Below Nav Bar Ad Module

Collapse

E10/(ULP 91) vs 95/96 vs 98

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Coopspop
    Junior Member
    • May 2012
    • 27
    • Ipswich, Qld

    #16
    I have an 89 NG manual. I found using 91 she used a lot of fuel and suffered slight power loss as compared to 95. 98 made no difference. The old girl carries large drawer unit in back, second battery, homemade steel roof rack, bullbar and winch. When i went from 29's to 31's it suffered a bit more but nothing extreme. I am a (according to wife), a leadfoot. I get around 17 to the 100 mixed town / highway km's.

    Comment

    • DaveH
      Valued Member
      • Dec 2010
      • 460
      • sydney

      #17
      There is a lot of info elsewhere on this forum about the damage that e10 can do to motors that are not designed for it. the older the PJ's I assume do not say in the manual that e10 can be use, so don't. Basically it is the alcohol that rots rubber components and because the alcohol can absorb water the metal parts can rust from the inside. You won't find out about it till it is too late.
      2010 NT DiD Platinum, MM tow bar, Red Arc electric brake controller, ARB Delux bullbar, Ultimate HD suspension and shocks, Engineers cert for GVM upgrade, Airtech snorkle, Cooper ST Maxx, 2nd Battery+ extra sockets, catch can, intercooler/ sump/ transmission guard, scan guage II, Hid driving lights, Ironman awning, daytime driving lights + other little bits

      Comment

      • AbhiC
        Junior Member
        • Nov 2013
        • 22
        • Sydney

        #18
        Hi All,

        Just an update...I have been using 95 for last two fills and it is 14.70L/100 Km compared to 91 (18.30L/100 Km). Do you think thats significant difference? I also did my 100K service. Not sure if that helped a bit..

        I would gie a try to 98 for next few fills to see if that makes any significant difference.
        Pajero 2002 GLS NM (Auto - Petrol)

        Comment

        • abw
          Senior Member
          • Aug 2013
          • 345
          • Sydney

          #19
          I honestly can't tell the difference between 91 (E10) and 98 octane, except for the 20c per litre price difference.

          Pajero 3.8 NS
          was Pajero NS 2008

          now GU Patrol

          Comment

          • ChrisS
            Junior Member
            • May 2008
            • 44
            • Eastern Suburbs - Melbourne

            #20
            For what it's worth, I use 98 Ron Shell or Mobil almost exclusively. The main reason being I find I get a better response from the engine, better economy when on the freeway and especially when towing (1800kg 1990 Evernew Caravan). Recetly went to Lakes Entrance for the Christmas holidays, 18lts/100km on the trip down. Best economy I've got with the van on in ages. Coming home I could only get 95 Ron from Caltex / wollworths in Lakes, into a head wind the whole way home.....Haven't done the sums yet, but had to do a fuel pit stop in Officer on the was home....it's going to hurt!!!!
            ChrisS 2015 NX, Steel MM Bull Bar, 22" Stedi STK4 Light Bar, MM H/D Hitch

            Comment

            • AbhiC
              Junior Member
              • Nov 2013
              • 22
              • Sydney

              #21
              Hi All,


              I have been monitoring fuel consumptions for few months now and I did my major service in Dec 2013. By usinng ULP95 I can feel that engine is running smooth but not much difference fuel consumptions wise? Am I missing something here?
              Attached Files
              Pajero 2002 GLS NM (Auto - Petrol)

              Comment

              • allanmac
                Valued Member
                • Jun 2007
                • 559
                • Eastern Suburbs Vic

                #22
                Originally posted by AbhiC View Post
                Hi All,


                I have been monitoring fuel consumptions for few months now and I did my major service in Dec 2013. By usinng ULP95 I can feel that engine is running smooth but not much difference fuel consumptions wise? Am I missing something here?
                I dont think so. I personally find it hard to believe the much improved figures that some quote from using the higher octane fuel. I went through all that a number of years ago & found the minimal difference in consumption not worth the extra $$$$. A few years back the difference in cost from 91ron to 95 was only about 6c & 98 was about 10c. Now it is usually 10c for 95 & up to 15+ for 98.... I did find that by continually using 95 in my NL, it did seem to run a little smoother, as it does in my partners NP, but still not convinced the cost is worth it.

                What I do now is run 'shandy mixes'..... When the price cycle is down at the bottom I top the vehicles up with 95. If I need 'motion lotion' when the price is at the top end of the scale, I use plain 91ron & it seems to work ok for me.

                Also, I never use Shell for 95 or 98; difference is more than at BP or Caltex.
                NL Pajero,F&R airlockers, reduction gears, Ironman susp, ARB bullbar, Tigerz winch, Uniden UHF, roolite driving lights, Mickey Thompson ATZ 4 rib &, BFG KM2' tyres

                MUD SUCKS.

                Comment

                • mr moose
                  Valued Member
                  • Mar 2011
                  • 603
                  • vic, mornington peninsula

                  #23
                  I have an isuzu 3.2 V6, designed to run on 91RON, Over the last 6 months I have been watching the consumption. I originally used 91 from shell then I started using e10 95ron from united, then I discovered the previous owner had put in a hyclone so I removed it. from the very start the average fuel consumption hasn't changed. If anything I was getting 0.5 litre/100 better with the hyclone and e10. But voer the course of 3 fills I can get a difference of 13L/100 to 16L/100. So a long term average is necessary to really know if there is a difference between fuel types for your particular motor.
                  96' NK 3.5 DOHC LWB, extractors, dual batteries, ARB winch bar and SCA 9500 winch, reverse camera, spotties and lots more to come.
                  Look at me

                  Comment

                  • mr moose
                    Valued Member
                    • Mar 2011
                    • 603
                    • vic, mornington peninsula

                    #24
                    Just to add to the above post, I have just finished a 2000Km trip towing my camper. I have put in nearly $500 of petrol. I seem to get slightly better fuel economy with the 95 e10.

                    The one thing I need to check out though is a slight high pitched ringing sound when the motor is under heavy load (accelerating up hill while towing) it is less noticeable with the straight 91 RON shell fuel but seems there is a little more power with the e10. It could of course just be in my head as confirmation bias is a big thing.
                    96' NK 3.5 DOHC LWB, extractors, dual batteries, ARB winch bar and SCA 9500 winch, reverse camera, spotties and lots more to come.
                    Look at me

                    Comment

                    • frog
                      Banned
                      • Apr 2014
                      • 144
                      • sydneyhills.com.au

                      #25
                      Originally posted by mr moose View Post
                      I have an isuzu 3.2 V6, designed to run on 91RON, Over the last 6 months I have been watching the consumption. I originally used 91 from shell then I started using e10 95ron from united, then I discovered the previous owner had put in a hyclone so I removed it. from the very start the average fuel consumption hasn't changed. If anything I was getting 0.5 litre/100 better with the hyclone and e10. But voer the course of 3 fills I can get a difference of 13L/100 to 16L/100. So a long term average is necessary to really know if there is a difference between fuel types for your particular motor.


                      hyclone

                      Comment

                      • Patagonia
                        Valued Member
                        • Dec 2009
                        • 845
                        • Santiago, Chile!!!!!

                        #26
                        Remember Octane rating is not about energy or power but a measurement of anti-knock resistance of the fuel, in fact 91-95-98 is the same fuel with aditives to modify the octane number.

                        If you use less octane fuel than car rating you will have knocking before time or pre-ignition resulting on rough combustion and less power, ECU can adjust parameters a little but it sould mean a little more fuel usage at the end. On the other hand by using higher octane than car rating there will be no benefit at all.

                        Benefits of a higer octane rating are that you can stretch more fuel on each engine stroke but for that you need an engine with higher compression ratio.


                        Also some cars show both minimun and recomended octane were recommended is for best performance. My NL only says use 95 RON or more, so I use 95 for the NL and at least 45 RUM for me

                        Last thing...octane ratings are measured at sea level, they go up with altitude so a 95 RON will behave like a 97-98 RON at 1000 m of altitude for example, this is because air is thiner so combustion chamber will be less compressed with the same amount of fuel in it than at sea level.
                        Last edited by Patagonia; 23-07-14, 11:43 AM.
                        2000 SWB NL 3.5 SOHC V6 AT.
                        Adjustable suspension, Rear Locker, Suspension Seats, Cruise Control, 8500 Lbs winch, all factory fitted.
                        31x10.5R15 Pirelli ATR?s and forever thinking on the lift.
                        2009 SWB NS 3.2 DOHC DID AT 265/70/17 BFG AT/KO, OME SD Springs +4 Rear locker, 8.500 Lbs Winch...new toy!!!

                        Comment

                        • TC.Barky
                          Valued Member
                          • Oct 2011
                          • 3573
                          • Melbourne

                          #27
                          Originally posted by Patagonia View Post
                          Remember Octane rating is not about energy or power but a measurement of anti-knock resistance of the fuel, in fact 91-95-98 is the same fuel with aditives to modify the octane number.

                          If you use less octane fuel than car rating you will have knocking before time or pre-ignition resulting on rough combustion and less power, ECU can adjust parameters a little but it sould mean a little more fuel usage at the end. On the other hand by using higer octane than car rating there will be no benefit at all.

                          Also some cars show both minimun and recomended octane were recommended is for best performance. My NL only says use 95 RON or more, so I use 95 for the NL and at least 45 RUM for me

                          Last thing...octane ratings are measured at sea level, they go up with altitude so a 95 RON will behave like a 97-98 RON at 1000 m of altitude for example
                          Interesting that your NL has a min of 95. The SOHC in aus doesnt have that requirement, only the DOHC if I remember correctly
                          MY14 NW GLX-R 3.2L Auto Build Thread
                          Fitted: 265/70R17 Kanati Mud Hogs. Ultimate Suspension HD Front EHD + bags rear. MM Towbar. OL Bullbar. SPV EGR Mod. Bushskinz Bash Plates x4. Roleys Rear Bar Protector. Icom IC-400Pro. Rhino Pioneer Tradie Rack. CTEK CTD250S w/ Dual Bats. Airtec Snorkel. Scangauge II. Blackvue Dash Cam. TC mod. Autosafe Half Barrier. Masten TPMS. Drifta Custom Drawers w/ Mounted Compressor. 47L ARB Fridge. Domin8rX Winch. Towing an MDC stepthrough.

                          Comment

                          • Patagonia
                            Valued Member
                            • Dec 2009
                            • 845
                            • Santiago, Chile!!!!!

                            #28
                            Strange, here they sell "Euro Spec" versions so maybe it has to do with Euro regulations for example emision standars that can be achieved only with 95 to ensure best combustion, sometimes they even lower power ratings for being able to achieve local regulations!...just thinking on possible reason but seen things like that before.
                            2000 SWB NL 3.5 SOHC V6 AT.
                            Adjustable suspension, Rear Locker, Suspension Seats, Cruise Control, 8500 Lbs winch, all factory fitted.
                            31x10.5R15 Pirelli ATR?s and forever thinking on the lift.
                            2009 SWB NS 3.2 DOHC DID AT 265/70/17 BFG AT/KO, OME SD Springs +4 Rear locker, 8.500 Lbs Winch...new toy!!!

                            Comment

                            • saffer
                              Member
                              • Jan 2011
                              • 163
                              • Waikiki, WA

                              #29
                              Just my 2 cents. I've run 98 since new in my NT. I average about 14/15ltr per 100km. When we do long trips and cant get 98, I can feel a difference straight away, feels a bit sluggish, but this could just be in my head. I just feel that if your going to pay the extra cash for 95, you might as well pay the extra cents for 98
                              2009 NT X SWB V6 - Opposite Lock bar, VRS winch,MM Tow Bar, Uniden UH7760NB, Lightforce Striker 50wHID, ARB awning, Rhino Racks, Bridgestone D697's, Billstein/Lovell, Skinned up + Rocksliders, Redarc TowPro, Safari snorkel, ARB on-board air, Powerflow exhaust

                              Towing: 2015 Jayco Eagle Outback

                              Comment

                              • mr moose
                                Valued Member
                                • Mar 2011
                                • 603
                                • vic, mornington peninsula

                                #30
                                Originally posted by Patagonia View Post
                                Remember Octane rating is not about energy or power but a measurement of anti-knock resistance of the fuel, in fact 91-95-98 is the same fuel with aditives to modify the octane number.

                                If you use less octane fuel than car rating you will have knocking before time or pre-ignition resulting on rough combustion and less power, ECU can adjust parameters a little but it sould mean a little more fuel usage at the end. On the other hand by using higher octane than car rating there will be no benefit at all.

                                Benefits of a higer octane rating are that you can stretch more fuel on each engine stroke but for that you need an engine with higher compression ratio.

                                Also some cars show both minimun and recomended octane were recommended is for best performance. My NL only says use 95 RON or more, so I use 95 for the NL and at least 45 RUM for me

                                Last thing...octane ratings are measured at sea level, they go up with altitude so a 95 RON will behave like a 97-98 RON at 1000 m of altitude for example, this is because air is thiner so combustion chamber will be less compressed with the same amount of fuel in it than at sea level.

                                Interesting you say that, I don't know what the compression is on my car, however I do know that it sounds like knocking when I use the higher RON fuel not lower. Do you know if a lower compression with higher ron would cause knock?
                                96' NK 3.5 DOHC LWB, extractors, dual batteries, ARB winch bar and SCA 9500 winch, reverse camera, spotties and lots more to come.
                                Look at me

                                Comment

                                Matched content

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X