Reply to thread

Click here to become an Official Member of BMW Club Malaysia Download Form

Message: <blockquote data-quote="funfer_fahrer" data-source="post: 370902" data-attributes="member: 2733">I don't think oil companies purposely increased the dosage of RON 95 to gain confidence.  What you experienced is the typical characteristics of RON 95.  If you happen to drive in Thailand and fill your tank with RON 95, you will feel the same too.  As for my car, RON 95 fits like a glove.  I am now getting 8 litre/100km city driving (My city driving consists of Shah Alam, P.J area and federal highway).  This figure is amazing for a 2.5 litre car.  Probably, my recent ECU remapping also plays a role.  I still haven't got the chance to test its highway performance.  Engine is quieter compared to RON 97.  With the price of RM1.70 per litre the savings is even greater.   Here's one of the most interesting RON 95 Q & A session I found online.  Chevron’s product engineering manager Greg Engeler was first quoted as saying contradicting statements on RON differences has a bearing on performance. The reply given on NST Sunday Times on July 2 is even more contradicting because he says if the RON required is 91 then the fuel used should be 92 to prevent knocking on hard acceleration. Therefore, most cars today have a requirement of RON97 so they have to use RON98 which is not available or we Malaysians just use what we can get. Now the Government is introducing RON95 and says it is the best, where is the data to prove its worth? Either there is a hand and glove game going on between the industries players and writers or just herd mentality to play along. Although there is so much data available from developed countries, why not just learn from their experiences and implant the best for our country. We can’t learn from our trials and errors by bulldozing it through by just saying is cheaper by 5 cents. Please open your minds with these limitless options and once and for all close this subject on RON performances. – Ananda Jagadev, (<a href="mailto:ananda1957@gmail.com">ananda1957@gmail.com</a>) Reply: Ananda, thank you for your query. Allow me to clarify the misinterpreted statements by referring you to my response to “RON Confusion” (the initial printed reply on July 28 was courtesy of the Editor). That being said, let’s look at the data supporting RON95’s implementation. RON95 fuel is widely accepted worldwide, particularly in Europe. The usage of RON95 is over 80 per cent in Europe because of the European standards fuel. In Australia and Thailand, it accounts to about 20 per cent, gradually becoming the main grade fuel around the world. This indicates Malaysia has been doing her homework.   Malaysia is not far behind in introducing the fuel, despite its availability in the early 1990s. Advantages of using RON95 depend on the specification and engine design of the cars. For example, if a car is designed to run on RON95 but uses RON97, motorists may not necessarily experience better performance. And, if a car needs RON97 and uses RON95, it may not be a good thing either. It all comes back to using the fuel that the engine is designed to run. An added bonus to the introduction is that it positions the country to take advantage of the latest technologies from Europe and Japan, engines of which typically run on RON95. For more information on octane and octane requirement, do visit: <a href="http://chemistry.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.faqs.org" target="_blank">http://chemistry.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.faqs.org</a> /faqs/autos/gasoline%2Dfaq/part1/ - Mr Greg Engeler, Product Engineering Manager, Product Engineering, Regulations and Technology, Asia Pacific, Chevron </blockquote>

Verification