V-Power - Hmmmm.....

[ALBundy]

Shell ULG95 and ULG97 would have the same sulphur content (whatever that is) as they're the same base gasoline coming through the same pipeline from Shell PD. In fact, on occasions when there is shortfall in Shell production, you might even be pumping Petronas base gasoline from Petronas Melaka. That's how it works folks.

Attached in this link is something interesting for all to note, despite all fuels originating from the same source/refinery (interesting to note that Shell and Esso/Mobil fuel comes from a different refinery as indicated in the link below).

Go to page 12 of the research paper, there is a table indicating the RON levels from various brands. Lowest is RON 96.4 to a high of 97.7!! The sulphur content levels are marginally different as well.

http://images.paultan.org/uploads/2007/02/2-3a.pdf

I have googled further on methods used to measure RON level, and it is interesting to note depending on which method is employed there is a margin of error of +/- 0.5!!

Most accurate is to use a fully automated device.

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5606130.html

 

[astroboy]

The Japs compression are getting higher these days..My Avanza is running at 10:0 while the VIOS and City are all above 10:0. Sub 10 compression no more liao due to pushing of the efficiency envelope.

 

[ALBundy]

The Japs compression are getting higher these days..My Avanza is running at 10:0 while the VIOS and City are all above 10:0. Sub 10 compression no more liao due to pushing of the efficiency envelope.

On the normally aspirated cars, yes. Previously in the 90s, most are below 10 with some of the Hondas being the exception. However the forced induction cars are still relatively lower compared to the continental offerings.

 

[glock_8]

Firstly, RON is not an indication of the power of a fuel. It is only a measure of the combustibility of a fuel. The higher the RON, the less combustible. A base fuel is dosed with antiknock agents at the point of loading into a road tanker. Ie, the base fuel in the tank farm is homogeneous, and only becomes RON92, 95 or 97 at the tanker pump. In some countries, mixing is even done only at the petrol station.

How RON affects your car's power output: An engine is designed with an optimum spark timing point at a certain crank angle before top dead centre (BTDC) called the 'advance'. This allows the fuel to ignite and achieve full burn at a certain optimum crank angle after top dead centre (ATDC) At this optimum point, the piston is just starting its downstroke and the full burn gives a maximum push. If your anti-knock sensor hears knocking, it will retard the spark point, resulting in full burn occuring past the optimum ATDC point, resulting in a weaker push. If there's no knock, there is no timing retard, and so NO LOSS OF POWER, whether the fuel is 98, 97, 95 or 92. Mass market cars have no knock sensors, so it makes no difference to their engines whatever RON is used.

Modern engines do not knock easily because of advances in cylinder and valve inlet design to eliminate hot spots and introduce swirl of the air-fuel mix. If anyone tells you his car knocks using 95, he's only telling you his engine is old-fashioned or poorly designed.

Knock is caused by high compression and temperature. Turbocharged engines have a higher tendency to knock than normally-aspirated engines because forced induction INCREASES compression, and compressed air is at higher temperature. That's why some cars have intercoolers to reduce the air-fuel temperature. But again, in a sophisticated engine, even a turbocharged engine should not knock using 95. It should only happen with non-factory designed aftermarket slap-ons where the design parameters are not considered at all.

Phew!

thank you for ur lengthy explanation...
another doubt which i hope u could explain, how would you know that ur engine is happy with ron 95 i.e no knocking hence "there is no timing retard, and so NO LOSS OF POWER, whether the fuel is 98, 97, 95 or 92" our car is well insulated even i cant tell whether the engine is running or not from inside the car.

if in this case our so called advance and modern engine detects the slightest knocking in split second and retard the timing...i doubt we will even notice it...so there is still a possibility that ur ron 95 fuelled car running on a retard timing producing a slightly less power which u didnt notice...

knowing our na car which is a bitch to even get a decent 3-5hp out of a rm3k bmw performance air filter...wouldnt the rm0.20 saving from using the ron 95 sound silly?

plus i read somewhere in the user manual that our car can still use ron 92, but in an emergency situation only...that says something right?.

if ron 95 can produce the same result as ron98, why was the manufacturer tested it on 98, wouldnt it be better for them to market thier product based on ron 95...that will reach out to almost every country in the world...wouldnt it?



anyways just for argument sake...really is a gd info from our sifu schwepps

 

[glock_8]

Attached in this link is something interesting for all to note, despite all fuels originating from the same source/refinery (interesting to note that Shell and Esso/Mobil fuel comes from a different refinery as indicated in the link below).

Go to page 12 of the research paper, there is a table indicating the RON levels from various brands. Lowest is RON 96.4 to a high of 97.7!! The sulphur content levels are marginally different as well.

http://images.paultan.org/uploads/2007/02/2-3a.pdf

I have googled further on methods used to measure RON level, and it is interesting to note depending on which method is employed there is a margin of error of +/- 0.5!!

Most accurate is to use a fully automated device.

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5606130.html

why can they just be transparent and reveal the brand...damn

 

[glock_8]

On the normally aspirated cars, yes. Previously in the 90s, most are below 10 with some of the Hondas being the exception. However the forced induction cars are still relatively lower compared to the continental offerings.

i noticed the jap fi has higher boost than the contis ...this might be the reason why thier compression is slightly lower..

 

[Schwepps]

Attached in this link is something interesting for all to note, despite all fuels originating from the same source/refinery (interesting to note that Shell and Esso/Mobil fuel comes from a different refinery as indicated in the link below).

Thanks for the link AB. It confirms that there are only 4 refineries in Pen Malaysia. Petronas Melaka is by far the main one. I have my doubts whether Esso PD is still producing gasoline (the correct name for petrol) and even if it is, that is such an old refinery, with such antiquated plant, that I wouldn't want to use any gasoline from there.

Gasoline from Petronas Melaka and Shell PD are transported through a new pipeline jointly built by Petronas and Shell to the KVDT in Sepang, where they're pumped into the tankers that deliver to the petrol stations. I'm quite sure there is a lot of off-taking from each other, as well as by other companies, as gasoline is difficult and expensive to ship in and store from overseas. VPower is definitely imported: from Shell Bukom Singapore via overland tanker. None of our refineries have the plant to produce VPower.

 

[Schwepps]

Glock, I think you're too young to have heard knocking before. You WILL hear it, and even feel it, if your engine knocks. Uncle like me used to drive old manual cars at your age, and sometimes the wrong gear was chosen and the engine would go plink-plink-plink. The anti-knock sensor is actually a peizo microphone, so if you can't hear it, neither can the sensor.

If your car doesn't knock with 95, it's even sillier still to pay 25 sen more for 97 and get exactly the same power.

The manufacturer doesn't 'test' on 98, it designs the engine timing to operate at 98. In engineering, there is always an allowance built in and the allowance for modern engines is wide. As the slides show, don't think that when they sell you 97, it's EXACTLY 97. It definitely won't be, and will only be 'around' 97.

Of course BMW would prefer you to use the design target of 98. Just like they prefer you to use fully synthetic oil with LL-01, RFTs with 36/40 psi, and only BMW parts, even for windscreen washer fluid.

 

[infinityKL]

ok good, my romeo's tank should be empty this sunday... here i come V...

now i only hope they will have more V pumps...

 

[David Yong]

ok good, my romeo's tank should be empty this sunday... here i come V...

now i only hope they will have more V pumps...

How's your new shoes bro ?

 

[infinityKL]

How's your new shoes bro ?

its all good DY... no issue's just plug and play... did some hard driving, nice and firm.. also hit 22okmh, no vibrations.. so im cool, or i've would have been bugging you.. hehe

as fr the looks, looking neat and clean, aint no fierce no more.. ok la, as now its my gf's daily work horse..

time for new rubbers in a month or so...

cheers...

 

[glock_8]

Glock, I think you're too young to have heard knocking before. You WILL hear it, and even feel it, if your engine knocks. Uncle like me used to drive old manual cars at your age, and sometimes the wrong gear was chosen and the engine would go plink-plink-plink. The anti-knock sensor is actually a peizo microphone, so if you can't hear it, neither can the sensor.

my 1.5 liter wira knocks like crazy when i tested it with ron92......my rx-8 knocks occationally when its really hot/traffic congestion even on v-power...especially driving slow on high gear...i know how the "marble in the can" sounds like. hey my first car is kancil..and like many other in this forum...i am not lucky enuff to be fed on a silver platter...

If your car doesn't knock with 95, it's even sillier still to pay 25 sen more for 97 and get exactly the same power.

u dont have to hear the engine knock to get lesser power...i think the more modern and advance engine is more clever than to rely on engine knocking to tweak the timing etc.

it would be silly if you fill ur car with ron100 and hoping it will produce more power when the brochure said the car max perf is based on ron 98 to yield 218hp.

The manufacturer doesn't 'test' on 98, it designs the engine timing to operate at 98. In engineering, there is always an allowance built in and the allowance for modern engines is wide. As the slides show, don't think that when they sell you 97, it's EXACTLY 97. It definitely won't be, and will only be 'around' 97.

Of course BMW would prefer you to use the design target of 98. Just like they prefer you to use fully synthetic oil with LL-01, RFTs with 36/40 psi, and only BMW parts, even for windscreen washer fluid.

i dont think i understand it the way u did....it was clearly stated on the brochure - hp and torque is based on ron 98

same disclaimer for civic type r and suzuki swift...but they are more crazier to state rated power using ron 100.

its not about engineering tolerances here...its how the car company struggle to produce higher HP and Torque so that it looked impressive on the specification sheets....that it looked better than its rival.....this is their last straw to squeeze the last drop of power they could get out of the engine...

here is a living proof of how ron 95 and 97 and 98 have affacted a performance of a car....
the supermarket petrol must have taken from tesco/asda or saintsburry petrol station and its rated ron 95...while vpower and bp are 98 and 97 respectively

[video=youtube;dDHwCWdrtdg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDHwCWdrtdg&feature=related[/video]


for a normal run of the mill car, it makes no difference..but for high performance car it really make a world of a different...and all of em didnt produce any knocking sound ....be it on ron 95 or ron 97 or ron 98..

the diff between ron 95 and ron 98 is an astonishing increase of 14hp and 26nm of torque !!!!!

i am just amazed how the govt propaganda to dupe malaysian into believing that ron 95 is as good as ron 97 hence making empty promise to reduce the price when they actually raise it to rm1.80 for ron 95...replacing the ron 97 .....


hope u are a believer now....ur 218hp rated power are actually derated eversince u use ron 95...even on ron 97 it wont get that 218hp figure....so next time when we have a chat ..when people ask us how much power does our car has..dont mention 218hp unless u mention using ron 98..hihi

 

[t2ribena]

Glock, I think you're too young to have heard knocking before. You WILL hear it, and even feel it, if your engine knocks. Uncle like me used to drive old manual cars at your age, and sometimes the wrong gear was chosen and the engine would go plink-plink-plink. The anti-knock sensor is actually a peizo microphone, so if you can't hear it, neither can the sensor.

If your car doesn't knock with 95, it's even sillier still to pay 25 sen more for 97 and get exactly the same power.

The manufacturer doesn't 'test' on 98, it designs the engine timing to operate at 98. In engineering, there is always an allowance built in and the allowance for modern engines is wide. As the slides show, don't think that when they sell you 97, it's EXACTLY 97. It definitely won't be, and will only be 'around' 97.

Of course BMW would prefer you to use the design target of 98. Just like they prefer you to use fully synthetic oil with LL-01, RFTs with 36/40 psi, and only BMW parts, even for windscreen washer fluid.

bro...u champion la...ur ear can hear the knock as the knock sensor picks it up ar...but pls don't be so extreme la...the knock sensor has a sensitivity higher than our ears in the first place and the frequency response of the sensors goes beyond our hearing ability...our ear in perfect condition is 'designed' to operate from 20Hz to 20kHz but in real life it is way narrower than that and differ from person to person...the piezo sensor works at a far broader operating frequency and can pickup much higher freq pinking when the engine starts to pink and this allows the ecu to retard timing asap to avoid damage...so knocking in modern engine can go unnoticable with higher sensitivity and broadband sensors acting to avoid it from happening...

also ur statement that the manufacturer does not test on the fuel they tuned the car for is totally untrue...they have to test it to obtain data to tune it to the optimum level...they cannot be just tuning it for the ron 98 without any data for the engine...do u also suggest company like panasonic makes the blender and rice cooker without actually testing to blend chillis or onions or cook rice dont you? just design it to blend and cook then pray it works?

 

[Schwepps]

Okay guys you're right, everyone should believe whatever they want. I've said enough.

 

[astroboy]

Aiyoo... u people are making this car forum into a scientific forum liao.. but I LIKE!! :top: :love:

20Hz is clearly a subwoofer range while the 20KHz is tweeter range... can chase away mosquitoes.. :24:

The microphone knock sensor must be working real hard like trying to listen to phone conversation inside Zuok at 2am on Saturday nite..

 

[Traveler]

Ok, I have an idea for people who are interested in comparing FC for different fuels. How about for each club drive (starting with the Kulim drive next weekend), the club does a survey of FC for each participating car? Since everyone is travelling in a convoy and travelling at more or less the same speed, going on the same route under the same weather/road conditions, the results should be more or less comparable.

You would need to collect the following data:
1. Type of fuel used; ie. Shell RON95 or Shell V-Power or Esso 95, etc..
2. Type of car/engine: E36, 2.8L (unmodified or modified) or E90 2.0L (petrol/diesel)
3. Number of passengers/luggage (incl driver): so that we know if one particular car is extra heavy or not
4. Average speed: as measured by the OBC
5. Fuel consumed (in km/L): as measured by the OBC
6. Distance traveled.

For best accuracy, measurement of #4-6 should start only once you start moving from the meeting point and end at a predetermined spot (such as start when passing the entrance toll booth, and end at the exit toll booth). Also measurement should be paused (if possible) when idling so as not to skew the data collected (this affects #4 and #5 quite a bit, especially if there is a long idle period).

Then you can compare the results by grouping similar engines/fuels together and see how differences in speed (for cases where there are 2 groups, one faster than the other), engine capacity, laden weight, and fuel affect the FC.

 

[Ennui78]

Ooh......science experiment! Just like in school. Yay..

On a more serious note, I'd really love to see the results.

 

[astroboy]

Ok, I have an idea for people who are interested in comparing FC for different fuels. How about for each club drive (starting with the Kulim drive next weekend), the club does a survey of FC for each participating car? Since everyone is travelling in a convoy and travelling at more or less the same speed, going on the same route under the same weather/road conditions, the results should be more or less comparable.

You would need to collect the following data:
1. Type of fuel used; ie. Shell RON95 or Shell V-Power or Esso 95, etc..
2. Type of car/engine: E36, 2.8L (unmodified or modified) or E90 2.0L (petrol/diesel)
3. Number of passengers/luggage (incl driver): so that we know if one particular car is extra heavy or not
4. Average speed: as measured by the OBC
5. Fuel consumed (in km/L): as measured by the OBC
6. Distance traveled.

For best accuracy, measurement of #4-6 should start only once you start moving from the meeting point and end at a predetermined spot (such as start when passing the entrance toll booth, and end at the exit toll booth). Also measurement should be paused (if possible) when idling so as not to skew the data collected (this affects #4 and #5 quite a bit, especially if there is a long idle period).

Then you can compare the results by grouping similar engines/fuels together and see how differences in speed (for cases where there are 2 groups, one faster than the other), engine capacity, laden weight, and fuel affect the FC.

On return trip, switch partner.. err... I meant switch fuel, so u get same driver, same load, same car, different fuel..

I am imagining the trip is like sending someone to space, the fuel experiment is like tossing of roti chanai in space.. anymore other experiment you all want to do? Retract your side mirror during the drive and see if aerodynamic improve and FC improve..?? :24:

 

[ALBundy]

On return trip, switch partner.. err... I meant switch fuel, so u get same driver, same load, same car, different fuel..

I am imagining the trip is like sending someone to space, the fuel experiment is like tossing of roti chanai in space.. anymore other experiment you all want to do? Retract your side mirror during the drive and see if aerodynamic improve and FC improve..?? :24:

Even though, the cars are pretty similar (assuming same wheel diameter, no bodykit and etc) the results could be varied.

Recently BMW Msia did a drive using the 320D, with the target of achieving 1000km utilising only a single tank. Not every participant achieved the target.

The biggest variable when it comes to fuel consumption is the right foot. Even if one were to convoy, the driving style do make a difference as well.

For example, I like to accelerate when driving on a downhill descent and use the momentum generated to climb the subsequent hill. This is more efficient than to accelerate up the hill, and then cruised downhill.

You can try this tip when on the Maju Expressway to Putrajaya

 

[ALBundy]

Okay guys you're right, everyone should believe whatever they want. I've said enough.

Schwepps,

You are not entirely wrong. If one doesnt feel the difference, then why waste the 25cents/liter

For my older bimmer running with the M52 engine which has a 10.2 to 1, compression ratio I couldn't feel any difference between RON 95 and 97. On the S52, the difference could be felt easily more so when it comes to acceleration which is more urgent and immediate.

Then again, I do only use RON 95 most of the time, unless some of these young punks (one driving 335) ask me for a spirited drive :embarassed: