So, you’re gathered at the mamak with your friends when “expert number one” mentions that you should use a fuel with a higher RON rating for your car because it provides better performance. At the same time, “expert number two” says this is utter hearsay, and you don’t need to pay the price premium. Sounds familiar, doesn’t it?
We’re not excepted from such discussions/arguments, and to shed light on the topic, we decided to carry out a little experiment involving a variety of vehicles, including cars and bikes, which should cover about 95% of all new vehicles in the country.
To do so, we compared the effects of using Petron Blaze100 against Blaze95. The former is the first and only high-performance RON 100 fuel in the market today, and is manufactured locally at Petron’s own refinery in Port Dickson.
As for the vehicles used, we brought in a Mazda 2 to represent a typical city car, while for larger family cars, there’s the popular Proton X70. Moving on, we have the Mercedes-Benz C 300 (premium segment), Peugeot 208 GTi (performance hatchback) and Toyota 86 (sports car), while bikes used are the Honda CB250R and Triumph Street Triple 765 RS.
With a mix of naturally-aspirated and turbocharged engines, we ran dyno tests on all the vehicles using both Petron Blaze100 and Blaze95 to compare the horsepower and torque gains/losses with each fuel. After compiling the data, we’re presenting the results to you in this informative video, so sit back and enjoy.
Looking to sell your car? Sell it with Carro.
To me, it is not worth the premium to be paid. Already we have to pay the highest car prices in the world due to 60 years of mismanagement and corruption, it sounds silly to pay expensive petrol also.
I rather use Ron 95. Infact last time I use Ron 92. It was super good and super fast.
Tak payah all this Ron Ron. Even in US, Ron 87 is considered already so good
USA doesn’t use Ron system. They use aki which is a combo of Ron+Mon/2. Mon is typically 8-12 points below Ron so if you take the average of 10 the number shown on their pumps are about 5 point below a normal Ron rating which we use here. If the pump says 87 it usually means 92 in Ron terms.
wow now we got expert number 3 talking about 60 years of mismanaging the country.. kudos bro
Hi, can you do 1 for shell v-power racing vs petron blaze Ron 100 as well?
Good job PT team!
Perhaps you can consider to do more comparison for RON97 and Diesel Max vs Diesel Euro5 soon
Then Petron vs Shell vs BHP vs Caltex vs Petronas and others
Look forward… Thank you
PT probably can’t do comparison between different fuel supplier as they face risk of being sued by the fuel supplier with lower mileage
Even (if) having slight increase HP in my car isnt significant nor matter to me…..becos my daily A to B is jam, jam, jam, etc.
Is this supposed to be an advert video or an independent test done by PT crew?
The latter.
While HP & NM no doubt will increase, but does it justify the extra cost vs benefits? Maybe for those that want more perf and going for trackdays that RON100 difference will be noticeable.
Hi Hafriz. Can you do a Ron97 vs Ron95?
The problem currently is RON 95 is only Euro 2M. RON 97 is Euro 4M. Burn more cleanly. Also, the fuel quality in Malaysia even for RON 97 is bad. I log the engine performance and get knock detection during partial load acceleration. My engine is N20 and I send the log to the tuner and they mention the fuel quality is not up to par. I’m using RON 97 by the way and the tuning is for RON 95. Even stock ECU also show knock.
exactly. again and again these reviewers seems dont seem to understand the problem here is the Euro fuel quality. the 97 euro 4m probably will achieve the same power/torque gains simply because its EURO 4.
Doubt it. Knocking is mainly related to RON number. There is a chance the various blends of RON97 from different brands, some might work better with some engines. To really be certain if Malaysia’s RON97 is the problem, one could go to Singapore, then twice run down the tank and refuel their RON97 before doing the dyno test once again.
I tend to agree that our fuel quality is questionable. Because most of west coast area (Johor to Perlis) are using fuels that originated from middle eastern crude, hence it is more sour i.e. higher sulphur. Whereas our excellent quality crudes from Terengganu were used for jet fuels and export as the prices fetched are much higher (our crude oils are amongst the most expensive crude in the world).
Is there a reason why the output figures are different from the manufacturer claimed figures. For example, c300 is supposed to produced 245hp but in the video is about 30hp less. Understand that a car can lose power over it’s life but sounds like quite a significant loss in a period of only 3-4 years.
factory claim is engine hp,dyno measure wheel hp
Bhp and whp bro
Ron 95 for my vehicles is fair enough. I don’t feel much different between these Rons. Even somtimes I feel Ron 95 perform better than 97.
That is because your engine doesn’t need higher RON
I don’t know about you guys but I love how slender his forearms look with the jacket sleeves all scrunched up like that. Makes me think of women 80s fashion. So hot right now.
That’s some backhanded compliment there
the ron 100 is good for 1.8cc above the car because the ron is high can fast the power the car , my also used perton pertol ron 97 to fuel my perodua axia .
I’ve been using ron95 for my z800 for the past 6 years. I just can’t believe the faces people make when I mentioned that. My bike is fine, clocking over 150000km as I used it for work commute. Engine still as energetic as ever, provided you did your service properly.
Average max gains: HP-8%, Torque-7%
Cost of RON 100 is 45% more than RON 95…
All the gains (for the cars) are registered at higher rev range, i.e. above 4000 rpm. Normal cruising speed at 110kph is likely to be below 3000 rpm. My Golf TSI MK6 cruises around 2.2K rpm at 110kph.
If you constantly drive at 150kph or above, you may benefit from RON100
…and getting stuck at VW workshop by the end of the day? nope. this is why i sold my Polo GTI. VW is totally not for Malaysian climate.
Is true especially ppl use lower RON for turbocharged or high-compression engines
I would use Blaze 100 for trackdays for less knocking and keeping the engine running cooler….
Very simple guys…..not rocket science…. YOU GET WHAT U PAID FOR
You need more data for more accurate result. Even if RON100 does not increased hp and torque but it should not decrease them. If you do not repeat the test, the result actually show nothing.
Fill up RON100 only to be stucked in a jam?
Just give me more fuel thanks…
U either drive a piece of crap or u cant afford it. Either way renders your opinion irrelevant. Lol…
So far I’ve tested Ron 95,97,and 100 using it in my old Toyota corolla and my wifes new altis so far my old corolla responds very well since its carburated especially the Ron 100 I can feel the difference in a big way to me 95 and 97 are not far off though however when I tested the Ron100 on my wife’s car I can’t tell the difference seems like only 95 has a difference it makes my cars pick up slower