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

    • I guess one thing that might be wrong is the manifold pressure.  It is a constant -5.9 and never moves even under 100% throttle and load.  I would expect it to atleast go to 0 correct?  It's doing this with the OEM MAP as well as the ECU vacuum sensor. When trying to tune the base map under load the crosshairs only climb vertically with RPM, but always in the -5.9 column.
    • AHHHH gotchaa, I'll do that once I am home again. I tried doing the harness with the multimeter but it seems the car needed a jump, there was no power when it was in the "ON" position. Not sure if I should use car battery jump starter or if its because the stuff that has been disconnect the car just does send power.
    • As far as I can tell I have everything properly set in the Haltech software for engine size, injector data, all sensors seem to be reporting proper numbers.  If I change any injector details it doesnt run right.    Changing the base map is having the biggest change in response, im not sure how people are saying it doesnt really matter.  I'm guessing under normal conditions the ECU is able to self adjust and keep everything smooth.   Right now my best performance is happening by lowering the base map just enough to where the ECU us doing short term cut of about 45% to reach the target Lambda of 14.7.  That way when I start putting load on it still has high enough fuel map to not be so lean.  After 2500 rpm I raised the base map to what would be really rich at no load, but still helps with the lean spots on load.  I figure I don't have much reason to be above 2500rpm with no load.  When watching other videos it seems their target is reached much faster than mine.  Mine takes forever to adjust and reach the target. My next few days will be spent making sure timing is good, it was running fine before doing the ECU and DBW swap, but want to verify.  I'll also probably swap in the new injectors I bought as well as a walbro 255 pump.  
    • It would be different if the sealant hadn't started to peel up with gaps in the glue about ~6cm and bigger in some areas. I would much prefer not having to do the work take them off the car . However, the filler the owner put in the roof rack mount cavities has shrunk and begun to crack on the rail delete panels. I cant trust that to hold off moisture ingress especially where I live. Not only that but I have faded paint on as well as on either side of these panels, so they would need to come off to give the roofline a proper respray. My goal is to get in there and put a healthy amount of epoxy instead of panel filler/bog and potentially skin with carbon fiber. I have 2 spare rolls from an old motorcycle fairing project from a few years back and I think it'd be a nice touch on a black stag.  I've seen some threads where people replace their roof rack delete with a welded in sheet metal part. But has anyone re-worked the roof rails themselves? It seems like there is a lot of volume there to add in some threads and maybe a keyway for a quick(er) release roof rack system. Not afraid to mill something out if I have to. It would be cool to have a cross bar only setup. That way I can keep the sleek roofline that would accept a couple bolts to gain back that extra utility  3D print some snazzy covers to hide the threaded section to be thorough and keep things covered when not using the rack. 
    • Probably not. A workshop grade scantool is my go to for proper Consult interrogation. Any workshop grade tool should do it. Just go to a workshop.
×
×
  • Create New...