Ron 95 [Pteronas] - I don't quite see the difference...
In November last year (~2-months ago), I blogged about the fuel consumption of Ron-97 [at the time, I filled my tank with Shell] during my travel from Bandar Baru Bangi to Penang. You can find the post here, insyaAllaah. Yesterday, I used Ron-95 [Petronas], which some claim to have less fuel economy compared to it's 97 counterpart. So, I zero-ed my odometer [that's what they call it rite?] and started the mileage test.
This time however, I thought it was gonna be a bit biased, because after refueling (until full tank), I ran some errands first. I drove my car thru city traffic, and made a few 'pit stops'. So, I reckon that some of the fuel had already been burned between stops, especially during low-gear driving. Tapi takpa lah, I can re-adjust and probably normalize the results accordingly. At around 12-noon, I pushed off from Kajang (again, thru quite busy traffic) to Penang. During the Ron-97 test, on average, I was doing 90-100 km/h, which is quite slow. This time around, my speed was constantly between 115-120 km/h, which logically should burn up fuel faster. Furthermore, it was during the mid of day... jadi I think the heat also effects the way the car burns fuel [lagi cepat kot? tapi takpe, i don't think it will effect that much]
Anywayz... I snapped a picture of my meters after doing ~323-kilometers. From what I see, there doesn't seem to be that much difference between Ron-95 and 97. As a matter of fact, it seems like the former shows better fuel economy compared to the latter. Although in the Ron-97 test, I took the pictures at ~368.5-kilometers, I don't think 40-plus kms will pull the gauge down to the same point...
So, based on this informal and uncontrolled test... I hereby declare... that... it seems... seems saja la... there is not much difference in fuel economy between Ron-95 and Ron-97. However, even after the 95 fuel went through city driving, it still manages to show almost similar (or even better) fuel consumption compared to Ron-97. Sekian, terima kasih :D
PS:- These tests should never be quoted in any academic journal or even in a court of law. The experimenter is merely a man who clearly has nothing better to do :)
PPS:- This test does not talk about the fuel's efficiency during the burning process. Yes, I do agree that Ron-95 might be 'dirtier' compared to Ron-97 :D
This time however, I thought it was gonna be a bit biased, because after refueling (until full tank), I ran some errands first. I drove my car thru city traffic, and made a few 'pit stops'. So, I reckon that some of the fuel had already been burned between stops, especially during low-gear driving. Tapi takpa lah, I can re-adjust and probably normalize the results accordingly. At around 12-noon, I pushed off from Kajang (again, thru quite busy traffic) to Penang. During the Ron-97 test, on average, I was doing 90-100 km/h, which is quite slow. This time around, my speed was constantly between 115-120 km/h, which logically should burn up fuel faster. Furthermore, it was during the mid of day... jadi I think the heat also effects the way the car burns fuel [lagi cepat kot? tapi takpe, i don't think it will effect that much]
Picture taken while driving at ~120-km/h [Yes, i know this is a stupid and dangerous thing to do. Alhamdulillaah
I am still alive!!!]. Odometer reading is at 322.9 kilometers.
Anywayz... I snapped a picture of my meters after doing ~323-kilometers. From what I see, there doesn't seem to be that much difference between Ron-95 and 97. As a matter of fact, it seems like the former shows better fuel economy compared to the latter. Although in the Ron-97 test, I took the pictures at ~368.5-kilometers, I don't think 40-plus kms will pull the gauge down to the same point...
So, based on this informal and uncontrolled test... I hereby declare... that... it seems... seems saja la... there is not much difference in fuel economy between Ron-95 and Ron-97. However, even after the 95 fuel went through city driving, it still manages to show almost similar (or even better) fuel consumption compared to Ron-97. Sekian, terima kasih :D
PS:- These tests should never be quoted in any academic journal or even in a court of law. The experimenter is merely a man who clearly has nothing better to do :)
PPS:- This test does not talk about the fuel's efficiency during the burning process. Yes, I do agree that Ron-95 might be 'dirtier' compared to Ron-97 :D
7 comments:
Biasanya keter hebat2 je yg bising pasal terpaksa guna ron95 tu :D
kalau based on keter aku mmg agak save gak la ron95 ni coz aku isi RM73 je leh pakai sampai 400km. Lbh kurang macam zaman aku pakai ron97 dulu2 time harga dia sama macam tu.
Keter aku isik full tank dalam less than RM85. kalau highway leh gi sampai 550-600 km insyaAllaah :D
jadik keter aku masuk dalam kategori bukan keter hebat. hahahahaha! which is good, pasal takyah pening ron mana nak pakai.
tapi walau apa pon, hampeh tol ini harga minyak asyik naik... ini lah dia konsep rakyat didahulukan---rakyat dulu yg rasa kenaikan2 harga :P
sama la tu mileage keter aku kalau kat hiway.
aritu masa aku balik dari utara aku terjumpa keter ferrari terpaksa pakai ron95..kelat je muka mamat tu isi minyak :D
bole ke dia pakai 95.... :[ tak ghusak enjin ka? kasiaaaan.....
Errr kete aku kete tak hebat, sekadar 1.3 je engine nya. Tapi kalu guna Ron95 ianya akan jerking esp bila nak accelerate. Kalau hujan lebat lagi la jerking cam nk mati engine. Car temperature pon drop. Bagaimana ianya bisa berlaku? So, skrg aku alternate 97 and 95. Huhuhuhu.
yaya, kalau alternate tu, dia dah tak jerking kah? yang aku tau mmg Ron97 clean sket... dan kalau keter kau keter dari eropah, maybe dia kurang serasi ngan 95... so kena la kau gunakan ron97 itew...
ini hanya pendapat seorang yg tak pandai sangat pasal minyak2 keter ni :P
itu maknanya keter cik yaya hebat..cuma mau minyak orang kaya2 saja :D
Post a Comment