The real reason behind Petron's Blaze 100?

By Vernon B. Sarne Philippine Car News - Ramon AngOn November 21, Petron officially rolled out its new Blaze 100 product, effectively supplanting the previous Blaze with an octane rating of 96--just as we had reported here a few days before the actual launch. We’ve received an official media statement from Petron on the new Blaze 100, and according to it, the benefits of the new premium fuel are: "Excellent engine responsiveness and optimum power and acceleration; excellent engine-cleaning action with the use of fully synthetic detergent additives; and better fuel economy and reduced emissions with its unique organic combustion enhancer."

The media release also says that, "while Petron Blaze 100 is recommended for high-end, high-performance vehicles, other cars will get the same improved fuel economy and power because of its very high octane rating. And since it does not contain ethanol, it can safely be loaded in older vehicles that are not equipped to take in ethanol-blended gasoline."

Of course, the press release wouldn't be complete without a quote from Petron chairman and CEO Ramon Ang: "As the market leader in the Philippine oil sector, we deem it our responsibility to introduce revolutionary products that are relevant to Filipino motorists."

Which got me thinking: What could really be the reason behind Petron's introduction of Blaze 100? One theory--which I subscribe to--is that it was Ang who personally pushed for it, being a supercar enthusiast himself. As a matter of fact, among the cars he reportedly owns are a Porsche Carrera GT and a 1,000hp Hennessey twin-turbo Ford GT.

But another supposition that I now hear asserts that Blaze 100 is merely Petron's preemptive move as Shell is said to be readying its very own V-Power fuel with an octane rating of 99.

Whatever Petron's real motivation is, consider this the official start of the octane-rating wars.


User account login

Not registered? Click here to be a member.

Forgot your Password?.

Click this link to view our posting guidelines.

Filter comments by:
  • tidus1203 Nov 30 2010 @ 11:27am
    Whatever! Just a waste of money for my 91 octane recommended cars...
  • 6thgear-nitro Nov 30 2010 @ 12:33pm
  • Andrew Guerrero
    Andrew Guerrero Nov 30 2010 @ 01:15pm
    High performance car owners here (those select few very rich people) would welcome this.
    People who own normal non-high performance cars that are designed to run on 91 to 95 octane, forget about it, you won't get any improved performance, its been proven in tests. Its best to read the owner's manual and use the fuel recommended by the manufacturer (what the engine was designed to accept).
  • vonschnipp Nov 30 2010 @ 03:39pm
    Complete waste of fuel storage space thy could use to bring in better quality diesel. Then we could start seeing nice fuel efficient cars like the Volvo C30 diesel (27 km per liter!)
  • GTi Nov 30 2010 @ 04:40pm
    This is may be good news, but couldn't they just bring in Euro 4 or Euro 5 standard fuels instead?
  • dtkiko Nov 30 2010 @ 04:58pm
    It's a waste of money ONLY for consumers that are using non-high performance (non-high compression ratio) cars. But for those with modified high-comp engines the 100-octane "fat" gasoline is a sure welcome in addressing "pinging" as a result of "pre-detonation". I can definitely use this to to my Yamaha YZ250 MX bike! It will definitely love this fuel as i still haven't corrected the stock squish band (and thereafter its combustion chamber volume) of my bike.
  • rtociv Nov 30 2010 @ 05:32pm
    oh man.... how much kaya per liter? it would have been better if they brought the cleaner diesels here instead ( euro 4 or 5)
  • dtkiko Nov 30 2010 @ 06:00pm
    The Euro 3-compliant diesel that we have right now is actually good. This is the same diesel-spec we have in Europe way back 2008 that we feed into our DMax's, Navara's and Hilux's. If you worry about the
  • ceejaypee777 Dec 01 2010 @ 07:09am
    the traffic conditions in metro is the worst part of Philippine road driving so why would you still need a high-octane fuel to feed your non-hp cars if you can't even maintain a 60kph in 10 minutes of city driving, unless you're off via SCTEX, you won't benefit from the boost
  • Ads Dec 01 2010 @ 08:03am
    Better diesels not better petrols.
  • Renzoku Dec 01 2010 @ 08:53am
    I wish they could use their efforts bringing in better diesel so that car manufacturers can bring in better diesel engine cars.
  • gvm0116 Dec 01 2010 @ 12:16pm
    for those who wanted better diesel, didn't shell and petron recently introduced new diesel variants? i tried using petron's turbo diesel and i'm quite happy with it. as regards this news, i think it is aimed primarily for performance and not kilometers per liter. surely, it is not for everyone but i think a lot of rich guys with evos, imprezas and 911s will rejoice over this. think of it as petron's mobil 1 over mobil super.
Filter comments by:
1 to 12 of 12