Super unleaded - is it worth the extra cost?
Discussion
pilchardthecat said:
That sounds like you're saying exactly the same thing as me in a slightly different way.
Cost wise, there is very little in it... that was my point.
Sure, but why buy an M3(etc) and then put 95 in reducing its power ?Cost wise, there is very little in it... that was my point.
Although I can understand in the current weather
Edited by john_p on Tuesday 21st December 14:38
john_p said:
Sure, but why buy an M3(etc) and then put 95 in reducing its power ?
Realistically the opportunities for using "full power" in a modern high performance car are very limited indeed.I stick some high octane fuel in the Vette for high days and holidays, but for day to day driving it makes no difference whatsoever. I've certainly not seen a reduction in fuel consumption sufficient to encourage me to pay the substantial price premium every time I fill the tank.
jbi said:
whats your engine compression ratio?
Higher compression motors tend to require the higher octane stuff to prevent pre-ignition.
Most modern cars will automatically adjust for the petrol you put in but fuel economy and power output can suffer if you regularly use the wrong stuff.
Sorry but that's not true or bikes would be super only - and they're not.Higher compression motors tend to require the higher octane stuff to prevent pre-ignition.
Most modern cars will automatically adjust for the petrol you put in but fuel economy and power output can suffer if you regularly use the wrong stuff.
Edited by jbi on Tuesday 21st December 13:32
Edited by rhinochopig on Tuesday 21st December 19:24
11110111 said:
ok - so on my Civic Type R EP3 / 2004, do you think it will make much of a difference which I use?
Will I get an bigger YO! if I use the premium stuff?
TIA
No doesn't make any difference on the Civic, unless you get K-pro and remap it to suit.Will I get an bigger YO! if I use the premium stuff?
TIA
I would always use 99Ron on any turbocharged petrol car. The difference in price isnt much and most modern engines will take advantage, and even if they dont its additional knock protection.
john_p said:
pilchardthecat said:
That sounds like you're saying exactly the same thing as me in a slightly different way.
Cost wise, there is very little in it... that was my point.
Sure, but why buy an M3(etc) and then put 95 in reducing its power ?Cost wise, there is very little in it... that was my point.
Although I can understand in the current weather
As i said, you can't really tell under 5k rpm and i'm generally avoiding redlining the Z4M at the moment as it's a bit squirmy out there
I'd say i put 97/98 in it about two thirds of the time
Right, just checked my handbook. For the turbocharged L3 engine (which I think is the Mazda 3 MPS one) they recommend 98 ron. You can use 95 ron in these cars though according to the book.
My 2.0i Sport model seems to fall under the 'every other petrol engine' section which is below the turbo engine section. This simply says '95 ron or above'. Therefore, i'm guessing 95 is fine but I can use higher octanes if desired?
Thanks.
My 2.0i Sport model seems to fall under the 'every other petrol engine' section which is below the turbo engine section. This simply says '95 ron or above'. Therefore, i'm guessing 95 is fine but I can use higher octanes if desired?
Thanks.
funkyrobot said:
Right, just checked my handbook. For the turbocharged L3 engine (which I think is the Mazda 3 MPS one) they recommend 98 ron. You can use 95 ron in these cars though according to the book.
My 2.0i Sport model seems to fall under the 'every other petrol engine' section which is below the turbo engine section. This simply says '95 ron or above'. Therefore, i'm guessing 95 is fine but I can use higher octanes if desired?
Thanks.
Oh right, if yours isnt the turbo MPS, then dont bother. Maybe once in a while for the cleaning additives, but there wont be any noticeable performance difference.My 2.0i Sport model seems to fall under the 'every other petrol engine' section which is below the turbo engine section. This simply says '95 ron or above'. Therefore, i'm guessing 95 is fine but I can use higher octanes if desired?
Thanks.
funkyrobot said:
Right, just checked my handbook. For the turbocharged L3 engine (which I think is the Mazda 3 MPS one) they recommend 98 ron. You can use 95 ron in these cars though according to the book.
My 2.0i Sport model seems to fall under the 'every other petrol engine' section which is below the turbo engine section. This simply says '95 ron or above'. Therefore, i'm guessing 95 is fine but I can use higher octanes if desired?
Exactly right. So the turbocharged one is optimised for 98 ron. It can cope with 95 but only by reducing economy and power in the process, so probably not saving any money overall and definitely losing performance.My 2.0i Sport model seems to fall under the 'every other petrol engine' section which is below the turbo engine section. This simply says '95 ron or above'. Therefore, i'm guessing 95 is fine but I can use higher octanes if desired?
Yours is optimised for 95 ron. Using 98 might very slightly increase power/economy (if it's got a knock sensor) - but only very slightly, and not certainly not justifying the extra cost of the fuel on financial grounds. Or using 98 might very slightly reduce power/economy (because the 98 ron fuel has got slightly less energy in it).
For either engine, you won't do any harm at all by using higher ron fuel than specified (other than to your wallet).
There are two seperate issues here.
One is the octance rating itself. If you have a car calibrated specifically for 98 RON then you risk seriously damaging it by detonation (or 'pinking') if you run it on lesser fuels. Similarly an increasing number of cars have knock sensors, which should be safe to run on 95 RON or below, but won't perform as well as they could.
Second is the various additives in the fuel. The high performance fuels have all sorts of additional components which enhance the long- and short-term health of the engine. Their effect is harder to quantify, but they are there for reason, they're not just marketing gimmicks.
One is the octance rating itself. If you have a car calibrated specifically for 98 RON then you risk seriously damaging it by detonation (or 'pinking') if you run it on lesser fuels. Similarly an increasing number of cars have knock sensors, which should be safe to run on 95 RON or below, but won't perform as well as they could.
Second is the various additives in the fuel. The high performance fuels have all sorts of additional components which enhance the long- and short-term health of the engine. Their effect is harder to quantify, but they are there for reason, they're not just marketing gimmicks.
My Smart Fortwo (700cc, twin plugged, turbo & intercooled as standard !) will run on the cheapest fuel but I get better mpg on super unleaded that justifies the additional expense. SEEMS a little smoother as well but cann't comment on any improvement in performance.
Paul H
Paul H
Edited by Compo_Simmonite on Tuesday 21st December 17:56
my ignis sport requires 98+ but i was running low in the middle of nowhere and had to top up with 95 and almost instantly noticed a difference, the revs rise and lower much slower so its actualy easier to get smooth gearchanges but the engine itself felt and sounded rougher but i didnt realy notice any difference in performance
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff