How much fuel does your car drink?

[cend0l]

That is because the newer v6 and v8 models run on 4 cyls in city driving (driving slow) and full cyls in motorways (driving fast)

[MR_LATE]

yeah bp ultimate is the best i hate to say it but yeah..

[Tehnicar1]

I hate to say it, but i tried Vortex98 and found it had exactly the same performance as V-power. I am yet to try the BP Ultimate, though.

[buddah51au]

Not sure that's entirely correct, Hunter. After quite extensive testing (over 3 months period) I found my car used 7.5 l/100 km of VPower vs 7.4 L of Shell 95. Not sure why, but in both cases displayed consumption was 0.4 l lower than the real one, which is a bit annoying.

I agree with that comment although it is 12 months since my last highway test. The results were:-
BP 95 - 983kms / 64.06Lts = 6.52L/100
Vortex 98 - 1002kms / 66.05Lts = 6.6L/100
Same roads / same driving conditions, the only variable being wind direction & rain.

Now for the last 12 months where the car has been a garage queen with very little use, no trip over 7 kms so stop start driving with cold engine, car driven in the same manner & mostly on the same roads.

From 23/12/2011 to 1/6/12 using BP 98 - 664kms / 58.1Lts = 8.75L/100
From 1/6/12 to 29/10/12 using BP 95 - 790kms / 59.97Lts = 7.6L/100

For me the extra expense of 98 over 95 does not make sense, but each to their own.

[HunterZero]

Unless you run the economy tests on exactly the same route, at exactly the same ambient air temperature, with exactly the same stops/starts, exactly the same driving style, air con on/off, windows up and reset the ECU when draining the tank and changing fuel, those numbers are really too close to draw much conclusion from - except for buddah's result where he used almost a litre more of 98 compared to 95, but he only used 98 over a period that included summer months, whereas the 95 fuel usage was over winter months and the first two cooler months of spring. The gap is wide enough to suggest another factor contributed to the difference other than the fuel used, such as air con use, or engine run-in period.

The main benefit of 98RON is the lesser chance of the engine retarding ignition due to pinging, but if you're driving gently, you're not going to get much benefit from that. You might get more benefit from 98 if you give it a bit of grunt off the line to get to cruising speed faster.

But definitely agree, as I said before, on a cost per km basis, 98 isn't worth it. The benefit of using 98RON is the engine cleaning properties of the additives, and lower chance of detonation. I could very well be wrong about the energy density - the additives added to boost the octane to 98 may actually even reduce the energy density a little. But even if the energy densities are the same, the lower chance of detonation for 98 should mean it burns more completely eg if the engine is under load or accelerating from low RPM, and should give a slight improvement in economy.

But I did see an RACV test where the economy improvement over standard 91 was 2% for 95, and 2.5% for 98. Test cars were a Ford Falcon and a Fiesta.

- HZ

[buddah51au]

Unless you run the economy tests on exactly the same route, at exactly the same ambient air temperature, with exactly the same stops/starts, exactly the same driving style, air con on/off, windows up and reset the ECU when draining the tank and changing fuel, those numbers are really too close to draw much conclusion from - except for buddah's result where he used almost a litre more of 98 compared to 95, but he only used 98 over a period that included summer months, whereas the 95 fuel usage was over winter months and the first two cooler months of spring. The gap is wide enough to suggest another factor contributed to the difference other than the fuel used, such as air con use, or engine run-in period.

The main benefit of 98RON is the lesser chance of the engine retarding ignition due to pinging, but if you're driving gently, you're not going to get much benefit from that. You might get more benefit from 98 if you give it a bit of grunt off the line to get to cruising speed faster.

But definitely agree, as I said before, on a cost per km basis, 98 isn't worth it. The benefit of using 98RON is the engine cleaning properties of the additives, and lower chance of detonation. I could very well be wrong about the energy density - the additives added to boost the octane to 98 may actually even reduce the energy density a little. But even if the energy densities are the same, the lower chance of detonation for 98 should mean it burns more completely eg if the engine is under load or accelerating from low RPM, and should give a slight improvement in economy.

But I did see an RACV test where the economy improvement over standard 91 was 2% for 95, and 2.5% for 98. Test cars were a Ford Falcon and a Fiesta.

- HZ

I totally agree with what you say about the last 2 tanks taken over a long period, however the 2 figures stated first were back to back over a 2 week period in December, so Air Con was in use. I could have easily achieved 1000kms a tank on both occasions if a petrol station was located in the right place, obviously that is the problem when finding the distance you can go on 1 tank.

[MR_LATE]

pour all the vortex95!!

[cend0l]

Unless you run the economy tests on exactly the same route, at exactly the same ambient air temperature, with exactly the same stops/starts, exactly the same driving style, air con on/off, windows up and reset the ECU when draining the tank and changing fuel, those numbers are really too close to draw much conclusion from - except for buddah's result where he used almost a litre more of 98 compared to 95, but he only used 98 over a period that included summer months, whereas the 95 fuel usage was over winter months and the first two cooler months of spring. The gap is wide enough to suggest another factor contributed to the difference other than the fuel used, such as air con use, or engine run-in period.

The main benefit of 98RON is the lesser chance of the engine retarding ignition due to pinging, but if you're driving gently, you're not going to get much benefit from that. You might get more benefit from 98 if you give it a bit of grunt off the line to get to cruising speed faster.

But definitely agree, as I said before, on a cost per km basis, 98 isn't worth it. The benefit of using 98RON is the engine cleaning properties of the additives, and lower chance of detonation. I could very well be wrong about the energy density - the additives added to boost the octane to 98 may actually even reduce the energy density a little. But even if the energy densities are the same, the lower chance of detonation for 98 should mean it burns more completely eg if the engine is under load or accelerating from low RPM, and should give a slight improvement in economy.

But I did see an RACV test where the economy improvement over standard 91 was 2% for 95, and 2.5% for 98. Test cars were a Ford Falcon and a Fiesta.

- HZ

On average, its about $4 difference for a full tank of RON 95 and RON 98. You dont save much with RON 95. Anyway been using mostly vortex 98 since caltex dont charge a surcharge for using Amex. BP does

[kjs]

It does appear the CU2 has a significant economy advantage over the earlier CL9 Euros ...due to the different vtec design . In anycase i avg about 8.4l/100 in normal Sydney daily driving and usually 6.7-7.1 on highway/long trips ..very impressed with the car . Use 98 ron normally BP,might try 95 to see if it makes any difference . Vortex 98 seemed to give a slightly smoother idle i think.

[Fredoops]

due to the different vtec design

Not really, the key things are friction reduction and electronic steering (instead of hydro pump in the CL9) they're what made the difference.


You'd make more power outta a K24 in the CL9.

[pintara91]

perth city driving. 8.9 - 9.1 L/100km on vortex 98.

[dougie_504]

6.5L/100 90% rural.
7.5L/100 100% urban.

Very happy