91, 95, 95e or 98 RON...:-( Help )

okief · 14-10-2009, 05:11 PM

This may have been discussed before..., my query is this:

Fiesta manual and reviews say 91Ron is fine. some say 95 or 98 gives better performance and economy.

Is there a pronounced difference in power/economy when using higher RON fuel, better than price difference?

do engines work with 95E RON?

cheers
okief

robjh80 · 14-10-2009, 08:40 PM

I only ever use quality 98RON (Mobil 8000 or BP Ultimate) in the XR4.

Well worth the little bit extra cost imo ... better performance and better for your engine in the long run.

I would never put any fuel that contains Ethanol in any of my cars! ... when I buy Petrol ... I want PETROL!! .... if I really wanted sugar I'd go to the supermarket!

dannyhilton · 14-10-2009, 09:03 PM

http://www.fordforums.com.au/showthr...9&page=2&pp=20

This thread is loaded with debate, have a look through.

Franco Cozzo · 14-10-2009, 09:13 PM

I used 98 from Shell and I got about 516km out of 35Lm filled up with mobil 95 recently and we're going to see how we go with that, car has 700km on it now.

BruceT · 14-10-2009, 11:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by okief

Fiesta manual and reviews say 91Ron is fine. some say 95 or 98 gives better performance and economy.

Is there a pronounced difference in power/economy when using higher RON fuel, better than price difference?

I exclusively use 91 RON now. I tried both 95 and 98. I compared economy and acceleration (0-100). The best economy and performance I got were for 91 RON. I'm not prepared to say 91 RON is better, but it's definitely no worse.

Quote:

Originally Posted by okief

do engines work with 95E RON?

Yes, the manual explicitly says so, as does the label on the fuel flap. I personally have not tried it. Expect poorer economy with E10 (95E), which will probably negate any cost saving.

**Polyal** · 14-10-2009, 11:33 PM

Unless it says in the manual or you have a high performance car then the normal lower RON is just as good.

Maybe 1 in 10 tanks run 98; but even that is not necessary.

Ive been experimenting with my car and I get best results on the lower stuff.

IMO its all **** unless your car is tuned for it. It might feel more responsive but for a daily drive who cares.

Twinpiston · 15-10-2009, 12:57 AM

I have tried 91 and 98 (BP) in my WQ. I had a about a 50km difference on the same trip, power wise a little hard to tell, seems a little pepier in the low end...

I am with Mowog though, real petrol for real cars..

south21 · 15-10-2009, 08:33 AM

I use my ws fiesta as a courier car, around 300 kilometers per day, if I use ethanol I get about 70 kilometers less per tank, I use mainly 91 ron and have had no problems yet, the only reason that I use the occasional tank of e10 is because I was told that it does keep your engine fuel system clean.

Ben85 · 15-10-2009, 12:10 PM

Each to there own really. I use 98RON because i plan on keeping the car for a while and it keeps the engine cleaner. And on the occassions i've had to put lower RON fuel in the car (Central Australia) i have found the fuel economy to be lower. I figure its only three to four dollars a tank more to put decent fuel in your car, so do it.

Franco Cozzo · 15-10-2009, 03:14 PM

Anyone used 91 and taken it to redline? Any pinging?

bArNsY · 15-10-2009, 04:19 PM

Run E85 even better!

Dustproof · 15-10-2009, 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XCPWSF

Anyone used 91 and taken it to redline? Any pinging?

Firstly I gather you are asking about the WS Fiesta.

I have used E10 and found no real performance change over more expensive fuels, this car is designed for it because it will self tune. E10 produces a little less power but can take extra ignition advance, the car checks for engine knock and re-tunes itself for the quality of the fuel used.

98 Octane fuels are OK but a waist of money in this car, there are some believers who think it makes the car go better but the difference in performance is very little and can hardly be noticed. That is fine as it is their choice, if you really want to find out; get someone with a dyno to test it.

South21 has a better idea, this is because he uses the car everyday in an environment that will show up over a distance. I bet the difference in feel is not much compared to higher octane fuels, you might get better economy but not necessarily more power.

dannyhilton · 15-10-2009, 09:52 PM

I use 98ron. Work pays for my fuel, but even still while there may be no major performance gains in the WS by using 98ron, for a few extra dollars a tank I'd use it even if I payed for my fuel. It did however make my WP run loads smoother. At the end of the day 98ron is more refined, and nothings too good for my baby! Agree with Ben85.

GoesLikeAZetec · 16-10-2009, 10:29 PM

I looked in my manual just now and it says recommended 95ron... will run on 91...

Who knows... this is a black art this fuel octane stuff....

We need a workshop to test the same car on the same day with the 3 different types of fuel on a dyno just to get a comparison

Oscuro · 16-10-2009, 10:53 PM

91ron on a WP is crap, noticeable lag in performance. 95ron is much better on a WP. Not worth the performance lag for a 10 cents a litre saving. Never tried 98ron on a WP.

curik · 17-10-2009, 12:50 AM

I'm running 91 on my WS auto, no noticeable diff in performance after switching from 98. No problems with pinging unless on the other day when I was going uphill with 4 people using 2nd gear

BruceT · 17-10-2009, 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XCPWSF

Anyone used 91 and taken it to redline?

Yes

Quote:

Originally Posted by XCPWSF

Any pinging?

No

BruceT · 17-10-2009, 09:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dustproof

I have used E10 and found no real performance change over more expensive fuels, this car is designed for it because it will self tune. E10 produces a little less power but can take extra ignition advance, the car checks for engine knock and re-tunes itself for the quality of the fuel used.

Pradoxically there seems to be no performance loss with E10, even though it has less energy density than regular ULP. This appears to be due to the engine adjusting the fuel-air mix to compensate for the fact that ethanol is already partially oxygenated. I've even seen some reports that suggest E10 gives slightly better power & torque.

However on fuel economy almost every report I've read except propaganda suggests E10 is a loser on both economy and overall cost.

See this example:
http://www.drive.com.au/Editorial/Ar...2&pg=2&IsPgd=0
http://www.drive.com.au/Editorial/Ar...rticleID=59639

:

BruceT · 17-10-2009, 09:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oscuro

91ron on a WP is crap, noticeable lag in performance. 95ron is much better on a WP. Not worth the performance lag for a 10 cents a litre saving. Never tried 98ron on a WP.

There have been significant changes to the engine management system, valve- timing, fuel injection etc on the WS. I suspect the WP engine is really a 95 RON engine that will "put up" with 91 RON but not be happy. In my experience the WS engine is just as happy with 91 RON.

dannyhilton · 17-10-2009, 09:16 PM

Not one to knock the credibility of a website, no wait I am, I hate Drive! Anything you read via Drive, take it with a grain of salt. Some of their so called 'scientific' studies are utter crap. Just like their road tests. They are the auto equivalent to the woeful 'Today Tonight.'

BruceT · 18-10-2009, 11:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RapidTyphoon

Not one to knock the credibility of a website, no wait I am, I hate Drive! Anything you read via Drive, take it with a grain of salt. Some of their so called 'scientific' studies are utter crap. Just like their road tests. They are the auto equivalent to the woeful 'Today Tonight.'

Hi Rapid,
I can only invite you to do your own research, but my impression from multiple web-sites is that E10 has anything from slightly poorer economy to much poorer economy and no difference in performance compared to regular ULP.

The cost saving is at the very least wiped out by lower economy.

dannyhilton · 19-10-2009, 12:13 AM

Not disputing the info, just the source. Drive would have to be IMO the most biased of all the auto sites. As a blue blooded Ford fan, I don't take to their pro everything in red journalism.

Never put E10 in my new Fiesta, but my WP Zetec hated the crap. Coughed and spluttered. No performance gain, no major savings at the pump and pathetic fuel consumption. Never put 91RON in my car either, but again my previous Fiesta hated that also. I for one stick to 90% 98RON and the occasional tank of 95RON in both my Fiesta and Falcon (company car, The Falcon LOVES 98RON!). Love working for a big company who pays for my fuel!

shanebennett23 · 19-10-2009, 04:10 AM

i use bp ultimate in my wq and on long drives get 700km to a tank and 500 km around Perth. Ive just put in a tank of bp 91ron and have noticed a lot of lag on take off and the car doesn't like going in high revs unlike with bp ultimate

okief · 19-10-2009, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oscuro

91ron on a WP is crap, noticeable lag in performance. 95ron is much better on a WP. Not worth the performance lag for a 10 cents a litre saving. Never tried 98ron on a WP.

Hi Oscuro (and others) thanks for all the feedback, looks like I unleashed something...

Have only driven 2 tanks of 91ron, and am pleasantly surprised by power (economy about 13k/ltr), but will definitely try the 95 to compare!

cheers

Piotr · 19-10-2009, 06:26 PM

WS being a European car is tuned for 95Ron

robjh80 · 19-10-2009, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Piotr

WS being a European car is tuned for 95Ron

^^ What he said ^^

Most Euro Countries don't even have 91RON fuel, their lowest grade is 95RON and up .... hence the cars they manufacture are tuned for that grade of fuel.

Personally I wouldn't be putting 91RON in a Fiesta, regardless of what the Owners Manual says.

blatchie · 06-09-2011, 09:44 PM

I think that 95 in Europe is different to here. My wife's Fiesta will not perform on 98, when its cold the car lags and looses power under acceleration. Its a 5 speed manual. Ford have had the car and clocked up 1000 kms to try and fix this.
95 is not much better . aparrently the computer has been upgraded and a air flow meter has been replaced.
We were told to warm it up for 2 mins before driving and not to use 98 because its not made for cold conditions.

fiestaz · 06-09-2011, 10:14 PM

Really??? What model is it? My 04 Fiesta runs good on 95, and Great on 98. Tried 91 once, ran terribly and was awful, never have tried e10. Sounds like a different issue to me.

THE CADBURY KID · 06-09-2011, 10:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blatchie

I think that 95 in Europe is different to here. My wife's Fiesta will not perform on 98, when its cold the car lags and looses power under acceleration. Its a 5 speed manual. Ford have had the car and clocked up 1000 kms to try and fix this.
95 is not much better . aparrently the computer has been upgraded and a air flow meter has been replaced.
We were told to warm it up for 2 mins before driving and not to use 98 because its not made for cold conditions.

Its a blatent lie they told you about 98 not working in cold conditions,haha thats rich.
If your car doesnt run better on 98 then the factory tune is rubbish or there is other issues that are contributing to the rough running.
If you dont normally warm your car up for more than 2 mins and have to be told to actually warm it up you need to learn about mechanical sympathy.
All engines should be warmed up for at least a few minutes to prevent cold start wear.Common sense.
If you like to start and immediately drive you will always have issues.

fiestaz · 06-09-2011, 10:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FREE02

Its a blatent lie they told you about 98 not working in cold conditions,haha thats rich.
If your car doesnt run better on 98 then the factory tune is rubbish or there is other issues that are contributing to the rough running.
If you dont normally warm your car up for more than 2 mins and have to be told to actually warm it up you need to learn about mechanical sympathy.
All engines should be warmed up for at least a few minutes to prevent cold start wear.Common sense.
If you like to start and immediately drive you will always have issues.

exactly... although modern engines dont need to be warmed up like cars of the past... its wise though to be gentle on them while cold (mechanical sympathy).