Finally got on my hand RAV4 Hybrid! What a long wait….phew
My mate told me to fill the car 98, at least for the first one year to make the machine's condition good long term - Is this true? I'm thinking to just fill it with 95, should be enough right?
Also, does fuel brand matter - for example: BP vs 7/11 - do they have different quality of the fuel?
bit I get more mileage, and not a small amount usually an extra 2 days of driving >
Would be more quantifiable if you actually worked out you l/100km. 'days' is not a useful metric for measuring improved efficiency.
It's like when people compare fuel efficiency based on how much it cost to fill the tank :/
@SBOB: I was thinking that to and never actually wrote it down but yeah that would have helped I know
How can this be true?
“Increased fuel consumption” and “loss of performance”
Because if you use 91 in a car designed to use 98, it will ping it’s tits off, this in turn will cause the cars ECU to retard timing and reduce fuel delivery causing “loss of power”. The more power you lose, the more right foot you give the car, this, in turn causes “increased consumption”.
The rest of your comment is not related to the original question where I was asked about using a lower RON91 fuel in a car designed for 98.
usually an extra 2 days of driving
And your “extra mileage” measure is bunk. 2 days? Is that an extra 6km or an extra 200km. Either way, I have done the math plenty of times on this forum to show that even if you do get an extra few km from a tank of 98 over a tank of 91, the extra distance you get does not equate to the higher difference in price you have to pay for the premium fuel. 98 will still cost you more over the long term.
and my mechanic knows nothing?
Basically, if he is feeding you that line of shit. There’s either a very specific reason why he is saying “your car needs it” or the guy is just a filter monkey and buys into fuel marketing (and 95% of the time, it’s the latter.)
@Iwantthebestprice: Certainty your mechanic should be able to explain why 98 should be preferred over 91.
@apple2016: Yeah he does but like @pegaxs says he could be falling for the marketing crap - he said it keeps the fuel system clean and stops the injectors getting clogged up with shit, more KM’s and something about 98 working better for the turbo but eh my car recommends 91 and with fuel back up to $2.50 a litre soon might just try 91 again
I've avoided E10 (ethanol) in my old car since I read that older rubber fuel hoses could be damaged by the alcohol
but newer cars with neoprene or non-rubber hoses were designed to be OK with alcohol fuel mix
Your manufacturer will advise wether the car is E10 suitable. The age at which manufacturers made their cars suitable varies between models. I’d guess most cars made this century would be E10 compatible.
This is correct
However those Camry taxi drivers get away with it as E10 is 94 and they need 95.. that's probably the only time E10 would be used instead of 95 if being cheap
Mate told me to fill it up with water and row, but I thought he was pulling my leg so i just filled it up with the recommended octane setting fuel.
Not true.
folklore.
The manufacturer set what you should use. You won’t get any measurable benefit by using a higher rating.
Out of curiosity, how long did you end up waiting for your car?
Better give mine back - I've only been putting 91RON in her… cheapskate
Did she slap you for it?
Nope, not yet. But I only have to fill her up once every 3-4 weeks.
My car requires 98 but I only put in 91 because science is a myth.
True that unleaded 98 has higher knock resistance for cars that require it, but they are also marketed as having more additives/detergents, so it keeps the fuel system cleaner than say unleaded 91? Although this is hard to prove
This is where the confusion comes from probably. The modified car community swears on BP 98 and not other brands due to the additive pack
The modified car community is also full of people who are suckers to marketing.
Unless you go out and do a bunch of chemical analytics on the different fuels and accurately and repeatedly compare wear, cleanliness and a bunch of other factors you’ll be no better informed than by reading what’s in the advertising.
You don't need to do chemical analytics to know if a fuel is performing or not… You can put your car on a dyno and it will show you which fuel is producing most power. BP Ultimate is by far the best, and everyone in the car community knows that.
I doubt it is better ‘by far’. Got any evidence to back it up?
@pegaxs: My butt dyno must have the wrong sensitivity settings. I’ve not been able to determine if a car runs better on different fuels and my consumption measuring hasn’t shown anything definitive either, there’s more variance in driving conditions than fuel type made any difference to.
@Euphemistic: You need to calibrate your butt dyno in either a Falcon or a Commodore, and it needs to be cross referenced with bar stools at your local pub using VB as the verbal lubricant.
@Euphemistic: Oh yeah, that's the online update option for internet connected butt dynos.
This update also allows you to make up figures on the fly, so if you need to quote consumption figures, you can pull a random number out of your dyno and quote it as fact, even if the testing parameters change, you too can just change the dyno read outs to suit.
This really shows my age but I remember reading about a tuning shop in Sydney doing a test of fuel from various providers as well as specialist fuel. If memory serves, this report was given to someone in the field/industry/academia to check and next thing is lawyers got involved trying to stop the report being published or distributed.
This report is from 2005 but I doubt you’ll find testing as comprehensive as this for fuel in Sydney.
http://www.users.on.net/~kristopher/Capabilities_of_Common_F…
Interesting read (browse). Unfortunately it was only a single sample of each fuel for a single vehicle, but it at least contradicts ‘BP is best’ from above. Although it doesn’t state above that ‘BP gives most power’ and doesn’t define what ‘best’ is.
Still, the power difference was 8kw between best and worst in around 200kw so it’s likely imperceptible on a butt dyno.
@Euphemistic: In the conclusion section the specialist blend (with ethanol) had the most power or Caltex 98 (without ethanol).
Using the same vehicle would remove the variables so it’s an even playing field (albeit the fuel sample could have resulted differently using a different car or with a different tune).
These days my fuel decision is based first on convenience (oh shit, I’m low, I need to pour) and price (oh shit that’s cheap. Let’s pour). Sometimes not in that order haha.
The ONLY thing that knocks on a Toyota is tradition.
It knows how to deal with fuel.
from the car expert website review of the Rav4 Hybrid
Combined fuel consumption is rated at 4.8L/100km for our tester, with 91 RON regular unleaded the recommended minimum octane rating.
Minimum… so it doesn’t mean 98 is not recommended for the engine.
‘Minimum’ that is the key word.
Is there anything less than 91?
No, not unless you go to E85 Ethanol.
E85 is actually 105RON, so it is much much higher than even 98.
And diesel has a lower RON than 91.
@pegaxs: Sure, but there are not many vehicles that can run on the stuff.Holden did release a Commodore that could run on E85 a few years back, & of course V8 SCA used it as well.
My mate told me to fill the car 98, at least for the first one year to make the machine's condition good long term - Is this true?
No this is not true. Fill with 91 and save your money.
Your manufacture will always state it is designed to be run a ‘minimum’ octane.Up to the individual person if you want to go higher.Remember this, 91 has a very high sulphur content 150PPM.95 & 98 is 50PPM.We are way out of step with the rest of the world in fuel quality.Europe & even China is @ 10ppm.Our fuel is crap.This is not due to change until 2024 @ the earliest. I use to own a 2005 Mazda2 Genki, daughter now has it, she started putting in 91, she started smelling that rotten egg gas smell, thought it was the cat converter giving out.My local mechanic said it is the 91ron fuel,started putting in 95/98, smell gone instantly.Waste of money using it?Possibly, but the smell has never come back.I always used a minimum of 95 in it.I refuse to use 91, hang the cost!! Does using a higher octane give me more gas mileage? Have no idea & don’t care.
Usa uses ron 87, so it must really stink over there? Lol. Doubt it.
Think you need to research a little bit better, their fuel has to have an average of 10ppm of sulphur content, which is a massive difference to 150ppm of our 91ron fuel.Before 2017 it was @ 30ppm, then from 2017 it was mandated to have an average of 10ppm.Sulphur in petrol also impairs the effectiveness of emission control systems & contributes to air pollution.This is also one reason we do not get(@ present) new engine technology from European auto makers.Their engines will not operate efficiently on our fuels, which happen to be one of the ‘dirtiest’ in the world.Once legislation changes in regard to new fuels, we will then see up to date better engine technology.
USA's petrol uses a different metric to ours. 92-93RON over there is roughly equivalent to 98RON here.
Usa uses ron 87
This is incorrect. They use MON, not RON.
87MON is equivalent to 91RON.
Correct,87 is their basic unleaded fuel.But, still a lot better than what we get dished up.
Also, does fuel brand matter - for example: BP vs 7/11 - do they have different quality of the fuel?
FWIW my mechanic recommends me to always use BP Ultimate diesel. He thinks it's better quality than the other brands. I can't imagine he's getting any kind of remuneration for saying that.
He thinks it's better quality
Then your mechanic is a bellend and should know better. If it was better, cleaner and gave you “mOaR MiLez” per fill… why aren’t all the trucks on the roads using it and they just use the shit quality “truck diesel”?
“But it says Ultimate… so, it has to be better, right?” Yeah, nah. Some bean counter sits in a room and gets paid to think up shit like this so suckers will pay more for the same thing.
I think many BPs only sell the ultimate variety, at least far as I've noticed. And he might not just be talking about the fuel, maybe they flush out the tanks more often than others or something, who knows…
Pretty sure truck diesel is just normal diesel with a high flow pump/nozzle.
Pretty sure truck diesel is just normal diesel with a high flow pump/nozzle.
Pretty much. Most non-commercial diesel vehicles wont even let you use the truck nozzles because of the rate of flow and the neck diameter in your cars filler.
I think many BPs only sell the ultimate variety
Yep, pretty much. It's just marketing… But if you can use a medium flow "truck diesel" bowser and it's 10c/litre cheaper, I would not be buying that "Ultimate Advanced Premium Diesel 98" branded bullshit. Chances are it comes out of the same tank as the "truck diesel" anyway…
When did Duff beer factory become fossil fuel pisser?
Ah ~ the the good ol’ memories duff piss.
Putting 98 or 95 in a car that is tuned for 91 is just a waste of money.
Google the topic, been asked many many times.
It’s not so much that is a waste of money it’s the fact it is a very ‘dirty’ fuel.We have the dirtiest fuels in the world.Also don’t forget your manufacture will state that 91 is a ‘minimum’.My handbook actually says 91 is a minimum, but, for more ‘spirited’ driving use 95Ron.Most Euro vehicles require 95 as a minimum these days.
Even when AU's fuel is dirty, never had a car get clogged injectors etc.
But if you're worried, you can buy your own additives, which works out to be cheaper.
And you don't even know how much additive they put in 98, buying your own you have more control.
https://www.repco.com.au/en/oils-fluids/additives/fuel-addit…
EDIT: Link & spelling
‘Dirty’ as it is low quality compared to the rest of the world.It is not a ‘clean’ fuel as such.
You may waste hundreds if not thousands of dollars for nothing, your friend is an id10t.
Use whatever is recommended by the manufacturer for the engine unless you retune the engine for the higher octane.
dunno about this - I've been filling up my old car with 98 as it seems to make it more zippy - more acceleration, more power up long highway hills, e.g. won't slow down the way it would on 91 octane
so I thought 98 provided more power (for more money) than 91 - am I wrong ?
some TV Current Affairs show once claimed that the higher octane actually enabled better fuel economy - and that somewhere in the middle was the best economy - e.g. if the 98 was no more than like 14c/litre more than the 91 or somesuch (probably a few years ago now)
all changed of course with the recent fuel excise kerfuffle - I paid $1.76 for 98 some weeks ago, then saw it had jumped to like $2.14 last week - a difference of nearly 40c/litre - WTF !?!?!?
am I wrong ?
Partially.
Mostly yes becuse: There is no more energy density in 98 than there is in 91, they are both the same when it comes down to joules/kg, so there is no “bigger bang” or “mOaR pOwEr” between the two. They come out of the same vat and basically just get more or less additives to increase the RON to the required levels.
Possibly not: it all depends on your vehicle. Turbo charged vehicle will always run better on higher RON fuels because of how they work (higher pressures, higher inlet temps, etc.). Higher RON fuels can also help in much older almost worn out and poorly maintained shitbox cars because of carbon deposits in the combustion chamber. 98 may help reducing “knocking” in these older shitboxes, thus the engine ECU doesn’t need to keep reducing power or timing to stop the knocking.
some TV Current Affairs show once claimed
And TV shows are stupid. They get 4 people to drive similar cars around a track and call that “science”. It’s not. There are still a lot of variables in place across these 4 cars, or across that one car driven 4 times. While there may be a difference in km travelled, it is usually far far less than the extra cost of the fuel.
A similar questions was asked here and I broke it down using math to show it is a waste of money, and this was based on another used “perceived” benefit and the facts still bit them on the arse.
just placebo mate. unless you're driving an RS3 around but it would still feel zippy on 91 despite the ECU trying its best to keep the engine from knocking.
Does your mate own a Servo?
I don't understand your friend's logic of using 98RON just for the first year. A slightly exaggerated comparison would be to say that you should use premium synthetic oil for your first few services, and then switch to Black & Gold full mineral oil for the rest of the car's life. It just doesn't make sense.
Everyone has their own opinion on fuel, as you would have gathered by this thread. But to throw my two bob in, my partner has a RAV4 Hybrid and is run nearly exclusively on 91. I never use E10. In 10 years time, I would highly doubt that there will be some issue with the car that could have been prevented by using 95 or 98.
Rav hybrid uses 91
Not going to matter if you use higher octane just kinda burning money and not going to clean the engine more or give you much greater efficiency benefits
At times it can give you less efficiency
phew
Phev
Mitsubishi
My mate told me to fill the car 98, at least for the first one year to make the machine's condition good long term
if you friend can't explain the reason / science behind this its as good as and statement from the internet….
Ant theory without proof is….
It's a rav4 not a performance turbo with high compression lol
But it has roof racks
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Sl5KqF4AM8 good old Cadogan to the rescue! even has all the info in description as well, no need to watch the video
he loves to fluff about for 8 minutes worth of rants before providing a titbit of legit info
26 min video full of piss taking on comments, talking like a retard, advertising flash lights, titty montages, ragging on MB, and then 2 mins of what the video is about and then back to more talking like a retard and banging on about nuts, king dick spanners and his chicken. "YoU'd HaVe To AgReE!!!"
The cars manual will state what the engine is designed to run on. Use that.
I'll be interested to see what these people will say when EV's become mainstream:
"Don't charge your car at those Metro charge stations, their electrons have impurities maaaan…"
Yes everyone says to use 91. It makes the most sense
However, another factor to consider is that in Australia the 91 Ron fuel has a higher sulphur content which is not great for the engine and can clog up exhaust filters aka catalytic converters over time.
95 and 98 have the same sulphur content, which is lower than the 91. So if you are concerned about this sort of thing, use 95 at the most.
https://www.carexpert.com.au/car-news/australias-dirty-fuel-…
Rubbish. We are talking about tiny fractions in the Part Per Million range. And you are reading the PPM as a minimum and not an "upto". We are talking about UPTO 50PPM for 98 and UPTO 150PPM for 91. And even if a batch of 91 was 3 times the PPM, it's still only 150:1,000,000 or about 0.0000015% sulphur vs 0.0000005% for 98.
So, the fuel could be relatively clean, but there is no way you can check this by using RON as a measure to how clean it is. You could have a very clean batch of 91 (let's say 28PPM) and a very dirty batch of 98 (let's say 43PPM) and you would never know until you sampled it and sent it to a lab to be tested.
And the rest of that about clogging up cats is absolute bullshit. There are literally millions on cars on Australia's roads and highways and you barely hear of people complaining of "clogged cats" from all this "high sulphur" content.
While I agree that Aussie fuels are dirty, there is bigger issues to burning sulphur than "clogging your cats"
Edit: And a neg? really, because you're wrong and I'm just pointing it out? Pretty childish.
Lol I didn't neg you. Grow up.
Cats clogging from sulphur over time and causing P0420 codes is very real. The hundreds I had to fix during my years as a mechanic kinda convinced me.
Plus, a quick google search before attacking people helps.
The post said "if you care about that sort of thing", you clearly don't so all the best to you.
Have a great day mate.
Ok, sure champ ;)
I have literally NEVER changed a cat in a car from being "clogged with sulphur" (and trust me, I have worked on A LOT of cars) and any P0420 code I have EVER had to fix has always been either the downstream O2 sensor or upstream sensor playing up (or on sloppy timing chain VE Commodores because of raw fuel in the exhaust.) I have been in the trade for close to 30 years and never replaced a cat for sulphur damage, let alone sulphur damage from running 91RON fuels. If it is such a big issues, why have I never seen a single one in close to 30 years? Luck?
And why the hell would I consult Google for something I already know? RON is not a measure of fuel "quality". It is also not a measure of the sulphur content of any particular batch. You cant determine the sulphur content of any fuel from a pump by reading the RON sticker on the pump.
And I care about fixing bullshit and misinformation. And quite frankly, I would expect an "experienced" mechanic to know these things. I guess that's why there is a gaping divide between filter monkeys and diagnostic technicians, and scientific articles and journalistic articles written for the clicks.
If you really truly wanted to get people to remove sulphur from their fuels and burn with a cleaner emission result with a higher "MoAr PoWeR" RON, you should be recommend running E85. But I guess your one of those "Ethanol is the boogyman" types? E85 is about 80%+ cleaner than petrol, is made of renewable sources, has a RON of 105 and Ethanol does a fantastic job of keeping internal engine parts cleaner with less carbon deposits.
So, suggesting 98 over 91 is bullshit, when what you should be promoting is E10 and E85 as cleaner fuels due to it containing ethanol.
@pegaxs: Dude, you're undermining the very lucrative "Do you put 91 in this like it says on the fuel cap? Oh, you do? Too bad, the something something catalytic thingamajigga something is def clogged. Yeah, it's really bad. That'll be an extra $900. No you can't tell just from driving it, trust me, I'm your local mechanic, you would've got two blocks down the road and the whole car would've exploded don't you love your kids anyways like I was saying an extra $900" industry
@GrueHunter: Oh shit! Got a whole ream of shit I can now blame on 91… 30 years of missed opportunity.
"Yeah, cause you used 91, that caused sulphur buildup on the tappets and cam shaft and that in turn left the valves open longer. This causes the car to have too much horsepower because more air in and more exhaust out and in turn, this extra horsepower and lack of engine braking has caused the front brakes to wear out in only 3,000km… Now, have you got time to talk about our lord and savior RON98…"
@pegaxs: There used to be an advert for expensive repairs on faulty washing machines attributed to "Suds Clog". But if you used brand X of washing powder…..
My 2005 year Camry ran for 200,000+ km on E10 without problems.
A twin turbo V6 is recomended to be able to ruin on E10.
Surely, it would not state this in the owners manual -especially as it has a 7 year warranty?
98 RON Fuel is best for sports car only with high compression engine. Most cars will be best with 95 RON fuel but no one will stop you buying more expensive fuel.
You can read this article https://www.carexpert.com.au/car-news/premium-unleaded-whats…
I only buy 98 RON fuel at Costco because they don't sell 95.
98RON is best for engines designed to run on it. Not all ‘sports cars’ require it. Not all cars requiring it are sports cars.
Buying 98 at Costco instead of 95 only makes sense if your car required a minimum of 95. If it’ll run on 91 you are wasting your $
Agree!
Nope there is no point for the longevity. You can however do a trial yourself and see if different type of fuel gives you better mileage based on your driving style, habbits, etc and save some $ :-)
Lol great marketing by fuel companies
Fill it with e10 and move on. Ull sell it b4 it might be an issue, even thou these cars are designed for this kind of fuel
Also ur mate is a fool, probs drinks VB and yells at the tv as well
Complete and utter total waste of money. It is yet to be demonstrated by any research that a car designed to run on 91 RON will be any better in the short or long term by wasting your money on 95 or 98 RON. It's simply nonsense.
Check with any RAC around Australia and they will confirm this and tell you to run it on 91.
And anyone who tells you that they’ve put 98 in forever and their car lasted longer than XXx is also talking out their butt. The people that do this sort of thing tend to be anal about servicing and maintaining cars too which skews the longevity figures against the crowd that slap inwhatever is cheap, skip services and flog the pants off the car as soon as it starts.
is also talking out their butt.
Pretty much everyone here, with no idea
lol
Hahaha. Such a waste of money. Absolutely 100% not a thing. "Friend" is not a car expert.
Your engine is not tuned for the benefits of 98, it's for Ferrari and the like.
Also I'm not sure you have access to "at least 98".
Use whatever is specified in your car's instruction manual. If it says 91 is fine, use 91. If it requires 95, use that. Don't pay extra for a 'cleaner' or 'higher' grade of fuel than your car can use. You're not giving it a 'treat', and if there are any warranty repairs, Toyota won't know nor care what fuel you used.
I remember a gas station selling 100 RON….. dont even know if there's any perks to this.
Was it near a race track? Modified cars specifically tuned to run that fuel will benefit from it. I owned a heavily modified turbo that had a custom tune programmed into its fully customised ECU via the use of a dyno. If a car is tuned to specifically use 100 RON in that fashion, there are definite performance increases. "On the fly" reprogramming of consumer vehicles that'll remap their own ECU to use that fuel? I call BS on that.
Go and read your manual. Not what your mate said
There are several 'corridor' servos that have a combined tank between 95 and 98. The difference is the sticker and the colour of the nozzle handle.
This is to reduces the complexity of their dangerous goods suplply chain. i.e. no real benefit to pay the extra for 98 octane. Not all servos, just the smaller ones and more prelevant within the Caltex now the 'ampol' network.
I personally find that 95 gives better value with mileage over 91 and e10.
another story that never happened
which one
Let me know which servos have combined 95 and 98
My mate told me…
E10 is OB OG, perfectly fine. Just embrace reality and avoid the myths, the legends… the upsell.
@pegaxs: How can this be true?
“Increased fuel consumption” and “loss of performance”
I have a 2012 turbo, my mechanic told me use only 98, previously I was only using 91 because who pays more for nothing ey. After changing to 98 for the last year and a bit I get more mileage, and not a small amount usually an extra 2 days of driving (I use to fill up weekly on 91 now on 98 I can get almost 9 to 10 days before going to a servo)
And I certainly feel like the car is more responsive on 98 then 91, when I jump on a freeway and put my foot down I feel like with 98 I feel it take off much better then 91. Maybe car is revving higher?
Car recommends 91 - am I just waisting money putting 98 in and my mechanic knows nothing? P.S from what I know my mechanic does not own a servo or have shares in a servo so can’t see why he would be lying?