Optimax (again)

[Anonymous]

Guys,

Having read the following:  m http://www.spyderchat.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=5492 m   I was beginning to worry if regular use of Shell Optimax could eventually lead to the problems that this person has described...?    s:shock: :shock: s:shock:    s:shock: :shock: s:shock:  

The issue is apparently carbon build-up which can cause the engine to misfire and a loss of power...  s:!: :!: s:!:    s:!: :!: s:!:    s:!: :!: s:!:     s:shock: :shock: s:shock:  

Is anyone aware of this?  Should I be worried and stick to standard Unleaded as a precautionary measure  s:?: :?: s:?:    I'd hate to be contributing to a future problem...


Thanks in advance,


Sundance   s8) s8)

[Anonymous]

I've said this before but no body agreed so I shut up.  Use what Toyota recommend, using something lower is a bad idea, but regularly using something higher could also cause problems.

To much is just as bad as to little.  Of course I could be wrong, but then none of use really know why this happens.

[Anonymous]

Do any cars actually say that you should use the higher 97/98 ron fuel? If not then why sell it? If its going to damage your car then surely people like BP & Shell would be in and out of courts defending thier product from screwing up god knows how many cars?

I dont know, i was actually thinking of starting to bring my car slowly off this as its starting to get pricey round here now   s:? :? s:?

[Anonymous]

Do any cars actually say that you should use the higher 97/98 ron fuel?   s:? :? s:?

Plenty, the S2000, NSX, 911's, 350Z, Exige, i'm just picking at these off the top of my head.

[Anonymous]

I could see some of the higher spec cars wanting this... but would they then say that you CAN run on lower but you shouldnt as it may damage your engine? Thing is, i can see a lot of people not being able to get easy access to the higher ron petrol as not every garage does it, so surely the manufacturers would allow for you to use a lower rating (or higher in our case)?

I dont know, just thinking/typing out aloud!   s:wink: :wink: s:wink:    s:lol: :lol: s:lol:    s:oops: :oops: s:oops:

<edit> kinda on that note... some manufactuers also tell you not to use additives like injector cleaner etc in their cars, but the companys that make this stuff say its fine to use in all cars....? which company is right there?   s:crazyeyes: :crazyeyes: s:crazyeyes:  </edit>

[Anonymous]

The Audi TT specifies 98RON too.

If it were me... I'd be less inclined to believe the marketting put out by Shell, and more inclined to stick to what the manual tells me to put in the car.  There are some things where I know what the effect will be, and somethings I don't.  Fuel is one of them.

[Anonymous]

Surely any modern car, which an adaptive ECU & knock sensor will be any RON fuel, within reasonable tolerances.  I have used Optimax exclusively for about 15,000 miles now without any problems.

My personal experience of experimenting with fuels has lead to me deciding to use Optimax based on various experiences and advice.

--H--

[Anonymous]

The Audi TT specifies 98RON too.

If it were me... I'd be less inclined to believe the marketting put out by Shell, and more inclined to stick to what the manual tells me to put in the car.  There are some things where I know what the effect will be, and somethings I don't.  Fuel is one of them.

I totally agree, I don't believe anything Shell tells me, the 1ZZ was designed to run on a lower fuel over here and i'm sticking to it.  Normally I wouldn't worry, but on a engine with a unsolved problem i'm not pushing my luck.  Its getting to be a pain in the ass this CAT problem, even for those of us withOUT the problem yet, its like you have to watch your every move...

[Anonymous]

I totally agree, I don't believe anything Shell tells me, the 1ZZ was designed to run on a lower fuel over here and i'm sticking to it.  Normally I wouldn't worry, but on a engine with a unsolved problem i'm not pushing my luck.  Its getting to be a pain in the ass this CAT problem, even for those of us withOUT the problem yet, its like you have to watch your every move...

What CAT problem?   s:? :? s:?

[Anonymous]

I totally agree, I don't believe anything Shell tells me, the 1ZZ was designed to run on a lower fuel over here and i'm sticking to it.  Normally I wouldn't worry, but on a engine with a unsolved problem i'm not pushing my luck.  Its getting to be a pain in the ass this CAT problem, even for those of us withOUT the problem yet, its like you have to watch your every move...

What CAT problem?   s:? :? s:?

...the...cat...problem...you know...exploding cat...boom goes the engine...thing...

The problem SC has a poll over every month....

[Anonymous]

...the...cat...problem...you know...exploding cat...boom goes the engine...thing...

The problem SC has a poll over every month....

did know about that.

Stay away from SC really. SC = Loads of yanks doing nasty things to their '2's...   s:? :? s:?  

  s:lol: :lol: s:lol:

[Anonymous]

er... but we DO have engine/cat problems.  Cases in England/US/Japan all over.

[Anonymous]

er... but we DO have engine/cat problems.  Cases in England/US/Japan all over.

sorry typo above - should have said didnt, not did!   s:oops: :oops: s:oops:

[Anonymous]

Surely the onus ought to be on the manufacturer (i.e. Toyota GB) to have a separate page in their manual descibing the car's compatiability with all the different types of fuel?

I doubt very much that Shell have done long term testing of Optimax with every type of car manufactured in the last 10 years - it would take too long (and cost too much)!

Does anyone have any conect details for   s:evil: :evil: s:evil:    s:evil: :evil: s:evil:  Toyota Customer Services  s:evil: :evil: s:evil:    s:evil: :evil: s:evil:   ?  Perhaps I can take the matter up with them..?


Sundance

<edit>Ooops forgot my shades - here they are ---->   s8) s8)  </edit>

[Slacey]

Just to throw my 2p in, I've used it for a while now and not had any problems, but I take on board the comments about long-term issues. Asking Toyota might not be a bad idea Sundance, but I expect they will say don't use it as let's face it, it's the easy answer  s:? :? s:?

[Anonymous]

Hmmm.... I guess its like in IT where the supplier says "our product only works with IE5.5 SP1, running JRE version x.x.x etc etc" - as this is the only configuration that they have bothered testing their product with...   s:( s:(  


Sundance   s8) s8)

[Anonymous]

Well, Shell have replied to the email I sent - judge for yourselves:


Dear Sir.
Thank you for your recent e-mail.
I was very concerned to hear what you have been told about Shell Optimax.  Please be assured that Shell Optimax is suitable for all vehicles designed to run on unleaded petrol, it has been tested extensively and will not cause any damage whatsoever to your vehicle.
Shell Optimax is a unique highly refined new formulation which burns more cleanly to give you smooth power delivery.  It is able to do this becuase:
* as the petrol with the highest octane rating in the UK it enables advanced modern design engines to work more efficiently thereby delivering more power
*it has the ability to remove performance sapping deposits left by other fuels from the airways of the engine
*it is free of the heavy constituents of petrol that leave dirty residue in you engine.
 
The combination of these effects means that the fuel and air flow smoothly and quickly to the engine, burning more effectively to give you increased performance and a quicker response.
 
If you require any further information then  please do not hesitate to contact our Customer Service Centre on our free phone number 0800 731 8888.
 
Regards,
Kathryn Baillie
Retail Customer Relations
Shell U.K. Oil Products Limited
Rowlandsway House, Rowlandsway, Manchester M22 5SB, United Kingdom
Tel: +44 161 947 5523 Fax: +44 161 499 8088
Email:  e http://www.shell.com/uk m

[Anonymous]

Interesting - nice one.

[Anonymous]

Is anyone collecting the card thingys i need an X5 wheel , a bmw M3......... ill split the winnings with a match  s:lol: :lol: s:lol:

[Anonymous]

Well, Shell have replied to the email I sent - judge for yourselves:


Dear Sir.
Thank you for your recent e-mail.
I was very concerned to hear what you have been told about Shell Optimax.  Please be assured that Shell Optimax is suitable for all vehicles designed to run on unleaded petrol, it has been tested extensively and will not cause any damage whatsoever to your vehicle.
Shell Optimax is a unique highly refined new formulation which burns more cleanly to give you smooth power delivery.  It is able to do this becuase:
* as the petrol with the highest octane rating in the UK it enables advanced modern design engines to work more efficiently thereby delivering more power
*it has the ability to remove performance sapping deposits left by other fuels from the airways of the engine
*it is free of the heavy constituents of petrol that leave dirty residue in you engine.
 
The combination of these effects means that the fuel and air flow smoothly and quickly to the engine, burning more effectively to give you increased performance and a quicker response.
 
If you require any further information then  please do not hesitate to contact our Customer Service Centre on our free phone number 0800 731 8888.
 
Regards,
Kathryn Baillie
Retail Customer Relations
Shell U.K. Oil Products Limited
Rowlandsway House, Rowlandsway, Manchester M22 5SB, United Kingdom
Tel: +44 161 947 5523 Fax: +44 161 499 8088
Email:  e http://www.shell.com/uk m

You see this is the bull crap we have to put up with.  Using Optimax is not going to give a car designed to run on a lower RON more "performance".  A Jap import might run smoother, but not a UK Spec MR2, it might be cleaner (Super unleaded cleans anyway).  IT might burn cleaner but it also might burn hotter.

Have Shell run a MR2 on Optimax for 60k miles?  No.  Can they prove that running a petrol higher than normally recommended by Toyota on a engine with un resolved problems with heat etc will not damage the engine.  No.  Can I prove it will?  No.  Which is why I stick with what i'm told until someone works out how to fix the exploding cat problem.

I'm not bad mouthing Optimax, I've used it the odd time i'm just not buying the advertising crap   s:roll: :roll: s:roll:

[Anonymous]

Have Shell run a MR2 on Optimax for 60k miles?  No.  Can they prove that running a petrol higher than normally recommended by Toyota on a engine with un resolved problems with heat etc will not damage the engine.  No.

Same reason I'm not going to change.  Shell would say it's brilliant and safe, but as they can't prove it doesn't do damage, I'll stick with the fuel that the manufacturers have tried for 60K miles, and do know doesn't knacker the engine.  Saying it's been tested extensively, doesn't mean it's been tested on my car for 60K miles.

[zud]

I'm not convinced by what Shell say... but it would be interesting to hear what Toyota say!  Personally, my car's full of Optimax at the moment... but it's only through this thread that I've heard of the cat problems... not yet sure what I'll put in next.   s:? :? s:?  

Having said that, I've now taken a look at the SC discussion, and of those that have had problems the vast majority appear to be using fuel with a RON rating lower than 95.  Does it follow that you'll also get the same problems by going higher than 95?  I guess no-one knows, so maybe it's best to play it safe.  I've got about a week before I need to fill up again... guess I'd better take a closer look at SC before then!!   s:? :? s:?

[Anonymous]

Rough translation from the ADAC website
http://www.adac.de/auto_motorrad/kraftstoffe/test_shell_v_power/default.asp?id=0

General German Automobile Association (ADAC)
test 2003:  Shell "v-power" in test

Full one 100 oktan flow from the v-power - pistol.  
In comparison:  "super" has 95, super plus 98, and the "Optimax" 99.  New additives for engine-cleaning and a "Friction Reducer". The purpose being to reduce friction between piston ring and cylinder.  

The noble juice costs at least nine cent to more per litre than with the competition (super plus) - well invested money?  A reason for the ADAC to examine under the magnifying glass, the sprit that the Schumi brother Michael spoke of ("... the best drive, I ever...") .  

How we did the test

How do engines designed for 95 or 98 octain run with 100 octain?

The ADAC set three representative vehicles, which need 98 oktan, alternatively with conventional super plus and with new v-power to the test standard and drove with them practice attempts similar to the ADAC  autotest:  
an AUDI A3 2,0 FSI as modern direct injection,
a BMW 316i with variable valve gear
the Porsche Boxster as sports cars with a high efficiency (162 KW) engine.  
As a fourth test candidate a VOLKSWAGEN golf 1,4 16V was examined, which needs 95-Oktan-Super.  

The Results.

The results are sobering with only the VOLKSWAGEN and the Porsche having a slight increase in output power?  However, this was clearly below two per cent and thus within the measuring tolerance.  And five per cent more torque?  Again no return:  All the results showed outside of statisticaly measurable tolerances but sometimes with worse results

Due to the results of measurement, and the heafty surcharge, there was no incentive to use this fuel in our test vehicles.  

Here was a table to be seen at http://www.adac.de/auto_motorrad/kraftstoffe/test_shell_v_power/default.asp?id=0

So who needs the new superfuel?  If the vehicle industry is to be believed :  nobody.  So argue auto makers,  the knocking sensors of current engines would be appropriate for at the most 98 oktan and could not use a 100-Oktan-Potenzial under standard conditions at all.

In all other respects does competitor Aral refer to the fact that "innovative" additive additives had already been added for four years  and naturally without surcharge.  

[filcee]

That's interesting.  

After only being able to fill up with Optimax at Oxford Services last Friday, I have conducted my own totally non-scientific comparison.  With my new 03 '2 only really covering motorway miles since completing the first 600 miles of 'gentle running' it has been returning 40-45 mpg on average.  A tank of Optimax returned about the same - 39 mpg.  Given that it's just about impossible to ensure that the same amount of fuel goes in each time I fill up, I would say that this is within the margin of error.  

As for power/torque increases, I haven't noticed any, but my MK1 lard-a***e isn't the most sensitive of scientific instruments   s:D s:D , plus I haven't stretched the car much beyond 4000 rpm (yet).

I filled up on Optimax again earleir this week, just to make sure there wasn't too much cooking unleaded left in the mix in the tank, and I'm interested to see if the mpg figures compare when I fill up again over the weekend.

What is real is the pain in my wallet, with a litre of Optimax being 4-6p dearer than cooking unleaded, depending on where you buy it.

[Anonymous]

I think that there is a big discrepancy with the argument with this. I have had experience with both the Mk1 and the new Mk3 and I have to say both have been VERY different.

The Mk1 had VERY significant performance changes with Optimax. I don't have scientific figures on this, but I can tell you that it was a definate change. You really could feel the engine freeing up and revving freer, as well as a slight increase in acceleration and decrease in engine noise. Like I said, this is not scientific as such, but I had people in the car who rode with me to work and even thety said they could feel the difference with the Optimax compared to the 97RON Super from BP that I normally filled up with from the station near work. Oh, and this may be important (well, I think it is!) but the Mk1 had well over 100K miles on the clock.......

Whereas the Mk3 has had no significant performance improvements since I have been putting it in. None that I can tell of anyway, other than maybe a little difference in the smoothness of revving. The economy has been within a 4-5mpg with any type of fuel that I put into the Mk3. My Mk3 has only 13K on the clock.....

So, from my very unscientific experiments and deductions, I reckon that the Optimax DOES have an effect on the car, but it probably has something to do with the wear and tear, as well as the condition of the engine for when it makes its difference. The the 4-AGE engine was a pretty advanced engine for its time back in 83-84 when it was launched and with 100K on the clock, perhaps the supposed benefits claimed by Shell would probably have a much more magnified effect by bringing the engine up to some kind of performance level. On a much more modern engine with very little milage and wear, I reckon the effects would be much less significant.......

So, whatever fuel you put in, I reckon it makes not one jot of difference at this age and stage of wear of most of our relatively new technology engines........

Put what you want in. I don't think it will make a blind bit of difference.....

Just my 2 penneth worth!!!