QUOTE(sleepy @ Oct 3 2012, 10:02 PM)
Well as the turbo builds up more boost at higher speed, naturally the compression will increase as well so you would need higher RON rating fuel for optimal performance in the higher range. The effect isnt really the night and day type of difference, more like one or two tenth's? Since most road users are not F1 drivers chasing tenths of seconds, I'd say most people wont bother/notice the difference. But still the difference is there.
About cost/performance ratio, considering most ppl drive moderately with revs ranging from 2k to 3k, there isnt much real world benefit in daily drives in using RON97 over RON95. Better to save up some bucks, since the difference between 95 and 97 is now RM1.10
Again, the car manufacturer would be the best advisor in this case. We can assume the compression increases but again it will be the car manufacturer who will specify a suitable fuel that maximises the performance benefit by using a higher octane fuel. If Peugeot has only specified Ron95 as the required fuel, then using Ron 97 is a waste. Like i said earlier, any slight difference (if any) will be insignificant compared to the much higher cost of Ron 97 fuel. Is it worth paying RM66 extra per full tank for this 'slight difference'? Thats RM 1,584 extra per year assuming you fill 2 tanks per month. So instead of spending RM 2,736 per annum, ure gonna spend RM4,320. About cost/performance ratio, considering most ppl drive moderately with revs ranging from 2k to 3k, there isnt much real world benefit in daily drives in using RON97 over RON95. Better to save up some bucks, since the difference between 95 and 97 is now RM1.10
The problem with most ppl is that they think the performance increase (if any) will be significant and most of the time its just quantified by word of mouth rather than any hard facts.
This post has been edited by cybermaster98: Oct 4 2012, 08:41 AM
Oct 4 2012, 08:29 AM
Quote
0.0541sec
0.72
7 queries
GZIP Disabled