| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 139508 | 2015-05-14 00:02:00 | 91 octane versus 95 - advice please | BBCmicro (15761) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 1400660 | 2015-05-18 04:28:00 | Most cars will automatically adjust to the fuel used unless really old like this one.... By "this" one, do you mean your car or the one we're talking about ('98 Corolla 1.8L) |
BBCmicro (15761) | ||
| 1400661 | 2015-05-18 04:32:00 | how big is your tank billy 100 litres. An engine tune would improve too. |
Cicero (40) | ||
| 1400662 | 2015-05-18 04:32:00 | The cars that I've owned have all been cheaper to run on 95. This does have a lot to do with the type of engines in the particular cars though. On all the cars I've run several tanks of both through and checked economy, then compared the difference in usage/price and 95 has come out on top every time (as well as the car running generally better on 95). This was a Nissan with a SR20 in it, a Levin with a Blacktop 4AGE, a FX-GT with a Redtop 4AGE, a Mazda SP20 and a Corolla Runx with a 2ZZ-GE (the one with variable valve and cam timing). All those Toyota engines have a higher than normal compression ratio, which probably has something to do with it, but I've found that 95 was just consistently better value. Now in some normal 1300cc econobox, I'm sure 91 works out cheaper. The wife has a 1500cc Mirage - that makes zero difference which fuel is run, so 91 works out cheaper. But the experience with the cars I've owned says 95 is the better option. In response to the original question though, either is fine. :) |
wratterus (105) | ||
| 1400663 | 2015-05-18 05:13:00 | 100 litres. An engine tune would improve too. Looked it up myself,works out to be 6.8l per 100km, if it is the 68l tank. Which is impressive |
plod (107) | ||
| 1400664 | 2015-05-19 00:04:00 | how big is your tank billy According to the manual, 64 litres, and no, I don't know how I achieved that, but I do know I always have at least 75km left when the low-fuel light comes on and the usage computer stops recording 'Km to empty'. It came on just as we approached the Bombay Hills so I knew there was enough gas left to get home that night, then over to the nearest Gull station next morning. My only concessions to economy are to make sure my tire pressures are correct, using cruise control where practicable (set at 90 km/hr), coast downhills in gear (love seeing the fuel usage display drop to near zero under those conditions (out of gear is not only unsafe, it actually uses more fuel) and not going mad on the winding or hilly sections of my routes. In recent times I've also noticed a significant increase in the number of vehicles now cruising at 90 in the inner lanes of Auckland's motorways so I don't feel as lonely as I did a year or so back. Mrs T says we're crawling (she's a suppressed petrol head and a 'somewhat impatient' driver) but she doesn't like it if I speed up, so go figure! Cheers Billy 8-{) |
Billy T (70) | ||
| 1400665 | 2015-05-20 06:09:00 | Hi had to use 95 or better for my supercharged motor, however most cars are happy with 91 | SolMiester (139) | ||
| 1400666 | 2015-05-21 21:47:00 | the one we are talking about BBCMICRO not mine....although may be okay since mine obviously is ...I thought fairly clear really... | Koenig Tiger (14621) | ||
| 1400667 | 2015-05-22 01:24:00 | Agree wratterus. Found a similar thread of yours, and interestingly from surfer joe here. (pressf1.pcworld.co.nz) 91, 95 seemms vintage now. As a cars made in 91, 95. But no other octane blends in NZ pumps to experiment with. Would 95 petrol be a great loss if withdrawn? How do we if the blends have been changed? Many garages are more intent on flybuys, - never have they mentioned anything about 91/95 or anything petrol/fuel. |
kahawai chaser (3545) | ||
| 1400668 | 2015-05-22 02:59:00 | ...I thought fairly clear really... In retrospect yes:) Thanks for your contribution - I've learned a lot from this thread |
BBCmicro (15761) | ||
| 1400669 | 2015-05-22 03:31:00 | Havent read the entire thread, so excuse me if I'm repeating something already stated. Just adding my 2 cents. Recently bought a newish vehicle. Book says use 90 Ron or higher. Have been running it on 91 & getting a computed average figure of 7.2 lts/100. Recently filled from a 1/2 tank with 95. With the same type of running it is now showing a figure of 6.2 lts/100. Would have to assume that figure would be even lower with a full tank of 95 |
Driftwood (5551) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 | |||||