2016 Chevrolet Sail

**chronicle** · July 26th, 2018 10:06 AM

Originally Posted by jut703

Agree. Km/L and price variance should be the factors considered to get an apples-to-apples comparison.

As I showed above, since average FC (km/L) is the same, 95 ron turns out more expensive. Not by much, but it certainly isn't cheaper.

Now, there are some cars that benefit from 95 RON. The turbo Subarus and Civic RS come to mind. Even if the RS can run well on 91, independent dynos show about 5 hp more with 95.

But if your car has a basic NA gas engine, chances are 91 will be fine unless specified by the manufacturer in the manual.

Not to fret though, as I showed, the difference is only 15 cents per km for 95. In a year if you travel 12,000 km, that's just P1,800 which isn't even enough for a full tank.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

I was actually backing you up regarding kissmets inquiry. Full tank method, Distance and km/l avg and not km/peso is the only way to get a good approximation how your car is reacting to lower RON vs higher RON.

Sent from my BLL-L22 using Tapatalk

**jut703** · July 26th, 2018 10:09 AM

Originally Posted by chronicle

I was actually backing you up regarding kissmets inquiry. Full tank method, Distance and km/l avg and not km/peso is the only way to get a good approximation how your car is reacting to lower RON vs higher RON.

Sent from my BLL-L22 using Tapatalk

Yes bro that's why I concurred with your post. [emoji16]

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk