Oh..I know back to the old chestnut...but bear me out...
Take two cars, both say three years old.
Car 1. Driven about 30,000miles pa, of which say 25,000miles are on long trips with plenty of motorway and A road driving. Regularly serviced, probably two or three times pa.
Car 2. Driven say 3,000miles pa with almost no fast driving at all, and mainly driven in urban traffic for a maximum of four miles betweem engine on and engine off. Serviced annually.
Now the question is this...In order to maintain optimum performance of the engine and ignoring all other factors, which car would benefit more from Optimax or equivalent fuels. Is it necessary for Car 1 and vital for Car 2?
--
Espada III - well if you have a family and need a Lamborghini, what else do you drive?
|
I do a lot of miles. In the Landcruiser it seems to me that the engine feels smoother. However, there is no improvement in MPG nor any noticable difference in power or performance.
And "feeling smoother" is no justification for the extra money, at least IMO.
I am not sure that this would be affected/influenced by how many miles I did or did not do. Who knows about the servicing, since I try not to get involved in that stuff.
|
|
|
|
The answer is no, it's not really necessary. But combining two words like "Optimum" and "Maximum" certainly makes people feel good about themselves and their buying choices.
|
|
www.asa.org.uk/asa/adjudications/Adjudication+Deta...2
|
It would be interesting to know who made the complaints, and who supplied the "expert advice" referred to.
I submit it depends on the car. In Supra, especially after chipping, I use it because of the higher octane rating; a loud bang would be very expensive. In Sonata Optimax would be a waste of money.
|
|
|
|
Don't need it unless you need the higher RON of Optimax.
Otherwise its a bit like all the well-fed and affluent folks you see buying expensive vitamins in the health food shop - they don't need 'em but it helps psychologically.....
|
|
|
Agreed. It's a marketing exercise to make us think that paying another few pence per litre is worthwhile.
The best products sell themselves through proven track records and word of mouth. Anything that needs television advertising with one of the Top Gear blokes (and the stressing of some minimal connection to Ferrari) obviously can't sell itself.
If there was any real difference, then everyone would use it and they'd discontinue the regular stuff.
|
OK then.
So if it makes little difference, what else should the driver of Car 2 do to ensure the best protection and long term performance from his engine, given that it is agreed that that type of driving is far worse for an engine than the driving in Car 1.
--
Espada III - well if you have a family and need a Lamborghini, what else do you drive?
|
OK then. So if it makes little difference, what else should the driver of Car 2 do to ensure the best protection and long term performance from his engine, given that it is agreed that that type of driving is far worse for an engine than the driving in Car 1.
Change the oil more often.
|
|
|
|
My V70 2.4T requires unleaded fuel of 97 RON or above to be able to reach full potential. This applied before and after BSR software tuning. Below this RON, the engine is 'happy' but power is reduced.
Nothing unusual or unique, there.
So, what about 97 RON or above?
Which one is best?
Makes not the blindest jot of difference from what I've found. Fuel consumption and engine performance are affected by factors such as the weather far more than I can determine they are by brand of super unleaded fuel. I buy from whatever garage is the next one I pass when I feel it's time to fill up. If they have no super unleaded (still sometimes happens), I then drive to the next one. (I haven't run our of options and had to buy regular unleaded, yet!)
Currently running on Texaco super unleaded, and going like an Exocet when I want it to.
|
Currently running on Texaco super unleaded, and going like an Exocet when I want it to.
Are not Exocets designed to explode after a short journey?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would say it depends on the quality of fuel which has been used in the vehicles. If they have been run on supermarket grade, then a few tankfulls of Optimax will clean the inlet valve heads, etc. If they have been run on branded petrol then it probably isn't worth running either of them on it.
|
Is there any evidence that 'supermarket' fuel is different to branded fuels? Certainly doesn't have any measureable effect on power or consumption.
How do we know that filling stations don't just replenish their tanks using whichever supplier has the cheapest price that day?
|
|
No-one likes paying more for their fuel than they have to, especially given such criminally high prices we face at the pump. Whether or not this aprticular fuel or others for that matter are any good might be a matter for debate.
I think first and foremost, it has to do with the vehicle you have. For example, if I ran my PUG 205 GTi solely on Optimax for a year, then the difference I might find it makes would be marginal. However if I run my 330 then I'm sure that it would be more beneficial because the engine is more atuned to the higher RON rated fuel.
It might be anecdotal, but if I use BP Ultimate or Optimax I get 33 MPG consistently (motorway runs from Milton Keynes to Ilford @ constant 80 MPH) - but if I use 'regular' unleaded I get 29 MPG on the same run. Power delivery and smoothness of the engine is better with the higher RON fuel and to my mind, it would be my fuel of choice.
Although this is far from perhaps scientific, I do beleive that You Get Wwhat You Pay For. I beleive without a doubt that Supermarket fuel lacks the relevant additives and detergents can be found in the branded fuels and perhaps this is a reason why it costs (marginally) less. But given that YGWYPF I'd NEVER put their fuel in any of my cars. Never have, never will. I *might* be tempted if the price differeital was greater say 10p per litre, but at a couple of pence, it doesn't bear thinking about.
If the best (and cheapest) way to look after your car is to do frequent oil/filter changes and use quality oil, then surely using a good fuel has to come a close second?
Just MHO.
|
Supermarket fuel sometimes costs less as the supermarket do not necessarily need to make a profit on it all the time. Nothing to do with additives etc.
If you had to hazard a guess at the number of supermarket petrol stations there are in the country, that is a hell of a lot of cars getting "sub standard" fuel according to some posts here??
The supermarket I work for insist that all its company car drivers fill up at their stations. AFAIK, their agreement with the lease company does not mention type of fuel.
You can fill up all you want with overpriced fuel but it will not make one iota of a difference to its resale value and, todate, there still has been no scientific back to back trial between Optimax and Supermarket fuel to justify its extra cost. Wonder why.
|
|
The only time I can remember there being wholescale damage to engines and claims due to badly formulated fuel (not a delivery crossover) it was Shell.
|
|
Shell Formula 2000 that was it!
|
|
|
|
Although this is far from perhaps scientific, I do beleive that You Get Wwhat You Pay For. I beleive without a doubt that Supermarket fuel lacks the relevant additives and detergents can be found in the branded fuels and perhaps this is a reason why it costs (marginally) less. But given that YGWYPF I'd NEVER put their fuel in any of my cars. Never have, never will.
Hey, I hope you never eat any of that cheap supermarket food.....
|
Well I knew I might end up upsetting some fellow Backroomers. It wasn't my intention, but I stand by my opinnion. I'd never use Supermarket fuel in lieu of good quality, branded fuel from say BP or Shell.
If I cna justify using the higher RON rated fuel then I do, else I toss in standard unleaded. There are some engines that will benefit from the higher RON rated fuels, but I doubt most cars will. I just recounted my own experience and stand by it :)
Why, when we preach frequent oil/filter changes (and the use of quality oil) as best practice, do we then assume chucking in cheap fuel is OK? Granted that some of you will argue that Supermarket fuel ins't cheap - but I remain to be convinced, especially since if I fill up @ tesco or Morrisons here in Milton Keynes the price differetial is about 1p per litre. Not worth trying IMHO.
|
The discussion is going slightly off the point I was trying to make.
I know that there are huge arguments about whether OPtimax is worth it or not, but it does make certain claims about keeping valves and ports clean etc.
So given my two examples at the top and assuming that Optimax actually does a little of what it says, is it wasting money on the high mileage car and does it benefit the stop start car.
Just for the record I use Optimax in my Subaru Turbo as I have done in my last three cars, and in all three the difference was minimal although the engine was a little smoother. It just that with my sort of stop start driving (admittedly I do 12,000miles pa of it) it is prolonging the life of the engine than if I didn;t use it?
--
Espada III - well if you have a family and need a Lamborghini, what else do you drive?
|
Espada although it may be prolonging the engine, will you be getting the benefit of it? Maybe the engine will now do, say 200000 instead of 1800000? Will you still have it at 180,000 miles? Or are you paying extra just now for some owner further down the years maybe getting a small benefit from it?
I don't have a high performance car so cannot really comment on higher RONs etc, but for the bog standard car, supermarket fuel will suffice.
|
|
Octane number is one small thing, but try to get them to publish something useful like the heat value (Kjoules/Kg) and none of them will, they will just tell you the minimum legal requirement and say they meet it.
|
|
|
Hmmmpf! I'd love to have the choice of using Optimax. One car is a Jaguar V12 with 12.5:1 compression and I'm sure it would love something better than New Zealand unleaded 96. Other car is Mitsubishi Legnum (Galant Estate) VR-4 (2.5 24v V6 with twin turbos), same applies.
Shortage of bulk fuel storage in the South Island, where I live, means that although the North Island has Optimax and the equivalent BP product, we don't.
Grrrr! feels like a banana republic here sometimes, after living in the UK.
|
|
Doesn't all the petrol and diesel sold in the UK, whether from a supermarket or 'proper' station have to pass the same BS test? If thats the case, the supermarket stuff is as good, which is obviously supplied by Esso etc anyway!
|
Doesn't all the petrol and diesel sold in the UK, whether from a supermarket or 'proper' station have to pass the same BS test? If thats the case, the supermarket stuff is as good, which is obviously supplied by Esso etc anyway!
I'm certainly not arguing here that supermarket fuel is necessarily worse, but your logic there doesn't work.
Both passing the same quality test does not automatically mean they're the same. One could pass the test by a much larger margin than the other.
|
|
|
Elsewhere on the Forum you'll find something from me (and probably others) confirming that the things that make one branded fuel different from others are actually added to the tanker as it fills up at the depot, or in some cases to the storage tank from which the tanker draws its load.
Shell Optimax is, I believe, the only fuel that does not share its basic stock with other brands, i.e. it is "pure" Optimax. A lot of swapping goes on among the other brands, and it is highly likely that the supermarket brands share the same basic stock with the other brands; however, whether they share the crucial additives is a different matter altogether. It's the additives that the likes of Shell and Texaco would use to justify the claims they make, and Shell would also point out the unique nature of the Optimax basic stock.
Optimax is also the only brand to deliver 98 RON, so that's important if your car needs it (check the handbook and the inside of the filler-cap cover). Also, I have reported elsewhere that the members of a model steamboat club swear by Optimax because it leaves their machines cleaner than any other fuel they have used.
|
|
As for internal cleanliness, I'm told EVO magazine ran supermarket fuel and Optimax through some new vehicles: reported deposits of carbon etc on the valves and crowns with the supermarket fuel, none with the Optimax.
|
Wonder how much Shell slipped them to write that?
You don't honestly believe that any motoring press is written without prejudice or favour?
|
|
I don't have the article to hand, so I cannot say whether the test was independently observed, but I'd tend to think that Shell would be correct - its not as if its some advertisers puff! No doubt the mag relied on Shell to do much of the technical work, and someone had to strip down the engine to examine the parts. Shell might have fudged the results, but neither you nor I know that to be the case. I prefer to wait until I know before shooting my mouth off.
|
|
Elsewhere on the Forum you'll find something confirming that the things that make one branded fuel different from others are actually added to the tanker as it fills up at the depot, or in some cases to the storage tank from which the tanker draws its load.
Yep:-
www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?v=e&t=67...5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>>The discussion is going slightly off the point I was trying to make.
A Backroom thread going *slightly* off the point ?
Say it ain't so !!!!!!
|
|
My new Golf's 1.6 FSI petrol engine is supposed to be run on RON 97+ petrol for optimum peformance and petrol consumption and since taking delivery of it last December have only used fuels of RON 97 and above (mainly Shell's Optimax as there is a garage nearby). I don't feel so inclined to brim the tank with 'ordinary' unleaded and then perhaps suffer from somewhat indifferent running and poorer consumption. Currently it is doing 41mpg on mainly out of town driving and hope this will improve now that the weather is more clement (or supposed to be).
|
I used to run Optimax for a few months in my car, a W reg 1.8 SEAT. Seemed to give a very slight increase in power at the top end. Also made the engine roar more and seemed to be worse on MPG.
But the extra cost wasn't worth it (most of the time 4p a litre extra here) and my car seems to run better on the ordinary stuff (was designed for RON 95 anyway).
Also, from what I remember VW had issues with the FSI engines at first because of the sulphur content of unleaded until petrol companies started producing low sulphur petrol. Wasn't aware you needed 97 RON though. That's put me right off buying one of these :-(
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ive used Optimax in my Ford Ka for about a year, it pulls away quicker at the lights & the fuel comsumption has improved to nearly 50mpg under various conditions.
--
Its not what you drive, its how you drive it! :-)
|
|
My old V6 Vectra ran better on Optimax and used less to the extent that it paid for it'self.
|
|
|
Ive used Optimax in my Ford Ka for about a year, it pulls away quicker at the lights & the fuel comsumption has improved to nearly 50mpg under various conditions
Quicker than what?
|
I meant quicker than it did before whilst it was on supermarket crud Bobby!
--
Its not what you drive, its how you drive it! :-)
|
|
|
|
|
