reason.. Try PETRONAS

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3
        • prabowi on Feb 05, 2015 at 9:57 am

          Petronas sucks. It might be RON97 but quality wise its not F1 grade like being hyped.

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 4
  • Most people buy 97 not because they should, but because they could. Unless you’re driving high performance cars that demands high octane petrol, buying ron 97 petrol doesn’t make a significant difference at all.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 4
  • PhilWong on Feb 04, 2015 at 9:48 pm

    Don’t know about you guys, but I can surely feel the kick with RON97 in my 2012 Forte. Mileage is slightly better by 0.3l / km for RON95 (10.2 vs 10.5 l/km) and this is just city driving.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 7
  • seancorr (Member) on Feb 04, 2015 at 9:49 pm

    I’ve seen my family cars all using from RON92 to 95 for >10 years and it has made their engines sluggish and we finally found that the recently launched fuel cleaners from those sold by Caltex/Chevron can in fact clean & get back its performance (better idling, top speed) by using it once every 5k km intervals as recommended by the manufacturer. Now those are old cars without the state of the start stuff like turbos and all.

    My own ride is force induced with all the gizmos you see in a modern car and so I’d like to avoid carbon build up as to clean a German premium car engine will cost a bomb so I opt for 97 for its cleaning purposes.

    Performance wise is very subjective…while I don’t feel the difference between both grades using my butt dyno in my own car, it has been proven that the higher grades only benefit performance engines like your turbo Subaru STI models or Ferraris so to speak. But for normal cars like a Hyundai i10 or the Honda City, using Ron 95 or 97 will not result in any performance gain. The only benefit you’d get is the cleaning agents in the Ron 97 fuel.

    So to draw my essay to a close…oil producers market their higher grade fuel as a performance and engine cleaning fuel. Yes they are right…performance for engines in performance cars and engine cleaning agents for our run of the mill cars and may I add…slight performance boost in older cars which have been running Ron 95 for many years after they had taken a few full tanks of Ron 97 fuel to clean its engines. If this was all a gimmick there would be countless class action lawsuits against our oil producers, wouldn’t it? =]

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 2
    • ayamxxx on Feb 20, 2015 at 5:08 pm

      I am against your idea.

      See on the BHP websites, they mention and Clearly stated they put Double (X2) additive in both Ron 95 AND Ron 97.

      So they put the info on the websites. SO the black in white is there if somebody want to create a lawsuit against them.

      BUT, I am not sure about others LIKE Petronas, Shell and ESSO

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
  • I drive a Polo sedan and my findings over a tank of fuel which in my case Shell 97 & 95; the 97 gives me an additional distance of +-100km. max 120km min 95km to be specific over 3 different tanks. Currently testing Caltex on my 1st tank of 97’s. 95’s compared to shell gathered significantly less km’s. Driving is normal with occasional spiritedness by dropping a gear or two when required just to get up to speed. One theory is that with the 97, the car spends less time accelerating on throttle before reaching the intended speed. After reaching the required speed its back to using feathered touches on the throttle to maintain speed. Give it a go and share your findings.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 5
    • Weng Soon on Mar 07, 2015 at 9:20 am

      Very interesting outcome. 95-120 km difference per full tank is very significant. I hope you mean the drive cycles are the same, ergo, both city driving or both out station driving.

      I’ve a 20 year old Mitsubishi Galant, 2.0 V6, cools machine. On RON95, (as I use RON 95, can’t afford the cost difference) when I’m on city driving, RM110 or so fuel gives me 400-450 km. HOWEVER, when I drive up to Penang or Ipoh, I’m serious, I log in 700 km before the need to refill. That’s like 50% increase in mileage alone, on the same type of fuel.

      On occasions, I do try the RON 97, it gives me the same mileage.

      Another experience I wish to share, when I pump RON97, I feel significant difference in terms of smoothness at the beginning when I first drive out from the station. LO and behold! When I switched from Petron, my usual brand, to Shell, both RON95, heck, my butt dyno ALSO feel a significant difference, so, I doubt that butt dynos are a good gauge for actual sciences.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Invincible on Feb 04, 2015 at 9:56 pm

    Appreciate if you could compare different petrol brand especially bhp. I really felt the different

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 3
    • astar on Feb 04, 2015 at 10:38 pm

      yes paultan pls do a review on petrol brands.Since we pay the same price across all brands, i want to know which brand benefits us more

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0
  • Pakcik on Feb 04, 2015 at 9:59 pm

    please do the test on a local car. wira, kancil, myvi. I personally drive a 10 years old Gen2. when switching to ron97 from 95, there is a little boost with the performance but no difference with the consumption.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 2
  • Miqael on Feb 04, 2015 at 10:02 pm

    Why limit to only two model? I think paultan should test using myvi (old and new), viva, axia, saga flx, iriz, preve (turbo and non turbo), vios (old and new) and city (old and new). Most of Malaysians use these car…

    But again, its about availability of the cars for test, drivers and cost of petrol… Proton and Perodua should sponsor them.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0
  • Aiman on Feb 04, 2015 at 10:17 pm

    Good article. Consider doing for normal cars like MyVi and Vios maybe? hehe

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2
  • Pokli Seluang (Member) on Feb 04, 2015 at 10:17 pm

    the best artikel of the year + a few years in future.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
  • Gilbert on Feb 04, 2015 at 10:27 pm

    i don’t know much about complicated result or facts. But I would like to share some of my experience in Ron 95 and Ron 97 on my BMW 320i (mileage 18000km ++). FC is about the same, but the most obvious different is the power delivery, my car pick-up smoothly and instantly, unlike the Ron 95 is slightly sluggish in pick up and you can feel the engine a bit struggling.

    Anyway, different car, different engine will have different feel. My two cents to share. Peace.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 1
  • A good beginning. Real-life-driving test.

    Another type of test that can be considered: All long-distance-highway test between 97 and 95, as most claims indicated that 97 was more efficient on high-speed, long-haul journey.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2
    • toyota on Feb 05, 2015 at 12:21 am

      I was keeping track of my car fuel consumption with both RON95 & RON97 for about 11 months, using fuels from different vendors.

      For city drive, RON97 consumed 3.86% less than RON95.
      For mixed drive (50% city + 50% highway), RON97 consumed 1.25% less than RON95.

      So yeah, my experience was tally with paultan’s finding. Not much improvement for RON97 over RON95 fuel consumption wise. However, I do *feel* than my engine runs smoother with RON97, but as pointed out earlier by others, it could be the placebo effects.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1
  • imah anum on Feb 04, 2015 at 10:28 pm

    I use 97 for my 31 yr old ford laser..i find the engine does not sound so loud…my hubby rode in ny car one day and he said the engine feels smooth…i told him i use 97…since then he pumped 97 to his wira. Usually when he starts his wira i have to close the door of my house because it smells horrible…but since he used 97…no smell! So he use 97 till now…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0
  • ;)
    The mechanical energy that you can get from the chemical energy of your petrol depends mainly on compression ratio of car engine.

    Other less important factors like the nature of the petrol, temperature, moisture content and pressure of the intake air, type and sophistication of the engine, the temperature and structure of the exhaust system etc all do contribute to the ultimate efficiency of your car engine in converting the chemical energy of your fuel into the useful mechanical work which drives your car.

    In fact, the RON number or octane rating for petrol has nothing to do with the amount of power locked inside of it.

    It actually relates to just how much a fuel can be compressed before igniting. The higher the number, the less likely it is to spontaneously ignite under pressure.

    In general the higher the compression ratio, the greater is the efficiency. That’s why the diesel engine with a compression ratio of 22 : 1 is very efficient and gives a much better mileage.

    Unfortunately, petrol unlike diesel, tends to ignite easily and as such the amount of compression allowed before premature spontaneous ignition occurs, is limited. This easy ignition can be partly overcome by the addition of substances which “increase the RON” level i.e. makes it less easy to ignite spontaneously and cause “knocking” when the compression ratio is too high.

    Since the COMPRESSION RATIO OF A GIVEN CAR IS ALREADY FIXED (unless it has a turbocharged or supercharged VCR engine), using a AN INAPPROPRIATELY high octane or RON petrol will not increase the efficiency.

    Most of the additives used to increase the octane level do not add any energy to the fuel but only add to the volume.

    As such, the fuel mileage you can get from your car ACTUALLY DECREASE IF YOU USE AN INAPPROPRIATELY HIGH OCTANE FUEL and it does not add to the anti knocking characteristic of the engine since at the manufacturer’s recommended octane level, there is no “knock” and it is not possible to get less than zero knock !

    In fact, the majority of petrol cars in Malaysia are designed to use only RON 82.
    So even RON 95 is already too high!

    Quote Lani Azahari: “Placebo effect mayhaps? Only if you have a higher compression ratio engine does the need for higher octane fuel exists.

    We use RON 87 in the US for most cars because most cars have a 10:1 ratio that do not need higher octane fuels. If you have an engine with 14:1 ratio then yes, higher octane is needed.

    But even then, even RON 93 works without detonation in those engines, which is why MOST PREMIUM GAS IN THE US IS RON 93 at most.

    I can’t see the engineering reason why Malaysians must use anything above RON 87 unless you drive luxury cars where the manufacturer recommends it.” Unquote.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 4
    • hi, in fact at The United State, they are using AKI instead of RON for fuel rating. So their AKI 93 actually equivalent to our RON 98.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1
    • Correction on Feb 05, 2015 at 1:20 am

      US is using AKI unit. The 87 and 93 are in AKI which is equivalent to EU standard RON91 and RON98-RON99 respectively. Majority of the cars engines are designed to run on RON91 not RON82. RON80 is for those very very old engines that cannot cope with higher RON and the availability of such fuel is extremely rare. Russia and Egypt are examples but only in limited stations. BTW, diesel engines with 22:1 compression ratio??? Diesel engine is compression ignition engine and with that ratio, it is not efficient and very difficult to be ignited.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1
      • Thanks for pointing out the error. It was a typo…I meant to say “majority of Malaysian cars can use RON 92”..instead of RON 82.

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
    • sadiqutp on Feb 09, 2015 at 12:35 pm

      Your comment is pretty convincing. Until the point where you talked about USA using a RON 87.

      Let me correct you, The 87 in USA is not the Ron number, but rather the AKI number. A ron number is usually +4 or +6 to the Ron number. So, 87 AKI is actually 91 to 93 Ron.

      However, I agree that most Malaysian cars still can run on Ron 92 pretty good, but I don’t believe that lower than that is a good idea

      Cheers

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
    • Typo….should read as “…the majority of petrol cars in Malaysia are designed to use only RON 92..”

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Calculus on Feb 04, 2015 at 10:30 pm

    How about the air-con usage difference? The AC does consume significant amount of fuel…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3
    • Hafriz Shah (Member) on Feb 05, 2015 at 12:02 am

      Sorry about that, I had forgotten to add this into the story. We thought of that too, so both pairs kept to the same air-con settings throughout the test.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 1
  • Muhaimin on Feb 04, 2015 at 10:39 pm

    From my experience, the difference that RON 97 brings is with cars that carry a high load, like MPVs driven at full capacity. While an improvement in fuel economy is questionable, the engines torque is more consistent. I also realized a change in gear changes (less drop gear going uphill). I’m not saying that with RON 97, your engin will go like a rocket, but at least uphill, U won’t often see your tachometer slowly going down and rawr after it has to drop gear.

    That’s my 2cents lah. Maybe you guys have a different XP.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0
  • foxtrot on Feb 04, 2015 at 10:40 pm

    Y U NO TEST V-POWAAAH RACINGZ

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1
  • This has cleared a lot of doubts about the duo petrol types. Thumbs up.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2
  • maybe Petronas Ron97 really dont have much difference vs Ron95. Should compare Shell Vpower , and other petrol for difference of Ron97 vs Ron95

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
  • My CC loves to rev and shift to lower gear when using RON97.
    But when using RON95, my car seems hesitate to go into higher RPM and shift up too early, the feeling is very lack of power…

    I guess it is because of the knock sensor limits the engine to go into higher RPM. That’s why turbo car may use more fuel in RON97, coz the ECU will let you rev higher.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1
  • Basically, ron95 is cheaper because it burns less clean/efficient than ron97. These fuels prices are determined by the amount of processes n treatment it goes through, more processes = more expensive. Honestly, the difference in both fuel for the normal daily common car including your bmw’s n merc’s are insignificant, it makes a very small difference that won’t matter. Use ron97 if u r racing alot *wink wink* or if u drive a supercar to maximise the car performance when u fly by speed traps at 250km/h

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4
  • nabill (Member) on Feb 04, 2015 at 10:55 pm

    it wd have been great if u guys could have dynoed both cars on both fuels…bcos i believe , most of us who pump 97 , not becaus eof FC ,it simply bcos of smoother running engine and just more efficiency…..on personal experience , theres zero difference to FC on both types of fuels , bt 97 does have smoother characteristics specially if u like to rev ur engines constantly…lets jus say , 97 might not be better for u , but 95 , on long term , definalty degrade engine performance , again…from experience not scientific!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1
  • SagaFL1.6 on Feb 04, 2015 at 10:56 pm

    But in my own experience, the vibration of the engine gone right after I use Ron 97, I got a +-30km extra with RM50. It’s the experience that made me switch from 95 to Vpower. Different types of engine maybe?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1
  • KLMJ (Member) on Feb 04, 2015 at 10:59 pm

    To justify using Ron95, cheaper price for more volume.
    To justify using Ron97, race alot *wink wink* or drive a supercar that needs max performance when flying by speed traps at 250km/h.
    The price difference is just the amount of processes n treatment the fuel goes through, more processing = more expensive. The difference between both fuel in performance in a normal daily common car we see alot for city use with moderate – heavy traffic is too small so it is considered insignificant. A traffic jam will suck your wallet at the same rate no matter which fuel u use, unless u drive a supercar then it sucks money at a much faster rate.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2
  • When i switched over to RON97 there was a clear increase in power. Where i use to dread getting on the outer lane because of the lack of acceleration i now can put myself out from time to time without being tailgated by those speeding pickups. So i am not prepared to switch back to 95. Although i like the petronas fuel i think the BHP 97 might be better but thats just my perception

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1
  • I drive a Year 2013 Porsche Cayman S. 95 is no go! Only Ron 97 will do the work.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 17
  • Ganni on Feb 04, 2015 at 11:06 pm

    Thanks for the reading and the test paultan crew..
    Anyway i will stick to ron97 as i did feel the differences in term of mileage..as i travel around 140-150 km daily and using the highway, my full tank can last for 3 1/2 days in ron95 while using the ron97 the full tank could last for 4 days..so at least i could sv 1 visit to petrol station for a month..maybe if u are working in the city center or facing a lot of heavy traffic, might as well opted for ron95 but if you had a smooth traffic and using highway a lot, i would say that ron97 could help you to sv a lot.. It just my 2 cent..

    P.s : i drive consistently 100-110 km/h on the highway..

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0
  • Medic on Feb 04, 2015 at 11:09 pm

    I use RON97 because I can afford too… (3 Months ago, just forget even thinking about it…)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2
  • Littlebear on Feb 04, 2015 at 11:11 pm

    you guys are comparing the fuels wrongly. All else being the same.. Ron95 & Ron97 shouldn’t have difference in terms of mileage gain. Those who gain more mileage using ron97 could be due to your engine has less or no knocking thus it runs more efficiently giving you the added mileage.

    Day to day driving.. Both fuel should perform similarly.. However, when you high rev the engine, thats when ron97 has advantage over ron95. Higher pressure in the combustion chamber will cause fuel to ignite prematurely. Using ron97 will help a lot in this aspect. Thats why racing kakis loves ron97..

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 1
    • takNakP1 on Feb 05, 2015 at 12:46 am

      you could be right.
      i start to use RON97 when my engine has knocking issue.

      i still remember there isn’t much differences when i first switch from RON97 to RON95 but after years of usage, switching it back to RON97 does has significant differences.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
    • Wesley on Feb 05, 2015 at 1:57 pm

      Tend to agree with you. It’s not about fuel consumption. I drive a 3-month-old Alza AT. Just switched to Petronas RON97 this week. The car does feel more responsive on RON97.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
  • shawn on Feb 04, 2015 at 11:12 pm

    no difference, unless ur engine need higher ron like nissan 370z or GTR.
    or else don’t waste ur petrol budget, save the budget for better engine oil, it give u more power and fc

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2
    • crz2228 on Feb 05, 2015 at 12:55 am

      Tell that to Mazda which have to reduce their skyatciv engine compression for Malaysia

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
  • sasievo (Member) on Feb 04, 2015 at 11:23 pm

    I use a focus mk3… with the ron 95 used to have lots of carbon in the exaust but with the ron97 its clean… how do u explain this? I guess the ron97 gives a clean burn…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
  • anavrin on Feb 04, 2015 at 11:25 pm

    well… how about new car, vs used car.. u know the engine does have the biggest variable of all right?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
  • Berann on Feb 04, 2015 at 11:25 pm

    On My cr-z Auto. Somehow Petronas RON95 gives me better mileage and power than Shell RON97. hmm…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4
    • crz2228 on Feb 05, 2015 at 12:52 am

      My Crz gives me better performnce when using RON 97 as it is manual. Your’s is a CVT so that explain it.
      It’s fun (manual) vs Convenience (boredom)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2
    • GTR36 (Member) on Feb 05, 2015 at 11:48 pm

      At last some one who uses a hybrid talking. I tested with RON97 beginning of the year and found I refueled after more than 3 weeks. I cover almost 90kms on weekdays everyday and my RON95 fuel makes me visit the Shell station every 13 days or so. I’m still skeptical and will be doing the testing again. I think manuals will save more but I’m not brave enough to stick shift in our jams.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Merc C class w203: Filling in 97 – superb acceleration – no knocking – but ‘drink’ like a hell..Unlike 95 – sluggish acceleration – lotta knocking sounds whilst accelerating..

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
    • Merc e class.
      Same here.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
      • Weng Soon on Mar 14, 2015 at 9:55 am

        Did u know what knocking actually means? Knocking like hell means yr engine is damaged already. It means that while yr chamber is nit supposed to combust, it combusted, causing a another piston to be pushed up, knocking against a valve that’s still in place. That will damage either your pistons And/Or valves.

        Mercedes and Beemers, from what I know, as I drive one, is graded RON 91 and above, and should have precombustion with RON95. Based on your Knocking like hell statement, not accurate description.

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • blahblah on Feb 04, 2015 at 11:33 pm

    My personal experience:
    1) Pug 308T -RON97 slightly better in terms of mileage, based on MFI. Rarely go below 10.5km/L on 97 vs 9.3km/L on 95.
    2) Estima 2.4 – RON95 still better in terms of mileage, based on experience. Full tank can reach 510km on 95, vs 480km on 97.
    3) Savvy – Almost no difference between 95 vs 97.

    BTW, the cars run on Petronas. Personally, I think different cars react differently to the type of fuel used.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
  • Thomas on Feb 04, 2015 at 11:39 pm

    Can you also do the same experiment comparing the same grades of petrol of different brands?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
  • surprised... on Feb 04, 2015 at 11:44 pm

    i’m quite surprised that paultan.org did not attempt to correct some misconceptions, and also fallacies in this test.

    1) this test used 4 different cars, and the drivers were not swapped, there is no way to ascertain that all 4 drivers’ style are exactly the same even though the 4 cars are traveling the same route, the braking point, cornering speed, accelerating habits are all different. with only a difference of 1.9% to 3% these variances all matter, and i haven’t taken into account the possibility of variances in engine condition, aircond temp, driver’s weight, possible cargo?

    2) the difference between RON 95 & 97 is not that 97 produces more power, but its ( RON97 ) ability to resist knock (premature detonation). There are many reason an engine suffers knock, intake temperature , engine condition, engine tuning etc. On a cool morning with smooth traffic, there is almost little difference between 95 & 97 with normal passenger cars. but try it on 39 deg C hot afternoons, badly jammed Jalan Duta or Jalan Tun Razak, and because it’s jammed, the intake air temperature goes up drastically as well as very poor air quality from the nearby traffic, engine starts to suffer from serious heat soak, then we will start to see the big differences between RON 95 & 97.

    3) NA cars tend to fare better in warmer weathers because they don’t suffer from heat soak as bad as force induced engines. twin charged Golf and Cross tourans are notorious for being very hot, and the multiple blown engines inside VW is a proof that eventho VW tried to retard the ignition, it is not enough to counter the effects of knock from customers pumping purely RON95.

    if anything i have wrote here is wrong, please correct me…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 14
    • I suppose you didn’t bother reading this

      “The four vehicles travelled in a loose convoy throughout the entire journey, each taking turns to lead. We changed drivers at the halfway point (between each pairs) to eliminate the effects of different driving styles (and the drivers’ weights too, of course).”

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0
    • blaster88 on Feb 05, 2015 at 11:37 am

      I concur with you, too many variables and biases esp point 3. Case in point…the Golf R in Bolehland has been detuned by more than 20 plus hp…lower compression rates? I drive a turbo charged car…the heat soak issue is very apparent in our weather – big difference in engine response between afternoons and evenings…only way to combat this methanol cooling…ahem.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Well done. A good article to share the knowledge n information. Thanks for the effords. However, i think we should put car condition as factor as well. Althought u r using two type of same model vechicle to make the comparison. However, even i am using the same car, new condition n 5 years later , fuel consumption will be greatly different. I can feel it by driiving my own. When the car is new and after few year of use, the fuel consume totally much different. To make the research even more accurate. U can use the same method same pair of vehicle, but change the fuel type twice on each car.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
  • TerraRyzer on Feb 04, 2015 at 11:48 pm

    Actually, there are differences. I use RON97 for my Viva 1.0 … Trust me in terms of smoothness and pickup RON97 really helps. Also using higher octane fuels keeps your throttle body and cylinder cleaner by reducing carbon emission.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0
  • Kamal Sarif on Feb 04, 2015 at 11:53 pm

    My Saga can go about 280km with rm50 ron97 but only 250km with ron95.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1
  • GregY on Feb 04, 2015 at 11:58 pm

    Hmmm, I think there’s one big variable not taken into account in this test. Modern EFI systems that run on a closed loop system constantly adjust air/fuel ratio, ignition advance, throttle input and position, ambient temps, engine speed/load etc over a period of time. As such, an engine that has been running on one particular type of fuel has had a whole bunch of data collated over a period of time that reflects the characteristics of that particular fuel. Switching over suddenly to a fuel with a higher resistance to knock will not result in significant gains in the immediate term, unless the previously stored data is completely wiped out with an ECU reset. An ECU constantly retards/advances ignition timing in relation to air/fuel ratio within set parameters to try and achieve stoichiometric efficiency, picking up data points on a daily basis in order to form a fuzzy logic evaluation about the driver’s daily driving conditions to realize maximum fuel efficiency and performance. What I’m trying to say is, when you introduce RON 97 fuel into an engine that has been running on RON 95 for a long time, it will take at least two tankfuls to begin to feel the benefits, so in the case of this test, that one major variable had not been accounted for, making the results a bit inaccurate.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0
    • seancorr (Member) on Feb 05, 2015 at 1:06 am

      Thanks mate I was about to point out the resetting of the ECU. To further elaborate on the point here, the cars in other tests had a complete flush of engine oil and fuel tanks for a better comparison as each car has been driven by different types of people and might have pumped different grades of fuel before the paultan.org team took the cars for a test.

      I’ve also seen other studies whereby they have different brands of RON97 and they measured both hp and nM gains from the fuel and you’ll be surprised to see who offers more gains on the same grade of fuel.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1
  • crz2228 on Feb 05, 2015 at 12:11 am

    Driving a CR-Z. RON 97 makes a difference when switch to sports mode. Econ and Normal mode not much difference between both fuel. At sports mode and RON 95 top speed around 180, with RON 97 around 190.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
    • crz2228 on Feb 05, 2015 at 12:24 am

      At the same stretch of road – Elite Highway after turn-off to Klia. I travel regularly to Serembam.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
  • If no different, why have two types of Petrol Grade?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0
  • Regina on Feb 05, 2015 at 12:45 am

    AWESOME article! I’ve been waiting for this one for a while!

    Personally, I use RON95 – my reasoning is that since I drive a carburettor car that doesn’t do fuel injection, my car does not have an ECU with a knocking sensor. This means that the engine cannot self-adjust the timing to get the best out of RON97, I will need to bring it to a mechanic and have him tune it juuuuust nice.

    So in my case, whether I put RON97 or RON95 it makes no difference to the power output of the engine because the intake and compression strokes remain the same and the combustion timing also remains the same.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0
  • Try using a normal average car eg vios or proton. Can compare the ride in a 95 and 97. You will feel the difference. But in better quality cars..prob no difference as they are already quite enjoyable to drive with regards to torque.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
  • whynot on Feb 05, 2015 at 12:47 am

    Please try both the fuel with a full loads of passenger or weight and you know the diffetent. Ron97 should give you more power overtaking. But Ron95 give you more mileage and of course more knocks and carbon deposits! To make Ron97 as to Ron95 is not much of a different in the process. Ron97 is still highly priced. It should be a mere 2 to 3% different in pricing by rights!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
  • Damien on Feb 05, 2015 at 12:51 am

    Cleaner petrol is more beneficial to the car. Most of JDM japanese car (including Toyota Wish, Estima etc) requires only RON90. Pumping with RON95 can be considered luxury enough for the car. But our petrol not as clean as them. For me, I prefer cleaner ron90, but ot no choice lorr

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4
  • takNakP1 on Feb 05, 2015 at 1:01 am

    it is quite hilarious to see so many “kettle call another kettle black”.

    end of the day, whether you support RON97 vs RON95 has any differences, smoother or not, more powerful or not, better FC or not… both parties gauge by there own experience with there own car or someone like to call it “butt-dyno”

    end of the day, the G & the cronies are the winners whichever petrol you pump. the RAKYAT will always be the loser.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 15
  • Kaviarasu on Feb 05, 2015 at 1:07 am

    If i want to save the cost of petrol,i will use RON95, and when i need to use my vehicles to be more speed up i will use RON97. Ya agree with that,both of them has a different performance.
    Other than that,i would like to say is, different brand petrol, has different quality and performance!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
  • Michiko on Feb 05, 2015 at 1:28 am

    tested on Ron 95 and 97 for a month for daily routine. Reset my mileage and get the same amount of full tank. Ron 97 manage to drive more mileage (60-80km) for my viva for rm10 extra. I think it’s worth

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
  • danny on Feb 05, 2015 at 1:35 am

    i’ve tested 95 and 97, got no big different.. but except the v-power racing..of course that is more expensive..

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
  • MrNyx (Member) on Feb 05, 2015 at 1:45 am

    I do feel the difference between RON 95 and RON 97.

    I drive an Accord 2.4L (2004) and Alphard 3.0 (2005), Evoque petrol 2.0 (2013). For RON 97, instead of saying that it gives me extra power, in fact I felt it helps my engines to achieves its max power easier, otherwise by slightly. After the recent price drops of fuel and the close gaps between the price of RON 95 and RON 97, I was able to switch between these two grades to test the difference. Before the price drop, I was consistently pumping RON 95. The very obvious difference when switched to RON 97 is the smoothness of the ride. The engines revs smoother than ever. Engine also apparently gives better throttle response so thus acceleration. Moreover, I don’t know how many people out there actually tried this.

    When on RON 95, I started the engine with A/C off first, drove a few meters then turned on the A/C while the car is on the move. Then, I could instantly feel the engine was like suffering some sort of heavy load is sitting on top of it. Therefore, driving with A/C on couldn’t be as fast as with A/C off when using RON 95. Meanwhile on RON 97, such thing wouldn’t happen, when turn on the A/C while driving, it just like nothing happens. It gives me the acceleration and power just like with A/C off.

    I don’t know if it this happens you peoples’ car but it happens to me anyway. And also, I’m just giving my two cents to this topic.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 2
    • MrNyx (Member) on Feb 05, 2015 at 2:52 am

      By the way, I don’t see running with RON 97 has improved the FC of my cars. Recently, I had been traveling on the East Coast Expressway, about 200KM +, really didn’t see any difference. (With same driving characteristics)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
  • ;)

    BEST TO USE FUEL WITH RON RATING RECOMMENDED BY YOUR CAR MANUFACTURER

    According to Chevron product engineering manager (Asia-Pacific) Greg Engeler, ALL ENGINES ARE DESIGNED TO RUN ON THE MINIMUM RON RATING PETROL RECOMMENDED BY THEIR MANUFACTURERS.

    If your manufacturer specifies that the minimum requirement is RON95, using RON97 will not harm the engine.

    BUT YOU MIGHT END UP PAYING MORE WITHOUT GETTING ANY GAIN IN PERFORMANCE.

    However, using fuel with a lower-than-recommended RON rating can cause engine damage,”

    Engeler said modern engines with knock sensors could run on fuel with a low RON rating, as the engines can adjust their spark timing automatically to eliminate the knocking.

    “However, the car’s fuel consumption, driveability, and power may be affected,” he said.

    Using the right RON rating fuel based on the engine’s design and tuning will maximise vehicle performance.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1
  • Carlover (Member) on Feb 05, 2015 at 4:15 am

    I would like to know the difference of Caltex, Shell, BHP and Petronas. I hope PT could test them out and compare.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0
  • 4G63T DSM on Feb 05, 2015 at 6:27 am

    Actually, in order to do the test properly, you technically have to run more miles, and resetting the ECU before switching fuels. failing which, might have caused the rather surprising result on the Jettas. If your course were more “strenuous” (stop and go, heavy throttle, high speed cruising), it may skew the results back to favour 97.

    If you were to run the test on older cars, the result would be in favour of RON97. Carbon deposits will create hotspots in the combustion chamber increasing propensity of knock under load. Old proton Megavalve 4G13 and 4G15 engines are notorious on pinging running RON95. These are especially crucial on older cars without EFI or even O2 and knock sensors (open loop) so they cannot adjust the engine parameters automatically based on fuel.

    newer cars allows you to use 95 or 97, but older cars may not offer you such “luxury”. You are sometimes stuck with only running 97. Your mechanic may report seeing more blown head gaskets and fried piston rings on these old engines after owners switched to 95.

    As personal preference go, running 97 allows me to reduce fuel pressure for leaner burn, and a slight bump in base ignition timing. In short, I’m optimizing my engine to run 97. At this setting, the car will not work on 95 properly. So yes, I do get more power, and if I don’t use the “power”, I get more mileage instead.

    My engine doesn’t even have an O2 sensor despite being an EFI so I have to manually adjust the settings based on what fuel I run.

    Previously the price gap between 97 and 95 was only 11 cents…. So I actually was better off running 97. Now the price gap is back in favour of 95.

    On my old turbo car with a data logger , running 91 and premium 94 (10% ethanol mix) …roughly equivalent to our 95 and 97++, the timing maps on load can vary as much at 20 degrees as the engine management retards timing under knock conditions. That is something you will feel. The data logger simply confirms it. So no, its not solely placebo.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0
  • eliminated the slight pinking on both my estima and 328i by using the ron97…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • should try this with higher cc cars

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
  • vigo 2door on Feb 05, 2015 at 7:34 am

    im using diesel..no chance to choose higher cetane rating diesel fuel in malaysia compare to thailand

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
  • My results are different from this review. I drive a jetta for almost 3 years. Was using ron95 all this while (2.5 years); getting 500-550km in the city before fuel warning indicator lights up. Only tested ron97 recently when in got cheaper i.e 20-30sen/L more than ron95. My full tank mileage is now 600-650km.
    My methods may not be scientific or consistent but I see better full tank mileage.
    Nevertheless, I will try ron95 again for another run of test

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0
  • johnston on Feb 05, 2015 at 8:02 am

    can we mix RON 95 with RON97..?
    TQ

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
  • xoxoxox on Feb 05, 2015 at 8:40 am

    performance wise…no comment..but engine less roar with ron97..fuel saving wise…don’t think have much difference.. give me almost the same mileage… however..shell ron 97 more roar noise than petronas ron 97…not sure why…maybe my car doesn’t like to eat shell….:)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
  • Touch in reality on Feb 05, 2015 at 8:40 am

    “I feel the difference”… = emotional, not fact-based evidence (eg. driver ‘s illusions)

    I show the difference = actual, fact-based evidence (eg. Paul Tan’s test)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1
  • Gargantia on Feb 05, 2015 at 8:44 am

    Fantastic job Paultan team,

    Hope that the team will compare more difference in the future, what about 2.0 engine and 2.4 above engine?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
  • leonardo on Feb 05, 2015 at 8:46 am

    As the results done by PT and crew had shown, there is not much difference in FC in real world driving conditions between RON 95 and 97. And I concurred, I will just use RON 95 for cost reasons. After all the cheap fuel will not last forever and will go up again soon. Better use the savings to help the less fortunate. Cheers!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
  • Sparcov on Feb 05, 2015 at 8:48 am

    Whether is technical or mentality.

    I still feel so call feel ron 97 are more superior compare to ron 95

    It happen on my myvi and preve. My old 1.3 satria carburettor definitely feel better on ron 97

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0
    • Battu on Feb 05, 2015 at 9:35 am

      Keyword here is ‘feel’. Need to calm your mind and accept the fact brah.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
  • Azroy on Feb 05, 2015 at 8:50 am

    Not much different for myvi1.5 using shell. I prefer to use RON95 for my car. ;-)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3
  • KIEW KB on Feb 05, 2015 at 9:05 am

    PT should do the test using MYVI, the most popular car in Malaysia. This is the group of car owners that try hard to save on fuel and money.
    I don’t think the owner of Volkswagen Polo and Jetta TSI care much on save on fuel.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
  • Artyom on Feb 05, 2015 at 9:15 am

    I think for underpower car like mine(crv), ron97 gives more power in performance, but not for milage. I’ve been experimenting on my car since 6 months ago and i can feel the differences

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
  • beirut on Feb 05, 2015 at 9:18 am

    How about a test on 0-100km/h between 95 and 97 to see which is more powerful.

    AM a Jetta user and have been using 97 since the first day and recently due to kehabisan stock of 97 had to pump 95 on a particular day. A slight lack of power was noticed immediately through out the journey especially during overtaking. Was travelling from Johor bahru to terengganu.

    Whether it’s a subconsciously biased effect or actual lack of power, a test would best prove the case.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
    • GregY on Feb 11, 2015 at 12:32 am

      beirut, what you felt as lack of power is actually the knock sensor doing its job in retarding the ignition advance in view of the lower grade fuel, and is an expected event. Put simply, the moment the ECU senses knocking it will fire the spark plugs later to compensate for the fuel’s characteristics. If it didn’t retard the ignition timing the fuel will pre-detonate which in turn causes the dreaded knocking (pinging), leading to an early demise of your precious twin-charged engine.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Jaronie on Feb 05, 2015 at 9:20 am

    Depend on the type of engine use for the vehicle.
    Higher performance fuel better for Higher performance vehicle, but not recommended for low or average performance vehicle (such as old cars and etc.)

    Higher Octane Fuel = Higher Compression-Ratio engine!!!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
  • i think Hafriz on that jetta with ron97, thats why the result is negative FC (sorry Hafriz) :p :p

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1
  • Juliana on Feb 05, 2015 at 9:31 am

    Tried to use 95 for our Polo because our Myvi used 95 too but can really feel the different driving both with RON95 when I drive Polo TSI. No energy. So since last year use V-Power for Polo and upgraded myvi to RON97. Smooth

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
  • Malaysia tanah airku on Feb 05, 2015 at 9:37 am

    Guys…

    if you are not in the right position to comment..

    DO NOT Comment! freaking keyboard warrior!

    If you say 3% octane does not do anything…

    try to use it for a long run.. and see which 1 collapse first

    3% octane in turbocharge car can do wonders!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
    • old dog on Feb 05, 2015 at 11:15 am

      ya, probably should delete all others and left your comment alone…

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3
      • Malaysia tanah airku on Feb 05, 2015 at 4:05 pm

        warrior detected..
        get a life dude.. don’t be a dog

        its about cars here.. humidity, efficiency, durability

        Not about PETS

        thanks

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2
  • heybadigol (Member) on Feb 05, 2015 at 9:54 am

    Next up should test the price unregulated V Power Racing against the RON97 & RON95.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
  • bibigun on Feb 05, 2015 at 9:54 am

    Cars nowadays are designed to run efficiently all the way down to ron 88 since that is the the type of fuel sold in several middle east and south america. That is why the difference between ron 95 and ron 97 is indiscernible.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
  • conclusion is:
    ron95 for diesel/turbo
    ron97 for petrol/na

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4
  • blaster88 on Feb 05, 2015 at 10:02 am

    ok ok…lets speak with data! I have a 1.6 lit turbocharged car and have done the comparison. Sent for dyno using both fuel types. At peak power (high rev), using Ron 95, I can see from the dyno charts that the graft is erratic – lots of mini spikes and dips. Long story short, the spikes/dips esp dips are caused by the anti knock kicking in to prevent the car from knocking. Over to Ron 97, the graph is much smoother and I get an extra 6hp! You can literally hear the difference! BTW, this test is done over 3 runs per fuel type. This translate into real world driving… Overall, I can feel faster and smoother acceleration on Ron 97. Peace of mind as well…

    Now…do all engines require higher octane? Don’t think so…for starters, check your manual, generally, high compression engines (eg. Type R, Skyactiv?, sports/super car engines)would benefit/require higher octane.

    Then, your driving style comes into play…if you drive like a soccer mum vs pedal to the metal all the time – makes a huge difference!

    Just my 2 cents…
    Still not convinced, send your car for a dyno then…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 1
    • takNakP1 on Feb 05, 2015 at 10:36 am

      i suggest paultan.org should sent a car for dyno.
      most of the time, all the high tech detail could be subjective to “feeling” and requires proper equipment to see the different. a soccer mum may not know what it means by “smoother” or “lighter” drive.

      end of the day is all depends how much one willing to pay extra for the fun & joy.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
      • blaster88 on Feb 05, 2015 at 12:40 pm

        I agree. BTW, please be mindful that turbo engines suffer from heat soak. More so in our type of weather. Heat soak plus the type of fuel you use have a huge effect on engine performance…i.e fuel consumption.

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
        • takNakP1 on Feb 05, 2015 at 9:30 pm

          heat soak – new term to me. Googled but mostly forum discussion. just got a vague idea.

          does this also means a FC is higher driving in the hot noon vs cool night?

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
    • heybadigol (Member) on Feb 05, 2015 at 10:53 am

      Thanks! Now that you mentioned it, I recall a friend who drives a 1.6 turbo who noticed knocking when changing petrol between RON95 & RON97 and vice versa. The engine management system had gotten use to a particular type (say 95), so when you suddenly change to 97, it has to re-learn. Same thing the other way around.

      Did you also try Shell’s V Power Racing (VPR)? Is there a difference in power/torque between normal RON97 & VPR?

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
      • blaster88 on Feb 05, 2015 at 12:35 pm

        Yes. The ECU would take sometime to relearn – air/fuel mixture, ignition timing, gear change timing, diff powerband curve etc. etc.) Obviously, it differs from one ECU to another…there is a difference between VPR vs 97 but a much bigger difference between 97 and 95.

        Since I am familiar with my car, I can straight away tell the difference. Conducted some blind test – got my wife to fill without telling me which fuel, moment I drive, 7 out of 10 times I got it right! In short, some engines are much more sensitive to the octane level…

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
    • blaster88 on Feb 05, 2015 at 11:49 am

      One thing that is always on top of my mind….do you think you gest genuine 100% RON 97 at all stations? Especially the smaller and outstation pumps…given the chance, some unscrupulous operator would mix? Can really tell from the color? This is bolehland…

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1
      • takNakP1 on Feb 05, 2015 at 9:25 pm

        i m suspecting something similar. my last two tank with my regular C 97 have really bad FC. With the sudden increase in 97 demand, anything can happen in bolehland.

        Then changing to S VP 97, FC returns to normal. Just fill up again today & hopefully the FC is still similar. I always roughly monitor the FC to watch out for any possible problem.

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
    • Marco on Feb 19, 2015 at 2:36 pm

      Awesome bro… thanx for doing this …
      The paul tan crew should have done this … that will end all the fighting here …

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Josh Ling on Feb 05, 2015 at 10:04 am

    will use RON 97 whenever possible. RON 95 is good, but can really feel the difference when i am travelling at higher speed, be it on a motorbike or a car.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
  • good 1 paultan!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Hi Paultan,i want to suggest that in the future test you could do the blind test. As I think that your result might be affected by what we called “placebo effect” (i’m coming from medical field, so maybe the term not suitable, haha). Just do the blind test, I mean the tester did’t know what fuel they are using. This will make your test more valid.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
  • abcdee on Feb 05, 2015 at 11:01 am

    i can agree with them on smaller cc car..definitely got difference when the engine cc is higher.they should do another one with at least 2500cc engine without turbo/ecoboost

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3
  • old dog on Feb 05, 2015 at 11:12 am

    My Protong Waja need RON97 more…RON95 burned out so fast….

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
  • bot_tech on Feb 05, 2015 at 11:18 am

    i drove a kelisa. i pump RON 97 only because i’m mad with the G’s. thats all, nothing technical.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
  • It is not the RON that really matters. Its only indicate the Octane reading. User should knows which RON is suitable for their cars. 92unleaded should start selling back in Malaysia. So people have a lot to choose. It is the quality of the petrol and diesel should be take into account. Did anybody ask the government, what is the grade of our petrol and diesel used in Malaysia. Is it Euro 2, Euro 3, Euro 4, or Euro 5. Did anybody cares to ask this?????

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
  • amesh on Feb 05, 2015 at 11:29 am

    Ron 97
    Give me more KM for my 16 years iswara car.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
  • panjang on Feb 05, 2015 at 11:33 am

    Its simple this ron95 vs ron97 actually.Its just that some of us are easily poisoned by nobody or not so clever mech telling them RON97 is better than RON95 even for normal car.

    If u drive normal car or your engine is in normal state of tune the just fill in RON95.

    If u drive very high performance car with an engine at high state of tune then RON97 suits u.

    On carb fed car with manual distributor then its a win2 situation.The ignition can be set to maximise the effect of pouring in ron97.And yes,it will produce more power if set properly.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
  • reborn on Feb 05, 2015 at 11:33 am

    On my Golf, I can really feel the difference when i pump 97. The power is really noticeable. When on 95 its just a lacklustre push, but with 97, i really feel the push in the back.

    And similar to someone who posted above, I feel my car is hesitant on shifting when i run on 95. Whereas on 97 its more clear cut. The engine roar is also less audible on 97.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
  • Indian Macha 2 on Feb 05, 2015 at 11:40 am

    i usually pump RON97 because to be honest the difference in each tank is about Rm10.. not a big difference and maybe its a better fuel for the engine, maybe it gives more mileage, maybe it makes the engine perform better …a lot of maybes but for Rm10 extra im willing to give it a go..

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3
  • turbocharged on Feb 05, 2015 at 12:07 pm

    sorry bro my turbo car feel more lively when using Ron97, and more jimat… Ron95 slow me down a few seconds… and drink more fuel…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3
  • I think it depends on car model and type. I made comparison myself with Toyota Camry 2.0G (year 2011) and it does make quite significant difference between RON95 and RON97. I used RON95 to save cost but it leads me to engine combustion problem with pinging sound whenever I accelerate. Advised by Toyota service center it’s because of the quality of petrol (RON95) with VVTI engine. Now I changed to RON97 and the engine works much smoother and I can feel the difference when I accelerate. Go for RON97 for better performance

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2
  • RunFast Inc on Feb 05, 2015 at 12:12 pm

    Ron97 is for Turbocharged or High compression petrol car (turbocharged Kancil, kelisa or Colt Ralliart oso in this category), Ron 95 is for family sedan or non performance car, V-Power Racing is for Supercar…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
  • Teh Choon Hoe on Feb 05, 2015 at 12:18 pm

    Comparison of Ron 95 and Ron 97 on hybrid car engine with high compression ratio and capacity above or equal to 2.4L?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
  • blaster88 on Feb 05, 2015 at 1:44 pm

    The other factor that you should be mindful of is the cleaning properties of RON 95 vs 97 and from brand to brand… Due to the premium price, is it a fact that higher octane fuel has better cleaning agents? If this is the case, then it is worth while to pump RON 97 especially for direct injection engines. The performance of the injectors are critical in these type of engines…I have no data to prove either…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
  • Saga 2000 on Feb 05, 2015 at 2:22 pm

    anyone using 1999-2000 Saga sedan/hatchback auto?? fuel tank recommends 97+ and since prices came down, ive been using 97 and engine knocking is almost non-existent as opposed to before…would the Caltex/chevron fuel additives help as well?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
  • To any saga flx owner, I highly recommend you to try Caltex RON 97. it will reduce the noise coming from your engine. I dont know how but it works for my car.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
    • Saga SV on Feb 05, 2015 at 5:48 pm

      Good to hear that. As many complaints I heard about Proton car. But I still prefer proton.
      however so sad I don’t think o caltex here in Sabah. Maybe got but so rare.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
  • gino ng on Feb 05, 2015 at 2:48 pm

    i m bhp user , what i knw and experience with the bhp ron 95 and bhp ron 97 , have great different felt compare with bhp r95 and bhp r97 ,i can felt that my car is run very smooth and pick up with faster . bhp is really a great fuel to compare other brand petrol , but i most dissapointed petrol brand is caltex , because even i pump r97 of caltex , i feel even worst compare with bhp r95 , the whole car felt heavy and engine run not smooth .

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
  • 4G63T DSM on Feb 05, 2015 at 2:57 pm

    I think this test can be improved. Something doesn’t look right with the Jetta numbers. The factory numbers favours the TSI jetta over the MPI Polo. The Jetta should use less fuel than the Polo, all things being equal.

    As already suggested by others,

    1) Blind test (the driver doesn’t know what fuel goes where.

    2) resetting the ECU before test (and run 1 tankfull before testing – ie test on 2nd tank)

    3) Do the same fuel 2x on the 2 different cars….to eliminate any differences in that particular car – perhaps engine condition.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
  • ayyub on Feb 05, 2015 at 3:08 pm

    “Pam ini sedang diselenggarakan”, said the sign at most RON97 pumps, on most days. But that’s a different story altogether. Sorry.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
  • i see a lot of these 95 vs 97 article around recently, all trying to claim something.

    So maybe lets make it simple. If one day 97 cost the same as 95, not cheaper, just same, which one you pump? then ask your self why. Because all those arguments we have, might be pointless then, it will argue against itself.

    Or maybe think about this, if 97 cost triple the price of 95, would you bother write an article about it?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
  • don’t bite my head off but i’ve been using R97 for a couple of months now and full tank lasted about 7 days compared to R95 which last about 5 days. My car also felt significantly powerful yeah yeah maybe placebo effect, idk the cost of full tanks about the same, but my small car feels better (hyundai i10, 5 years, 95k mil)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
  • Saga SV on Feb 05, 2015 at 5:43 pm

    I bought my first car Saga SV Auto. I never drive any car before and I have little knowlege about car. So far my milage only 17000 after 1 year 3 mths using it.So anybody there can let me know which one to use Ron 95 or Ron 97. I’m confused. I want my car to be in a good condition all the time. I don’t plan to buy a new car though.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • I’m driving a 94 wira 1.6A, in performance stand point RON95 or 97 doesn’t make any difference. Maybe slightly smoother ride, but i can’t tell the difference so just save some money and go for the cheapest option.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • somebody on Feb 05, 2015 at 6:03 pm

    It’s great to have the tests for both usage of RON95 & RON97 , and providing the results of consumption for both petrol. Eventually, RON97 have a better fuel efficiency but slight costly compare to RON95.
    However, in long run will using petrol RON97 able us for better vehicle maintenance? Some drivers have experience the engine have rougher noise when using RON95, and it have lesser power than RON97. Is that RON97 will save us more in long run?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
  • jolly_idiot (Member) on Feb 05, 2015 at 6:07 pm

    Luckily I always feed my car with RON95. Why pay more?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
  • ezralimm on Feb 05, 2015 at 9:39 pm

    This article is scientifically flawed.

    YOu only get more power if you change the compression ratio of your engine to take advantage of RON97 fuel.

    I drive a turbo car on RON 91 petrol (OZ). It’s designed for that. RON98 does not seem to make any difference, and some fuel additives (eg. BP and Shell’s premium blends) make the engine run coarse when idling!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
    • 4G63T DSM on Feb 06, 2015 at 11:46 am

      I think you need to learn how an engine works before claiming that the article is flawed. Yes, there can be improvements to the test variables, but the test logic is sound.

      Yes, you can only get benefits from RON97 if your car needs it (ie, manufacturer’s recommendation).

      But that said,

      Many cars, despite not “needing” it, can also benefit.

      1) Older cars with some carbon deposits.
      2) Hot weather
      3) Driving with higher load conditions (weight and going uphill, rapid acceleration)

      All these conditions will result in higher propensity for an engine to knock, so a higher octane fuel will reduce this propensity so your ignition timings do not get pulled.

      I think most people understand the concept of power, but why does it save fuel?

      Well, if your car can run higher ignition timings, it is producing more torque at any given revs. Meaning, you have more power to pull a higher gear (higher load, lower revs). You also instinctively reduce your throttle input.

      same concept why my 1.8L SOHC Satria, despite its larger CC, uses the same amount of fuel as a 1.3L Satria. I’m on 5th gear all the time with the engine spinning anywhere from 1500-2500rpm during city driving. The 1.3L satria would be stuck in 4th doing 2500-3000rpm at the same city speeds.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
  • Whyme on Feb 05, 2015 at 9:57 pm

    Use la VPower97 save fuel and give more power some more… haiyaaa…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
  • BubbleFusion on Feb 05, 2015 at 10:22 pm

    1 – 3% is easily just measurement uncertainty especially when it is only 1 data sample…
    It would be better experiment if you can get someone else to fill the petrol so that the driver doesn’t know it is 97 or 95

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
  • EngHong on Feb 06, 2015 at 12:30 am

    I totally agree with your assessment. I have done similar tests with my 8 year old Mercedes C200K and 3 year old Audi A4. Both cars’ petrol consumption were about 10km/litre with Ron 95 and about 9.3km/litre with Ron 97. It surprised me too because I thought Ron 97 would give higher mileage. There were no appreciable difference in performance so I am sticking to Ron 95.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
  • I think is only no different between Ron95 and Ron97 at certain brand of petrol kios.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
  • I choose to use RON97.
    I drive a 1987 Ford Laser 1.5 sedan.
    It’s an old car, so the engine is pretty rough and noisy. But I notice that when I use RON95, the engine is noisier, and the acceleration is slower. With RON97, there is less noise, less vibration in idle, and more power. FC aside (old cars are always thirsty), my car performs better with RON97.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
  • Diyana on Feb 06, 2015 at 10:59 am

    I own hyundai getz and fill it with ron 97. The reason being, when ron 95 was introduced, my car produced knocking sound and almost stalled in the middle of the road which happened after i filled the tank full with ron95. Ended up having to change the spark plug twice in the duration of 1 month of using ron95. Since then i have been using ron97 and never regretted it.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
  • IrizX on Feb 06, 2015 at 11:22 am

    These tests are not accurate and misleading people. The results are inconclusive and the margin of error less than 4% which can be attribute to road conditon, driving style etc.

    The only conclusion can be reached from this test is.

    There is no difference between RON 95/97.

    Personally, i have drive a lot of cars with various brand and RON 95/97…and each time, the margin of error is too small to be significant and the only conclusion which can be drawn is there is no difference.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3
  • Emmanuel on Feb 06, 2015 at 11:36 am

    did ron 97 protect engines!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Thanks for the information. I have tested my old 1.6 Honda City with both fuels on the same routine routes climbing hills, down the hills, stopping at the traffic lights, same hours everyday (except our traffic isn’t as congested as in KL and pretty smooth driving with exact 8 traffic lights each way on good roads without holes and bumps with average 80-100km/per hour) and my observation is with Ron 97, my car climbs stronger up the hill and engine sounds smoother normally a full tank goes as far as 297 KM sometimes fewer. However with Ron 95, my car’s engine sounds a bit coarse and I need to press harder the accelerator to climb the hills. It feels like it has less power to do tougher job. But Ron 95 always pass 300km per tank mark. But I have always prefer Ron 97 that’s why when the petrol stations keep telling me it’s out of stock it pisses me off. See the price is not a factor to me. It’s the performance and I have driven the same car for 7 years now I think I know very well what my car likes to drink. I think each of us have to experience with our own car and choose what is best for our car.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
  • Son_Goku on Feb 06, 2015 at 11:58 am

    RON 97 is way to go!

    When you have the high cam and high compression engine, You would better use the RON 97, or it is just wasting modifying your car. When your first aim is about faster car, then 97 is your choise. Tuned your car properly, then enjoy your vehicle.

    If you are still using the RON 95, powerless, engine vibrate, knocking sound, and jerking of acceleration.

    Good luck guys! I love my car so much!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
  • Roy McBoroi on Feb 06, 2015 at 12:01 pm

    In the first month of 2015. I, myself have experimented with both of the RON(s) on my proton saga blm. The findings shows that RON 97 is more economical than RON 95 in term of mileage. However, I had failed to notice any improvement of the car’s power.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
  • cheapstake on Feb 06, 2015 at 12:39 pm

    saya pakai ron95. pagi td byr rm20 utk isi minyak dpt 11.70 liter woo. inzal beb!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
  • combi lover on Feb 06, 2015 at 1:35 pm

    in my opinion, i can say paultan choose this polo and jetta are because their technology and innovation.. so maybe paultan thougt the vw cars are the latest current technology cars nowadays as daily car.. so it used in this fuel test

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • saiful on Feb 06, 2015 at 1:35 pm

    Test yamaha lc135 & honda ex5 tengok….

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
  • Well, Short term you will not see the difference and long term you will see a big difference.

    You can do an experiment.
    1st. Clean up your car exhaust pipe
    2nd. Run your car with RON 97 for 2 months. Check your exhaust pipe with wiping with white tissue paper. Keep the tissue paper for comparison.
    3rd. Run your car with RON 95 for 2 months. Check your exhaust pipe again with same procedure.

    Now compare the accumulation of carbon deposit from both fuel. You will not notice RON97 is much cleaner.
    The carbon deposit on your exhaust pipe is equivalent to carbon deposit in your combustion chamber. So over a long period of time, your engine compression ratio will go higher due to carbon deposit take up some combustion chamber room, and your car will experience knocking when you accelerate your car. It will start with mild knocking and become more severe over time due to more carbon deposit. You will experience your car has less power over time. The only effective way to remove carbon deposit is by open up the engine clean it. and it is costly.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
  • Just to throw my 2 cents right here.

    Higher octane won’t improve your fuel consumption and it will not improve performance by a wide margin.

    However, higher octane means that the fuel will be less likely to detonate prematurely, causing an engine knock, which will damage your engine.

    For most cars out there, 95 is the sweet spot. It’s much higher than what your manual will specify. If you have a car with forced-induction (turbocharger/supercharger) like an Audi A6 3.0 TFSI or a BMW 435i/428i, and supercars like a Nissan GT-R, and even sports cars like a Toyota GT86 or a Porsche Cayman, then 97 is the fuel to go, especially in engines that have higher compression, especially engines with forced-induction.

    Assuming you have an expensive car, you might be able to afford premium gas. Just my 2 cents.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
  • my 2004 Vios did over 750km for long distance on ron97, with average of 16.xx litre/km, 550km for ron97, much more worth it for me to pump 97

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4
  • For accelerate and top speed: 97 better
    For FC in terms of litre: abt the same, no big difference
    For FC in terms of price: 95 better bcoz cheaper

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
  • Transparent on Feb 06, 2015 at 10:47 pm

    probably Ron95 & Ron97 are same fuel but different branding. who can confirm they are different at the kiosk?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
  • fairdaus on Feb 07, 2015 at 11:40 am

    octane rating show difference only with performance car which is required higher compression. example can be seen here:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQghB4asSnI&w=200

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Please use the common car like vios or city to do the testing. Even proton or perdua car.
    It might really useful to most malaysian to choose either ron95 / 97.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
  • what about V-Power racing? Will it have a better fuel consumption? Can it boost our car performance compared to the 97 & 95?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2
  • Beckham on Feb 07, 2015 at 2:35 pm

    Prefer to use RON97 on 2005 Toyota Camry 2.0 coz if i use RON95, the noise between gear changes sound like its underpowered. While the RON97 sounds better.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
  • if i drive a car…..RON 95 and RON 97 makes no difference.i rather choose the cheaper fuel its saves in the long run by the difference of 30sen a litre.I also have a bike also no difference between them, however shell V Racing Power makes my bike a little smoother and i can feel it at low speeds.thats my opinion.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • i tested for my kia spectra 1.6 2003 also
    drive in town area
    RM50 RON95 can go 230km
    RM50 RON97 only can go 200km
    different 30km
    so i prefer RON95
    but most of the driver said RON97 can go much further

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
  • beirut on Feb 07, 2015 at 11:49 pm

    Another suggestion..

    Saw someone pointed out that some kiosk has no difference between its 95 and 97 while some claimed certain brand has worse 97 than another brand’s 95.

    Maybe a test of 97 from diffrent petrol station can be carried out.. would be interesting to see the result…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Saravanan on Feb 08, 2015 at 12:53 am

    You should do the test on Shell petrol also. We are very skeptical about the brand too. Dare ?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
  • PitMie on Feb 08, 2015 at 4:36 am

    From my own experience using my VW Jetta, I’ve always tried to find if there’s a slight (if not massive) improvement ony car’s performance & FC but to be honest, it’s really hard to tell & the answer yes & no. No definitive asnwer but an honest but safe answer is, to me, NO. Performance-wise. FC too, almost unnoticeable.

    Msians’ typical mindset when it comes to RON95 vs RON97 is like RON97 is so much superior than 95 coz most are saying their cars seem smoother & more powerful using RON97. Not many of us are willing to read the real truth about the differences btwn the two.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
  • Said Ahmad on Feb 08, 2015 at 9:01 am

    I tried both Ron 95 &97 using Shell and confirm what Paul Tan said. So up to you to choose, i’m using VW Pasar.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Pomen on Feb 08, 2015 at 11:51 am

    There a many reason why ron95 & ron97 sale in malaysia….yes is that true 95 most cheap fuel for any kind of car..but ron 97 is suitble for auto..anyway if u need your car to be less fuel consumption..I suggest u, expecially using 1.3hp above car to convert the engine..replace standard engine with kncil engine…then im sure u will says im true…no need to thanks, i just helping you

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
  • Yup , i do agreed with
    “Curi Curi Malaysia” , you are right..

    Why talk , why test , about which is better? Ron 95 or Ron 97? No point talking about this when our Government still overcharges us with that sort of “BULL DOG” price ! We are concerning only on the prices.. Don’t plant the “DEAD GRASS” on your people only lo….! Go out to the world and learn , dig something back for your country , instead of digging your Rakyat saja !!!!!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
  • ihsan on Feb 08, 2015 at 3:20 pm

    this is a very good research like test. thumbs up to u guys

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • James on Feb 08, 2015 at 8:33 pm

    Great that PaulTan & team decided to do this test. Interesting but imho inconclusive. Should have swapped fuel in the cars too and driven on a test track under controlled conditions would have been more interesting but that probably is beyond the resources of the team.

    http://lae.mit.edu/study-finds-wider-use-of-premium-gasoline-could-save-fuel-money/

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • noone on Feb 08, 2015 at 8:50 pm

    haiya why gaduh…if u can afford to pump ron97 ma pump lo…treat your car with better fuel…the price not going to stay there for long.how long u wanna wait until it drop back to current price…5-6 year?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
  • Weng Soon on Feb 08, 2015 at 10:25 pm

    Great write up, perhaps like some suggests, try local cars that’s more commonly used, like used Vios, City and Myvi, add in 2 units of 525i and try 2 more things.

    1) a 0-100km/h time, repeated a few times in the same condition.

    2) Blinded test, (I don’t mean eye patches), get someone else to fill and calibrate car, label them, do not let the testers know which car have which fuel. (That’s how clinical trials are done)

    Personally, I use RON95 because RON97 is RM0.30 more expensive. I have an E60 525i, it has a fuel tank above 60 litres capacity, multiply by 0.30 can be a difference of RM18/tank between the 2 fuels.

    Gotta say though, my Butt Dyno feels subtle differences between the 2 fuels. Acceleration, say on a highway, you step on it to overtake a vehicle, I think, by butt sensors, that 97 is better. No difference in FC, FC by value, definitely 95 more efficient.

    Note though, according to the petrol tank flap of my car, RON 91 and above suffice, my guess is, the Beemer guys know what they saying.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
  • bryan on Feb 09, 2015 at 9:31 am

    RON stands for Research Octane Number, a form of fuel quality and performance rating. Generally, higher octane fuels are used for vehicles with higher compression rations.

    A higher compression ratio gives an engine a higher horsepower per engine weight than one with a lower compression ratio — making the engine “high performance”.

    RON97 is recommended for drivers of vehicles with an engine capacity above 2,500cc.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1
  • my proton saga 1.3 manual engine get heated faster with RON97. But the overall mileage and fuel consumption is most likely the same. Max around 380km per tank.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Everyday sedans and small cars = Ron95
    High performance vehicles = Ron97

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
  • ntah pa2 on Feb 24, 2015 at 9:10 am

    Hello Hafriz, why you dont test the car with the old engine like waja or else. the car its made before the ron 95 come to Msia. Eager to know the result?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • nudin on Mar 11, 2015 at 4:06 pm

    I drive honda city idsi (2007), ron95 = 12.6km/liter, ron97 = 12.8km/liter.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
  • Hafiz Ismail on Mar 22, 2015 at 7:37 am

    i drive civic fn uk spec 2007..i try 95 n 97 depend n situation n budget..but now i just pump any fuel as long my car is move n i have to move..what i think is how to move when all my mine is gone when i think how..so just move.. thank you for ur sharing..it make i think fast..now for what i fast or slow..that for you to think..tq

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
  • allan on Apr 01, 2015 at 11:18 pm

    if you consider performance, it must be the higher RON! If not why higher price?
    Performance much better. Sometimes i use RON 99 for highway travelling. Your feel the power……
    There must be something good in it.
    If not why dont you try pump diesel? High performance car uses higher grade RON. It is all $ & cents!!!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • thanesh on Apr 05, 2015 at 10:30 pm

    Ron 95

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
  • Carrer (Member) on Apr 24, 2015 at 5:39 pm

    Thank god the Volkswagens didn’t breakdown during the test.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 5
  • Jon Sawai on Aug 01, 2015 at 8:30 am

    I have used V-power racing since1999/2000…How many of you understand bout engine knocking, water condensation and corrosion in the tank, fuel line, injectors and carbon build up on the valves and combustion chambers.Why do you think about fuel additives that increase your RON values? Don’t take it seriously about vios and myvi, they are from the same K3VE family engines that you can find in the Avanza.Nama pun dah ah-beng lagi you guys pegi layan.SkianKesian.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Shannon on Sep 03, 2015 at 10:04 am

    I drive a 2009 BMW e92 335i. I has a 3.0 twin turbo flat six engine. When driving my car, I can feel a very big difference in the two fuels. Ron 95 delivers about 12.8 KM/litre and Ron 97 does about 11.9 to 12.2 KM/litre. But with Ron 97 the throttle response and torque improve significantly.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
    • anyone interested in knowing could have searched it up in the web abt an E92 335 but u, i’m a bit skeptical the moment u described ur E92 has a flat 6 turbo.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Francis on May 23, 2016 at 11:56 pm

    I’m trying verify a user road test claim that jetta sport edition is capable 250kmh instead of 225kmh on spec with just ron97?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Martin on Aug 23, 2016 at 5:46 pm

    Dear Paul Tan & Team,

    Thanks for this great effort in putting this test together as it has cleared some air in terms of fuel efficiencies. However has there been any examination done of the carbon build-up on the cylinder head and valves between 95 & 97?

    I was recommended by Ford that it is good once a while to use higher grade fuel (high Octane fuel) that will flush out the carbon build-up.

    Please advise if there is any effect.

    Thank you
    Martin

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Chan jit loon on Nov 19, 2016 at 4:55 pm

    According to a recent article in the NYT, http://nyti.ms/2cV53OU, the best is to follow the cars’ manufacturer’s recommendation for the proper petrol octane rating for the car. In general, unless the car is a high performance one, octane 95 is good enough. Most importantly, we must choose the fuel vendor which has the proper detergent for the engine in their petrol. Names mentioned include, Caltex, Shell, ExxonMobil, etc. Although Petronas is not mentioned in the article, I personally believe their fuel is just as good. I use it regularly and is satisfied with their quality. Chan Jit Loon.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Firdaus on Jan 09, 2017 at 10:54 am

    I’m driving a jetta. Somehow it doesnt like the ron 97. I just pump caltex ron 95. Which does the job well. Can get 550km on a full tank of fuel. I am just particular about which brand i pump because earlier i had a case of crack piston.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Lim Ann Hock on Jan 09, 2017 at 10:56 am

    Is it possible to get a test on RON100 from Petron? They also claim drive can save petrol and at the same time it can be used to clean up your engine.

    Also, I just change my car to Perodua Bezza. Very disappointed to tell you guys that the petrol consumption is only 13-14 km/liter as per what they advertise 22 km/liter.

    Any of you having the same fuel consumption as my bezza advance?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Ulkamikup on Jan 09, 2017 at 11:02 am

    Shell is he worst petrol for my car. Knocking like renovation work in progress. The best petrol for 95 still BHP.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Lexfu on Jan 09, 2017 at 11:07 am

    How about engine cleanliness/engine conditions? Does 97 do better than 95 in that respect?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
    • If what’s being advertised is to be believed, 97 is Euro 4M which has significantly less sulphur and other contaminants which shd result in a cleaner engine after prolonged usage.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
  • james on Jan 09, 2017 at 11:34 am

    xde ujian isi pakai liter dgn isi pakai rm.. dapat jimat 0.00007L @ x smapai 1 titik minyak.. hahaha

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Azmel on Jan 09, 2017 at 12:15 pm

    Yes….even with Euro 5 diesel…..I get about 100km more from the normal diesel……

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Muzammil on Jan 09, 2017 at 12:23 pm

    Maybe you should split the study between city drive and long distance drive. Maybe long distance drive really better to use ron97?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Syed Abid on Jan 09, 2017 at 12:28 pm

    From my experiences,

    Using 97 for normal day long distance traveling is better. U get about 50-60km more. The car also feels slightly more powerful. I tried this when going to Terengganu. Used 97 to go and 95 to come back. Travel conditions about the same.

    Use 95 in the city. The maths is better that way in terms of finances.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
  • Anand on Jan 09, 2017 at 12:43 pm

    Well the games of rons works and feels better on motorcycles.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Onn Basiran on Jan 09, 2017 at 12:44 pm

    Dear paultan’s member,
    I hope u can run the same test above BUT with car Engine 6 yrs old above. It is because with old engine the was lot of carbon sedimentation inside the engine such as manifold, exhaust, combustion chamber and so on. So with that particular condition…RON97 might be perform better. Tq

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • shiftSpank on Jan 09, 2017 at 12:48 pm

    I’ve done a personal test across a few tanks filled between RON 95 and RON 97. Measure on the second refill to ensure the previous fuel is cleared from the system. Test vehicle 1.6cc Kia Forte.

    There is only 1 difference. RON 97 feels smoother.

    The eventual outcome, you do not gain more mileage than the percentage of price increase between RON 95 and RON 97 for a full tank. In fact, because it feels smoother (and by dyno-butt standards) more eager on 97 I tend to step on the gas more which results in the same mileage between the two RON types sometimes less on the 97.

    Tada, pseudo-science!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • One of citizens on Jan 09, 2017 at 1:00 pm

    How would us know that actually filling Ron 97? Isn’t possible the Bunker owner mix Ron 97 with 95?
    Some how we pay for Ron 97 and get the mixed petrol..

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Faiz Roslan on Jan 09, 2017 at 1:03 pm

    whichever fuel is it, doesn’t really matter.

    msians shud be happy that they are getting premium quality fuel at a very low price. even japan, australia, us are using ron 90 or 91, and pay a high price for them, but in msia, its so so much cheaper for ron 95

    hopefully ppl will also understand the price they pay for their fuel which is so low, and not focus too much on comparing ron9 5 and 97

    – Faiz Roslan CEng

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Can you try on a fuel guzzler car… or a mini car with many passenger. The vws are too efficient to be tested.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Did u try to switch the cars up for a 2nd trial run? Average of those data would be better perhaps. N if u have the facility to drain n weigh fuels then it would be better. Or just run it on engine dynamometer in identical cycles.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • I’ve done the test myself on my exora cps. No different between the two type. I’m sticking to 95.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Neoson on Jan 09, 2017 at 2:09 pm

    I will go for Ron95 because Ron97 is not worth even though better preformance compare to Ron95.
    I felt using Ron97 acceleration will be more responsive.
    For saving money, driving behaviour is the most important.
    Same car (Accord 2.0 vtil) same highway same fuel Ron95.
    Drive smooth can achieve 15-18km/l (100-120kmh)
    Drive faster about 12-14km/l (110-140kmh)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Mr. Loba Loba on Jan 09, 2017 at 2:18 pm

    RON97 and Shell V Power Racing has a big difference in my case. My Suzuki Swift and Nissan Teana feels more powerful than when I pump RON95. My swift is closing to a decade old. Engine knocking is lesser with RON97, and I squeezes in extra 70 km more than RON95 before the next pump.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Ahmad on Jan 09, 2017 at 2:20 pm

    Good attempt to prove your facts.
    Reminds me of the Top Gear show tests.
    Keep it up

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Nahrul on Jan 09, 2017 at 2:33 pm

    You didn’t mention anything on air conditions setting.. Would that make any difference?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • RavenAii (Member) on Jan 09, 2017 at 3:11 pm

    In my opinion, they should’ve tested on Exora with both CFE and CPS engine, or Preve that utilizes the same turbocharged and natural aspirated engine. That would be a bit relevant as all Proton uses the same type of engine(yes, from Saga 1.6, Gen-2 1.6, Persona, Iriz 1.6, Exora, Preve even the Suprima uses the same 1.6L engine with few modification between them.).

    Me and my family usually fill the Ron97 once or twice a month, not that it gives a lot of differences in terms of power, but it really do cleanses the engine internally if you ever use Ron95 for a long time. Driving using Ron97 really give a bit boost and less fc but it’s not really worth its pricetag.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • I use preve, in term of driving style which is different each person, the way we accelerate, average speed 90-110, yes Ron 97, give much power and easy to overtake then 95, cause the number is a prove, 97 and ,95, by number we know 97 is higher then 95, but in my result (not accurately since my weight and engine condition, totally different) 97 can get me in 2 hour 45 minutes while 95 is 3 hours, fuel consumption is same, I put 40 ringgit on each Ron, in term of time I save 15 minutes, so when in town, 95 much better in financial rather than 97, but for long distance, I suggest go for 97,

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Lee Watt on Jan 09, 2017 at 4:03 pm

    If there is RON90 or 88 which should be cheaper, I’d use those instead. Some cars could run on lower octane fuel without any ill effect.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • kevin on Jan 09, 2017 at 4:08 pm

    before you pump ron97 into that car what fuel you use? ron95? you need a car who run ron97 all the time to test different between two fuel.. is this your standard for test run? rubbish..

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
  • Liew Eugene on Jan 09, 2017 at 4:57 pm

    My Exora Turbo and Avanza both use RON95

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Kien Lim on Jan 09, 2017 at 5:27 pm

    I used to use Ron 95. I use 97 now. I can feel the difference. It’s a smoother ride….

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
  • I always pump 95 without gst

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • jason on Jan 09, 2017 at 8:10 pm

    You need to use new cars to test as age of the cars might made the difference in the results

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Reader on Jan 09, 2017 at 9:57 pm

    using diesel… *files away*

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Joseph on Jan 09, 2017 at 10:41 pm

    My experience and my personal research on my year 2002 Mercedes E200 Kompressor. RON 97 give me slightly extra mileage than RON95 (about 0.5 to 0.9 km extra per liter). On top of that I can fell RON 97 give me much power compared to RON95. Shell give me extra 1km per liter compared to Petronas.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • I will use RON97 if I plan for long distance drive , starting 1 week prior the journey till i comw back home, and use RON95 when in town. Used them in Honda City, Honda Stream and new PERSONA. Smoother engine with 97 at highway. If 95, I felt heavier especially in when ascending roads. In traffic jams, we can’t afford to have that smooth driving, so no need to pay extra.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Not important on Jan 10, 2017 at 11:41 am

    I drive saga flx cvt daily. While ron95 and ron97 give me around the same fc, the latter gives less jerk to my engine while crusing at low speed due to traffic jam.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Mike Bates on Jan 10, 2017 at 10:27 pm

    A two point increase in octane rating means nothing to the typical consumer other than a higher pump price. The ONLY benefit to a 97 octane fuel versus 95 octane is to the oil company. Personally, I wish oil companies would take their marketing and gouging schemes and choke on them.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • I started using 97 when I got my Perdana back in 2004. After driving it for 4 years, my car engine was clean still running very smoothly. Power delivery seems to be more responsive and smooth.

    I was “forced” to use 95 in my Merc GLC recently when traveled to the rural area and felt the responds wasn’t the same… Lost some power and engine wasn’t that smooth.

    But of course I do not have data to back this up… Just my perception n “feel”

    But it’s very much more expensive… If my company wasn’t paying for it, I think I would be able to bear using 95 instead

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Refer to your car manual. If your car manual stated RON97, use it. Do not change to RON95 or lower, it may cause knocking in your engine that may further damage it.

    Most old or new won’t benefit from high octane (97+) with the exception of performance car (turbo or super-charge or very high compression engine. Note: Ecoboost in Ford considers mini-turbo). There is high concentration of detergent additive in RON97 compares to RON95. Once in a while use RON97 as fuel additive to clean your fuel system such as injectors.

    Some cars mod to use E85 (octane rating 110+) for racing/track use; these cars usually are either turbocharge or supercharge.

    Want to save more at the pump? – check your tire pressure, rid the junk in your trunk, driving behavior (no jack rabbit and sudden stop), clean your intake regularly (part of your maintenance schedule), change air filter, and don’t unnecessary mod your exterior such as huge and incorrect angle spoiler that becomes air brake.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • RON Lim on Jan 11, 2017 at 10:55 am

    I have been using RON 95 since I bought the VW Toureag frankly no difference except the price.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Dilla on Feb 02, 2017 at 11:13 am

    Thank you. Its really help

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • For me, ron 97 do give you better engine performance. I’m using the saga 1.3. With 97, it give more pickup, more faster, and more comfort with the engine. Maybe the experiment above, you use a very well made car. So the type of fuel doesnt give you much affect to the performance as the performance was already great. But try using it with the 2004 car….u will feel the difference

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • I ride a FZ150i and I’ve use both type of fuel. All I can say is there is not much moticeable difference from economical aspect but in terms of performance, I can feel the pull on the bike with ron97. The pulls start kicking in at around 7k rpm. With ron95, I don’t feel that much puck up in all range of rpm.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
  • jijee on Jul 13, 2018 at 3:49 pm

    after read this article very useful.Before that i think Ron 95 and Ron97 don’t have much different.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Hi, did you reset the car’s computer between changes of type of fuel? Computer adapts to a type of fuel, so the fuel that specific always used up to the point of your test also matters.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • its nonsence to increase the fuel price of ron 97 to rm2.80 as oil producing company. poor management of public and useage.play per cc useage then it would be easier
    crap

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  • Thanks For The Test

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
 

Add a comment

required

required