What petrol do people use - I've got used to using Optimax, however someone at work sugessted it may not be ideal for our cars and could damage the cat?
Cheers,
Mike
I use it - im sure if it damaged the cat, what with all the cars on the market that HAVE to have cats now, i would doubt that shell would sell it! s:shock: :shock: s:shock:
I use it now and again but am convinced it's a psychological improvement only - and I'm mean and do lots of miles so I don't like paying a 5p/litre premium for it.
I'm sure some thorough testing would prove that changing down will give more significant performance improvements s:wink: :wink: s:wink:
J
I do a lot of mile too and have experimented. I am now 100% convinced that Optimax is better. It gives noticable performance improvements (when used regularly), increases economy and from the long term tests I've seen in magazines, actually does help de-coke ports etc.
Assuming you do around 12,000 miles a year at an average of 30 mpg a 5p per litre premium on Optimax will cost you around £90 per year. A bargain for the performance and engine care benefits you get really.
--H--
With the Optimax its not only the performance enhancement - it also keeps the engine very clean, which has only got to be a good thing.
I'm with Hardcore all the way on this. I am a relatively high milage user and i swear by Optimax (when I can bloody find the stuff!). Improved performance (and you CAN tell) as well as slightly better economy, can't complain. If it cleans the engine as well, then I am more than happy to spend the premium!
Quote from: "John Woodward"I'm with Hardcore all the way on this.
Again!
s:) :) s:)
When you consider that people will pay hundreds of pounds if not more on various other performance mods that may or may not give a performance gain (I'm thinking exhausts, air boxes, chips etc, etc) £90 a year extra for Optimax seems cheap, and it doesn't affect your insurance premium either!
--H--
We must stop agreeing like this....... s:wink: :wink: s:wink:
One thing though. Do you find it hard to find? I think there are a shortage of Shell garages in and around Cambs/Suffolk I reckon and just happen to be lucky to have a Shell on my way to wirk. Other than that, I know of only one other that is within 20 miles of me!! I am sure there are more, but where they are, god only knows.......... s:roll: :roll: s:roll:
Im quite lucky, there are a couple in Milton Keynes and a few in Northampton that sell it... however, one of them in northampton i cant fill up with as it just keeps clicking... it took me 10 mins to fill up there once. Yet the one that is near my work i fill up first time, every time... strange.
John,
According to the Shell station locator there are 10 Shell stations that provide Optimax within 25 miles of Newmarket! Go here (http://www.shellstation.biz/) to find them!...
Kris,
You'll get that problem with filling up at certain stations, I can't find a pattern but some will repeatedly think it's full when it's not and you have to squeeze the pump less to get the fuel to flow! Apprently it a problem with the car not the pumps. s:( :( s:(
--H--
I tried Optimax a couple of times and think I could feel the performance difference, and I seemed to get a few extra mpg. On the other hand I didn't notice much difference when I fill up (quickly!) with 95 ron last time, and I'd had a few longer journeys when using Optimax! So I'm slightly sceptical still, but have decided to go for it whenever possible.
To find an Optimax station near you try:
m http://www.multimap.com/clients/places. ... g=en&db=GB (http://www.multimap.com/clients/places.cgi?client=shell&lang=en&db=GB) m
Cool! Nice one 'Core! Very useful! The ones that I know about are the closest to me, but there are a couple that I didn't know about in Cambridge though. Cool. Ta! s:lol: :lol: s:lol:
Quote from: "Hardcore"John,
Kris,
You'll get that problem with filling up at certain stations, I can't find a pattern but some will repeatedly think it's full when it's not and you have to squeeze the pump less to get the fuel to flow! Apprently it a problem with the car not the pumps. s:( :( s:(
--H--
Yeah, its only at this one station so far... BP garages are all ok, its just this one shell garage i have major problems with... so it cant be the car... they are full of it aint they! s:roll: :roll: s:roll:
Damn, beaten to it by 2 minutes... and Hardcore's even done a fancy hyperlink!! s:( :( s:(
But, I've got a Top Tip for Kris and Co... I used to have the same problem with pumps clicking off all the time until I saw this tip on a '2 forum (can't remember which one)... Put the nozzle in, then push the handle down slightly... the filler hole will move slightly... try it now. I've not had a problem since doing this!!! s:D :D s:D
What I meant by "it's a problem with the car" is that there is a design 'quirk' which means that some pumps will be fooled in to thinking they are getting back pressure and cut out. For example there's a Total garage near me that I have used a couple of times (before I went Optimax exclusive!) and the pump used to cut out all the time but it is absolutely fine at full pelt on my Mum's car.
So technically you're right, it's a problem with the pump, but a problem that is only triggered by the design of our cars.
--H--
Quote from: "zud"But, I've got a Top Tip for Kris and Co... I used to have the same problem with pumps clicking off all the time until I saw this tip on a '2 forum (can't remember which one)... Put the nozzle in, then push the handle down slightly... the filler hole will move slightly... try it now. I've not had a problem since doing this!!! s:D :D s:D
Might try this, as its the only thing to have even vaguely annoyed me about my new 03. I've filled up only three times in three different garages and every time I've resorted to letting off the grip to keep the fuel flowing in.
The "it's a problem with the car" / "it's a problem with the pump" kind of sounds like a typical IT to and fro when software folk blame hardware people for something not working and vice versa. Hardcore puts his finger on it though, a small design error on the '2. Pumps are pretty standard all around the world after all so Mr T should have solved this.
Agreed, MrT SHOULD have solved this, but they obviously haven't, so we have to live with it. What I do is tend to pump with the nozzle at about the 10 o'clock position and the handle down and it seems to fill up Ok now. Took me a while to figure it out, but it can be done..........
ive tried all that 10 oclock stuff, spun the fecking thing all the way round and it still did not work properly... but only at this one garage.. s:? :? s:? s:? :? s:?
bloody stupid petrol bloody stuff... dont bloody want it anyway! s:x :x s:x s:wink: :wink: s:wink:
Eh eh, caaaalm down, caaaalm down......... s:wink: :wink: s:wink:
Know what you mean though. It is a stupid problem......... s:roll: :roll: s:roll:
Quote from: "krisclarkuk"bloody stupid petrol bloody stuff... dont bloody want it anyway! s:x :x s:x s:wink: :wink: s:wink:
Tell me about it! I mean it's so heavy!
s:wink: :wink: s:wink:
--H--
Run your car in hydrogen. Its MUCH lighter....... s:wink: :wink: s:wink:
Quote from: "krisclarkuk"ive tried all that 10 oclock stuff, spun the fecking thing all the way round and it still did not work properly... but only at this one garage.. s:? :? s:? s:? :? s:?
bloody stupid petrol bloody stuff... dont bloody want it anyway! s:x :x s:x s:wink: :wink: s:wink:
I used to get the same in several garages... try it with the nozzle straight in, then press down the handle so the nozzle pivots on the bottom of the filler hole... and the end of the nozzle is pressed against the back of the filler tube. Press hard enough that the filler hole moves slightly. Once I saw this on one of the Roadster forums, I've never had a problem since! Good luck!
Heh,
It was me that originally posted that tip on spiderchat - I've only just found this forum - I think when I first looked on the web this one hadn't started. It's good to speak to people in the UK who are a bit more chilled than guys in the USA.
The filling problem is cos of the angle which the fuel filler tube is at - if you just put the nozzle in straight - i.e with the bent bit pointing vertically down and push it in as far as it will go and then just put a bit of downwards pressure on it it will tilt back a bit - works on most pumps but there will still always be pumps where the back pressure cutout seems to be too sensitive.
Quote from: "Leahcim"What petrol do people use - I've got used to using Optimax, however someone at work sugessted it may not be ideal for our cars and could damage the cat?
Cheers,
Mike
The Shell "High Performance" fuel, its not called Optimax here, was tested by the ADAC last month. There report was very damming. The found that there was little or no improvment over normal Super blends, and if the case of 2 tested cars, the performance was worse.
Quote from: "victor"and if the case of 2 tested cars, the performance was worse.
If it's good enough for Schumacher it's good enough for me (yeah yeah alright, I know it's not the same grade).
The main benefit of Optimax is it keeps your engine clean. However, some suggest that too much of the cleaning agents can damage the cat while others disagree...
As for the performance benefits, according to the Shell marketing blurb, it seems as though it is possible but I think it's mostly psychological; my car gets an extra 20bhp every time I wash it. The suggested decrease in performance is highly unlikely due to the (proven) increase in flow efficiency.
I personally use it every time and besides, there will not be much choice in a few years. Optimax simply adheres to the new specifications which will become compulsory by 2005 for all oil companies. In my opinion, Shell is ahead of the game; by that time Optimax will be well established and Shell will have enough time to iron out any problems - if any.
Some fellow TT owners dyno tested Optimax...it gave a few extra bhp and better mid range.
Quote from: "Humble Jim"sounds like a typical IT to and fro when software folk blame hardware people for something not working and vice versa.
Hey, I resent that... software developers are doing their best to write decent software for inefficient hardware...
Quote from: "Emmanuel"Quote from: "victor"and if the case of 2 tested cars, the performance was worse.
As for the performance benefits, according to the Shell marketing blurb, it seems as though it is possible ....
Well Shell Marketing would say that wouldnt they! I mean Marketing Depts NEVER lie s:twisted: :twisted: s:twisted:
I respect the ADAC reports. They are independant and try to protect the car owner/driver. When they conclude "The only advantage of Shells new performance fuel is for the profits of Shell" I tend to beleive them. They do their tests over an extended period (i.e. 6 months or so) before making a conclusion. The yont tank up one day and give a dyno run, then a few days later go back with normal fuel and do another dyno run under totally different conditions and jump to a conclusion.
I can scan the artice and post it if you want, but its in German.
Well, here's why I use it. In my wifes Bravo it's given a bit of a performance advantage, but nothing I'd pay £90 a year for. However, it DID bump the MPG up so that we now get well over 300 miles on a tank, but before never managed to do better than 280. I think that's worth more than ANY kind of performance benefit.
Quote from: "victor"Quote from: "Emmanuel"Quote from: "victor"and if the case of 2 tested cars, the performance was worse.
As for the performance benefits, according to the Shell marketing blurb, it seems as though it is possible ....
Well Shell Marketing would say that wouldnt they! I mean Marketing Depts NEVER lie
My original quote was:
Quote from: "Emmanuel"As for the performance benefits, according to the Shell marketing blurb, it seems as though it is possible but I think it's mostly psychological; my car gets an extra 20bhp every time I wash it.
I certainly don't believe that any 97RON fuel can increase performance, but I very much doubt that Optimax decreases it.
As for the hype, I believe marketing departments as much as I believe various magazines; I can not stop assuming that many journalists receive benefits for praising some products over other.
A bit of philosophy (I can't escape; Greek blood runs through my veins s:roll: :roll: s:roll: ):
Marketing departments can not lie, that would be illegal. Truth, however, has many angles. What does "increased performance" mean? 0-60 or top speed? Maybe it's the way the engine performs in terms of efficiency.
At the end of the day, something like this should be taken a bit lightly. I very much doubt people expect extra horsepower from commercial fuel.
I've started using Optimax recently and have to say didn't notice any difference. I've probably got through about 4 or 5 tanks as I heard you need to let it 'run in' for a while.
I mentioned this to a friend of mine and he suggested resetting the ECU and let it relearn the fuel.
has anyone else done this, will this make a difference?
Mike.
In Portugal Whe don't have Shell Optimax, but whe have since a few months, Shell V-Power
I think is basicly the same has Optimax.
At least it promises the same things
Better Performance
Lower consumtion
Engine clean
I use it for around 3 months and the main thing that i notices was a lower noise engine speccially on the morning when i started.
Some engine noises that i eard in the morning, with v-power, they were gone.
I think this hapens because v-power have some adictives that lubrificate the engine.
So this only means better engine protection.
Just for that reason, now i only use v-power.
There is some marginal gains on performance and consumption also.
This is bizarre, i have just spent the last week speaking on the Spyderchat forum arguing that there ar benifits to using Premium, from everything i have heard (science, expert opinion and all) i have decided to switch from optimax to regular fuels in the winter time. Read some of this thread and compare to our experiences s:shock: :shock: s:shock:
m http://spyderchat.com/phpBB/viewtopic.p ... =oil+grade (http://spyderchat.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=12864&highlight=oil+grade) m
Some hairy reading! s:shock: :shock: s:shock:
What do people think of the new Ultima?
Quote from: "vibratingsky"What do people think of the new Ultima?
You mean the BP stuff... same as all the others IMHO. If i was not near a shell garage i would be happy stick that stuff in my car.
Well same here, but it doesnt have the same additives shell use, just higher octaine with enviromantally friendly additives (good for the MOT then s:wink: :wink: s:wink: )
I was thinking about putting mine back on Optimax now that I have the pre-cats out to see if there is any difference. Will let you know!
i still think the engine + ECU have to be designed to take advantage of higher grade fuels.
Our engine is nothing special, it's been engineered towards economy rather than performance, probably meaning it was designed for lower grade fuels like they have in the U.S. as it doesnt need to take advantage of the extra RON (like those chevy V8's do! s:wink: :wink: s:wink: )
Optimax isn't higher RON though is it? It's standard RON with special additives s:? :? s:?
Quote from: "Bongo"Optimax isn't higher RON though is it? It's standard RON with special additives s:? :? s:?
Yes thats my understanding, the most conincing thing for me is that BP advertise there's as a 97 RON petrol, Optimax makes no mention of the RON at the pump.
m http://www.mr2roc.org/forum/viewtopic.p ... ht=optimax (http://www.mr2roc.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3669&highlight=optimax) m
My car runs really well with BP ultimate in (apart from the ECU seemingly learning the idle revs each time I stop...)
i always thought optimax was 98 RON?? s:? :? s:?
Nope. There is no mention of it at the point of sale. If you look in the small text of there press material there is mention of it being 98 equivalent. But this IIRC is the RON at the refinery, as soon as it's moved it degrades, it only adheres to something like 90 RON regulations.
It's mentioned in that article I posted before.
So is BP Ultimate any good? Optimax (i always used till now) has lied in its advertising about performance. What does Ultimate promise?
Optimax is 98 ron... says so on the pump. On my car, if i put standard stuff in it runs rough as hell and all i hear is "tap tap tap tap" so i keep it on the good stuff s:) :) s:)
JMHO, but I believe higher octane does something, even with stock ECU. Of course it could be just my imagination and dyno error, but I did get 140hp after using 95 octane and 149hp after using 98+ octane. Also the car seems to suck if I have to use 95 sometimes, though butt dynos are proved to be very inaccurate.
I'll keep using 98+ anyway s8) 8) s8)
tem: so your saying you dyno'd your 2 with 95 and 98 fuel, and there was 9bhp difference?
not sure whether to beleive it or not as dynos can be 5% out either way...
Quote from: "Tomr2"tem: so your saying you dyno'd your 2 with 95 and 98 fuel, and there was 9bhp difference?
not sure whether to beleive it or not as dynos can be 5% out either way...
Yes and yes (the "98" is 98+, so more of a 99-100). But like I said, could be just dyno error and my imagination...
Quote from: "krisclarkuk"Optimax is 98 ron... says so on the pump. On my car, if i put standard stuff in it runs rough as hell and all i hear is "tap tap tap tap" so i keep it on the good stuff s:) :) s:)
Kris, I've only ever read that Shell is '98 Ron' I've never ever seen it on the pumps..Even looking at Shell's website it doesn't mention if it's 98 Ron.
m http://www.shell.com/home/Framework?sit ... _1602.html (http://www.shell.com/home/Framework?siteId=uk-en&FC2=/uk-en/html/iwgen/leftnavs/zzz_lhn3_1_1.html&FC3=/uk-en/tailored/shell_for_motorists/fuels/optimax/optimax_about_ga_1602.html) m
Quote from: "MRMike"Kris, I've only ever read that Shell is '98 Ron' I've never ever seen it on the pumps..Even looking at Shell's website it doesn't mention if it's 98 Ron.
Im off work this week so will take a look at a couple around here as im sure one i used to fill up at (till it got too expensive) said it on the pump. Unfortuantly, im digital cameraless this week but will get a snap if i can.
Just read an article in the Sunday times 'Driving' pull out on Optimax. And despite the article condeming the fuels, I actually think it did a pretty good job of promoting them. The article criticises the fuels for not living up to the claims of "for an extra burst of power when you need it" but they do a dyno test which shows the fuel gives 1bhp over reg fuels, which to be honest is not a a bad gain per pound per fill up, esp at 20 p a gallon more. (Although i concede if you look at the price per power on total fillups in a year its not great.)
Anyways still haven't relaly made my mind up about it. Just wondered if anyone else had seen it?
m http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/printF ... 20,00.html (http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,2060-12009-1289720,00.html) m
Quote from: "MRMike"they do a dyno test which shows the fuel gives 1bhp over reg fuels, which to be honest is not a a bad gain per pound per fill up, esp at 20 p a gallon more.
does it say the dyno runs were done several times to get an average? or, that 1bhp extra is probably down to the dyno's error margin and not the cars performamce output.
If a car's ECU hasnt been tuned to take advantge of the higher quality fuels, i really cant see how optimax, BP ultimate ect.. can make a difference in a car's perfomance.
The only advantage Optimax will give our car is the extra additives that help keep the engine running nice and smoothly
Thanks for the link Paul! They didn't mention if the 1bhp was the result of dyno error, or outside that. I don't know about the premium fuels. I only buy them now because I can see how they would reduce pinking, as for performance gains? Not sure, esp not at WOT. If it cleans my engine it's worth the premium to me.
I read this,
They did it on a single tank of petrol, its my understanding that it takes a time to work, If the ECU you adapt to your driving style then it can adapt to the petrol. The point is a) BP/Shell shouldn't say it has an instant effect or b) talk about 1.8L engines performing like 2.0L.
In America they have low octane fuels don't they rn 89/92 or something like that. yet spyderchatters post the same sort of performance as the Euro guys.
Having said that i've started to put optimax in if i can, my local garage does it for not that much more than regular. If its better for the engine, better for emissions, better for milage and possibly better for performance then why not.
Quote from: "odub"If the ECU you adapt to your driving style then it can adapt to the petrol.
AFAIK the ECU in our cars isn't that clever, though.. The only way I can see an ECU adapting to petrol is via a knock sensor - and if it was dynamically altering the timing based on knock levels. If that was the case, it's theoretically possible that it would 'hear' less knock on Optimax, and you'd end up with a more advanced timing profile than on 97 or 95RON fuel.
QuoteIn America they have low octane fuels don't they rn 89/92 or something like that.
They have a different measurement of Octane, though.. So their 92RON is about the same as our 95RON (or is it 97RON, I forget) - effectively they are running the same fuel as us (though it may have slightly different additives due to emissions regs).
QuoteHaving said that i've started to put optimax in if i can, my local garage does it for not that much more than regular.
I used to run Optimax in the 300ZX, never had a problem, but can't say I noticed any improvements over SUL, however any changes, even over time, are probably too tiny for the butt-dyno..
I tried it in the Renault 19 a few times too, but found no difference.. The R5 GTT never got to try it - it always ran on SUL - but current club members do seem to run their cars on Optimax now whenever possible, and to date nobodies has expired due to it (that we can tell, anyhow)
Ah i didn't know about American fuels being different.
If i remember the improvments are supposed to be related to the knock sensor in the way you say. But i guess it's never going to make that much difference. Maybe on a havily tuned car, don't the Japs use even higher rated stuff. Or race fuel at 102. Something like that.
Quote from: "odub"Maybe on a havily tuned car, don't the Japs use even higher rated stuff. Or race fuel at 102. Something like that.
Yeah - my import 300ZX had a (ton!) of stickers inside the fuel filler door saying "Only fill with 100RON <fuel>" for about four different petrol companies.. AFAIK they use the same RON calculation that we do too..
You can get race fuel fairly easily in the states too (at some petrol stations as well!) which IIRC starts at 102RON (American RON remember!) and goes upward..
Don't different countries measure fuell differently though? America is ron/mon where we just quote MON values? Not sure about Japan
Just reading up on this stuff.
For example Benzene, the well known cancer causing chemical added to petrol instead of lead? its the thing that damages cats and cats scrub them (when your engine reaches 400 degrees), So I guess that answers the importance of pre cats, and why they end up getting destroyed. Apparently its so dangerous that no motor should run unleaded without a cat, not even a lawn mower.
Well
Optimax has 3.3 (% Vol) and bp has 1.0 max (% Vol) normal unleaded is 2% apparently.
I'm going to stop reading there before I scare myself.
Quote from: "odub"Just reading up on this stuff.
For example Benzene, the well known cancer causing chemical added to petrol instead of lead? its the thing that damages cats and cats scrub them (when your engine reaches 400 degrees), So I guess that answers the importance of pre cats, and why they end up getting destroyed. Apparently its so dangerous that no motor should run unleaded without a cat, not even a lawn mower.
Well
Optimax has 3.3 (% Vol) and bp has 1.0 max (% Vol) normal unleaded is 2% apparently.
I'm going to stop reading there before I scare myself.
s:shock: :shock: s:shock: s:shock: :shock: s:shock: I'll have to get her to do the lawn from now on in
US measures octane in a combination of MON/RON, we use just RON. US 91 is equivalent to roughly UK 97 - I had to look all this up when the US turbo retailers asked about our fuel!
Quote from: "Slacey"US measures octane in a combination of MON/RON, we use just RON. US 91 is equivalent to roughly UK 97 - I had to look all this up when the US turbo retailers asked about our fuel!
No surprise they can push silly power when they're running US 102 octane then - that must be like having 120RON over here (even accounting for those strange american horses they have.. s:lol: :lol: s:lol: )
You can't convert between US-EU octanes s:? :? s:?
(without knowing both RON&MON octanes)
US gives the number as an average between RON and MON. Europe gives just the RON. Basically that sucks, cause RON pretty much only tells how the car idles or cruises without load. MON is what matters when you actually load the engine.
For example local 98 octane has 98 RON and 88 MON, which makes is 93 octane on US. Our 100 octane on the other hand has 100 RON and 96 MON, which makes it 98 in US.
And the 100 is helluva lot better than the 98 octane, though the difference on the pump label is only 2 octanes s:? :? s:?
A while back EVO magazine did a long term test on optimax (although how long I can't remember, but it was over time and numerous fills).
What they found was that the performance improvement was negligible, but on stripping the engines down, the optimax fuelled engines was nice and clean whereas the other had lots of carbon deposits on the valves and other parts.
IIRC they concluded that it would probably improve the life of your engine and was worth it for that alone.
I'm still dubious given the old days when shell fuels was (unjustifiably?) known for causing problems with certain manufacturers engines. I always wonder the amount of pre-cat failures with and without optimax use. There is nothing to say that it might cause it, it's just one of those things that I wonder about (with no statistical evidence to back it up).
Found some details on the EVO tests here (http://www.corvettesofmelbourne.com/COMNewsFiles/NCoMNewsPumpAction.htm) although it doesn't include the pictures which show the cleanliness/muckiness of the engine parts.
m http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/ ... =4&t=25851 (http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?f=4&t=25851) m
The first post in the above link is interesting with respect to the Optimax cleaning-power claims.
I ran my '02 Celi from new for over 5,000 miles exclusively on Optimax (with the exception of the first 1/4 provided with the car). Then after a severe rear end accident I decided I would get rid of the car and switched to normal Shell unleaded for a further 5,000 miles.
On the Optimax the tail pipe of the exhust was completely free of carbon deposits. Within a couple of tanks of normal Shell unleaded the exhaust had turned black with soot. s:o :o s:o
Shell used to claim that Optimax is more highly refined than normal unleaded so that it includes less impurities and burns cleaner (can't find this claim on their web site anymore). My experience certainly seems to prove it burns cleaner. As for performance, it seemed more responsive on Optimax but I could never prove it.
My experience meant when I got my new '04 MR2, I decided to run it exclusively on Optimax again. And yes, my exhaust it spotless after 4,500 miles.... s:) :) s:)
Well i'll say it again, optimax in my tank after an extensive tune up and it made my engine knock on boost, NA you may make you think it's doing good, but i doubt it. s:evil: :evil: s:evil:
Quote from: "mr-s_turbo"Well i'll say it again, optimax in my tank after an extensive tune up and it made my engine knock on boost, NA you may make you think it's doing good, but i doubt it. s:evil: :evil: s:evil:
What do you use now then Ian, I thought the higher octane would stop knock (dependant on the system of course)?
I thought the whole point of higher octance petrol was to stop detonation and therefore knocking.
What about all the highly tuned supras and such on race fuel.
Not doubting it, but its intresting to learn why.
I presume you had the ECU remapped for the new mods, could it be that the "knock timing/alteration" sub-routine (if there is one), was put out of kliter by the remap?
In other words, if you dyno'd and remapped the ECU when the car was full of optimax, would you still get knocks.
I know that higher octance fuel requires greater heat to release the greater amount of energy, so the compression ratio needs to be greater, to generate the required heat - question is, can the MR2 alter its compression ratio?
Quote from: "odub"I thought the whole point of higher octance petrol was to stop detonation and therefore knocking.
What about all the highly tuned supras and such on race fuel.
Not doubting it, but its intresting to learn why.
It is, Optimax is not 98 RON fuel though, It's only 98 RON equivalent, and then only when it leaves the refinery. It's only guarunteed at the pumps to be >91
Really? I'm shocked.
I've always used Esso superplus. This was what i had in the tank when i tuned it. Being in MK at the time, on the way home i put optimax in as that was the first petrol station i found. When i set off i could clearly hear a slight knock when boost came in. I simply took a bit of timing out at low psi and it stopped.
If i'd of tuned with optimax in, yes it would be fine, but something didn't like my switch of fuel. Maybe i just got a "bad" tank of fuel, i know you MK lot are tight, probably all the pumps are connected to the same supply and its watered down a bit!! s:wink: :wink: s:wink: s:D :D s:D
According to Japanese Performance Magazine, Shell Optimax is 98 octane in UK...
I thought that as well Tem, and while there are bits and pieces saying '98 RON' it doesn't say it at the pumps, or anywhere in the literature.
I posted about his a while back m http://www.mr2roc.co.uk/forum/viewtopic ... ht=optimax (http://www.mr2roc.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3669&highlight=optimax) m
It's noticable that Shell have toned down there claims about Optimax of late, although they have never claimed during TV advirtisement that the fuel is 98 Ron. I feel this is partly due to the fact that the BACC is a lot more stringent with TV copy as opposed to print. Claims have to be legitimately substantiated before they get anywhere near TV. Although there are always clever sentence structure which bamboozle comsumers. IE "Dove anti ageing cream was tested on 10 women. 8 People noticed a difference" What that difference is could be anything. Same with the Optimax ad's largely unqualified statements.
"Shell Optimax. Designed for better responsiveness, just when it's needed" It's not even a claim, only that it's 'designed for better responsiveness'.
BP ultimate is a better fuel IMO, they state it is categorically 97 RON.
If you look at their own website I cant find anywhere where they mention it's 98 ron.
m http://www.shell.com/home/Framework?sit ... _1602.html (http://www.shell.com/home/Framework?siteId=uk-en&FC2=/uk-en/html/iwgen/leftnavs/zzz_lhn3_1_1.html&FC3=/uk-en/tailored/shell_for_motorists/fuels/optimax/optimax_about_ga_1602.html) m
Quote from: "MRMike"I thought that as well Tem, and while there are bits and pieces saying '98 RON' it doesn't say it at the pumps, or anywhere in the literature
My local Shell (Ketley) has '98 RON' on the actual pump head.. or at least they did - I'll make a point of checking next time I'm there.
My shell states ron 98 i'm sure
I'd be interested to know, as not one Shell Garage here says 98, and neither does it say so on the Website. I think the 98 RON advirtisement may have been when the fuel first came on the market, and subsequently they haev had to change the claim. If some pumps do have 98 RON on they might not have been changed..could be very wrong though
im sure i remenber reading 98ron on the pumps a few years ago, but they do indeed seem to have got rid of the ron number altogether from everywhere?! cant imagine why? i would have thought it would persuade more people to use it, especially as BP Ultimate is 97ron...
I filled my '2 up with optimax earlier (in fairness it was actually yesterday evening - *mental note - go to bed!!!*) and I could not see anything anywhere stating the ron values of ANY of their fuels s:roll: :roll: s:roll:
I still feel that the cleaning benefits alone (which appear to be largely proven) are a good enough reason to pay the extra, let alone for a potential "performance boost" too.
Out of interest (I don't think this has been covered, but hey - I am half asleep!) what ron fuel would the'2 run on in Japan? I'm guessing that the ECU would be designed with the capacity to optimise fuelling, etc, for ron ratings in the cars home market!?!
sort of, but it does have a different ecu.
Quote from: "Tomr2"im sure i remenber reading 98ron on the pumps a few years ago, but they do indeed seem to have got rid of the ron number altogether from everywhere?! cant imagine why?
Maybe they are trying to build an image of something better...?
Quote from: "markiii"sort of, but it does have a different ecu.
Well that's my theory scuppered! s:wink: :wink: s:wink: s:lol: :lol: s:lol:
Sorry to bring this back out of the cupboard, but I have just received a "Customer Newsletter" from Shell, and in an article plugging Optimax they say
"An octane rating of 98 makes Shell Optimax the highest-octane (sic) petrol available from forecourts in the UK."
roger
Last time I filled up with Optimax, there was an ISO reference number on the pump. I guess that would describe the composition of the fuel? Next time I fill up I'll remember the number and post back.
Started this thread Jun 24, 2003 - still no conclusive answer...
Nonetheless, continued use of Optimax - both MR2 and cat are fine.
HNY to you all.
Mike
Heres the conculsion;
It makes practically no difference unless you've got a turbo, but the posh fuels clean your engine a bit and probably have less rubbish in it and also is better for the world.
Did I hear somebody tell me they boost the octane of normal unleaded during winter time to help with the cold starts?
QuoteLast time I filled up with Optimax, there was an ISO reference number on the pump. I guess that would describe the composition of the fuel?
Shell Optimax pumps I have seen carry the BS 7800:2000 on them which is described as "Automotive fuel. High octane (super) unleaded petrol. " which I understand refers to 97 RON which you would hope for at the very least. You have pay £60 to get more info on what exactly is in the BS spec at http://www.bsi-global.com
As such there does not appear to be one for 98RON that Shell could use so we have to take their word for it or until someone independantly verifies it to our satisfaction.
Still you do get a nice Ferrari bag if you buy enough of the stuff s:wink: :wink: s:wink:
Just stumbled across this on Shell's forum:
No additives are added to Shell Optimax to increase the RON. The 98 RON minimum specification is achieved by using high octane refinery blending streams. Occasionally when stored for long periods of time under inadequate storage conditions petrol may loose some of its octane quality since the higher octane components can be the more volatile ones. In this situation a loss of only 0.1 - 0.2 ON would be expected. I also stress inadequate storage conditions - this does not include retail sites.
The fuel is manufactured to meet a 98 RON minimum specification and we will blend it to this. Typically it can be as high as 98.5 RON but it would not be released from the refinery at any level less than 98.
The specification for Shell Optimax is 98 RON minimum!!
Here's the link to the topic m http://www.shelloptimax.co.uk/jive3/thr ... 9&tstart=0 (http://www.shelloptimax.co.uk/jive3/thread.jspa?forumID=1&threadID=509&tstart=0) m
I think Total also sell a 98 RON 'Super Unleaded'
Saw a test of supermarket premium vs BP Ultimate vs Optimax on The Gadget Show the other day. Test were conducted at Thor using their dyno and were performed on a number of cars and each time the ECU was reset. These consisted of some supermini runabout (can't rememebr what it was), a new golf GTI and a new Scooby.
The results were interesting: On the runabout there was no advantage in using the more expensive fuels - power remained the same on all. This was thought to be becuase the engine management system wasn't advanced enough to take advantage of the higher octane. On both other cars Optimax was the superior fuel giving worthwhile increases in power. The Ultimate also gave a performance increase but it was slightly less than the Optimax. This may be down the the fact that they said the fuel was rated at 97 Ron (wheter or not this is correct - I don't know).
I guess that means that by using Optimax we should see a performance increase as I beleive that our engine has a knock sensor that should allow the engine to advance / retard the ignition to suit the fuel and so get the maximum power / efficiency from it. One factor that may be crucial when comparing different fuels back to back is that it may be prudent to reset the ECU to see how your existing fuel performs and then again after you have filled up with whatever other fuel you are comparing it with. This should allow the ECU to immediately relearn the correct operating paramaters for the different fuel. I guess otherwise it may take a day or two to learn. This is of course ignoring the fact that there may still be a small amount of the previous fuel being burnt until the new stuff has flushed it out.
I saw the gadget show too, very interesting. They reset the ecu each time the test was done on the dyno. I wonder just how much difference it would make on a 2, as it seems the higher state of tune the engine is in, the greater the benefits.
I use to have a little 1.2 Mk1 punto, and i used super unleaded, in it and it endded up blowing my head gasket. head gaskets are known to Fault on Punto, but becuase super unleaded gets hotter than reqular petrol (so the man in the fiat garage told me) this lead to the speed up of the blow,
kind of gone off it since.
You know I was thinking about this the other day too...and in my area not one pump states that the fuel is 98 ron, the ONLY place that I have ever seen Optimax mention 98 ron is on the website. Now, there are very different legal requirements for making claims between what you say on a website, versus TV or press. The ASA comes down really hard on bogus claims made on TV and press, not once have I seen 98 ron mentioned in these mediums.
Having tried BP ultimate which is stated to be 97 ron I have to say this makes the car feel much stronger than Optimax in the mid range, but seemingly feels weaker at the top of the rev range.
I am still none the wiser.
Quote from: "extremeMR2"I use to have a little 1.2 Mk1 punto, and i used super unleaded, in it and it endded up blowing my head gasket. head gaskets are known to Fault on Punto, but becuase super unleaded gets hotter than reqular petrol (so the man in the fiat garage told me) this lead to the speed up of the blow,
That sounds like a good 'story' from a garage to me.. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but:
Regardless of octane, petrol has more or less the same calorific value (the amount of energy - and therefore heat - released in the explosion). The only difference is that the higher the octane, the more
resistant to ignition the fuel is, which means you can run more ignition advance (though it's true to say that a great deal of engine management systems, especially up to a couple of years ago, aren't capable of taking advantage of that fact anyway).
I think he was telling you porky pies.
As for whether Optimax/Ultimate/Tesco is better for our cars - well.. that depends on the specifics of our ECUs. I would hazard a guess that the ECU in the Subaru is set up to run on the best fuel available (perhaps Japanese 102RON), and uses it's knock sensor to dynamically set the timing based on what it's currently running on.
I don't know if our ECUs are a) that clever (or whether they simply use the knock sensor as a safety device, and just knock a big chunk of timing off if they detect
any det.) or b) tuned for anything higher than 95RON anyway (since all Euro cars have to be capable of running on dishwater) - meaning their max advance would be set for 95 (or maybe 97RON) fuel, using the knock sensor to pull the timing back if you have a bad batch of fuel. In other words, you wouldn't see anywhere near the gains that the Subaru saw even if you ran Optimax/Tesco 99/102RON race fuel unless you have a mappable ECU like the Unichip that can be mapped to take advantage of the extra advance you can run on a higher octane fuel.
Now, if someone can come along and tell us how clever the MR2 ECU is s:) :) s:) (I'm betting it's fairly dumb really, using the knock sensor as a basic safety net in case you have water in the fuel or something, since our engine has more in common with the grocery-getter Clio in that test than the highly tuned Subaru turbocharged ECU...)
Quote from: "aaronjb"Regardless of octane, petrol has more or less the same calorific value. The only difference is that the higher the octane, the more resistant to ignition the fuel is
That depends a lot how the gasoline and octane are made. Gasoline CAN make a big difference even with same octane rating. Some say the difference between a good and "ok" gas was up to 100hp in F1 engines in the turbo era, though they were supposed to be the same octane.
You can probably notice the same by trying good and bad gasoline in your '2 and following your fuel consumption or having it dynoed. You can have +10% difference with same octane gas from different companies.
That said, I have no idea about the Optimax...
Could this be the longest-running thread of all time?
For obvious reasons, I've started taking an interest in RON numbers. I asked what the deal was at a Shell garage today with no RON labelling anywhere on the forecourt......
Apparently, Shell issued a memo to their garages advising staff to assure pedantic customers like me that Optimax "is 98+ RON". I was also told that they removed the 98 RON labelling as part of a marketing re-think to distinguish the Optimax brand from the 98 octane offerings of the supermarkets.....don't know how much of this is flannel, but I can see how this decision might have come about in a Boardroom somewhere s:shock: :shock: s:shock:
The good news....if any of this is to be believed....is that we should expect some new super-fuel brand from Shell in the New Year that'll fight back against Tesco et al. Watch this space....
Quote from: "spit"Could this be the longest-running thread of all time?
For obvious reasons, I've started taking an interest in RON numbers. I asked what the deal was at a Shell garage today with no RON labelling anywhere on the forecourt......
Apparently, Shell issued a memo to their garages advising staff to assure pedantic customers like me that Optimax "is 98+ RON". I was also told that they removed the 98 RON labelling as part of a marketing re-think to distinguish the Optimax brand from the 98 octane offerings of the supermarkets.....don't know how much of this is flannel, but I can see how this decision might have come about in a Boardroom somewhere s:shock: :shock: s:shock:
The good news....if any of this is to be believed....is that we should expect some new super-fuel brand from Shell in the New Year that'll fight back against Tesco et al. Watch this space....
As you eluded to I think it's bull that they would take 98 ron off to differentiate it. Until now optimax has been supposedly the ONLY fuel to be 98 ron equiv you wouldn't want to lose this USP. (SUpermarkets to my knowledge until tesco have ever only been 97 ron)
Quote from: "MRMike"Quote from: "spit"Could this be the longest-running thread of all time?
For obvious reasons, I've started taking an interest in RON numbers. I asked what the deal was at a Shell garage today with no RON labelling anywhere on the forecourt......
Apparently, Shell issued a memo to their garages advising staff to assure pedantic customers like me that Optimax "is 98+ RON". I was also told that they removed the 98 RON labelling as part of a marketing re-think to distinguish the Optimax brand from the 98 octane offerings of the supermarkets.....don't know how much of this is flannel, but I can see how this decision might have come about in a Boardroom somewhere s:shock: :shock: s:shock:
The good news....if any of this is to be believed....is that we should expect some new super-fuel brand from Shell in the New Year that'll fight back against Tesco et al. Watch this space....
As you eluded to I think it's bull that they would take 98 ron off to differentiate it. Until now optimax has been supposedly the ONLY fuel to be 98 ron equiv you wouldn't want to lose this USP. (SUpermarkets to my knowledge until tesco have ever only been 97 ron)
The new Tesco Super unleaded is in fact the highest octane fuel in the UK at 99RON.
I turned up to my local Shell garage for an Optimax hit last week and it's changed to a Texaco garage! I tried to put Super 97 ron in and the bloody nozzle wouldn't fit! I decided it must have been a diesel pump when it used to be shell and left it well alone. s:shock: :shock: s:shock:
I have always used Optimax since I got the car 2 years ago and up until recently the price was nearly a £1 so I started putting normal unleaded in it and it just didn't feel as 'perky'.
I've found another Shell station and although it's a bit out of my way I'll be taking it there from now on.
Rather timely, this, Evo magazine this month (January!?) has a review on all the new fuels including Tesco 99, Optimax BP ultimate and race fuel amongst others. The upshot is that they thought Optimax was best allrou7nder for response max power torque etc. It was beaten by BP for max torque but seemed to allow the engine to rev more freeley to give more power - don't ask me how that works, I'm well aware of the linking equation of Power = Torque x revs. It's interesting reading if your interested in this thread - which I guess is why you're reading, if you know what I mean. s:? :? s:?
Has anyone tried Tesco's 99 RON in their 2 yet? It seems to be only available down south at the moment.
I personally do not use Optimax because I am not convinced there is either an increase in power or mpg. I certainly did not notice any difference in power output. The mpg was easily tested and there was no increase in fuel economy when I used it. The added cost is significant - Optimax is 10p a litre more expensive than supermarket unleaded over here and, at my 20k miles a year, this adds up to about £250 a year. That's a lot of cash for some extra 'additives'. To me, it's like buying those 'friendly bacteria' drinks. You may feel better for drinking it but I seriously doubt any provable benefit!
James
Quote from: "jamesn"Has anyone tried Tesco's 99 RON in their 2 yet? It seems to be only available down south at the moment.
James
I have been using it for over a month now and the car feels more responsive than other fuel I have used IMHO s:wink: :wink: s:wink:
Quote from: "heathstimpson"I have been using it for over a month now and the car feels more responsive than other fuel I have used IMHO s:wink: :wink: s:wink:
Heath, out of interest, is your Unichip a Dastek map, or have you dyno'ed it here? You can probably guess where i am coming from.
Quote from: "roger"Quote from: "heathstimpson"I have been using it for over a month now and the car feels more responsive than other fuel I have used IMHO s:wink: :wink: s:wink:
Heath, out of interest, is your Unichip a Dastek map, or have you dyno'ed it here? You can probably guess where i am coming from.
I am still runing the stock maps but will be getting it dyno'ed in the spring s:wink: :wink: s:wink:
Yeah, I think that will be the time you make your decision as to which petrol you use. Obviously Tesco is a bit better than stock USA s:wink: :wink: s:wink:
Tesco RON99 has just made it to Cardiff.
Previously I was using optimax at 104p/l! I can get Tesco 99ron for 94.9p/l at the moment.
My unichip is mapped to 98ron optimax but I've now run the tesco juice for 600miles with no decernable loss of performance and I'm getting 38mpg on my 80-90mph mortorway runs.
All in all - good go go juice.
Only thing is it may not have all the antiwear/corrosion additives of optimax so I'll probably still run the optimax through once a month or so
Quote from: "odub"Apparently its so dangerous that no motor should run unleaded without a cat, not even a lawn mower..
Justr read this - sorry but complete gash!!!!!
Unleaded petrol predated the universal introduction of cats by some years.
I've ran an old MG Metro (no cat) on unleaded for 5 years with no problems and a race spec 106 rallye with a decat on optimax for three years and the engine was so healthy it would even pass the MOT emissions test without the cat (with a little fuelling tinkering)
Is anyone using the new 99RON Shell V-Power in their 2's ??
I think its supposed to be replacing Optimax but I haven't seen it in my local garages yet. Just wondering if people that have used it have noticed any difference also what price is it. Is it more than Optimax ?
Quote from: "Gazz"Is anyone using the new 99RON Shell V-Power in their 2's ??
I think its supposed to be replacing Optimax but I haven't seen it in my local garages yet. Just wondering if people that have used it have noticed any difference also what price is it. Is it more than Optimax ?
Nice to see you're getting it as well. s;) ;) s;) I'm using that and wouldn't touch worse stuff anymore. I'd say it's useless on a stock car though. But a turbo engine tuned for 99 octane allowed 2-3 degree more advance with less knock on V-power. (or more boost, if you wish and your engine can take it)
It's pretty expensive, around 1.5e/l, while "normal" 99 is some 1.3e and 95 some 1.2e. But worth every penny. s8) 8) s8)
Thanks for that Tem, I'm going to give it a go as soon as I find some just to see if it makes any discernible difference with the TTET
V-Power is the replacement / rebranded Optimax (Shell lost the right to use the name). As Tem mentioned, it will do wonders in a tuned car, but will keep the engine of a non-tuned car nice and clean. I use it in the Griffith purely for knock control; those old RV8's were designed for leaded fuel!
Quote from: "Slacey"As Tem mentioned, it will do wonders in a tuned car
I followed Tem's advice today. Wow, what a big improvement, & at 99.9p its cheaper than the Optimax was. s:wink: :wink: s:wink:
Quote from: "Slacey"V-Power is the replacement / rebranded Optimax
Went to my local, today, Optimax gone replaced by V-Power.
Would anybody like to guess or provide good reasons if it would be worth spending £120 ish to have the Unichip remapped?