you got my support for autofreaks.. 

after the PT ron95 review.. sorry, im leaving..

to do a real control test, you need to consider the variables
in this case,

fixed variable/control - the engine of the car basically same performance and spec

non-fixed/test variable - RON 95 or RON 97

His method of review even by engineering standards is rudimentary, unless the driver is a robot no one have the same driving habit.

he claimed tat they switch drivers along the journey. This actually make the result even worse because now u are swapping different driving habits on all the tested vehicles which theoretically increased the randomness of the result. If one driving drive all the way until finish, at least he can claim consistent result by assuming tat one person have the same driving habit all the way. Then go to the next car and drive the same way as before. (More credible than swapping drivers)
Now u are swapping 4 different fellow in one car an expect a consistent result?

what he should do on in his so call real situation test is employed a dyno tester machine.. No not the kind tat improve your engine performance but rather the lab dyno testing used in university mechanical lab or engine test plant (both proton and p2 have it    )

this is small lab type for university students to do lab test


And this is better dyno enginer performance (K&N)


I am too lazy how to explain how it works but it can be used to test diff fuel type and engine performance

Publishing the result based on control lab test is more credible than i drive on road and here is my result. If u are writing scientific paper and this is your methodology, the professor will laugh and throw your paper into the bin.

I guess u dont know really how RON number really works
For higher ron fuel, to prevent knocking retardant are added in which normally longer chain of hydrocarbon into the fuel to prevent the fuel from self ignite. That the additives you are talking about, there hardly any performance additives

If you want more power, you do it by adding higher octane fuel not RON. like pure ethanol, hyrogen etc etc but at the risk tat your car might explode because it not designed to operate in such high energy environment. Baciscally, the more flammable the fuels the better it is, the more power you can gain per litter of tat fuel. To calculate "scientifically' is by looking at the otto atkinson miller cycle etc the car engine is based upon. Again, it took me 4 years to learn about and I am lazy to explain it in details those themo cycles
adding more variables make for a more inconsistent result. The fixed variable should be the driver but instead it become the test variable as well
In retrospect to your answer, Public uni rent those equipments for a reasonable fees for a valid reason
UM, USM, UTM and any respectable university mechnical lab will have it and it available for public use

The only thing you have to do is write to the dean and explain why you want to use it.
Of course, it will be more difficult to have those High performance lab like the one used in P1 and P2. The main reason why it difficult because engine fuel consumption is a closely guarded secret

at least I better than some wikepedia warrior that think they know everything by reading wikepedia

thread about paultan moving to RON usage. come one peeps. lets get back to the topic.

anyhow, it's his website. those who hate his review can just let it be. no harm done to you

i start from read autofreak late 2013..but autofreak comment section krik..krik..krik until now...if u say paultan review paid review..autofreak oso same..just u guy read Iriz article paultan (infokereta) n compare with autofreak, funtaticko, topgear, wemotor, lifelivedrive, cbt, automania, arenakereta, autoworld, geartinggi, astroawani...all give same review..why u guy oni say paultan is paid review?

It was horribly done.
So, he had it coming.
People bashed him from left to right, from right to left @ Facebook.