Hi
Does any one use premium petrol regularly (i would want answers or tips from people if money is coming out of your own pocket..if thats ok)
secondly is it worth it
thirdly what is the advantage ?
lastly i do understand petrol price varies but is their one premium petrol you stick to? which is lower in price and has its advantages?
help is really appreciated
regards
sa
I know i'll probably get flamed but..
I use it, I have a Nissan Cube and it runs like a song, compared to the couple of times i've been forced to use E10 and it's been awful to drive. Partner has a Renault Clio 1.2T and it states no E10, 95/98 only.
We used to have a Honda Jazz that we only ever filled with E10, started having engine troubles after 100k, after that it would not run properly unless we used 95/98 (stalling, sudden loss of power). Mechanic said that the E10 burns higher and can damage the seals.
It appears the NSW police have had trouble with E10 too.. http://www.drive.com.au/motor-news/engine-destroyed-in-oneof…
The big thing is the 'E' part of E10. Which is the ethanol. If you can get regular 90/91 there's no issues, maybe a little less in economy.
e10 has worse economy than regular.
I use 95 RON in my 2003 Mazda (reccommended 95 RON or above). I have used "normal"(E10?) petrol but car is noticeably more sluggish and seems to use more fuel so I now stick to 95. I have also used 98 RON but cannot pick any difference between it and 95 - except greater cost of 98.
If I was using the car for an interstate trip where I was just sitting on 100km/h for hours on end where performance isn't an issue I might consider normal petrol.
I use Woolworths/Caltex fuel 99% of the time because I do my grocery shopping at Woolworths and therefore get the 4c fuel discount. I also buy my mobile phone recharge vouchers at the servo so I get a further discount on the fuel. Everything else except perhaps newspapers is too dear to buy at servo so I just stick with the phone reecharge vouchers.
Coles/Shell don't seem to sell 95 RON, only 98, so I save money by buying the slightly cheaper 95 at Woolworths/Caltex (plus I don't think Coles/Shell have the "spend extra in store for discount" deal).
BP doesn't have any reciprocal supermarket discount deals going that I'm aware of so I don't use them unless Wooolworths/Caltex isn't available.
The spend extra at Coles doesn't apply to recharge vouchers. We tried it a few months ago and the discount wasn't applied.
My car is recommended to use premium petrol only….so that's what I buy. I usually put 95 in but occasionally I'll try some 98.
Can I tell the difference? Nah, can I hell.
if the car states to use premium, use it. Otherwise you are wasting your money.
e10 needs to be 4 or 5 cents a litre cheaper than normal regular petrol because of the worse fuel economy you get from it (according to racq/nrma years back)
Simply put, high-octane, premium, fuel contains more stored, readily accessible energy, than regular or intermediate RON fuel.
The fuel-management computer tech in even the cheapest of current/recent cars is highly sophisticated, and even when a car specifies a regular octane 'only' fuel to be used (especially, relative to 95 RON), and even when a subjective increase in engine performance is not perceived, the computer will nonetheless - in most vehicles, eke out a significant benefit by way of fuel economy.
A few years ago, the otherwise-horror that is ACA, conducted a very well-structured test on a variety of brands and grades of fuel, using the same (Hyundai i30, I think) 'regular-unleaded' specified car.
The NRMA's (at the time) John Cadogan confidently predicted no discernable benefit to be gained from using premium fuel in said car. As I anticipated, he was very wrong.
The car travelled much further on the premium fuel - from memory, it was more than enough to compensate for the price-premium of the 98 octane fuel.
Fuel companies used to promote their premium fuels as containing more sophisticated detergent ingredients (to help keep engines clean), relative to lower grades of fuel. I am inclined to believe that to still be the case, and not just marketing hype (maybe).
Within the Australian Standard, there is enough octane variation allowed between batches of (given grade) fuel for something to have dawned on me, years ago.
Among the (always limited, even then) refiners/distributors of fuel, it made pure, logical, sense, that given batches of fuel that tested with a higher octane, within a given grade, would be preferentially distributed to their own-branded stations.
I use Caltex fuel in all of my vehicles, and well before the ACA test. The fact that - by a significant margin - the Caltex petrol tested as having the highest octane rating of all fuel tested, and that the test car travelled the farthest on it, was not a surprise.
YMMV.
Is this the ACA test you were talking about?
http://aca.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=1065738
Also found this ACA video of a controlled race track test very interesting. Watch it to the end:
Thanks for the links. Neither reflect the test I recall (track-based, single vehicle used), but do reflect the recycling of stories beyond 'Neighbours from Hell' and various other crap.
I can't get that first video to play past the ad embed - assuming that the original video is still there to be seen at all - ? Let me know if it actually plays and I will try again another time, if the spirit moves.
The article attached, though, does nicely reinforce my perception of Caltex - and the relative positioning of some of the other brands of fuel, in the general scheme of things.
For the benefit of those who don't watch right to the end of that Youtube video - the final fuel slosh-up / wash-up, excluding diesel, using Shell fuels and with the same volume of petrol used in each car - we're…
Distances covered:
91E - 26.4 km
95 - 30.6
98 - 32.6
Relative cost at time of test:
91E - 16.93 cents/km travelled
95 - 15.88
98 - 15.27
The 98 Premium was the most economical choice of all petrol to use in those regular-unleaded-specced cars.
Again, of course,
YMMV.
So based on those figures the 95 fuel will take you 15.9% further than the E91, and 98 gives a 23.45% increase on E91.
Current E10 price where I live is 131.9 and Premium 95 is 142.9, which is only an 8.34% increase in price. Premium 98 is $148.9 which is 12.9% more. So presumably using 95 represents a SAVING of 7.57% on fuel costs, and 98 fuel saves 10.60%. That seems really decent. If these numbers are accurate for my 1.6L Hyundai Accent then I will certainly have to start buying premium. Normally I can go ~500km on a 35L tank, so if 98 fuel gets me 23% further then I should be able to get 600km easy. I shall test this out and see.
Little disappointed they didn't test non-ethanol 91 RON fuel in the 2nd video.
The video in the first link played for me in Chrome, but it was completely irrelevant (some weird old video about SQL).
@inherentchoice: In the absence of knowing where the exact octane ratings fell for the particular batches of fuel ACA used, all figures appertaining to savings, will, inevitably, be a bit fuzzy. Just to be taken as a good guide.
How well a specific car's engine-management system adapts to the fuel presented to it, is another variable.
Still, worthwhile savings to be made, in most circumstances, for people willing to 'shell'-out / 'caltex'-out (oh, god) for the higher-grade juice.
"Simply put, high-octane, premium, fuel contains more stored.."
No. It doesn't. It can merely be used in a higher compression engine, and the association has been used for decades to up-sell such fuels to people who believe and promote the myth.
An octane number related to the degree to which the fuel will withstand the increased heat due to compression before igniting from that heat - "pre-ignition. A list of octane ratings is given at this site:
http://www.pedrosgarage.com/Site_5/Octane_Ratings.html
As you can see, both ethanol [RON = 129] and Methanol [RON = 133] are high octane fuels.
They do not contain "more stored, readily accessible energy, than regular or intermediate RON fuel". This is why E10 need to be cheaper to be equal value to a none ethanol containing fuel.
My aging Camry runs merrily on 91 octane, a little more efficiently on 95 octane [ due to a cleaner burn across the top of the piston 99.999% of the time instead of 99.9% but I would be throwing money away at putting 98 in it.
Discussion had skewed to 'economy'.
I thought that 'readily accessible' was a sufficient caveat in the context of the discussion.
We are not talking about nuclear fission in this thread.
I am keenly aware of the detail and the properties of various types of fuel.
I am keenly aware that both ethanol and methanol are high 'octane' (note the inverted commas used there), highly flammable, fuels.
Also keenly aware that, and here from a simple ethanol fuel FAQ:
Ethanol produces less energy than petrol, so 1.4L of ethanol contains the same amount of energy as 1L of petrol.
Both the simple and the practical, contained in that sentence.
Again, we are not discussing nuclear fission in this thread.
We are discussing readily accessible energy, as evidenced by the greater distances travelled for a given volume of the higher 'rated' fuels in question - with benefit beyond price per litre.
I use vortex 98 from caltex servo's as well , the book that came with my car a 1998 Hyundai Fx Coupe reccomends 98 Octane and i feel it performs better.
We have 2 cars, one runs noticeably better on 98 and the consumption improvement outweighs the extra cost.
With the other car the difference is not noticeable so we run 95 in that.
I prefer the BP 98 but Caltex and Shell 98 seem ok too.
BP do claim that their 98 keeps your engine cleaner… ??
Try a couple of tanks in your car and see what works for you…
We have found that any ethanol fuel in either car delivers the worst economy.
Both Shell VPower and Caltex Vortex can be either 95 or 98 octane… check the pump closely. :-) Vortex or VPower does not mean it is 98 octane.
Yes I noticed that E10 fuel gets me only about 90% as far as regular ULP. But I thought maybe it was just in my mind, so it's interesting to hear that this is your experience too.
$ per km, there is no (significant) difference between e10, 91, 95 and 98
you get fewer k's for the cheap stuff and more k's when using high RON, but like i said, $ per km they are the same
use whatever your car manufacturer says
our 09 Forester runs like a dog on 91, so we use 95
our 14 Mazda3 uses 91 and loves it
I just use the minimum rating required for my cars although both of mine require 95RON minimum now :(
Premium fuel has nothing to do with 'power', smoothness, engine protection or any of that marketing mumbo jumbo, it's how it combusts in the engine (ie timing), high performance vehicles especially those that have forced induction (turbo etc) need premium because the engines need precise compression timing otherwise you get 'knock back'. Chances are if you have noticed a difference despite your vehicle not requiring it, it's just your perception and not actually what's happening.
The short answer is, if your car isn't high performance (ie <150kw, no forced induction) and the manual just 'recommends' you use premium fuel, then you don't need it. Ask a mechanic/technician if you want to know more.
I only really use 91 in my 15 year old turbocharged engine. The only time I've bothered with 98 is when taking it or previous cars to the race track, the engines run that little bit nicer and its extra protection against detonation under the harshest conditions.
There's a bit to understand about RON and the various fuels, and I don't know where to begin. Suffice to say that no factory engine will exceed the capabilities of a 91 octane rating, so in most situations I wouldn't bother wasting the $ on anything else.
A couple of years ago I owned a Nissan X-Trail and kept a record of all refuels, for 12 months I used 95ron or 98 if available.
The results were 12 months on ulp were 9.09 L/100k and $16.02/100k. Distance covered 14522k's.
12 months on pulp were 8.87 L/100k and $14.64/100k. Distance covered 13800k's.
So using the higher priced Pulp saved 1.38 per 100k or just under $200.00 for the 12 months.
Thats all according to the calculator at,
if you were paying $1.38 per 0.22 litres…you were getting ripped off ;)
is that taking in to count that premium is 30cents a litre more expensive?
9.09l/100km off unleaded costs less $ than 8.87l/100km of premium.
It simple to test, if your mileage does go up more than 10% and it costs 10% more then it is probably better to go for it since it is generally better for the modern engine. I generally get around 10% better mileage for city driving but not for long Country trips. I do not buy it when i know I am heading to the country.
We have a Ford Focus S 2012 (Dry Clutch Auto, that's another story) . We use E94 also called 94RON E10 all the time at 6 l/per 100km, no problems, from the APCO IGA-EXPRESS in Lavington (Albury) NSW and it's $132.9 and its cheaper than regular 91 unleaded. More bang for your bucks.
We never use 91 RON E10, NEVER!!!!
My son has a 2004 SAAB Aero. Does any one know if it can run 94 RON E10?????
IMHO, fast way to destroy a car is to use Ethanol crap. If you have a local mechanic then please drop in and tell them that you are considering using E and see what they tell you.
When I bought my car brand new (nissan maxima 2000 a33) I ran it on premium for 6 months recording mileage and fuel purchases (litres filled and total cost) and then switched to standard unleaded for another 6 months and did the same thing. End result…dead even. It cost me about the same $/km rate.
So I just run premium.
Benefits…extra distance per tank, less impurities in the fuel, less work for the filters to do, no carbon deposits in the engine, less maintenance required.
Car was running rough a few years back and they had no idea what was wrong and suggested it could be carbon buildup on the valves. They stuck a camera down to check and the diagnosis was that the engine looked brand new on the inside (ended up being the mass airflow sensor).
The Maxima is a high-end car with automatic tuning built into the car computer that will adapt fuel delivery and alter timing etc to suit the fuel you put in it to get the best out of it. Newer cars will probably have this in…but if it's an old carburettor model that is tuned for a particular fuel type, you are better off using the fuel it is expecting.
I've run premium a few times in my forester when prices are cheaper, and sometimes on a long trip (2 tanks each way). aLso used premium a few times in an old Corolla. I like to think that I can drive and feel the difference in my car when something is different, like a tyre is down, but I've never noticed the difference in performance with different fuels. Keeping track of fuel economy seems to make little difference too, maybe a bit more efficient for the premium, but not worth the cost.
Don't skimp. Please only use premium pinecones in the forester.
Couple's outback adventure breaks low-fuel world record
..the Taylors managed to visit major cities, regional and rural areas and Uluru while using 25.5% less fuel per 100km than estimated by Volkswagen.
The car used Caltex Vortex 98 premium unleaded.
By Volkswagen's estimates, the car should have used 19.5 tanks of petrol, but the Taylors managed to use less than 14.5 tanks.
http://www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.au/news/couples-outback-ad…
So they used 25.5% less than estimated by the vehicle manufacturer, which is consistent with 23.5% in the test in the video I linked above. Even if premium costs 10% more, I think it's pretty hard to argue with these numbers. Sure, the Taylor's trip was funded by Caltex, but you can't really argue with a world record either.
If I got the figures correct the manufacturer quoted a fuel consumption of 7.5/100km and they achieved 5.3l/100k.
The manufacturers figures were close to the combined cycle figures at car advice of 7.2/100k, so driven for fuel economy it is pretty much what one would expect being 5.3/100k.
The above could be out by miles but it doesn't appear to be anything amazing, I would love to see 2 cars do the exact same course and speed with the different fuel type, I bet the difference would be small.
I would love to see 2 cars do the exact same course and speed with the different fuel type
Well they did that test twice in this video and it was a 23.5% difference…
91e is not 91, so discounting that, using the track which would be more controlled showed a ~2km difference to the 98, I didn't bother taking the exact figures but around 5% difference.
ACA is not what I would class as a good guide and loved the 240p video and that was the maximum :) even in 2011 that was shoddy.
I know it can make a difference but generally very little on a car built to run 91, I had a car that needed 95 a mate ran his (same car) on 91 and fuel consumption was shocking and so was the power:) he went to 95 after comparing fuel economy.
ACA can be sensationalist but at least they tried to do a controlled test and they even did it twice. Science is about experiments, observation and measurement. If there is some better data from a better experiment somewhere else please feel free to share…
1 minute on google.
There is my test below :).
The problem with a test like AMA is the driver can increase fuel consumption by throttle variation, steering angle, etc. even when others are following, what they should have done is repeated the test rotating drivers between the assorted fuels and cars.
The story of the couple you linked relies on no one checking the math to realise it is not as exciting as it seems.
http://www.mynrma.com.au/blog/2011/06/24/fuels-which-should-…
http://www.carsguide.com.au/car-reviews/unleaded-vs-e10-the-…
Crap source using 91e shudder.
http://www.todaytonightadelaide.com.au/stories/petrol-test
Interesting but I still feel like the ACA test is better because they did it twice. The carsguide article is good but it's still not a very controlled test if they're only filling it when it's almost empty and the driving conditions could have varied with each tank (e.g. due to traffic, city driving, highway driving etc, driving with the wind or against it, plus they tires may have been inflated and deflated along the 2600km of driving…)
Hyundai i20 running on 91 or 95 very little fuel consumption difference, certainly not enough (if any) to justify the price difference.
Just using the last of my 3rd tank of premium and will be going back to 91.
Personally would not run e10 in anything.
My experience running a Toyota Aurion (mostly mixed driving, suburban/freeway but with a fair chunk of stop-start) is like (approaching 10,000km) based on my spreadsheet:
Unleaded 91: 490-520km on a 56L fill
Premium 95: 495-570km on 56L fill
Premium 98: 485-570km on 56L fill
So there's a 10% or so gain in economy for 95 over 98, but the car doesn't gain anything going to 98 from 95. I fill it with 98 on the lowest trough on the fuel price cycle, otherwise I keep it at 95.
I've driven it all the way to Bendigo last month on 91, and I didn't notice any difference in the responsiveness of the vehicle. That could have to do with the fact that the car has a minimum spec of E10, and the engine already has enough power at disposal to make the infinitesimal gains from retarded ignition timing irrelevant.
Correction, 10% economy gain going from 91 to 95
I have a Ford Focus and I only use 95 or 98 fuel. After I had the Ford Focus for about a year (I was using regular unleaded) I noticed that when I was going up steep hills or when I had to accelerate quickly from a stopped position that the engine made a pinging kind of noise. So I took my Focus to my mechanic and he recommenced that I use either 95 or 98 fuel and see if that stopped the pinging noise and it has and it has never returned. I have only been using 95 / 98 for the last 4 years and my mechanic says it is definitely having a positive effect on my engine. Only costs me about $5 extra per full tank using 95 fuel so it's worth it for me. I use 98 once every ten times I fill up the tank. The rest of the time I use 95
Old topic, but same kind of question. I've got an older BMW X5 3.0L petrol.
Its my first car, so I'm new to this. Usually 95 is like 12% more expensive than E10.
Aside from the economy factor, is E10 really any worse for my engine?
I would think your BMW x5 would require minimum 95 octane like all European cars.
My daily drive is an old bomb. I use e10 and it's fine. I have used premium when out west and E10 wasn't available, and yes, you do get better performance and mileage from it. Do I need better performance in a 1.6L Mazda? No.. not really. Taking off from the lights to get to the next red isn't really a hobby I pursue, so I cheap out.
If I bought a better car (e.g. Audi R8) I might feel differently. That however is a problem I am unlikely to need to face anytime soon.