First and foremost, I love RON 95 because it is cheaper than RON97. Nevertheless cheaper fuel doesn't mean it is inferior.
I'd driven thousands of kilometer to test Peugeot 308 140THP Auto for fuel economy and engine performance running on RON95 and I didn't find any 'lacking' at all.
For instance fuel consumption by the Peugeot 308 running on RON95 can be better than most cars of engine capacity above 1.5liter. On performance, Peugeot 308 140THP Auto still capable to out perform most [if not all] stock cars up to 2.0liter [non-turbo, non-mod of course] , even BMW E90 320i Auto and Mercedes Benz W203 C180k Auto could be smoked without difficulty!
1. Fuel Economy
Consumes as low as 6.0~6.4km/100km [10.8~ 11.5 sen/km] when driven 'economically' on autoCruise without exceeding speed limits on highways. Also still can achieve around 7.0~7.5liter /100km [12.6~13.5sen/km] on long distance trips when driven normally like most people do. When pushed a little bit harder still low on consumption of around 8.0liter/100km [14.4sen/km]. Click HERE for more info on fuel consumptions.
2. Performance
When flooring the accelerator pedal for speeding above 180km/hr one can forget about the fuel consumption - still consuming just around 10~11liter/100km [or 18~20sen per km on RON95] though.
My latest test against 2.o liter n.a saloons [European and Japanese marques] was Sunday 11th October 2009 around 2:40pm on PLUS [Northbound]. As a comparison, Peugeot 308 140THP running on RON95 could outrun BMW E90 320i Auto on acceleration from 150km/hr to over 180km/hr. The 'test' was performed a few times until the 'babarian' gave up. Of course BMW E90 320i has higher top speed on paper but during daylight driving on PLUS, especially on Sunday afternoon who can speed up to and sustain more than 180km/hr?
During accelerating from 150km/hr to 185km/hr at some points I had to ease the accelerator pedal momentarily before 'slower' cars on fast lane gave way. Before hitting higher speeds more than 186km/hr [190km/hr on speedometer] I had to brake hard again, there were always slower cars ahead. The speed dropped around 150km/hr, floored the accelerator again to kick down into 3rd gear and pulled away while watching BMW320i reflection in rear-wiew mirror were getting smaller, every time. Weighing about 100kg lighter and having 40Nm extra torque are actually the reasons to edge-up against this musuh tradisi.
The only way to hit max speed was driving on PLUS after mid night as i did on 1st March 2009. The speedometer read 4km/hr more than the GPS data logger, i.e 210km/hr. I've not try running on RON95 yet. Certainly I'll do one day.
[updated on October 24th, 2009 : Click HERE for the New speed record on RON 95]
What 'extra' can u really get out of RON97 or higher octane fuels? Probably 'extra' money to pay for. That's all. Remember that Peugeot 308THP and even 308GT aren't hot hatches eventhough their performance match 2.0 liter saloons. RON97 will not make 'em hot either. If u want better game go play 'Polo' if can't afford 'Golf'.
Summary on RON95 tests
Coverage: 4000+km in 6 weeks throughout Peninsular Malaysia [Malaya] since Sep. 1 2009.
1. Acceleration:
0~100km/hr in 9.3 sec.
0~160km/hr in 23.5 sec.[updated]
150km/hr~180km/hr in 16sec.
2. Average fuel consumptions:
6.0liter/100km on PLUS at 92km/hr
6.2liter/100km on PLUS at 110km/hr
7~8liter/100km on start-stop interstate trunk roads
10~11liter/100km for short start-stop and city driving in traffic jam.
11~12liter/100km when driven above 180km/hr
[All figures are based on tests posted earlier in this blog]
Frequently Visited Pages:
| Home | Fuel Consumption | Performance | uncle's DIY |
Car Size Comparison | Motoring Myths | RON95 |
I'd driven thousands of kilometer to test Peugeot 308 140THP Auto for fuel economy and engine performance running on RON95 and I didn't find any 'lacking' at all.For instance fuel consumption by the Peugeot 308 running on RON95 can be better than most cars of engine capacity above 1.5liter. On performance, Peugeot 308 140THP Auto still capable to out perform most [if not all] stock cars up to 2.0liter [non-turbo, non-mod of course] , even BMW E90 320i Auto and Mercedes Benz W203 C180k Auto could be smoked without difficulty!
1. Fuel Economy
Consumes as low as 6.0~6.4km/100km [10.8~ 11.5 sen/km] when driven 'economically' on autoCruise without exceeding speed limits on highways. Also still can achieve around 7.0~7.5liter /100km [12.6~13.5sen/km] on long distance trips when driven normally like most people do. When pushed a little bit harder still low on consumption of around 8.0liter/100km [14.4sen/km]. Click HERE for more info on fuel consumptions.
2. Performance
When flooring the accelerator pedal for speeding above 180km/hr one can forget about the fuel consumption - still consuming just around 10~11liter/100km [or 18~20sen per km on RON95] though.
My latest test against 2.o liter n.a saloons [European and Japanese marques] was Sunday 11th October 2009 around 2:40pm on PLUS [Northbound]. As a comparison, Peugeot 308 140THP running on RON95 could outrun BMW E90 320i Auto on acceleration from 150km/hr to over 180km/hr. The 'test' was performed a few times until the 'babarian' gave up. Of course BMW E90 320i has higher top speed on paper but during daylight driving on PLUS, especially on Sunday afternoon who can speed up to and sustain more than 180km/hr?
During accelerating from 150km/hr to 185km/hr at some points I had to ease the accelerator pedal momentarily before 'slower' cars on fast lane gave way. Before hitting higher speeds more than 186km/hr [190km/hr on speedometer] I had to brake hard again, there were always slower cars ahead. The speed dropped around 150km/hr, floored the accelerator again to kick down into 3rd gear and pulled away while watching BMW320i reflection in rear-wiew mirror were getting smaller, every time. Weighing about 100kg lighter and having 40Nm extra torque are actually the reasons to edge-up against this musuh tradisi.
The only way to hit max speed was driving on PLUS after mid night as i did on 1st March 2009. The speedometer read 4km/hr more than the GPS data logger, i.e 210km/hr. I've not try running on RON95 yet. Certainly I'll do one day.
[updated on October 24th, 2009 : Click HERE for the New speed record on RON 95]What 'extra' can u really get out of RON97 or higher octane fuels? Probably 'extra' money to pay for. That's all. Remember that Peugeot 308THP and even 308GT aren't hot hatches eventhough their performance match 2.0 liter saloons. RON97 will not make 'em hot either. If u want better game go play 'Polo' if can't afford 'Golf'.
Summary on RON95 tests
Coverage: 4000+km in 6 weeks throughout Peninsular Malaysia [Malaya] since Sep. 1 2009.
1. Acceleration:
0~100km/hr in 9.3 sec.
0~160km/hr in 23.5 sec.[updated]
150km/hr~180km/hr in 16sec.
2. Average fuel consumptions:
6.0liter/100km on PLUS at 92km/hr
6.2liter/100km on PLUS at 110km/hr
7~8liter/100km on start-stop interstate trunk roads
10~11liter/100km for short start-stop and city driving in traffic jam.
11~12liter/100km when driven above 180km/hr
[All figures are based on tests posted earlier in this blog]
Frequently Visited Pages:
| Home | Fuel Consumption | Performance | uncle's DIY |
Car Size Comparison | Motoring Myths | RON95 |
4 comments:
chayalah uncle.d
with this indepth conclusion of yours i'll stick to ron95
dunno lah for some psychological reason i feel that my thp is not as responsive... then when i really think about it.. i remember the same symptom i had 5 years back...
then just convert to 1.8gsr rs... pergh 210hp... but after 6 month felt car not as responsive and begin to "dump" money to up boost, upgrade this upgrade that...
its called the "time to up boost syndrome" that is typical for force induction machine owners, maybe uncle.d pun pernah terkena? hehe
so i think its bcoz dah 2.5 month on thp.. h/way usually 130-150kmh so dah mula immune
but this time around syndrome nieh not easily cured sbb 308 is "hardcoded" machine cannot be tampered.. hehe
but at least i know now ron95 is safe and the way to go!! :)
Zubairauto,
You know that "Peugeot [308] is Engineered to be Enjoyed".
Understanding engineering a little bit could make a lot of difference. U don't have to be an engineer to enjoy it though...
hear hear uncle d! i am not considered "technical" by any means or sort if your studies are anything to go by, but i do understand a thing or two about cars in a general sense, i.e. if i look at a specs sheet i understand most of what is written. but all of those don't mean anything to me if the car "feels" soul-less.
pardon me for even comparing what i test drove before i bought the THP. i was merely looking at "bajet", haha. so what was the closest thing to it? the jazz of course. i liked it simply because it looked "nice, cheerful, and useful". i'm not sure why that car has such a high satisfaction rating in the UK, certainly the old one did... but this new one... i tell you... it felt clinical and harsh. no enjoyment whatsoever... after a few seconds i asked for the quickest route back to the showroom. plasticky, minimal steering feedback probably because of the drive by wire tech employed... laborious engine... nothing like the good old days of the dolphin v-tec.
BUT... i stray. zubairauto brought up the interesting point of psychological perception vs. facts. i've been on RON95 even before 1st sep... and i think it's alright for my style of city driving. what i will ask... do you think there are any marked differences between the brands? or is this yet again, driven by brand perception? i'll say that i've stopped using shell because in my opinion, they missed the point. 1 litre / 50 litre savings matters little to me if it detriments performance... i'd much rather buy a fuel that i perceive that's "as good as" the more expensive 97. by all counts, the number of 95 vs 97, and lower pricing contributes to the psychological perception of "oh, this is inferior"... but your studies have discounted the former... which is fantastic! right now i'm using petronas because i can "feel" (whether my feeling is right or not i dunno la) the difference between shell's and petronas for the merc.
have you felt any differences between brands?
brgds,
alvin
Hi Alvin,
I've 'tested' different brands of RON95 fuels but I'm not [yet] paid to recommend any brand, probably I do not have PhD in petroleum/automotive research, he heee...
BTW. It is true that different brands have different additives for different purpose. But in general all fuels have more or less the same amount of usable hydrocarbon. I don't find any difference amongst them in performance and fuel economy after 'testing' my 308 almost 15,oookm already.
Some additive/detergent in petrol could be useful for cleaning dirty fuel injectors, combustion chamber, valves, etc... hence better performance/fuel consumption. But as far as new engines are concerned these additives have no or very minimum impact. May be after clocking 100,000km I'll do comparison test.
As far as RON number is concerned, there is no difference in energy contents as well. Higher octane means higher knocking resistance only. High-compression and high performance engines need high octane fuel to prevent detonation.
In other ASEAN countries cars are running efficiently on as low as RON88!
There is a useful article @ Motortrader on "RON and your car's engine"
http://www.motortrader.com.my/NUS/articles/article_1352/page_m.asp
Post a Comment