Or does it?
BP's promotional material for Ultimate unleaded claims a large increase in acceleration.
"it's like upgrading from a 1.8 to a 2.0 litre engine" - their words not mine.
Since it's illegal under the Trades Description Act and Advertising Standards to make mis-leading claims, this must be true!
What's this fuel like in real world conditions?
|
|
I first used BP Ultimate unleaded a couple of weeks ago, after using Shell Optimax for 9 months in my V6 Mondeo. The first tankful made no difference to performance or economy, except economy wise, it cost 3p a litre more than Optimax. When I refilled with BP ultimate for the second tankfull the performance dropped and the economy dropped, similar performance to what I used to get from normal unleaded (at 8p a litre cheaper) before I went on to Optimax. I shal not be refilling with BP Ultimate, I'm going back to Shell Optimax its cheaper and more consistant.
|
|
|
If it's in the form of a quote attributed to a third party then it isn't illegal - they wouldn't actually be making the claim, just passing the POV on. It would have to make that clear though, although some agencies think that the speechmarks are enough to mark it out as an independent view.
O'd be interested to see their justification for the claim though - maybe they lifted it from the catalogue of the company who make the magnetic fuel alignment kit... ;)
|
Magnetic fuel alignment? Where can I get that? Sounds really good. Just what my highly sophisticated common rail 5cyl TD needs, some magnetic alignment.
As Shell are rolling out a new and improved diesel with added whoopee and extra this and that, I may just continue to stay clear of BP.
Or just keep buying the odd dose of Millers Diesel Power Plus.
|
Saw someone at the weekend advertising these magnetic thingies to improve fuel consumption, well, on anything! Petrol, diesel, gas for central heating, you name it.
What sounded more interesting was in the latest issue of Eureka which had a feature on vortices. Apparently a 'device' was fitted to the exhaust of a car with a 1.5 engine that creates a vortex which helps suck the air through the engine. They claimed something like 20% power increase, 10% better economy as well as 15% less emissions. Something like this sounds far more plausible and hopefully will be developed to a production unit soon.
|
The EcoTek device (various threads passim) offers this mystical vortex approach to motoring enlightenment and has been shown to be a load of bunkum.
Personally think you would be better off introducing stones and bones blessed by druids to your tank. I guarantee that if you put enough of them in, you will put less fuel in your tank each time you fill up.
|
The EcoTek device (various threads passim) offers this mystical vortex approach to motoring enlightenment and has been shown to be a load
Any links to this? I usually find Eureka to be a fairly reliable source and their article was fairly positive, along with details of loads of other similar uses for vortices. If it's wrong I'd like to see the reverse argument as it makes a bit of sense to me that a better air flow would help the engine...
|
>> The EcoTek device....
>> Any links to this?
Previous posting in Tech Matters mentions it:-
www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?t=5715&v...f
|
|
|
it makes a bit of sense to me that a better air flow would help the engine...
In order for any change in manipulation of the airflow to have an impact it would have to come after the volume of air had been measured by the ECU, otherwise the ECU would simply dump more fuel in to maintain the mix. Devices that bleed air in after the airflow sensor will make the engine run lean, risking long term damage.
|
Right, looking at the thread DD quotes and the website for the device, I don't think this is what I am referring to. I'll bring the magazine home tomorrow to quote fuller details but what this device seems to do is fit in the exhaust system whereas the Ecotek seems to go on the engine itself.
What I gather is does is simply ease the passage of exhaust gases through the exhaust itself so it won't have any effect on the amount of air etc going through the system, it will simply reduce the back pressure in the exhaust so less power is lost that way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh dear has that come round again? There was a device in the 60's (?) which bolted on the exhaust and converted it to two outlets. It had an air inlet at the front and claimed to use the air flow of the car's motion to reduce back pressure on the exhaust. Can't for the life of me remember its trade name, but I'm sure someone will! Yes, reducing the back pressure on the exhaust is probably a benefit, but given the gas flow from an engine I can't for the life of me see how a practical sized bolt-on device, using the car's slipstream could have any measureable effect - certainly not 20%. Its effect would be even less at low speeds too.
Oh, and as emmisions are (to all intents and purposes) tied to fuel consumption, then 10% economy improvement should only improve emissions by 10%.
Regards
John S
|
|
|
The vortex device is mentioned in an article on the Eureka website: www.eurekamagazine.co.uk - you need to register though. Do a search for 'fluid power' in the Reference Library.
The company responsible for this device is NVF Noteka in Russia.
|
|
|
|
|
I could do a long rant but ChrisR's comments sums it up best...
"I have an amplifier that goes up to eleven if you're interested."
The fuel companies must be rubbing their hands with such an intrigued public only to happy to spend extra money on something that will make no difference.
If you'd like to feel the difference between a 1.8 and 2.0, try part-exing your car for a more powerful one...
|
If you'd like to feel the difference between a 1.8 and 2.0, try part-exing your car for a more powerful one...
LOL!
I love the names that companies come up with for their products. Millers makes a superb Diesel Injector cleaner, but it gets all hair chested and has to be called Diesel Power Plus. Makes me cringe whenever I buy it.
"(Loudly) Yes, I shall have a selection of your interestingly titled top-shelf publications and, er (whispers) some Diesel Power Plus please...."
|
I filled my Alfa 156 GTA with the BP ultimate, did my usual brim to brim calculation. With normal 95RON I get about 25mpg, with this ultimate I got 23!
As for performance, I "may" have noticed a slight improvement, but it was such that Im not sure and was possibly imagining it. Wont be buying it again!
|
PR
Hm, yes. I've followed the threads here and carried on using a mixture of supermarket and 'branded' 95 octane in both our cars. I've used supermarket fuels for years, almost exclusively so in my Vectra, and that had no problems (mechanical or economy) in 80 k miles. As I regularly say I've never yet seen a Sainsbury's or Tesco refinery, yet they have the lions share of the market.
Anyway, I thought I'd better try. I've tried Optimax and branded 97 octane super on a number of long runs, checking the fuel consumption brim to brim. The BMW does say that performance will be enhanced on 97 octane. It's not entirely clear for the Astra but it does have adaptive ignition.
Result?
Well on both cars no difference in consumption or perceived performance, and in fact one run with the BM came out about 2miles/gall worse than normal. Maybe the extra performance is there if you thrash it, and you don't do that on motorways and keep your licence. I remain sceptical, and like you, I doubt I'll bother in future.
Regards
John S
|
|
|
|
|
.. BP\'s promotional material for Ultimate unleaded claims a large increase in acceleration. .. >>
1. large? where? how much is large?
.. \"it\'s like upgrading from a 1.8 to a 2.0 litre engine\" - their words not mine. ...>>
2. where did you see this quote?
>>..Since it\'s illegal under the Trades Description Act and Advertising Standards to make mis-leading claims ..>>
3. Agreed. BP/Shell have to choose thier words carefully, and have scientific evidence to prove their claims.
The title of this thread, for example, would be worded \"BP Ultimate gives UPTO 11% power increase\" - if indeed that is what they were claiming.
4. I am always surprised that in Britain, a nation that has historically produced so many top Scientists and Engineers, you find so many people willing to undertake unscientific home experiments to prove/disprove their mpg. The proof of claims made by these Ultimate/Optimax fuels can only be tested under controlled conditions. The respective web sites are very careful to claim benefits in specific areas only.
5. As I posted in another thread - see
www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?t=17431&...e.. Alvin and Motel gave inside information from tanker-drivers. To quote them:
\"Alvin: I imagine that all fuel comes from the same refinery and is probably the same.
As regards a difference at the pumps this must come from the additives.
Have posted this before but will repeat.... my son in law was a tanker driver for Wincanton working out of Tamworth and Nottingham until about a year ago.
I asked him the last time about the additives and his answer was.
Working nights for example which he did for several years they perhaps have three full loads to do during their shift.
The filling of the tanker into its separate pots (as they call them) is carried out by the driver.
They are also given a card by the clerk which they slot into the additive mechanism and injects the particular additive for whoever would be receiving the fuel. Wincanton did all of Texaco so the additive mixture would be dedicated to them only.
Any other retailer would have the additive which they had specified. The driver has no knowledge of the additive but simply inserts a specific card for a specific retailer.
I imagine there is a little secrecy about this from what he says.
He was also told by the older drivers that years ago when the main players used to have their own tankers (no longer) one of them used to have a separate additive tank and the driver had to inject this at the place of delivery into the tank before pumping.
And the biggest fright for every driver was the dreaded one of putting the wrong fuel into the wrong forecourt tank.
And it happens periodically which puts a black mark on the driver and instant action required from the supplier.
He tells some interesting tales on these incidents.\"
\"Motel : Hi All i am a retired tanker driver 20 years with Texaco 3 years with shell 5 years with Tesco and 3 years with Safeways and worked out of the large oil terminal at Buncefield Hemel Hempstead in Hertfordshire the petrol arrives at this terminal from 3 pipe lines BP corringdon, Fina/Total Immingham, and Shell Stanlow, and all grades come down the same pipe and pumped into the companies storage tanks in there own depots each driver is given a loading card like a credit card and if a Tesco driver loads in BP the computer knows who he is and injects the correct
addertive, they dont hold special tanks for third party buyers
i have used Tescos fuel also Asda and Safeways and Sainsburys in
my Volvo Which is now 17 years old and still going strong with 152.000 miles on the clock if it was rubbish i would not use.\" ..<<
and
www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?v=e&t=17...9
>>...the following link is for anoraks or petrol-heads
members.tripod.com/~miniwww/gasoline.htm
amended as requested - ND
where you can find out more about petrol e.g.
\"...4.12 Are brands different?
Yes. The above specifications are intended to ensure minimal quality standards are maintained, however as well as the fuel hydrocarbons, the manufacturers add their own special ingredients to provide additional benefits. A quality gasoline additive package would include:-
octane-enhancing additives ( improve octane ratings )
anti-oxidants ( inhibit gum formation, improve stability )
metal deactivators ( inhibit gum formation, improve stability )
deposit modifiers ( reduce deposits, spark-plug fouling and preignition )
surfactants ( prevent icing, improve vaporisation, inhibit deposits, reduce NOx emissions )
freezing point depressants ( prevent icing )
corrosion inhibitors ( prevent gasoline corroding storage tanks )
dyes ( product colour for safety or regulatory purposes ).
During the 1980s significant problems with deposits accumulating on intake valve surfaces occurred as new fuel injections systems were introduced.
...>>
|
|
I emailed Shell abou this just a few day's ago, after seeing an unbranded tanker at my local Shell station. Their response was that from time to time, unbranded tankers may be used to cover for periods of higher demand. Fair enough. They went on to say that Shell petrol can originate at refineries other than Stanlow but that the Shell additive is added *before* it leaves that refinery. They confirm that Shell Optimax is supplied ONLY from Stanlow.
|
|
|
|
Well i\'ve just filled up again after my first tank full of bp ultimate.
In the 4 months i\'ve had the car, I always run the tank down till the warning comes on then brim it, so I think the figures are reasonably accurate-
over the last 4 months, consumption varies between 45.09 and 50.34 mpg, with a running average of 49.07. This on either asd/tesco or Shell (probably 50% shell - it\'s nearest home and often the same price as the other two)
the last 400 miles was done on bp ultimate and used 44.54 litres which works out at 47.67 mpg, and there\'s no noticeable power increase, so i\'m paying a premium of 5p a litre for some positive environmental benefits at the moment...
not for much longer, methinks
Bora - what Bora ?
|
|
|
