Jump to content
SAU Community

Which RON  

35 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

Hello All,

So there has been much debate and articles recently about how beneficial is 95 & 98 RON fuel in cars. . which got me thinking what is teh standard RON for the M35 Stag. . .many sources say 95 is good enough for non modified M35's, others say for ones with ECu's etc 98 as minimum. .

So I would be interested in your thoughts. . .

95 or 98+ RON

Jules

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/293995-m35-vq25det-95-or-98-ron/
Share on other sites

My C34 Stagea see's 98 Ron minimum if im low on juice and have to fill up at a Caltex or something... Apart from that 100 Ron is the way to go.. remember these cars a factory tuned in Japan on 100 Ron :(

it goes something like this:

* you CAN run them on 91RON (the engine has knock sensors so will retard the timing accordingly), but you probably shouldn't. If you're trying to save $10 per week on fuel you probably bought the wrong car...

actually you wont save this much because your fuel economy/mileage will suffer as well...not to mention the longevity of the engine (there is a reason why 91RON is not called 'premium').

using 91RON fuel you will not get the best from the car. you will only get the worst from it...

* the M35 will happily run on 95RON, but again, for the tiny price difference between this and 98, and the noticeable performance/economy difference... why would you own a stagea and then cheap out on fuel?

* 98 RON is probably the best fuel for the stagea (i've never tried the ethanol blends in mine). Its what its designed for and you'll get excellent results from it. If you want the car to last the distance, give it what it wants. It'll reward you for it :D

Jules, I've merged the two threads together so all the replies are on here.

Cheers, I started the other one when my unit lost power so did it again and found they both made it on the site. . many thanks.

98 is the way to go.

I'm a bit suspicious of anything with Ethanol in it.

Ethanol is hydrophilic (absorbs water easily) which means there is a good chance it will be taking some water into your engine unless its kept in pristine conditions.

Most local petrol stations don't exactly have pristine tankage, so draw your own conclusions :D

Its only a minor thing, but is it worth the 3 cents or 2 RON?

Water through the engine wont harm it, but if there's a lot in the fuel, it may make it run lean guess.

E85 is much better for turbo applications than any grade unleaded due to its cool burn properties and high octane, you just have to tune the engine for it as you need about 50% more fuel. Ideally you would want two maps though.

I run Shell or BP 98 in mine as its the best fuel I can get nearby. Has anybody tried the ethanol 100 octane that Liberty are selling?

Water through the engine wont harm it, but if there's a lot in the fuel, it may make it run lean guess.

E85 is much better for turbo applications than any grade unleaded due to its cool burn properties and high octane, you just have to tune the engine for it as you need about 50% more fuel. Ideally you would want two maps though.

I run Shell or BP 98 in mine as its the best fuel I can get nearby. Has anybody tried the ethanol 100 octane that Liberty are selling?

Umm, water in the engine WILL harm it if it's in liquid form and there is enough of it - water (in liquid form, once again), CANNOT be compressed, so it can cause major issues with pistons, conrods and valves. Want proof, ask Aron (aka R34Liner) and check out what it did to his rods: http://www.skylinesaustralia.com/forums/in...t&p=4509274. I'm sure Scotty knows this, but I just wanted to make sure that no-one else gets the wrong impression of the effects water can have if used in the incorrect amounts.

Of course, water in gaseous form is a lot different, it's the density of cold air that helps us with our turbo'd cars to get better performance - more water in the air means more parts of oxygen. Some people use water injection for just this effect, but it's a matter of balance (and a lot of atomisation) to make sure you're not using too much.

You're quite right Nick - water doesn't compress, but neither does gasoline!

(liquids don't compress)

A 'little' water in the mixture is a fantastic anti-detonant and carbon-removing agent (steam cleaning the combustion chamber is an excellent thing). You can run mixtures around 13.5:1 at high boost levels if you can control the fire with water. :down:

The main reason that we run rich AFR's under boost isn't for the power, it's to control the combustion speed and keep the engine in one piece.

Having said that, I'm not paying for water when I fill up, I'm paying for combustible hydrocarbons - and ones of a defined standard.

I've used a couple of tanks of SAFF PULP with a little 'E' (can't remember the blend), and there was a difference in the drive-ability of the car (something felt 'nicer', but I can't remember the specifics - it was a long time ago).

In summary;

98 preferred, 95/96 if you must.

91 if you just don't care...

even my NA pulsar gets a LOT better mileage and much smoother running out of 98. Dunno why you would bother with anything alse really.

If you do the sums with mileage vs cost per litre the 98 comes out trumps too (well, it did for me)

At full noise you could probably run a garden hose down the inlet, not that I would recommend it. Just a fine mist under boost would work wonders though.

Brings back memorys of my ex cleaning the inside of her carby with a hose then trying to start the car.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • What ECU is on your car @silviaz? You can just change the idle target table yourself and the IACV duty cycle. Noting that if you play around with the screw you'll also need to revisit the idle base duty table as you will end up offsetting the lot. Another reason why DBW is superior, there's less mucking about.
    • Yep. Saw that on the image above but, wonder if it makes more sense to clean out the iacv because let's say in theory mine is dirty and if I clean it the rpm will drop. If I first go to my tuner to drop the rpm and then go to clean my iacv won't it drop further or is the rpm a fixed number?
    • Yeah it was a good result, and confirming the car is full of fluids and all interior etc in, other than fuel. I think a few pages back (maybe many pages!) he mentioned some serious lightening in the doors with the chassis punch, might have been done elsewhere I hadn't seen yet too
    • He still had the suspension dialled in for him! I would have sworn the lowest weight he ever got to was 1300kg though Maybe Neil had been drilling a LOT of holes somewhere you haven't found yet... 😛 Or has he also drained all the gearbox and diff oil out too, between it, and a tank full of fuel there's about 65kg to 70kg to add back in I'd guess. 😛
    • Yeah this isn't a super complex shape, but I was still happy to buy instead of fab version 1; very little in a modern can is a flat surface, and that is true here again - the undertray has about 50mm in height differences that I would have had to work out myself. I will probably make something more substantial before it does any rally, I don't think 1mm steel is too much use as a bash plate. There is also cooling to think about, Z1 have done a bit of development and have some air holes and louvers in the shape, will see how that works out too
×
×
  • Create New...