The tests for 0~120km/hr sprint [0~100km/hr inclusive] were carried out at the same place, about the same time but on different dates on different fuels - RON97 vs RON95. Let the graphics speaks for itself. [click on the image to enlarge]My earlier tests on fuel consumptions and performance also seemed that there was no advantage of using RON97 over RON95 on Peugeot 308 Turbo!
Nevertheless I will perform 400m and 1000m standing tests running on RON97 to compare with the test results running on RON95. I'm very skeptical if there will be any significant improvement though.
I'll be switching back to RON95 because I'm quite happy with its performance and fuel economy [for my308] unless, otherwise somebody comes up with authentic figures to proof that RON97 is better than RON95 in terms of performance and fuel consumptions [based on controlled or similar condition].
Better in terms of performance and fuel consumptions from Buttdyno test results for Peugeot 308THP running on RON97 vs RON95 found in forums are too good to be true.
|Home|Fuel Consumption|Performance|uncle's DIY|Car Size Comparison|
7 comments:
Dear Unc D,
That's great news !! I have been using RON 95 since it came out & frankly, I don't feel any difference bet 95 & 97. Now you have proven that there's no difference ! Thanks a lot !
Psychologically, at first I felt RON97 was better than RON95 [to justify extra money paid] but when tested analytically under similar and controlled condition there is no significant difference in term of performance and fuel consumption.
Probably the only differences between RON97 vs RON95 and are the additives [detergent and anti-knock].
ONLY if an engine [of very high compression and very high temperature] is specifically designed to run on RON97 or higher, then using lower RON number fuels will suffer power loss due to knocking or detonation.
Peugeot 308THP engines are designed to run on RON95 and higher octane fuel. Of course there is no harm using RON97 or higher but why pay more?
Happy Motoring and let us celebrate life...
as for me, initilly there was a big drop in performance when i switched to 95 but in about a week plus, the ecu got the hang of things and the car is now back to where it used to be in performance. in fact, the engine runs quieter now but i do notice that it is slightly hotter than before.
Correct, on RON95 the engine warms up faster and run smoothly almost immediately after starting in cold morning. On RON97 it takes a while.
As a matter of fact RON95 'catches fire' at lower temperatures and pressures compared to RON97. That is why the later is mend for hi-temperature and hi-compression engines.
uncle D,
based on the graph it looks like the 95 pick ups speed slightly faster than 97.am i right? i shud try the 95 if this is the case.
u use shell 95?
The difference is within recording instrument tolerance. Hence I conclude there is no difference in performance and fuel consumption between RON97 and RON95.
I always prefer RON95 - only used RON 97 for comparative tests only.
For any car, if there is no 'knocking' on RON 95, it is a waste of money to run on higher octane number.
There is not different of performance between RON97 and RON95. For those car compression ratio above 9.7:1 is suitable to use RON97. If still continue to use RON95 will got some damage to the engine.
Post a Comment