Skip navigation

carsguide.com.au

Fuel substitution futile

  • By Kevin Hepworth
  • The Daily Telegraph
  • image

    Contrary to widely-held belief, the Research Octane Number (RON) of a fuel is not an indication of greater performance potential.

Putting a higher octane fuel in your car won?t boost performance unless it?s designed for it.

And Australian motorists are wasting millions of dollars a year pumping high performance fuels into cars which gain no benefit from the high-profile, high-priced products.

“The oil companies have for years encouraged the view that there is performance benefit in using a higher octane fuel because they sell the premium fuel as a premium product at a premium price,” warns NRMA vehicle specialist Jack Haley.

“Run a Commodore or Falcon or any car designed to run on 91 RON fuel on anything higher and you are just wasting money on octane. There is no advantage of power output simply by putting a higher octane fuel in unless the vehicle is designed to take advantage of it.”

Contrary to widely-held belief, the Research Octane Number (RON) of a fuel is not an indication of power density and does not indicate greater performance potential says Haley.

“It is to do with the chemical makeup of the fuel,” Haley explains. “There are over 100 different hydrocarbons in petrol and by changing the proportion of those different components (during refining) you can change the RON. That has nothing to do with power output, it is entirely the resistance of the fuel to knocking (rough engine running or pinging).

“Most of the vehicles coming out of Europe are designed for 95 RON because that is what they settled on as their standard octane. Some of those will run on 91 RON with some loss of power, but some won't and those engines will `ping'. If you keep putting too low an octane fuel in those cars for a long time then it can lead to long-term engine damage.

“The rule of thumb is one per cent per octane number, so if you go from 98 to 95 in a vehicle designed to run on 98 RON you will lose about 3 per cent of your power output or increase your fuel consumption by 3 per cent. However, if you use 98 RON fuel in a car designed to run on 95 there will be no benefit in power output or fuel efficiency.”

The growing availability of E10 fuel (a 10 per cent ethanol blend with basic unleaded fuel) is adding to the confusion and threatening the warranties of many who regularly us the cheaper fuel in high-end engines.

"Ethanol just adds another level of complexity to the issue," Haley says. "The E10 fuels do have a higher octane rating but it is generally around 93 or 94 which is perfectly suitable for most cars that run on regular unleaded but still not high enough for most European engines.”

The biggest danger is that the majority of those cars requiring the higher octane premium fuels carry a claim to be ‘E10 compatible’ or ‘E10 Suitable’, a claim supported by the fuel companies using a list of ‘compatible’ models issued by the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries, the car industry's peak manufacturer body.

The compatibility claim for those cars requiring 95 or 98 RON fuel appears to be based on the fact that the engines will indeed run on E10 fuel but not to an optimum level and not without risk of damage which may not be covered by warranty. "The engines in our cars are E10 compatible in that they will run on the fuel but we do not recommend it," VW's Karl Gheling says. "The owners handbook recommends minimum 95 RON fuel and that is what the warranty is based on. "The E10 fuel currently available in Australia is not of a RON number recommended for our engines, but that is not to say a premium blend E10 will not be available in the future."

Mercedes-Benz spokesman David McCarthy says the E10 compatibility for engines rated at 95 and 98 RON should be regarded in the same light as a space-saver spare tyre.

"It will get you out of a hole in an emergency situation but you can not run them long-term. Certainly the cars will run on it to get you to the next fuel station but it shouldn't be used on a regular basis."

Comments on this story

Displaying 3 of 18 comments

  • I have a subaru forester 2005 non turbo. If i use 91 octane fuel it constantly pings especially when cruising. But if i use 98 octane fuel, no pinging at all and low to mid range rpm is smoother. I also run our v6 camry on the 98 octane and that also feels smoother and a little stronger at low to mid rpms. Compared to fuel quality over seas, ours in Australia sucks and yet we always get charged to dollars. WHY!!!!!!!!

    Sam from Lysterfield of Melbourne Posted on 02 July 2011 4:00pm
  • I can?t get my car over 3000RPM on 91RON or it pings it a#se off (10PSI in a V6). Yet for some reason people still will not listen to reason try and tell me it?s a "placebo effect" and that fuel is fuel just because their Magna runs fine on it.

    Micky the V of Melb Posted on 10 June 2011 9:47am
  • I am not a mechanic but I have to agree with The Educated One, I definitely get more milage from higher octane fuel even though I am driving a lowly 1998 Pulsar and it also seems to drive better and feels a lot smoother at idle. In comparison the E10 fuel seems to evaporate in the tank and is a waste of money!

    Pulsar Man of Sydney Posted on 07 May 2011 6:38pm
  • Seriously judging performance by the seat of your pants is a waste in time. Also remember a knock sensor is designed to detect knock and retard timing, not to detect no knock and advance. The computer will advance timing until it detects knock. Many performance car owners disable knock sensors at later stages of performance tuning due to false readings, to allow them to run high octane fuel with more advance, etc.

    Shaddow Posted on 05 May 2011 5:20pm
  • I agree my BA wagon feels more responsive on Vortex 98, I would say 5 TO 10% better acceleration and 15% part throttle while in 3rd pulling as hard as a V8.

    BRAD of PERTH Posted on 10 October 2010 7:50pm
  • Seriously, this review was a load of rubbish. I am a mechanic and have been for a large number of years, Yes the octane rating is a measurement designed to reduce pinging or pre ignition just before TDC. BUT, one thing they forgot to mention is now that ALL cars have on board computers that actually measure the amount of fuel going into the cylinder, the amount of knock within certain limits that go on in the cylinder while under ignition, and the amount of power being produced from the cylinder once the fuel is burned. FACT! Higher octane fuel burns SLOWER in the cylinder and therefore IMPROVES FUEL EFFICIENCY! FACT! A smaller amount of premium fuel will create the same amount of power than a regular amount of inferior fuel. WHY? Because when the premium fuel is injected into the motor, the computer detects that the fuel is igniting and burning at a much later and longer rate, the knock sensor sends a signal back to the computer telling the motor to advance the timing per stroke resulting in a later ignition time, the fuel ignites and burns slower than regular fuel thus again improving fuel EFFICIENCY and a subtle increase in engine POWER, while cleaning your MOTOR also!

    The Educated One of Sydney Posted on 23 July 2010 4:07am
  • BA XT 4.0L makes close to 196kW on RON98 and over 400Nm, something that was never mentioned in car magazines, in the cars manual book or on TV or by Ford at all to the public.

    Robert Ford of Perth Posted on 12 December 2009 3:26pm
  • BA XT 4.0L makes close to 196kW on RON98 and over 400Nm, something that was never mentioned in car magazines, in the cars manual book or on TV or by Ford at all to the public.

    Robert Ford of Perth Posted on 12 December 2009 3:22pm
  • We bought our FG XR6 Falcon new in Sept, and found that running it on E10 actually reduced performance and economy, although it states on the filler cover that the car is E10 compatible. The base XR6 model is just a sports version of the base XT model, with better handling and suspension, and some extra trim features - the engine and running gear are the same. For the extra 4c/L I have been filling up with regular ULP. Smoother running, cost benefit, engine life; all improved. This makes it worth the cost, a mere $2.40 for 60L (just to keep it in perspective). Rembember the old adage: "It's cheap for a reason..."

    Sean Norgren of Diggers Rest Posted on 13 November 2009 12:59pm
  • Gotta agree with you there Bryant. My VZ Calais has a quite tangible power and economy increase using 95 or 98 over 91. Mid range power is the same but 1-3k rpm and 5.5-7k rpm it has a heck of a lot more go. The maths go against this as higher octane is only supposed to benefit high compression engines. But I have experienced tangible benefits contrary to this. I'd like to see dyno and economy run results comparing the different octane fuels in a new commodore or falcon. Because I've been fed this line too often with no evidence to back it up.

    kato of Canberra Posted on 04 November 2009 12:22pm
  • “Run a Commodore or Falcon or any car designed to run on 91 RON fuel on anything higher and you are just wasting money on octane. There is no advantage of power output simply by putting a higher octane fuel in unless the vehicle is designed to take advantage of it.” BS on putting higher RON fuel into a falcon or commodore will not achieve more power or better fuel economy. I own a BF Falcon XR6 and I run 98 RON fuel in it, resulting in more KM per tank then running normal 91 RON fuel. In older cars there won't be much difference as they dont have the knock sensors or ECU setup but to say there is no benefit in later model Falcons and Commodores is very uninformed.

    Bryant Morris Posted on 03 November 2009 5:20pm
  • hang on, but what about improved fuel economy? Doesn't premium fuel mean less fuel consumed and isn't it better for the engine etc.?

    chris s of perth Posted on 17 October 2009 5:07pm
  • I had a v6 3.4 litre toyota prado and it towed better on 98 octain unleaded petrol and with a compression ratio 10 to 1 and i found it felt gutless on 91 octain unleaded petrol and it was a 5 speed manaul and when i went to fraser island on a number of times and driving in soft sand it went better in a higher gear on 98 octain and japanese cars i would use 95 or 98 octain fuel because they have higher compression engines and i have used 98 octain on a 5 horsepower briggs and strattion side valve lawnmower engine and it cut the thick grass alot better then on 91 octain and i have used 98 octain on a 115 4 stroke mercury outboard motor and you can tell the diffrence very much around the 3000 to 5500 rpm and it was a double over head cam 16 valves a great motor and it was a efi motor. the prado didn't have a disstribitor on the motor and it got automatic spark plug timing so it had no problem running on it and most petrol cars have automatic spark plug timing on the motor but i wouldn't use e10 on outboard motors with a plastic fuel tanks but i would check with a outboard motor machanic if the motor can use e10 unleaded fuel but i have not tryed e10 on 2 stroke motors.

    Sean Posted on 15 October 2009 11:24pm
  • Newer cars, however, can benefit from running 95 or 98 RON fuel. For example, the current model FG Falcon has dual knock sensors and individual spark timing which means that a higher octane fuel WILL gove better performance. Also, higher octane resulting in higher performance is not the only advantage of premium unleaded. The detergent that is contained in premuim unleaded such as Caltex's Vortex and BP Ultimate can also keep car engines cleaner with prolonged use. A cleaner engine will mean increased efficiency. Another point to consider is the cleaner nature of premuim unleaded petrol itself. 98RON petrol is less polluting to the environment than 'dirtier' regular unleaded as it has lower levels of benzene and significantly lower levels of sulfur.

    Jeremy R Posted on 14 October 2009 2:01pm
  • I just got back from Malaysia where they just increased the minimum octane value from 91 to 95 octane as their way of reducing carbon emission. I'm not sure if this is because higher octane burns cleaner or because uses less petrol. I hope it's because it burns cleaner, because your storey rules out better consumption.

    Italo of Melbourne Posted on 14 October 2009 7:16am
  • a lot of cars may not leave the factory 'designed' to run on higher than 91RON but new cars do have knock sensing ignition systems and a 'learning' ecu. they may not give a noticeable increase most premium fuels are better for your engine if you can afford the few extra $$. modern cars can also have their ecu's 'edited' to take advantage of these higher RON fuels. car makers are also quoting different power outputs depending on the fuel used. are they lying?? obviously they are designed to run on a range of octane levels.

    Rob of Adelaide Posted on 13 October 2009 10:46am
  • while it is true that there is no performance gain in using higher octane fuel for cars not requiring it but as the article mentioned, higher octane fuel are sold as premium products. RON98 fuels like v-power, ultimate, vortex gold have other added "goodies" such as cleaning agents.

    Mr Boleh Posted on 12 October 2009 8:08pm
  • Fair enough. The other thing is that most of these high octane fuel also claim to have advanced cleaning properties, which, as I understand it, is a good thing in fuel injected engines. How much value is there in the occasional couple of tanks of this fuel from the cleaning point of view?

    Jim of Melbourne Posted on 10 October 2009 9:49am
Read all 18 comments

Add your comment on this story

Indicates required

We welcome your comments on this story. Comments are submitted for possible publication on the condition that they may be edited. Please provide your full name. We also require a working email address - not for publication, but for verification. The location field is optional.

Cars for sale

Sponsored Links