Should be running the lowest octane fuel that the car is designed for. If the car is not designed to take advantage of the higher octane fuels then it's pointless.
Another thing to consider is the turnover of fuels at the pump. Higher octane fuels may be sitting in those tanks for weeks.

__________________
MY00 WRX. 89 Prelude. 99 CRV

In the city higher octane stuff turns over fairly quick because they have limited storage space.

__________________
I am only an asshole on the internet :)

[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

Watch this on another site. I will use Shell V-Power from now on.
If you not interested in watch the show, skip to 30:19

Fifth Gear Season 21 Episode 04 - YouTube

__________________
Engineer brilliance, then
Add lightness

$0.12 x 50 litres (average) = $ 6.00 If you are worried about $6.00 don't drive a WRX (I personally don't give a flying shit covered fragment of a fuck).

__________________
2016 Levorg GT-S
Old man spec.

Are you sure that the ecu makes the power output the same regardless? Also, if this is the case, then the car would use less fuel on higher octane fuel.

I know for a fact that my 2 stroke motorbike, on stock jetting runs really poorly on 98 octane with stock jets.

Lean the jets off a few sizes and not only does it zing on 98 but also uses less fuel.

My v6 sti pings at the best of times on 98, and on 95 it pings even worse then cuts power, you can feel it pull boost.

Our magna on the other hand, uses the same amount if fuel and runs the same regardless of what fuel you put in, but it has no nock sensor so you would expect it to.

If owners read their owners manual, they would know if higher octane fuels are suitable, if they haven't read and understood them then they are obviously morons. And shouldn't be complaining.

__________________
Version 6 STI

Have run my work ute on 98 since the day I bought it, was 1yr old 30 thou.

The entire time I have flogged the living fuck out of it. Has now done 250 thou.

Not one oil leak, idles like a new one.

98 gives you better mpg? rubbish. 98 is better for your engine? Well, its certainly not worse.

__________________
500+hp and helis on tap, eta - June 2025.

I agree with this article.

Put 98 in my Citroen Berlingo 1.6 HDi and I had to have the fucker towed because it broke down straight after. Not sure why, but I won't be using 98 octane anymore.

Its a Citroen - the French dont work.....ever.

__________________
[B][COLOR=red]Jerk of the circle.[/COLOR][/B]

like i mentioned before, we gave up our right for cheap fuel prices when we bought our cars and as Mitch has outlined the margnial difference in price is..marginal.

i have always used 98 variants ultimate/v-power in all my turbo cars and my understanding with this is due to intake charge on our cars we need a fuel that will resist detonation at higher than normal intake temps. the higher RON means higher resistance to detonation. not really a huge problem most stock N/A cars would have unless modifed with heaps of advance etc.

thats said, the old ladies corolla(2006) since purchase has always had 98 since new and compared to other corollas of same years i have driven is very peaky to drive, but that may not be just fuel alone...maybe.

Did anyone actually read the article before posting?

All it said was the average of 15.4c/L extra for 98 RON isn't economically viable. i.e. whilst you might get extra mileage and a slight power increase, it isn't worth an extra 15.4c/L. i.e. you would need to get an extra 50-100km from the 98 RON to make it the same "value" as putting ULP in.

__________________
[COLOR="Gray"]550Nm off a 2L... Just wish it was in the dak dak...[/COLOR]