| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 140014 | 2015-08-07 03:52:00 | 91 Octane vs 95 Octane | bk T (215) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 1406065 | 2015-08-12 10:26:00 | Not to mention running it on 91 can damage the engine. Running a car on higher octane than recommended is safe enough, the other way around can cause serious damage if the engine isn't designed for it. In a high compression engine 91 will pre ignite, which is what causes the rattle. An engine that is designed to run on either will retune itself and stop rattling after a tank or so but will probably still have bad fuel economy on the wrong fuel. Use what the manufacturer recommends. |
dugimodo (138) | ||
| 1406066 | 2015-08-12 10:37:00 | Thanks for all the info. Considering the higher cost in 95 octane, I think I will just stay with 91. Good to know that it is safe to use higher octane petrol, I may change to 95 one day just to try out. Cheers. |
bk T (215) | ||
| 1406067 | 2015-08-12 12:59:00 | I'll try 95 for a while. It's been running on 91 for 10 years, but the rattle only started 5 months ago. Just re-read the manual: Use only high quality fuel without any supplemental additives or other engine treatments. The engine is optimised to run on PULP (95RON) fuel, but is safe to operate on ULP (91RON minimum). Maximum performance is achieved using PULP (95RON) fuel. |
Renegade (16270) | ||
| 1406068 | 2015-08-12 23:36:00 | Thanks for all the info. Considering the higher cost in 95 octane, I think I will just stay with 91. Good to know that it is safe to use higher octane petrol, I may change to 95 one day just to try out. Cheers. Just because it's more expensive at the pump doesn't mean it works out more expensive to run. |
Alex B (15479) | ||
| 1406069 | 2015-08-13 04:26:00 | You reckon running 95 may get better mileage (km/l)? | bk T (215) | ||
| 1406070 | 2015-08-13 04:43:00 | You would have to test a few tanks to know :) | Alex B (15479) | ||
| 1406071 | 2015-08-13 05:54:00 | It should work out much the same cost per distance for either fuel. | Driftwood (5551) | ||
| 1406072 | 2015-08-13 06:08:00 | Meaning that 95 will give me more km per litre to compensate for the higher cost per litre of fuel? To sum it up, from the economical point of view, they should be very similar in terms of cost per distance and 95 will yield better power (performance). So, theoretically, 95 should be a better choice? |
bk T (215) | ||
| 1406073 | 2015-08-13 06:44:00 | Should be, just hurts more when you fill the tank. | Driftwood (5551) | ||
| 1406074 | 2015-08-13 09:13:00 | I'll try 95 for a while. It's been running on 91 for 10 years, but the rattle only started 5 months ago. Just re-read the manual: Use only high quality fuel without any supplemental additives or other engine treatments. The engine is optimised to run on PULP (95RON) fuel, but is safe to operate on ULP (91RON minimum). Maximum performance is achieved using PULP (95RON) fuel. After several years of running, if the valves are still sealing well and the rings are good, the build up of carbon will increase the compression ratio. It can also become incandescent and so give a diesel effect. In old cars without fuel injection this often caused 'run on' after the ignition is turned off. Of course with electronic fuel injection which is turned off at the same time this does not happen. It may pay to have the ignition timing (sensors) checked. |
mzee (3324) | ||
| 1 2 3 | |||||