ClubCJ - The CJ Lancer Club

Okay first up this is not a debate on bad experiences at servos and getting a bad tank of fuel, or premium is better than regular ULP. I was just after opinion on which brand is best when it comes to fuel usage and is there really any difference between the like of BP, Shell, Caltex or the others.

Mainly asking since recently BP has been promoting its fuel and since they are the only major brand that is not aligned with a supermarket is it really worth paying the extra few cents a liter.

This is also not a debate on loyalty programs them selves, I agree at times it can be better to shop around to get the best over all price for you food and fuel.

Will the BP fuel clean your system and give you better economy and there fore cost you less in the long run?

This is pointless unless you specify the octane rating, as ultimately that is what drive the various performance results of power and fuel economy.

Also, United should be included as a major NSW supplier. And Mobil/Metro/711. Is Puma a Mobil branded fuel?

A few BP's killed a few diesel engines by having water in their fuel, got some friends that works at caltex and they said the fuel there is good, not sure about Shell/Coles or Puma

I voted Caltex/Woolworths only because I shop Woolworths and get 4c off vouchers. Used to fill up with 95ron but have since gone back to 91ron as I go through a lot of petrol for work, I can't tell the difference in fuel economy, idling or power delivery (Car is stock tuned).

A while ago I tried researching the differences is premium fuels between the brands and an interesting line came up. Basically in Australia all premium fuel is provided by BP to the other brands who add their own additives and sell it at their stations.

As for extra detergents or cleaning ability of the fuel I think it's just marketing spin to justify the higher cents per litre. If a car isn't tuned for higher ron or has a variable timing system then premium is a waste of money. Also if the car is serviced regularly with frequent oil changes then there won't be the build up of gunk.

And the final twist is that a car that is 'thrashed' every now and again will have a cleaner engine as the higher temperature will burn off deposits, the real risk of engine fouling is short trips that don't allow the engine to get to temp, which makes stop start systems interesting.

Puma bought out Matilda a couple of years ago, not sure if it has any connection with Modil.

Sorry I didn't add United, can't change that now.

I was mainly referring to regular ULP which most drivers use, especially those not with a turbo. I've always been told it's pointless paying for premium fuel if you car is designed to run ULP.

To be clear I normally use Woolies, but mainly because of the discount and the number of Woolies Servos in my area.

Lancer1993 wrote: Sorry I didnt add United, cant change that now. .

done

I use BP because its a brand that produces its own product and is just around the corner from where I live. Used Shell for many years for the same reasons before I moved. Can't say there's much difference.

Important, both servos clean and well run.

I always use 98 and go to On The Run servo's. Some are BP some Mobil sites. I think it can come down to the operator of the servo too.

As above a BP killed diesel engines, Caltex has killed many cars in Melbourne n Sydney. United I've only hear bad things in SA.

So best to stick with what works or see how responsive your car is if you fill up from a different brand Fuel.

Based on the upcoming Adelaide tune, there is a difference in using 98 in our cars as there is two tune maps? In any case, doesn't it have knock sensors like most recent cars so the timing can be advanced? The supposed benefit of 98 depends on the vehicle, a lot of those tests seem to be done on engines that are only tuned for 91. They could get rid of 91, 95, and just have 98 and 98 based E10 and the cost would be close to 91 due to supply and demand, logistics etc.

As more cars come with advanced engines, small turbo engine for efficiency, and Atkinson cycle for PHEV's it may become a warranty requirement to use 98. It could also mean that engines will just be detuned for the Australian market.

Next year there is model shakeup for Mitsubishi. There is a 'shrunken' ASX, which will likely be a replacement for the Lancer (although they may keep the current one another year or two), a new car between the shrunken ASX and Outlander, a new Outlander, keeping the Pajero Sport, possibly with an upgrade in a year or two, and rumoured dropping of the Pajero. I don't know what they mean about a shrunken ASX, the current ASX is based on the Lancer and if they reduce it height wise it will essentially be a new larger Lancer anyway. All these may have new engines, and if so probably direct injection versions of the 4J11 and 4J12, which are updated 4B11 and 4B12 variants which have been around a couple of years. These new engines would likely require a higher quality and octane fuel if they use them here, or simply heavily detune them.

I suspect in 10 years the fuel choices will be different, there probably won't be any new car that can safely run on less than 98 by then. There would have to be consistency between brands, none of this supposed some brands sell 98 but it could be 96, and other brands 98 that is 98 minimum but could be 98-100.

Stick with the majors; 'discount' fuel providers often put 'fillers' into their fuel - I have had severe problems in the past using cheap fuel.

My personal preference is Shell based on previous experience.

I always use Premium, more power, better economy - especially with your 4/8c discount.

Either way, don't use lower than 95RON.

If you haven't done yet, just give Premium a try - our car will work out that you're using 98RON after the old stuff flushes through and adjust itself accordingly. - you won't get an immediate benefit, but by the second tank you will get a bit more power from the engine and you will end up not mashing the pedal quite so hard, which should give you better performance/economy.

Keep a log of your consumption now, then switch and compare - it's the only way to know for sure. I fill up once a week and have a spreadsheet to log mileage for tax, so keep track of my consumption anyway...

With a 6000km trip coming up I might just give 98 a try, especially with the lower prices we are currently enjoying.

Here on the Sunshine coast getting the right premium fuel can be hit and miss and don't even think about running e95, even e10 can't be found at a lot of servos.

Interesting enough there was just an old Fifth Gear shown on cable that had a segment about premium vs regular fuel.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTaBngvsPrc[/youtube]

End result was higher octane in a Golf gave more power (~5bhp) but in real world probably not noticeable. Only thing they didn't test was fuel economy.

I was just checking prices and with a difference of about 17 cents per Lt which doing the math is almost 15% at current prices will you really see a 15% improvement in fuel economy using 98 over ULP?

But again this was more about the fuel brands and not ULP v 98 or e10.

And BTW when I can I use e10 in my CJ, haven't noticed any difference in performance or economy using either and I'm always keeping track of my fuel usage.

I've also noticed a decrees in economy with my CJ over my 21yo CC but I've put this down to the extra weight of the CJ (around 300kg) and a bigger engine, 2.4Lt v 1.8Lt in the old car.

I use 98 (BP Ultimate) I find I get more out of a tank than I used to,

And if I'm feeling cheap, I use E10 95 from United (Because I automatically get an 8 cent a litre discount when I fill up) And find that I get more out of a tank than I did with just 91. I haven't had any issues what so ever with either. But that's just me.

Yeah I have found E10 95 to be better than 91 as well. It was mentioned in another thread that people were against that idea, but I would be too if what they were saying about 91 E10 (~87 octane plus ethanol) was true.

Lancer1993 wrote:I was just checking prices and with a difference of about 17 cents per Lt which doing the math is almost 15% at current prices will you really see a 15% improvement in fuel economy using 98 over ULP?

I made the same comment a couple of weeks ago, there really wasn't an answer apart from that 98 was supposed to give better economy.

Lancer1993 wrote:Ive also noticed a decrees in economy with my CJ over my 21yo CC but Ive put this down to the extra weight of the CJ (around 300kg) and a bigger engine, 2.4Lt v 1.8Lt in the old car.

The 4B11 engine got improvements a couple of years ago (2012 models) that the 4B12 didn't, which improved the fuel economy quite considerably, at least on paper. The changes I've noticed with the new setup are a different sized airbox, improved fuel economy, slight drop in power, different exhaust layout, and a change in CVT fluid requirement from CVTF-J1 to CVTF-J4. I'm guessing that although the engine didn't change in the newer 2.4's, that the exhaust layout still changed along with the transmission fluid requirement?

4B11 CVT 2011 models and earlier:
Urban: 11.3 L/100 km
Rural: 6.4 L/100 km
Combined: 8.2 L/100 km

4B12 CVT 2015 model (for comparison, it hasn't changed so 2015 is okay for this):
Urban: 11.9 L/100 km
Rural: 6.5 L/100 km
Combined: 8.5 L/100 km

Notice how the 4B11 uses almost the same amount of fuel? Makes you wonder if the 4B12 got the same improvements just how close it would be to the new 4B11 stats. That can kind of be worked out as I'll mention later. Realistically for Australia they should have at least updated the 4B12 and dropped the 4B11.

4B11 CVT 2012 models and later:
Urban: 9.8 L/100 km
Rural: 5.8 L/100 km
Combined: 7.2 L/100 km

There is a newer version of the 4B engines that we don't get in the Lancer, but is in the Outlander. Has been available in Japan from around the time the 4B11 update occurred. Possibly we didn't get it here due to fuel? Who knows! I believe the 'J' is just reference to Japan (at the time)?

Anyways, the engine is similar but with a new head with single cam to reduce pumping losses, but more advanced MIVEC with the addition of Variable Lift. Australian 4B11 does not have variable lift from what I can find, but the New Zealand 4B11 Lancers do according to Mitsubishi. New Zealand Lancers have 5 KW extra power and a little more torque, probably greater tuning potential.

The 4J11 and 4J12 is available in Australia now, in the Outlander, so the fuel economy can be compared. The power outputs are similar to the 4B11 and 4B12.

REMEMBER this is the Outlander, a little heavier, more wind resistance, and the 4J11 is only available on the 2WD, and the 4J12 only on the 4WD. The 4WD version has extra losses due to the 4WD drivetrain, plus extra 360 KG car weight compared to the 4B12 Lancer, which makes the stats for the 4J12 even better in consideration .

4J11 Outlander 2WD:
Urban: 8.5 L/100 km
Rural: 5.7 L/100 km
Combined: 6.7 L/100 km

Notice the differece between a Lancer 4B11 and Outlander 4J11? Seems to be considerable improvements in the urban fuel economy, despite driving a bigger car.

4J12 Outlander 4WD:
Urban: 9.2 L/100 km
Rural: 6.0 L/100 km
Combined :7.2 L/100 km

Compare this back to the Lancer 4B12:
Urban: 11.9 L/100 km (2.7 L/100 km more)
Rural: 6.5 L/100 km (0.5 L/100 km more)
Combined: 8.5 L/100 km (1.3 L/100 km more)

Extra weight on the Outlander:
2210 kg vs 1850 kg (360 kg more). Imagine the fuel economy on the 4B12 engines with an extra 360 kg and 4WD drivetrain :S.

How much does the extra weight and size really matter? Well, compare it to the ASX! The ASX still used 4B11:
Urban: 9.4 L/100 km
Rural: 6.3 L/100 km
Combined: 7.4 L/100 km

So yes, the ASX which people may buy over the Outlander due to it being smaller and thinking they will save fuel, actually uses more fuel for the 2.0L than the more power 2.4 L in the Outlander (despite the extra weight of the Outlander 4WD over the ASX 2WD of 240 kg and drivetrain losses.

Curiously, the latest 2WD ASX in the same spec as the latest Outlander 2WD, both using the 2.0 L engine (4B11 vs 4J11), the Outlande is only 15 KG heavier for the same LS spec level. It may even suggest a little more design effort for the Outlander to reduce weight? Or maybe the engine is lighter?

When you consider the extra weight and drivetrain of the Outlander 4J12, it would use less fuel than the 4B11 if placed in the Lancer, and give the power of the 4B12. Probably better power and torque curves as well.

The claim for the 4J12 is just to reduce pumping loss, so it seems Mitsubishi recognised the 4B engines weren't as efficient as they should be. They are still using the same fuel injection, they are NOT direct injection which would supposedly improve power and economy further. Just unfortunately they didn't replace all the 4B engines and instead chose to improve just the 4B11 for non-Japanese markets at the time. Realistically if they had the 4J12 in the Lancer with better sound insulation, it would probably make a huge difference in desirability from 2012 onwards compared to the Mazda 3. This is especially true if they made the colour dash common across all models at the same time.

Any extra cost involved with the 4J12 is a little irrelevant, seeing there is he logistics consideration. Firstly, it only has a single cam, so one less part . More importantly though, it means making fewer engine variations which logistically would save them money and overcome any extra cost.

Another fuel economy consideration of the 4J12... is that it is still using the older CVT, the latest Lancer CVT is meant to be slightly more efficient . Great combination I think!

Because of the poor decisions about the Lancer, the closest thing we'll have in a couple of years is the updated ASX.