Great explanation as always JC! Being the lead footed chap that I am, I can definitely tell the difference between 91 and 98 in my Rio GT-line - the torque is the most noticeable improvement. I also get an extra 50 kms per tank (45 litres) so better fuel economy despite my enthusiastic driving. Is it worth it from a rational economic stand point? Heck no, but when the worst fuel economy you get is 8.5ltrs per 100 kms, it’s not exactly a financial hardship to get the 98 octane. Ps, I’ve tried the 94 E10 a few times an it too provides noticeably more torque than 91 but due to the low energy density of ethanol the fuel economy is quite poor.
Hi John, I think it must be about time for another worst cars update. Your enthusiastic and vociferous shredding of these disgraces that afflict our fine automotive market here in Straya, is as entertaining as it is informative.
@@darrenwalker6854 even worse...that ridiculous screen only has a life of 5 years... anyway have you seen the new Porsche EV...makes the Tesla look like a drab POS.
I live in the rarefied air of Colorado (over 1620m above sea level), where the air density is about 80% of sea-level. 300 HP engines output 240 HP. And the standard gasoline isn't 87 AKI (anti-knock index) like most of the US; it's 85. That would be somewhere around 90 or 89 RON. This is exclusive to Mountain states, and is apparently because when you can only fit 80% of the air in an engine, you can run lower octane. Other fun fact; cars get better mileage at altitude. And it's not a tiny bit. Cars that get 26 MPG at sea level will get 29MPG at 5000 ft. I recently drove from Michigan to Colorado, and it was interesting to watch the mileage improve as the altitude increased.
running lean (less fuel to air mix) vs running rich (more fuel to air mix), so going up high means the car can run more lean, modern fuel injection systems can adjust the ignition spark timing which corresponds with less fuel consumption because there is less power being made as there is less need for fuel to air mix.
Here in the UK we have not been able to get 91 Ron since the late 90's. Just 95 Ron or 97, 98, 99 Ron depending on the make for premium fuels. Shell v-Power is 99 here, and Esso have recently upped their premium fuel to 99 octane as well. My Saab has a modified Trionic ECU and i have "Knock Detection" set to output to an Led in the dash. So i can see pre-ignition live as and when it happens, given Saab uses Resistor NGK spark plugs to measure the ionisation in the combustion chamber in between ignition cycles. It is interesting to see how different makes of fuel vary. For instance BP and Esso premium fuels still give a high amount of knock when using high boost. But Shell V-Power 99 results in zero knock, in my case anyway. (97 Saab 9000 Aero 2.3T. Remapped to 308bhp @ 1.45 bar boost pressure).
The main reason to use 98 over 95 is because everyone else does. Depending on how leafy your suburb is, a servo's tanks will generally get more deliveries of fresh 98 whilst the 95 can hang around underground for a while....
My experience as a 'spirited' rather than lead foot driver. 2002 V6 Commodore now on 360,000 kms. First 100,000 kms on 91 and got around 10l/100 rural. I live is a rural area. Since around 100,000 km has been on 98 and it has been getting between 8 and 8.5 rural. 2019 Mazda 6 Wagon [Turbo GT] has always run on 98. Mazda actually 'promise' more power on higher RON. Maybe!!??? It's B trip meter shows a constant 8.0. All I can say is ZOOM - ZOOM. [ Smile]
I use 98 RON when I know I am doing extended long distance highway driving, sure I'm paying extra however the benefits outweigh the extra cost for example with my vehicle the use of 98 RON provides more advanced timing which means more mid range/top end power which is good for overtaking B-Doubles, for metro regions the only benefit would be in terms of emissions quality being better for the environment, curious thing is that Ford also say you can use 91 RON however there will be reduced mid and top end power as the advanced timing is reduced (which makes sense as using 98 provides more advanced timing) while using e10 94 RON is fine but with e10 the issue is energy is 3% less so your fuel economy is worse off by 3% which means less range per litre consumed.
I have a 2015 Kawasaki 310 jet ski (supercharged). These things are so highly strung they detonate if you use anything less than 98. It eats 120L per hr at WOT & has a 70L tank. I can use the whole tank in 40min of racing.
Sulphur can be a problem in engines. 8n the 1980s Mazda had diesel pickup - the B2200. Here in South Africa they became notorious for failing @ around 100 000km due to the high sulphur fuel eroding the cylinder walls. Also back in the 80s I went on a fuels & lubricants course @ Shell (was involved in trucking @ the time) they mentioned that the products of the combustion of Sulphur would condense on the cylinder wall when the wall was temp was below 75C and would cause erosion.
Mr Cadogan, Too many of your uploads have the comments turned off. This is not good. You are a hero for many of us and we like commenting to show our support for you and our anger at all the Trash European Brands that are polluting our roads.
I understand that crude from the very small oil fields around Eromanga naturally have a low sulphur content. Its processed by IOR at Eromanga and I believe sold mainly to below-ground mining operations because of its low sulphur properties. You can buy diesel at their refinery.
A couple of years ago I saw a tuner comparison of fuels, from memory 91, 98 and E85. Vehicle involved was a 6 litre Commodore with mods. Car was tuned to each fuel in turn and was around the 300 rear wheel kilowatts mark. Difference between the fuels was about 15kw, which in my book you would need a well trained derriere to notice. They did say E85 would show greater advantage with boost, but in my mind, 5% more power for maybe 25% more cost isn't a good outcome for a daily driver.
Hey John, loving the update and info around this. I use 95 minimum in my bike because Suzuki says that's what's required, so I'll simply follow the manufacturer's reccommendations. I did have a 93 Honda Prelude yars ago (not a VTI model) which only required 91. I did notice at the time if I ran 95 I got slightly better fuel economy, and at the time if the price of 95 was within 4 cents/litre of 91 then it was worth it. Like I said, a long time ago. One point though, I'm sure the questioner said that the service adviser told him 91 was perfectly fine, but I noticd later in your talk that you were saying that they'd given the wrong info. Might want to check that out unless I've got it wrong. I read it that the service dude said 91 was all good. Then the "however" kicked in, my thinking was that this was Ben looking to justify his own previously held opinions. Much like the doctor tells you all about vaccines, how they work and the benefits, but you come back with "I read on this website it'll give you two heads and rabies."
I run my Stinger GT on 91 octane or E10 which I think is 94 octane. The car runs brilliantly on either. My long term fuel consumption is 8.6 litres/100km which I recon is amazing for a performance vehicle.
I was born in a cross-fire hurricane And I howled at my ma in the driving rain But it's all right now, in fact, it's a gas But it's all right. I'm Jumpin' Jack Flash It's a gas! Gas! Gas
Worth doing a test for your car. Old Yaris cheaper to run on 95 as better consumption more than paid for the extra cost of 95. (Tested over 3 fills in same driving.)
Thanks for the clarification on what the sulfur content of fuel actually means for the performance of the vehicle. I'd surmised from less reliable sources that this was what'd contributed to poor injector flow efficiency in my MY10 TSI Skoda Octavia RS (diagnised by a reliable, independent operator), after the car being around seven years old. I'm now curious what would cause injector efficiency to drop? A quick Google search notes fuel quality and carbon build-up as key contributors. The car was always run on 98 octane fuel; by myself and my parents; who bought it from the dealer. While replacing the entire intake manifold due to a failed pressure sensor (ridiculous), I saw just how utterly fouled the intake vanes and valves had become after 100k kilometres. My question is, if carbon contributes to poor injectors; and is such a major issue for VW direct injection engines in general; how can you effectively prevent these issues as a common motorist? All solutions I found were advocating an after-market catch-can setup, which I wasn't willing to inviest in before selling the vehicle. Is the problem excacerbated by how you drive the car? (Urban vs. Extra?). I must admit I drove the car on short commute trips regularly, but I did a lot of long trips from Sydney to Ulladulla and even down to Tasmania and back to Sydney before the problem occured. I sold that car because of the 1st gen DSG starting to become unreliable, but I want to buy another Skoda Octavia RS (MY18) with a manual transmission within the year because I love how beautiful it was to drive overall. Should I consider anything more for maintenance to ensure reliabilty?
Simplest and easiest way to increase performance and economy is to use 100% gasoline with no Ethanol. More stored energy, period (provided the octane is proper for your car).
My 1964 VW kombi runs with better power and economy on higher octane petrol and worse on lower octane petrol. This is because I can set the timing by moving the distributor and using different centrifugal timing advance springs.
This one's done the rounds, John... Vehicle & Fuel Manufacturers allow for 87/91/ Sale Volume? Less buyers @ higher spec & price? (Ethanol's a bit higher, ON, anyway?) Higher octane lets ign timing advance a bit? Improved power & economy? Esp turbo? Yair, sulfur's a thing... & Cats?... Aging refineries, shutting down... Even after decades of prop up... Not eco to r/c... Down there... You Don't Wanna be, Up There, John - That'd be MAMS :( Whatever... Congratulations & Bright Futures, to The Worthy, Winners :)
At risk of pissing off some of the younger mechanics, see (component replacers) the understanding and diagnostic abilities, see (grey haired motor and engine technicians) there is a great divide. If there not getting on the older side of 45 I will not have them work on my car by choice. So suck bang blow is best done by people who know what's going on.
There are several ECU laws (operating programs) which will knock back the advance when they hear a few but not too many knocks under high load (classic overtake ping that goes away instantaneously) before loading up on DTCs. This often happens because of carbon deposits from lots of slow start stop driving creating uneven heat and pre-ignition. E10/95RON tends not to need to suffer this problem quite as much (we're talking a tiny difference), but a long spirited drive (aka the Italian Tune Up) is in my opinion more effective and cheaper, and certainly more enjoyable.
Lived in Winnipeg. It routinely dips to -40C (F) and below in winter. Lowest temp in my experience was -51\52C. But I see your point, in Straya, you wouldn't see those kinds of temps.
@@archygrey9093 thought the same to, but a few months later I blow the head gasket 1 pulled the head of to find a pretty darn clean combustion chamber ( just abit of scouring that easily came of with a rag no major chunks) 2 replaced with AU motor and same effect. Will add car didn't feel any faster on 95 just generally ran better
Those poor peasants in the USA running their teslas on 110V.. Thankfully we have 240v available here! The question is though: is it going to run smoother down the highway if you use electrons from a 10A socket or the fatter ones that come down a 15A one for charging with the mobile charger??
Honestly, I wanted you to read my self deriding comment more than to win the torch. I was once featured as a nut a year or so ago for a facetious comment made under a pseudonym but since using my real name I can't quite seem to find my nutty centre.
Most Japanese cars require 95 these days as well Go ask Nissan I have only use 98 in all my petrol engines for the last 20 years I do it in the ss as it gives me the best performance and fuel economy In my opinion 91 Ron should have been done away with years ago Especially in these environmental times
I’ve run my patrol on 95 ethanol for 3 years 100ks now towing with no issues the car doesn’t sit still long so fuel sitting in the system doesn’t happen, at all never more expensive than diesel at about 14l per 100, the same as my Dmax towing the same load using diesel at times up to 20 cents a litre more expensive.
Quick calculations it's.20c a litre for 95 over 91 where I live so depending on how far you drive add on 3 to 5 hundred bucks a year and being adverse to wasting money as well as topping up government fuel tax revenue it's a big part of my consideration when looking at a new car... I've found the salesperson has no idea on fuel or does know and won't make it known to you voluntarily so always look on the fuel cap or inside the fuel flap .
Talking about Kia and fuel requirements, we have a 2014 Kia Rio that was stated to require 91 octane only. After about 12 months, it started doing what Kia called ‘pinking’ when they looked at it. They then advised you should use 95 octane with the 1.6 GDI, despite all literature saying the required fuel was 91. Got nowhere arguing with them about their misleading conduct. The car has been very reliable apart from the ‘pinking’ in hot weather though.
I think you “misheard” what they said. It’s “Pinging” not “Pinking”. 😣 The fault is most likely causing by the timing too far advanced. Sounds like they’re not very smart!
This very question has been raised multiple times on the XV Australia Facebook page, to the point where those who get the argument that there is not cost/benefit outcome from using higher octane fuels in their XV have largely given up arguing with such people. Subaru recommend RON91, so that's what I use. Some claim better performance, which is a subjective observation, and better fuel economy, which may be true, but the significant additional cost per litre for the 95 and 98 is not offset. There is no arguing with such people. I would recommend they watch this video, but XV drivers being somewhat conservative people, may get offended by you language (not the swearing but the calling they idiots). Thanks for the video.
From memory the boxer engines generally suffer from build up in the combustion chambers (which isn't helped with the direct injection engines that they now use), which is why Subaru have the upper engine cleaner. So using either 98 octane fuel, or a cleaner to the fuel tank when filling up may have a benefit. Better performance is only subjective if they haven't quantified it (put the car on a dyno to show the difference), some are more in tune with their car than others. For example Niki Lauder was very in tune. I can tell you exactly how my car performs with each of the fuels (91, 95, and 98) but until I can prove this to you, it should be taken with a grain of salt. Since without evidence how do you know that what I'm experiencing isn't a placebo or confirmation bias. And if you don't have the same car as me, you probably won't get the same results. For example my car runs the best using 95, and gets inferior performance using 98 below 4000-4500 rpm and has worse fuel economy on the highway, whereas my brothers car which is a different car to mine seems to run better on 98 versus 95. The undeniable benefit to using the higher octane fuel is lower pollution, not only is there the bi-product of the sulfur, it reduces the catalytic converters ability to reduce carbon monoxide and nitrous oxide emissions.
If your highly tuned engine designed for 98 fuel can detune itself to run on 91 then yes you will defiantly feel the love when you give it what it was designed for.
I definitely see improved performance AND economy when I put 98RON in my 1997 Toyota Starlet, but that's simply due to it pinging its guts out when drinking the "cheap" stuff under any serious load because one of the sensors is rooted (O2 or MAP sensor most likely).
@@rabidsminions2079 Mate, she's probably had litres of injector/fuel system cleaner through her by now. Trust me, something is well and truly rooted. ;)
@@sixstringedthing I run my BF ii Falcon on 91 with a half a 50ml bottle of flashlube when it hits 1/2 a tank and it runs great with no issues. Flashlube is very different to other injector cleaners. Before using it I could not use 91 without it running like crap.
So glad I know absolutely shit about engines and all that ignition stuff. I go to the Servo put the stuff in that comes out of the 95 handle, job done press the start button and the most difficult part of the process is putting in to drive. Not rocket science really.
Lots of people will state black and blue that certain RONs from certain retailers makes your car run better on cars that are designed to run on 91. Real world experiences.
Re high sulphur content: 1) I think the govt has moved forward the date to go to 10ppm sulphur limit to 2024. Still a decade too late! 2) We also miss out on lots of good engines that come with a petrol particulate filter as they are calibrated to run on 10ppm and 50-150ppm would gum up the PPF. Or so I am told!
I lost all confidence in my local BMW service department when I was told my radiator had suffered stone damage, yet there is no direct path for a stone to actually reach it.
The only thing I read from Toyota is that too low of octane fuel will cause knock and thus trigger the knock sensor circuitry and retard the spark. That will hurt power and fuel economy. Toyota mentions nothing about higher octane advancing the spark above the nominal setting.
If there was only a few cents per litre difference in price between 91and 98 it would be worth buying the 98 but when you are paying 15c a litre more it's not worth it. Having said that, my wife's mechanic told her she shouldn't have run E10 in her 2006 Tiida because it ruined the catalytic converter and recommended that she run 98 in it for a while to try and fix it. It didn't. Apparently mechanics don't always know what they are talking about. Of course ethanol is a whole other issue. I see that the QLD government website which used to tell you whether your car would run on E10 now just tells you to consult the manufacturer.
thanks for the video John. I don't doubt your explanation about the petrol. However, long time ago 20 years or so I use to have your favorite brand VW Golf Mk IV 2L. There was recommended 95 RON. One of my employees at the time was driving Falcon 4L build in mid 90's. After while his motor started running rough and his mechanic recommended injectors replacement. I convinced him to try 95 RON a tank or two and we'll see. Sure enough just after a 1/2 the tank been used (+-30L) the engine started going well again. According to my employee he drove in stead of 470 kms per tank on 91 560kms on 95. Is it because of a old technology or was the guy just BSing to me. I'd like to know because it happened to a guy with VW Golf Mk 4 GTi. But he filled the car with 91 just by misunderstanding.
Apparently an engine with lots of carbon build up can increase its own compression ratio enough to start pinging and requires higher octane fuel, possibly is what happened to your freinds car. Or possibly the wrong heat rating spark plugs, if the plugs are too hot of a rating they can act like glow plugs and pre-ignite the fuel, I've had this happen with friends scooters and motorcycles, it is pretty easy to tell if the plugs are too hot if you look at them.
At current petrol prices in Melbourne (around $1.75 per Litre of 91 RON) and more for 95 and 98; I will stick to 91 out of necessity and my car runs fine on it anyway.
If anything, a higher RON is going to put more stress on your engine. It will allow the ECU to advance the ignition timing further, producing hotter cylinder temperatures and more power. That means more stress on internal components. It's not going to make any noticeable difference though.
I'm happy to be corrected, but advancing the engine ignition timing has more to do with increasing the efficiency of the burn, Not increasing the temperatures. What the desirable outcome is that the air/fuel mixture will fully combust, and so reach maximum pressure around the time the piston reaches the top (Top Dead Centre), This will lead to a more efficient power stroke, versus one where the pressure is still increasing as the piston starts travelling down. The various sensors on the car, will always try to control the combustion chamber temperatures in order to limit Nitrous Oxide emissions.
@@notsureyou higher pressures means higher temperature. Temperature is a measure of energy per volume. Same energy, smaller volume = higher temperature. That is why timing is retarded to reduce knock, it lowers the temperature by reducing the pressure.
@@viperidaenz1 Fair call. But it wouldn't be a temperature that the engine wasn't designed to cope with. Otherwise it wouldn't allow the ignition to be advanced to that point.
Euro spec (or Scandinavia exclusive don't know) has been E5, E10, E85 for a long while. 98 RON, non-ethanol blend, is nowhere to be found. If it can be found it's way off in price.
Modern ECU's will pull timing and other little tricks like lowering boost and adjust the AFR depending if the knock sensor detects detonation. This will lower power output, however only really ever happens under high load situations. Normal Driving will not effect anything. Older cars like my JZA80 supra using the old factory ECU does not have this level of luxury of protection. If i ever get stuck somewhere and 98 is not available I can use 91 however I must keep it off boost or I will grenade my engine. The people here claiming they get better mileage with 91 on their cars is most likely because the engine is using less fuel by giving you less performance if you drive with a heavy foot. Years ago I did my own fuel economy test between all fuels I could get and all brands.. Took me over 6 months in a 2006 ford focus 2.0L NA. Between every RON rating and every brand the total difference with the identical drive every day and tire pressures checked weekly was only a TOTAL OF 27KM from best to worst. Even that could come down to minor variables like weather and air temp.
My dealer service people do not push the injector cleaner additive for me when I explain I run on BP 98. Suggested by my sales manager friend. The 14:1 compression seems happier with 98. US tests of my car quote higher HP with 98. I use so little fuel that the extra cost not an issue, especially when it avoids the need for injector cleaner. This being more extra cost than the extra costs of many tanks of 98 compared to 91.
Hmmm interesting. A question for those more knowledgeable folk, I own two classic cars,a 4 cylinder Datsun and a V8 Chrysler. Now I was told sometime ago to run both these oldies on 98 so I have been. When I bought my Chrysler the chap before me was using 91 in it. Since swapping to 98 the only difference I’ve noticed is that it idles better and cold starts are easier,other than this I can say it makes no more power,so opinions please on old carby engines running 98! Tanku
I had a 1997 Honda Civic which was supposedly okay with 91 fuel. It pinged badly with 91 and so I went to 95 and it was very happy. So what I concluded is that the manufacturer or importer were being dishonest, or the fuel wasn't the specification it was sold as, just saying.
Used to run my old 2.0 Mazda6 on 99 (UK) every few fills. Sharpened up the engine response a little and ran a bit smoother too. Was ok on 95 but there was a slight improvement on 99.
Theoretically the improvement might be possible where the computers adjust things based on the data from all the sensors and gaining slight improvement. But John seems to downplay the idea that the engine would run better. I mean the systems are there to keep the air/fuel mix right, timing, etc. which should improve engine performance slightly versus when they go off the boards.
The Kia Stinger is testament to the far superior engineering Kia did in the Stinger allowing it to run on 91RON fuel, as opposed to expensive high octane fuel the 'superior' Euro's require. It shows the Stinger is far better in the engineering domain that the purportedly better Euro's.
I ride motorbikes , and Yamaha told me don’t use 98 Ron it’s not suitable and recommended 95 Ron , but try buying 95 Ron here in country Victoria , and being an ex fuel tanker driver I’ve been told 95 Ron is on its way out .
Nice debunking JC. Every time I see BNN, I get excited for the return of Curtis in his bucket hat. Sulphur seems to be the "next gen lead" in our fuel. All the more incentive for 'Stayans to go 'lectric given the astronomical levels. Just like Euro diesels were delayed here until the fuel was improved, so too might petrol Euros (now fitted with particulate filters). I've been away for a while, nice to see you're driving an excited Kona. Looked through your past vids and only saw one vid about it.
Compression Ratio. at least Europe no car is using 91 RON as its not available. Sulfur content: - you get what you pay for - sulfur content in 98 OCT ? - is sulfur content aloud in petrol ? - what about aditivation for 91 OCT BimmerN53
John, Will 98 burn hotter or cooler than 91 in a 1967 MGB 1800 engine? Engine has been converted to run unleaded, not that this should have any impact on the air fuel burn temp. Which is the better fuel to use in your opinion, the 91 or the 98?
i thought sulfur damages the catalytic converters....? i have read that lubricating oil for diesels is not ever recommended for gasoline engines because those oil have increased sulfur content on purpose which would damage the converters.
@@AutoExpertJC Thanks for the prompt reply. Maybe you could do a video on it and also the additives such as the various types of octane booster. I was told jumping the RON by 7 points helped burn out all the carbonised stuff inside the cylinder head. But what I know about mechanics you could write on the back of a postage stamp. Remember them?
As the owner of a number of turbo car's it's always 95 or 98. Re the Stinger GT. I guess the only way to settle if there is a tangible difference on 98 vs 91 would be to do a set of power runs back to back on the different fuels. Sure it might run fine on 91, but until there is a back to back test, who's to say whether or not the ecu might find a few more ponies on 98 with a little more boost or a little more ignition timing?
There has been testing on a single car with different fuels. The power is up on the higher octane due to advanced timing. But John was saying the car will run fine on both 👍🏼
BEDLINER?? John, with the way truck beds are made now days with galvanized metal, is there any reasonable argument to pay and have a bed liner installed? I guess before if the truck bed was to get damaged, like a hole in it, then rusting through could have been a problem. I am not aware if truck bed liner will protect anything more than a scratch? I don't see the bed liner helping with impacts or dents, also bed liners can be expensive, what about if the bed liner is in such bad condition, just swap it out in 10 or 15 years? What reasonable justification is there to install a plastic tub bed liner, or a paint / roll on bed liner? THANKS.
Getting the 10 ppm in Australia would require investements that raise price to 3-4 cents per liter wich is perfectly acceptable. Canada did it so why not Australia
@@vwbora26 It will, but my point is that the financial investment required to raise the fuel quality would be better (for air pollution) spent in accelerating the transition from combustion to electric propulsion.
Sometimes 'engineers' literally foul up an already good design as with direct fuel injection systems with engines experiencing high rates of carbon buildup early in their life cycle and in effect increasing detonation and other operating problems. 98RON can help in the short term if the vehicle was tuned on 91RON but sadly is only a short term fix as eventually, the engine will need to be pulled down. Why oh why, please tell us, why the well-known benefits of self-cleaning (petrol is an excellent solvent for cleaning valve guides and inlet ports) Direct Port Fuel Injection was abandonded? 🙄😏😣😥
well only ignition timing is concerned by the octane rating ... so the car might run a bit "nicer" with higher octane IF the manufacturer has given the ECU the liberty of advancing the timing so much that the user would notice any performance/efficiency ... but i highly doubt the stock ECU in any mass market car has such big margins of tweaking the advance - so if your fuel clears the knock control fine ... can it advance the timing ... maybe 1-2-3% ? do you feel it ? questionable BUT from experience living in a country with very very bad fuel quality control (99% russian URAL used to make gasoline in russian refineries) i can 100% confirm that in a situation like mine it is a good idea to stick to the high octane fuel , because it is not uncommon even with cars from the 90s and 2000s to have poor running engine sometimes on regular fuel (not because of the rating , but because of the lack of control of quality and it is worse with the regular fuel )
To be honest to say there is no benefit isn't correct. To say that higher octane fuel isn't liquid Schwartz would be more accurate. Every car is different, and some people are more perceptive to what their car is doing. For example based on experience with my previous car, and current car, I'm pretty sure if doing a blind test (with the same car type that I currently own) I could tell you what fuel was in it (91, 95, or 98), based on the engine performance.
In my 800+ kw F6 Tornado, the difference between 91 & 98 was neglible; it would make another 11kw on 98 and got maybe an extra 30km's to the tank. 90% of the time i just threw 91 in it, let the Haltech do it's thing, and not worry about the magical dinosaur juice
My independent BMW specialist mechanic AND the (dodgy enough to be critical of mechanics he had never met) BMW service manager AND the RAC roadside mechanic all advised me to use BP or Caltex 98 fuel in my Mini money pit because their additives include stuff that clean my engine. Fact or bulldust? Thanks.
Hey Uncle John, when I'm out the back of DP Creek in my RON98 sucking V8 Y62 Patrol and can only source RON91 will an "octane booster aditive" help to up the RON closer to the manufactures engine requirements or is this BS. Cheers mate, love your work.
@@rohangearing6999 Not on a 140-litre fuel tank, you won't notice an extra litre go missing over the span of 100km. Your Y62 is tuned for 95 RON minimum, FYI.
That's why I only use diesel in all cars.. less choice.. Lol. I filled up someone's BMW with 91.. as per the label and I told them because I know they only put 98 in it and they flipped their lid.. Super crazy The last petrol car I had used super... I should have kept that as it would be worth a bit now
Degree in Mech Eng. Motoring journo for 30 yrs. Network TV news & current affairs on Ch 7 & 9 for years. Talkback host on Sydney 2UE. Wheels, Motor, Fairfax, Newsltd, former editor of CarAdvice, former consultant to the car industry. Apart from that - nothing much.
Here in NZ all gas stations have 91 and 95, but only a handful carry 98. That's the larger BP stations, a tiny handful of Caltex stations, and Gull has 91 and "Gull 98" which is actually crappy E10 that gets lower mileage. It sucked when I had cars that required 98 minimum, some areas just don't have 98 at all.
They do. Those O-lights are just LED's. Many modern new high-end cars have LED lights from the factory. You can also buy aftermarket conversion kits to convert your old halogen lights to LED. But beware, sadly not all LED conversion kits are good, many of them have very bad light reflection so the beam blinds oncoming traffic. But there are good kits available as well that are engineered to preserve the orginal light beam.
Great explanation as always JC! Being the lead footed chap that I am, I can definitely tell the difference between 91 and 98 in my Rio GT-line - the torque is the most noticeable improvement. I also get an extra 50 kms per tank (45 litres) so better fuel economy despite my enthusiastic driving.
Is it worth it from a rational economic stand point? Heck no, but when the worst fuel economy you get is 8.5ltrs per 100 kms, it’s not exactly a financial hardship to get the 98 octane.
Ps, I’ve tried the 94 E10 a few times an it too provides noticeably more torque than 91 but due to the low energy density of ethanol the fuel economy is quite poor.
Hi John, I think it must be about time for another worst cars update. Your enthusiastic and vociferous shredding of these disgraces that afflict our fine automotive market here in Straya, is as entertaining as it is informative.
Worst car easy... any Tesla
@@arthol51 yep, they reckon the panel gaps on them are bloody awful 🙄
@@darrenwalker6854 even worse...that ridiculous screen only has a life of 5 years... anyway have you seen the new Porsche EV...makes the Tesla look like a drab POS.
@@darrenwalker6854 and they are ugly.
I live in the rarefied air of Colorado (over 1620m above sea level), where the air density is about 80% of sea-level. 300 HP engines output 240 HP. And the standard gasoline isn't 87 AKI (anti-knock index) like most of the US; it's 85. That would be somewhere around 90 or 89 RON. This is exclusive to Mountain states, and is apparently because when you can only fit 80% of the air in an engine, you can run lower octane.
Other fun fact; cars get better mileage at altitude. And it's not a tiny bit. Cars that get 26 MPG at sea level will get 29MPG at 5000 ft. I recently drove from Michigan to Colorado, and it was interesting to watch the mileage improve as the altitude increased.
running lean (less fuel to air mix) vs running rich (more fuel to air mix), so going up high means the car can run more lean, modern fuel injection systems can adjust the ignition spark timing which corresponds with less fuel consumption because there is less power being made as there is less need for fuel to air mix.
@@351tgv I believe there's one other factor for the better mileage at altitude... less dense air means less wind resistance.
Here in the UK we have not been able to get 91 Ron since the late 90's. Just 95 Ron or 97, 98, 99 Ron depending on the make for premium fuels. Shell v-Power is 99 here, and Esso have recently upped their premium fuel to 99 octane as well. My Saab has a modified Trionic ECU and i have "Knock Detection" set to output to an Led in the dash. So i can see pre-ignition live as and when it happens, given Saab uses Resistor NGK spark plugs to measure the ionisation in the combustion chamber in between ignition cycles. It is interesting to see how different makes of fuel vary. For instance BP and Esso premium fuels still give a high amount of knock when using high boost. But Shell V-Power 99 results in zero knock, in my case anyway. (97 Saab 9000 Aero 2.3T. Remapped to 308bhp @ 1.45 bar boost pressure).
The main reason to use 98 over 95 is because everyone else does. Depending on how leafy your suburb is, a servo's tanks will generally get more deliveries of fresh 98 whilst the 95 can hang around underground for a while....
i run my car on freshly crushed pixies !
@@rfmonkey4942 who are you trying to kid you ride the bus
@@mickmckpng3153 The porcelain bus?
My experience as a 'spirited' rather than lead foot driver. 2002 V6 Commodore now on 360,000 kms. First 100,000 kms on 91 and got around 10l/100 rural. I live is a rural area. Since around 100,000 km has been on 98 and it has been getting between 8 and 8.5 rural. 2019 Mazda 6 Wagon [Turbo GT] has always run on 98. Mazda actually 'promise' more power on higher RON. Maybe!!??? It's B trip meter shows a constant 8.0. All I can say is ZOOM - ZOOM. [ Smile]
John ur like a cool pseudo youtube uncle that teaches me shit my adhd brain normally couldn’t focus on long enough
I am the only person I know who employs dick jokes to teach applied science. It's a unique skill.
@@AutoExpertJC nice gay t-shirt. John.!
@@ghs7714 You're like a Toyota. Here for the long haul, never change your tune!
@@MrBenHaynes i got a 98 tune
I use 98 RON when I know I am doing extended long distance highway driving, sure I'm paying extra however the benefits outweigh the extra cost for example with my vehicle the use of 98 RON provides more advanced timing which means more mid range/top end power which is good for overtaking B-Doubles, for metro regions the only benefit would be in terms of emissions quality being better for the environment, curious thing is that Ford also say you can use 91 RON however there will be reduced mid and top end power as the advanced timing is reduced (which makes sense as using 98 provides more advanced timing) while using e10 94 RON is fine but with e10 the issue is energy is 3% less so your fuel economy is worse off by 3% which means less range per litre consumed.
So when you use 91RON and your bouncing off the rev limiter, there's not enough power to round up B-Doubles? 😕
I have a 2015 Kawasaki 310 jet ski (supercharged). These things are so highly strung they detonate if you use anything less than 98. It eats 120L per hr at WOT & has a 70L tank. I can use the whole tank in 40min of racing.
Sulphur can be a problem in engines. 8n the 1980s Mazda had diesel pickup - the B2200. Here in South Africa they became notorious for failing @ around 100 000km due to the high sulphur fuel eroding the cylinder walls.
Also back in the 80s I went on a fuels & lubricants course @ Shell (was involved in trucking @ the time) they mentioned that the products of the combustion of Sulphur would condense on the cylinder wall when the wall was temp was below 75C and would cause erosion.
Mr Cadogan, Too many of your uploads have the comments turned off. This is not good. You are a hero for many of us and we like commenting to show our support for you and our anger at all the Trash European Brands that are polluting our roads.
Yo Dude, I heard you're giving away fleshlights, sponsor synergies nice!
I understand that crude from the very small oil fields around Eromanga naturally have a low sulphur content. Its processed by IOR at Eromanga and I believe sold mainly to below-ground mining operations because of its low sulphur properties. You can buy diesel at their refinery.
A couple of years ago I saw a tuner comparison of fuels, from memory 91, 98 and E85. Vehicle involved was a 6 litre Commodore with mods. Car was tuned to each fuel in turn and was around the 300 rear wheel kilowatts mark. Difference between the fuels was about 15kw, which in my book you would need a well trained derriere to notice.
They did say E85 would show greater advantage with boost, but in my mind, 5% more power for maybe 25% more cost isn't a good outcome for a daily driver.
Hey John, loving the update and info around this. I use 95 minimum in my bike because Suzuki says that's what's required, so I'll simply follow the manufacturer's reccommendations. I did have a 93 Honda Prelude yars ago (not a VTI model) which only required 91. I did notice at the time if I ran 95 I got slightly better fuel economy, and at the time if the price of 95 was within 4 cents/litre of 91 then it was worth it. Like I said, a long time ago.
One point though, I'm sure the questioner said that the service adviser told him 91 was perfectly fine, but I noticd later in your talk that you were saying that they'd given the wrong info. Might want to check that out unless I've got it wrong. I read it that the service dude said 91 was all good. Then the "however" kicked in, my thinking was that this was Ben looking to justify his own previously held opinions. Much like the doctor tells you all about vaccines, how they work and the benefits, but you come back with "I read on this website it'll give you two heads and rabies."
Yes!!! Premature banging goes off in ya hand.
@@williamconnell6541 Depends which Russian erm video site you like to watch.
I run my Stinger GT on 91 octane or E10 which I think is 94 octane. The car runs brilliantly on either. My long term fuel consumption is 8.6 litres/100km which I recon is amazing for a performance vehicle.
Just thank you that's all.
I was born in a cross-fire hurricane
And I howled at my ma in the driving rain
But it's all right now, in fact, it's a gas
But it's all right. I'm Jumpin' Jack Flash
It's a gas! Gas! Gas
Was it a Chrysler or Chevy Crossfire?
Either way, it must have been tight as they are both two seaters.
Worth doing a test for your car. Old Yaris cheaper to run on 95 as better consumption more than paid for the extra cost of 95. (Tested over 3 fills in same driving.)
Thanks for the clarification on what the sulfur content of fuel actually means for the performance of the vehicle. I'd surmised from less reliable sources that this was what'd contributed to poor injector flow efficiency in my MY10 TSI Skoda Octavia RS (diagnised by a reliable, independent operator), after the car being around seven years old. I'm now curious what would cause injector efficiency to drop? A quick Google search notes fuel quality and carbon build-up as key contributors. The car was always run on 98 octane fuel; by myself and my parents; who bought it from the dealer. While replacing the entire intake manifold due to a failed pressure sensor (ridiculous), I saw just how utterly fouled the intake vanes and valves had become after 100k kilometres.
My question is, if carbon contributes to poor injectors; and is such a major issue for VW direct injection engines in general; how can you effectively prevent these issues as a common motorist? All solutions I found were advocating an after-market catch-can setup, which I wasn't willing to inviest in before selling the vehicle.
Is the problem excacerbated by how you drive the car? (Urban vs. Extra?). I must admit I drove the car on short commute trips regularly, but I did a lot of long trips from Sydney to Ulladulla and even down to Tasmania and back to Sydney before the problem occured.
I sold that car because of the 1st gen DSG starting to become unreliable, but I want to buy another Skoda Octavia RS (MY18) with a manual transmission within the year because I love how beautiful it was to drive overall.
Should I consider anything more for maintenance to ensure reliabilty?
Yep, consider not buying an ICE car made by Volkswagen Auto Group. Try a Cupra Born by Seat based on the VW ID3.
You sir get the MVP award.. Outstanding content as always, thanks JC.
Simplest and easiest way to increase performance and economy is to use 100% gasoline with no Ethanol. More stored energy, period (provided the octane is proper for your car).
Wrong.
That is not wrong, ethanol is junk to begin with, and has less btu than non ethanol. Try again Horse.
@@mrhorse6587 You need to educate yourself on the subject of BTU's. You have globally made an arse of yourself.
Gee whiz, Tiffany has more issues then I initially thought. On a serious, Great content again John.
JC keeps getting her name wrong, it is Stiffany
@@tedburnard841 haha well played.
My 1964 VW kombi runs with better power and economy on higher octane petrol and worse on lower octane petrol.
This is because I can set the timing by moving the distributor and using different centrifugal timing advance springs.
This one's done the rounds, John... Vehicle & Fuel Manufacturers allow for 87/91/ Sale Volume?
Less buyers @ higher spec & price? (Ethanol's a bit higher, ON, anyway?)
Higher octane lets ign timing advance a bit? Improved power & economy? Esp turbo?
Yair, sulfur's a thing... & Cats?... Aging refineries, shutting down... Even after decades of prop up...
Not eco to r/c... Down there... You Don't Wanna be, Up There, John - That'd be MAMS :(
Whatever... Congratulations & Bright Futures, to The Worthy, Winners :)
At risk of pissing off some of the younger mechanics, see (component replacers) the understanding and diagnostic abilities, see (grey haired motor and engine technicians) there is a great divide. If there not getting on the older side of 45 I will not have them work on my car by choice. So suck bang blow is best done by people who know what's going on.
There are several ECU laws (operating programs) which will knock back the advance when they hear a few but not too many knocks under high load (classic overtake ping that goes away instantaneously) before loading up on DTCs. This often happens because of carbon deposits from lots of slow start stop driving creating uneven heat and pre-ignition. E10/95RON tends not to need to suffer this problem quite as much (we're talking a tiny difference), but a long spirited drive (aka the Italian Tune Up) is in my opinion more effective and cheaper, and certainly more enjoyable.
Lived in Winnipeg. It routinely dips to -40C (F) and below in winter. Lowest temp in my experience was -51\52C. But I see your point, in Straya, you wouldn't see those kinds of temps.
Had a 94 ED falcon bush basher and found it ran alot ' smoother ' on 95 over 91 under heavy lot /heavy foot
Carbon buildup in the combustion chamber can be enough to increase compression ratio possibly causing detonation with normal fuel.
@@archygrey9093 thought the same to, but a few months later I blow the head gasket 1 pulled the head of to find a pretty darn clean combustion chamber ( just abit of scouring that easily came of with a rag no major chunks) 2 replaced with AU motor and same effect. Will add car didn't feel any faster on 95 just generally ran better
Wait... negative 40 degrees Celsius equals negative 40 degrees Fahrenheit ? Mind Blown. Thanks J.C.
We have something in common, I’m here in Merica
My Tesla runs much smoother on 6.6 Kv high voltage power , that 240 v low voltage crap is for peasants.
Takes you to your destination in a flash!
Those poor peasants in the USA running their teslas on 110V.. Thankfully we have 240v available here! The question is though: is it going to run smoother down the highway if you use electrons from a 10A socket or the fatter ones that come down a 15A one for charging with the mobile charger??
Honestly, I wanted you to read my self deriding comment more than to win the torch. I was once featured as a nut a year or so ago for a facetious comment made under a pseudonym but since using my real name I can't quite seem to find my nutty centre.
It's an endurance event. Being a proper fuckwit is hard work.
@@AutoExpertJC not if your naturally gifted like myself
Most Japanese cars require 95 these days as well
Go ask Nissan
I have only use 98 in all my petrol engines for the last 20 years
I do it in the ss as it gives me the best performance and fuel economy
In my opinion 91 Ron should have been done away with years ago
Especially in these environmental times
Hi John I couldn't be bothered begging for a torch so I just bought one. Thanks anyway dude.👍 Got a free one too. Yippy.
I just put what it says on the filler door and go vroom vroom up the road🤣
No need to go 'vroom vroom'. The car will do that by itself.
@@AutoExpertJC But he likes going 'vroom vroom'; it reminds him of childhood pushing toy cars about. :)
@@markh.6687 Or he drives a Mazda? ;-P
@@notsureyou Possibly true.
Thank you. Always entertaining and very informative. Really wanted a torch though 😟. Have a good weekend
Will do. Say hi to Mr & Mrs Spank Bottom for me. Tell them I said you turned out OK.
I’ve run my patrol on 95 ethanol for 3 years 100ks now towing with no issues the car doesn’t sit still long so fuel sitting in the system doesn’t happen, at all never more expensive than diesel at about 14l per 100, the same as my Dmax towing the same load using diesel at times up to 20 cents a litre more expensive.
Quick calculations it's.20c a litre for 95 over 91 where I live so depending on how far you drive add on 3 to 5 hundred bucks a year and being adverse to wasting money as well as topping up government fuel tax revenue it's a big part of my consideration when looking at a new car... I've found the salesperson has no idea on fuel or does know and won't make it known to you voluntarily so always look on the fuel cap or inside the fuel flap .
Talking about Kia and fuel requirements, we have a 2014 Kia Rio that was stated to require 91 octane only. After about 12 months, it started doing what Kia called ‘pinking’ when they looked at it. They then advised you should use 95 octane with the 1.6 GDI, despite all literature saying the required fuel was 91. Got nowhere arguing with them about their misleading conduct. The car has been very reliable apart from the ‘pinking’ in hot weather though.
I think you “misheard” what they said. It’s “Pinging” not “Pinking”. 😣
The fault is most likely causing by the timing too far advanced. Sounds like they’re not very smart!
It's probably not helped that they may not be using an SN+ or SP rated engine oil.....
I have dinosaurs in my distributer. But at least I can work on it myself.
This very question has been raised multiple times on the XV Australia Facebook page, to the point where those who get the argument that there is not cost/benefit outcome from using higher octane fuels in their XV have largely given up arguing with such people. Subaru recommend RON91, so that's what I use. Some claim better performance, which is a subjective observation, and better fuel economy, which may be true, but the significant additional cost per litre for the 95 and 98 is not offset. There is no arguing with such people. I would recommend they watch this video, but XV drivers being somewhat conservative people, may get offended by you language (not the swearing but the calling they idiots). Thanks for the video.
From memory the boxer engines generally suffer from build up in the combustion chambers (which isn't helped with the direct injection engines that they now use), which is why Subaru have the upper engine cleaner.
So using either 98 octane fuel, or a cleaner to the fuel tank when filling up may have a benefit.
Better performance is only subjective if they haven't quantified it (put the car on a dyno to show the difference), some are more in tune with their car than others.
For example Niki Lauder was very in tune.
I can tell you exactly how my car performs with each of the fuels (91, 95, and 98) but until I can prove this to you, it should be taken with a grain of salt. Since without evidence how do you know that what I'm experiencing isn't a placebo or confirmation bias.
And if you don't have the same car as me, you probably won't get the same results.
For example my car runs the best using 95, and gets inferior performance using 98 below 4000-4500 rpm and has worse fuel economy on the highway, whereas my brothers car which is a different car to mine seems to run better on 98 versus 95.
The undeniable benefit to using the higher octane fuel is lower pollution, not only is there the bi-product of the sulfur, it reduces the catalytic converters ability to reduce carbon monoxide and nitrous oxide emissions.
If your highly tuned engine designed for 98 fuel can detune itself to run on 91 then yes you will defiantly feel the love when you give it what it was designed for.
I definitely see improved performance AND economy when I put 98RON in my 1997 Toyota Starlet, but that's simply due to it pinging its guts out when drinking the "cheap" stuff under any serious load because one of the sensors is rooted (O2 or MAP sensor most likely).
Try Flashlube injector cleaner.
@@rabidsminions2079 Mate, she's probably had litres of injector/fuel system cleaner through her by now. Trust me, something is well and truly rooted. ;)
@@sixstringedthing I run my BF ii Falcon on 91 with a half a 50ml bottle of flashlube when it hits 1/2 a tank and it runs great with no issues. Flashlube is very different to other injector cleaners. Before using it I could not use 91 without it running like crap.
So glad I know absolutely shit about engines and all that ignition stuff. I go to the Servo put the stuff in that comes out of the 95 handle, job done press the start button and the most difficult part of the process is putting in to drive. Not rocket science really.
Lots of people will state black and blue that certain RONs from certain retailers makes your car run better on cars that are designed to run on 91. Real world experiences.
That’s the problem.
When I go to Germany, I always get the fine ass 102 octane :)
Re high sulphur content:
1) I think the govt has moved forward the date to go to 10ppm sulphur limit to 2024. Still a decade too late!
2) We also miss out on lots of good engines that come with a petrol particulate filter as they are calibrated to run on 10ppm and 50-150ppm would gum up the PPF. Or so I am told!
I lost all confidence in my local BMW service department when I was told my radiator had suffered stone damage, yet there is no direct path for a stone to actually reach it.
Obviously a ghost stone. 🤣
@@GuitarsRockForever My confidence is back - BMW have agreed to repair it free of charge. Now that's good customer service.
@@Weissman111 probably nothing wrong with radiator in the first place.
Mate go buy a Lexus, tell you what just visit a showroom and see the difference for yourself.
@Alfred Wedmore no doubt aiming for the road surface, bounce the rounds up and under into engine bay, those rascally fly boys
I have noticed that my car seem to drive better and smoother after I deep clean it.
I wonder what's the science behind this. Porbably psychology.
You're porbably right!
good info', I'm an engineer.
The only thing I read from Toyota is that too low of octane fuel will cause knock and thus trigger the knock sensor circuitry and retard the spark. That will hurt power and fuel economy. Toyota mentions nothing about higher octane advancing the spark above the nominal setting.
If there was only a few cents per litre difference in price between 91and 98 it would be worth buying the 98 but when you are paying 15c a litre more it's not worth it. Having said that, my wife's mechanic told her she shouldn't have run E10 in her 2006 Tiida because it ruined the catalytic converter and recommended that she run 98 in it for a while to try and fix it. It didn't. Apparently mechanics don't always know what they are talking about. Of course ethanol is a whole other issue. I see that the QLD government website which used to tell you whether your car would run on E10 now just tells you to consult the manufacturer.
thanks for the video John. I don't doubt your explanation about the petrol. However, long time ago 20 years or so I use to have your favorite brand VW Golf Mk IV 2L. There was recommended 95 RON. One of my employees at the time was driving Falcon 4L build in mid 90's. After while his motor started running rough and his mechanic recommended injectors replacement. I convinced him to try 95 RON a tank or two and we'll see. Sure enough just after a 1/2 the tank been used (+-30L) the engine started going well again. According to my employee he drove in stead of 470 kms per tank on 91 560kms on 95. Is it because of a old technology or was the guy just BSing to me. I'd like to know because it happened to a guy with VW Golf Mk 4 GTi. But he filled the car with 91 just by misunderstanding.
Apparently an engine with lots of carbon build up can increase its own compression ratio enough to start pinging and requires higher octane fuel, possibly is what happened to your freinds car.
Or possibly the wrong heat rating spark plugs, if the plugs are too hot of a rating they can act like glow plugs and pre-ignite the fuel, I've had this happen with friends scooters and motorcycles, it is pretty easy to tell if the plugs are too hot if you look at them.
At current petrol prices in Melbourne (around $1.75 per Litre of 91 RON) and more for 95 and 98; I will stick to 91 out of necessity and my car runs fine on it anyway.
Sounds like a plan, irrespective of price.
If anything, a higher RON is going to put more stress on your engine.
It will allow the ECU to advance the ignition timing further, producing hotter cylinder temperatures and more power.
That means more stress on internal components.
It's not going to make any noticeable difference though.
Keyword: "Slightly". And only if you exploit it.
I'm happy to be corrected, but advancing the engine ignition timing has more to do with increasing the efficiency of the burn,
Not increasing the temperatures.
What the desirable outcome is that the air/fuel mixture will fully combust, and so reach maximum pressure around the time the piston reaches the top (Top Dead Centre),
This will lead to a more efficient power stroke, versus one where the pressure is still increasing as the piston starts travelling down.
The various sensors on the car, will always try to control the combustion chamber temperatures in order to limit Nitrous Oxide emissions.
@@notsureyou higher pressures means higher temperature. Temperature is a measure of energy per volume. Same energy, smaller volume = higher temperature.
That is why timing is retarded to reduce knock, it lowers the temperature by reducing the pressure.
@@viperidaenz1 Fair call.
But it wouldn't be a temperature that the engine wasn't designed to cope with.
Otherwise it wouldn't allow the ignition to be advanced to that point.
Euro spec (or Scandinavia exclusive don't know) has been E5, E10, E85 for a long while. 98 RON, non-ethanol blend, is nowhere to be found. If it can be found it's way off in price.
I remember most SAAB's liked the E85 tipple.
Modern ECU's will pull timing and other little tricks like lowering boost and adjust the AFR depending if the knock sensor detects detonation. This will lower power output, however only really ever happens under high load situations. Normal Driving will not effect anything. Older cars like my JZA80 supra using the old factory ECU does not have this level of luxury of protection. If i ever get stuck somewhere and 98 is not available I can use 91 however I must keep it off boost or I will grenade my engine.
The people here claiming they get better mileage with 91 on their cars is most likely because the engine is using less fuel by giving you less performance if you drive with a heavy foot.
Years ago I did my own fuel economy test between all fuels I could get and all brands.. Took me over 6 months in a 2006 ford focus 2.0L NA. Between every RON rating and every brand the total difference with the identical drive every day and tire pressures checked weekly was only a TOTAL OF 27KM from best to worst. Even that could come down to minor variables like weather and air temp.
Farkkk , you crack me up mate
My dealer service people do not push the injector cleaner additive for me when I explain I run on BP 98.
Suggested by my sales manager friend.
The 14:1 compression seems happier with 98. US tests of my car quote higher HP with 98.
I use so little fuel that the extra cost not an issue, especially when it avoids the need for injector cleaner. This being more extra cost than the extra costs of many tanks of 98 compared to 91.
Another great deep-dive into petrol👍🙂
Which is something you should never do.
@@AutoExpertJC ...Oh, "IT'S SAFE WITH A MASK ON" (Don't you know?) ;)
I have a Nitecore Tiny Monster 16GT - its a BEAST!
I think betoota advocate riled with your thoughts, check Scomo E10 story
Hmmm interesting. A question for those more knowledgeable folk, I own two classic cars,a 4 cylinder Datsun and a V8 Chrysler. Now I was told sometime ago to run both these oldies on 98 so I have been. When I bought my Chrysler the chap before me was using 91 in it. Since swapping to 98 the only difference I’ve noticed is that it idles better and cold starts are easier,other than this I can say it makes no more power,so opinions please on old carby engines running 98!
Tanku
Nice video. As with engine oil, there are so much misinformation and misconceptions.
I learn something new everyday from you John. Keep up the great work 👍
I had a 1997 Honda Civic which was supposedly okay with 91 fuel. It pinged badly with 91 and so I went to 95 and it was very happy. So what I concluded is that the manufacturer or importer were being dishonest, or the fuel wasn't the specification it was sold as, just saying.
@7:02 Oymyakon, Russia (average winter -50 degC) says "am I a joke to you?"
(Folks there probably make use of block heaters for cold starts.)
Used to run my old 2.0 Mazda6 on 99 (UK) every few fills. Sharpened up the engine response a little and ran a bit smoother too. Was ok on 95 but there was a slight improvement on 99.
Theoretically the improvement might be possible where the computers adjust things based on the data from all the sensors and gaining slight improvement. But John seems to downplay the idea that the engine would run better. I mean the systems are there to keep the air/fuel mix right, timing, etc. which should improve engine performance slightly versus when they go off the boards.
The Kia Stinger is testament to the far superior engineering Kia did in the Stinger allowing it to run on 91RON fuel, as opposed to expensive high octane fuel the 'superior' Euro's require. It shows the Stinger is far better in the engineering domain that the purportedly better Euro's.
I ride motorbikes , and Yamaha told me don’t use 98 Ron it’s not suitable and recommended 95 Ron , but try buying 95 Ron here in country Victoria , and being an ex fuel tanker driver I’ve been told 95 Ron is on its way out .
Nice debunking JC. Every time I see BNN, I get excited for the return of Curtis in his bucket hat.
Sulphur seems to be the "next gen lead" in our fuel. All the more incentive for 'Stayans to go 'lectric given the astronomical levels.
Just like Euro diesels were delayed here until the fuel was improved, so too might petrol Euros (now fitted with particulate filters).
I've been away for a while, nice to see you're driving an excited Kona. Looked through your past vids and only saw one vid about it.
Compression Ratio.
at least Europe no car is using 91 RON as its not available.
Sulfur content:
- you get what you pay for
- sulfur content in 98 OCT ?
- is sulfur content aloud in petrol ?
- what about aditivation for 91 OCT
BimmerN53
In Australia the allowed sulphur content is 150ppm in 91, and 50 ppm in 95 and 98. In Europe it's 10ppm in 95 and 98, and as you say there is no 91.
The higher sulfur fuels can lead to a premature failure of the catalytic converter.
John, Will 98 burn hotter or cooler than 91 in a 1967 MGB 1800 engine? Engine has been converted to run unleaded, not that this should have any impact on the air fuel burn temp. Which is the better fuel to use in your opinion, the 91 or the 98?
“One spark every two Revs, there’s a joke there but ….” Haha… did you hear about the time the new choir boy who “choked on his first Hymn”…
I saw the movie. It was terrible.
i thought sulfur damages the catalytic converters....? i have read that lubricating oil for diesels is not ever recommended for gasoline engines because those oil have increased sulfur content on purpose which would damage the converters.
Why doesn't anybody discuss the fact our fuel ranks 70th worst in the world?
Interesting.
Have you done a video on E10, which is effectively RON 94. What is the effect of the EtOH (ethanol) on a basic car engine?
Better performance than 91, worse economy (slightly in both cases).
My Berlina goes like a rocket in E10, wouldn't use anything else. Also runs OK on E85 but somewhat guzzles.
@@AutoExpertJC Thanks for the prompt reply. Maybe you could do a video on it and also the additives such as the various types of octane booster. I was told jumping the RON by 7 points helped burn out all the carbonised stuff inside the cylinder head. But what I know about mechanics you could write on the back of a postage stamp. Remember them?
@@jimgraham6722 I drive a WM II Caprice that the owner likes to fill with E10.
@@jimgraham6722 Unless your car is rated for it using E85 will damage the engine (components etc).
As the owner of a number of turbo car's it's always 95 or 98.
Re the Stinger GT. I guess the only way to settle if there is a tangible difference on 98 vs 91 would be to do a set of power runs back to back on the different fuels.
Sure it might run fine on 91, but until there is a back to back test, who's to say whether or not the ecu might find a few more ponies on 98 with a little more boost or a little more ignition timing?
There has been testing on a single car with different fuels. The power is up on the higher octane due to advanced timing. But John was saying the car will run fine on both 👍🏼
Fuck these videos are funny as well as very informative
Very informative.
BEDLINER?? John, with the way truck beds are made now days with galvanized metal, is there any reasonable argument to pay and have a bed liner installed? I guess before if the truck bed was to get damaged, like a hole in it, then rusting through could have been a problem. I am not aware if truck bed liner will protect anything more than a scratch? I don't see the bed liner helping with impacts or dents, also bed liners can be expensive, what about if the bed liner is in such bad condition, just swap it out in 10 or 15 years? What reasonable justification is there to install a plastic tub bed liner, or a paint / roll on bed liner? THANKS.
All the squeezing I ever did only resulted in some form of slapping rather than banging.
Bring on the electric revolution!!!
Getting the 10 ppm in Australia would require investements that raise price to 3-4 cents per liter wich is perfectly acceptable. Canada did it so why not Australia
Let's skip the petrol upgrade for electrons.
@@MrBenHaynes going full eletric would take decades
@@vwbora26 It will, but my point is that the financial investment required to raise the fuel quality would be better (for air pollution) spent in accelerating the transition from combustion to electric propulsion.
@@MrBenHaynes raising the fuel quality is wayyyyy cheaper in comparison
Sometimes 'engineers' literally foul up an already good design as with direct fuel injection systems with engines experiencing high rates of carbon buildup early in their life cycle and in effect increasing detonation and other operating problems. 98RON can help in the short term if the vehicle was tuned on 91RON but sadly is only a short term fix as eventually, the engine will need to be pulled down. Why oh why, please tell us, why the well-known benefits of self-cleaning (petrol is an excellent solvent for cleaning valve guides and inlet ports) Direct Port Fuel Injection was abandonded? 🙄😏😣😥
Thank you john very good to know that my car is telling all the cars in the car park that I put in the shit
well only ignition timing is concerned by the octane rating ... so the car might run a bit "nicer" with higher octane IF the manufacturer has given the ECU the liberty of advancing the timing so much that the user would notice any performance/efficiency ... but i highly doubt the stock ECU in any mass market car has such big margins of tweaking the advance - so if your fuel clears the knock control fine ... can it advance the timing ... maybe 1-2-3% ? do you feel it ? questionable
BUT from experience living in a country with very very bad fuel quality control (99% russian URAL used to make gasoline in russian refineries) i can 100% confirm that in a situation like mine it is a good idea to stick to the high octane fuel , because it is not uncommon even with cars from the 90s and 2000s to have poor running engine sometimes on regular fuel (not because of the rating , but because of the lack of control of quality and it is worse with the regular fuel )
So your saying my Ford running better on 98 is in my head you said it confirmation bias lol
To be honest to say there is no benefit isn't correct.
To say that higher octane fuel isn't liquid Schwartz would be more accurate.
Every car is different, and some people are more perceptive to what their car is doing.
For example based on experience with my previous car, and current car,
I'm pretty sure if doing a blind test (with the same car type that I currently own) I could tell you what fuel was in it (91, 95, or 98), based on the engine performance.
In my 800+ kw F6 Tornado, the difference between 91 & 98 was neglible; it would make another 11kw on 98 and got maybe an extra 30km's to the tank.
90% of the time i just threw 91 in it, let the Haltech do it's thing, and not worry about the magical dinosaur juice
Wot 'bout E85 in such a monster?
@@MrBenHaynes Never bothered with E85 as i would of had to drive 40 mins to Bris to get it at the time
Thanks John.
Thanks for watching, Paul.
50 Hz @ 6k . Miracle to get your head around
My independent BMW specialist mechanic AND the (dodgy enough to be critical of mechanics he had never met) BMW service manager AND the RAC roadside mechanic all advised me to use BP or Caltex 98 fuel in my Mini money pit because their additives include stuff that clean my engine. Fact or bulldust? Thanks.
Hey Uncle John, when I'm out the back of DP Creek in my RON98 sucking V8 Y62 Patrol and can only source RON91 will an "octane booster aditive" help to up the RON closer to the manufactures engine requirements or is this BS. Cheers mate, love your work.
You can run 91ron fuel in your patrol, the ecu will adjust where required. You will notice a you use approximately 1-1.5L extra per 100km though.
@@rohangearing6999 Not on a 140-litre fuel tank, you won't notice an extra litre go missing over the span of 100km. Your Y62 is tuned for 95 RON minimum, FYI.
i run my car on freshly crushed pixies ! and for racing i use lepricorn piss,,,
That's why I only use diesel in all cars.. less choice..
Lol. I filled up someone's BMW with 91.. as per the label and I told them because I know they only put 98 in it and they flipped their lid.. Super crazy
The last petrol car I had used super... I should have kept that as it would be worth a bit now
Great info! New to your channel, genuinely curious what credentials/previous experience do you have as an auto expert?
Degree in Mech Eng. Motoring journo for 30 yrs. Network TV news & current affairs on Ch 7 & 9 for years. Talkback host on Sydney 2UE. Wheels, Motor, Fairfax, Newsltd, former editor of CarAdvice, former consultant to the car industry. Apart from that - nothing much.
@@AutoExpertJC 🤣🤣🤣
And what's did you as kid get
my subaru says use min 95 ron on the cap so i use 98 cause its everywhere 95 is not.
Here in NZ all gas stations have 91 and 95, but only a handful carry 98. That's the larger BP stations, a tiny handful of Caltex stations, and Gull has 91 and "Gull 98" which is actually crappy E10 that gets lower mileage. It sucked when I had cars that required 98 minimum, some areas just don't have 98 at all.
Why can't the car manufacturers fit a pair of O light flashlights in car headlights as High and low beam?
They do. Those O-lights are just LED's. Many modern new high-end cars have LED lights from the factory.
You can also buy aftermarket conversion kits to convert your old halogen lights to LED.
But beware, sadly not all LED conversion kits are good, many of them have very bad light reflection so the beam blinds oncoming traffic. But there are good kits available as well that are engineered to preserve the orginal light beam.