95 Ron warning on 2002 NB

Silvia · Postby **Silvia** » Sat Dec 03, 2011 8:34 am

Under the filler lid on my 2002 is a sticker reading 95 RON only. Seems most MX5's can run on unleaded. What is the difference in mine that needs the higher rated fuel?

JBT · Postby **JBT** » Sat Dec 03, 2011 9:10 am

The NA is approved for 91 RON but the NB (particularly VVC models) use 95 RON. Mazda only approves E10 for the NC onwards but, it must also be minimum 95 RON. http://www.mazda.com.au/Owners/Motoring-Tips/Ethanol-E10-Compatibility-Chart.aspx

Silvia · Postby **Silvia** » Sat Dec 03, 2011 9:14 am

Not interested in E10 - no ecological benefits there.
But does the NB have higher compression or something?

sailaholic · Postby **sailaholic** » Sat Dec 03, 2011 10:34 am

Compression is higher than earlier models yes.

NC is a different engine family altogether so not comparable.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk

93_Clubman · Postby **93_Clubman** » Sat Dec 03, 2011 5:05 pm

Plenty of recent discussion here, but pls note the initial question was in relation to an NB8A, which can be run on 91RON, however 95RON is recommended for NB8B=> viewtopic.php?f=29&t=47787

Silvia · Postby **Silvia** » Sat Dec 03, 2011 7:32 pm

Isn't my 2002 an NB8B?
As said, it has a warning on the filler cap to use not less than 95 RON. I was interested in the reason and it seems the higher compression on this model is the reason.
I don't know if the performance justifies the extra 10c a litre. :?:

Postby **NitroDann** » Sat Dec 03, 2011 7:47 pm

The 10c is for detonation resistance not power.

Dann

Silvia · Postby **Silvia** » Sat Dec 03, 2011 7:54 pm

Power is your word, not mine.
Put another way , does the result warrant an extra 10c litre fuel cost?

Hjt · Postby **Hjt** » Sat Dec 03, 2011 8:04 pm

Honestly it's been covered 100 times, as have a tonne of recent threads that have been started.

Advice, put RON98 in your car. Its best overall, and you really cannot complain about 10c per litre, it's only $4 per tank. A large coffee?

deviant · Postby **deviant** » Sat Dec 03, 2011 8:06 pm

If you want to not risk detonation and have your car running at its peak..yes it is worth 10c a litre, its a only a few dollars on a tank anyway.

I put 98 in mine. I wont put 91 anywhere near a car, even in the most basic underpowered cars they seem to run like crap on it.

Postby **NitroDann** » Sat Dec 03, 2011 8:09 pm

I never run on less than 110 octane myself.

Dann

Sailor · Postby **Sailor** » Sat Dec 03, 2011 8:12 pm

NitroDann wrote:I never run on less than 110 octane myself.

Dann

I'd be doing the same...but the trailer behind me when I wanted to do a Syd/Melb drive would be a real pain

Postby **NitroDann** » Sat Dec 03, 2011 8:13 pm

You would only need.......400 litres. Not THAT bad

Dann

JBT · Postby **JBT** » Sat Dec 03, 2011 11:15 pm

Silvia wrote:Put another way , does the result warrant an extra 10c litre fuel cost?

The alternative to not paying for at least 95 RON in your car (2002 MX-5) is shown below.

Silvia · Postby **Silvia** » Sat Dec 03, 2011 11:25 pm

What I'm inclined to ask is- why make a motor that has to have 95 RON or can melt?
People seemed very happy with the 91 RON one and raved about it here and elsewhere.