Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hey just wondering what sort of petrol i can use in my car. I've just been using the normal unleaded but since petrol prices are cheap i can put in anything now. I know theres Premium Unleaded and at BP Petrol stations theres another one called "BP Ultimate Unleaded". So yeah can i use any type of them in my car and what would be the best to use? I'm guess the BP Ultimate Unleaded since it has a higher percentage of octane. Also whats the equivalent to BP Ultimate Unleaded at other petrol stations? I'm sure other petrol stations would have a similiar type of petrol to that but under another name.

Anyway i know its a rather dumb/boring question but i thought theres no harm in asking anyway. Just making sure i don't put in some petrol thats going to be bad for my car.

  • Replies 54
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Oh Jebus T.T.F.C.

If you use anything below 98 octane you should be shot. Theres a large debate about it but get BP Ultimate if you can. Theres also Shell V-Power, Caltex has vortex something...... theres others but Im drunk at the moment so the names arn't flying in.

IF YOUR CAR IS TURBO!!! ONLY RUN 98 RON which one you choose is up to you

as for shell v power... it has been craped, it was a point that our goverment was trying to make, by showing the public that you could use ethanol in petrol

shell was making a massive loss when it came to 100 ron, in transport an refining it... but since the goverment FUNDED the project they made money out of it

For N/A I think you can get away from just using Ron 91 (regular), I could be wrong though...

For Turbo, recommended is Ron 98 or higher, but if you drive like a granny, you can probably get away with just premium (ron 95), since my friend with a turbo 180sx uses just premium in his car & its running ok.

Still I use Ron 98 for my turbo (Vortex 98 or BP Ultimate), just to be safe :yes:

killing it slowly... pfffttt the turbo dropped off and ran away... its already dead :D

LOL :) , reminds me of a quote from the Simpson,

Rb25 engine: "Don't cry for me, I'm already dead..."

yeah and your body can survive if you drink your own piss... but its not as healthy as water..

Bahahahahahahahahahaha. that there is a good statement.

killing it slowly... pfffttt the turbo dropped off and ran away... its already dead :spank:

Killing me softly with low ron killing me softly.....

seriously tho, you want your car to run right get the manual read it and give it what it needs. lets see how to put this.... ah yes, giving a car that has an engine designed for higher octane fuel low octane fuel is like giving a decent chick a go with half an inch of C*$k yeah it might do the job for ya but the performance and entusiamsam is not gonna be there now is it....

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

    • I came here to note that is a zener diode too base on the info there. Based on that, I'd also be suspicious that replacing it, and it's likely to do the same. A lot of use cases will see it used as either voltage protection, or to create a cheap but relatively stable fixed voltage supply. That would mean it has seen more voltage than it should, and has gone into voltage melt down. If there is something else in the circuit dumping out higher than it should voltages, that needs to be found too. It's quite likely they're trying to use the Zener to limit the voltage that is hitting through to the transistor beside it, so what ever goes to the zener is likely a signal, and they're using the transistor in that circuit to amplify it. Especially as it seems they've also got a capacitor across the zener. Looks like there is meant to be something "noisy" to that zener, and what ever it was, had a melt down. Looking at that picture, it also looks like there's some solder joints that really need redoing, and it might be worth having the whole board properly inspected.  Unfortunately, without being able to stick a multimeter on it, and start tracing it all out, I'm pretty much at a loss now to help. I don't even believe I have a climate control board from an R33 around here to pull apart and see if any of the circuit appears similar to give some ideas.
    • Nah - but you won't find anything on dismantling the seats in any such thing anyway.
    • Could be. Could also be that they sit around broken more. To be fair, you almost never see one driving around. I see more R chassis GTRs than the Renault ones.
    • Yeah. Nah. This is why I said My bold for my double emphasis. We're not talking about cars tuned to the edge of det here. We're talking about normal cars. Flame propagation speed and the amount of energy required to ignite the fuel are not significant factors when running at 1500-4000 rpm, and medium to light loads, like nearly every car on the road (except twin cab utes which are driven at 6k and 100% load all the time). There is no shortage of ignition energy available in any petrol engine. If there was, we'd all be in deep shit. The calorific value, on a volume basis, is significantly different, between 98 and 91, and that turns up immediately in consumption numbers. You can see the signal easily if you control for the other variables well enough, and/or collect enough stats. As to not seeing any benefit - we had a couple of EF and EL Falcons in the company fleet back in the late 90s and early 2000s. The EEC IV ECU in those things was particularly good at adding in timing as soon as knock headroom improved, which typically came from putting in some 95 or 98. The responsiveness and power improved noticeably, and the fuel consumption dropped considerably, just from going to 95. Less delta from there to 98 - almost not noticeable, compared to the big differences seen between 91 and 95. Way back in the day, when supermarkets first started selling fuel from their own stations, I did thousands of km in FNQ in a small Toyota. I can't remember if it was a Starlet or an early Yaris. Anyway - the supermarket servos were bringing in cheap fuel from Indonesia, and the other servos were still using locally refined gear. The fuel consumption was typically at least 5%, often as much as 8% worse on the Indo shit, presumably because they had a lot more oxygenated component in the brew, and were probably barely meeting the octane spec. Around the same time or maybe a bit later (like 25 years ago), I could tell the difference between Shell 98 and BP 98, and typically preferred to only use Shell then because the Skyline ran so much better on it. Years later I found the realtionship between them had swapped, as a consequence of yet more refinery closures. So I've only used BP 98 since. Although, I must say that I could not fault the odd tank of United 98 that I've run. It's probably the same stuff. It is also very important to remember that these findings are often dependent on region. With most of the refineries in Oz now dead, there's less variability in local stuff, and he majority of our fuels are not even refined here any more anyway. It probably depends more on which SE Asian refinery is currently cheapest to operate.
    • You don't have an R34 service manual for the body do you? Have found plenty for the engine and drivetrain but nothing else
×
×
  • Create New...