High-octane fuel largely a waste of time

I hope you all don't mind the cross-post, but..

...For those who still doubt it, using fuel of greater octane than officially recommended is largely a waste of time/money:

formatting link
Note in particular the Porsche comment!

DAS

Chasing dreams at £11 a gallon Will BP's expensive superfuel really make your car go faster? Jonathan Milne of The Sunday Times investigates

Petrol prices may be at their highest level ever, but BP is gambling that a niche group of drivers will still be willing to pay more than twice as much. The oil company has launched the highest octane fuel available on forecourts in Britain, aimed at drivers of high-performance cars. It costs £2.42 a litre - £11 a gallon.

Ultimate 102 has an octane rating of 102 RON, compared with 95 RON for standard unleaded petrol and 99 RON for the highest-rated super-unleaded. It is similar to the old five star petrol sold in the 1970s which cost only a few pence more than regular fuel.

BP's target is the growing number of owners of top-end sports cars who want a little more power and performance from their tuned engines, especially on track days. The company claims it can add as much as 37bhp to a turbocharged vehicle.

The fuel, which is "crystal clear" rather than the yellowish colour of regular petrol, is so exclusive it is "hand made" in small batches using the sort of expertise employed by Formula One race teams, says BP.

But is anyone really going to spend £100 on one tank of petrol? Ultimate 102 went on sale on six forecourts in southeast England last Monday. The Sunday Times monitored two stations for 48 hours last week and witnessed only one purchase. Calls to the other garages revealed just five confirmed sales (three refused to comment). BP says all six stations have made at least one sale. Pressed on exactly what quantity had been sold, a spokesman said the response had been " overwhelming".

Overwhelmingly bad, perhaps. Even BP's own station managers were sceptical. Ade Layokun at the Tudor filling station on the A20 in Maidstone said: "Even for the high-end road user it's too expensive. People pick up the pump then quickly drop it."

At the Newbury Centre filling station in Ilford, Essex, drivers were required to push a large orange button on the pump to signal their acceptance of the price. When one elderly lady inserted the nozzle of the superpetrol in her Fiat Punto the cashier warned her over the intercom and she beat a retreat.

The other buyers according to staff were the driver of a Subaru Impreza and a customer who filled a 5 litre can. The only purchase witnessed by The Sunday Times was at the Canning Town station, east London, by Jermain Shillingford, a 24-year-old courier. He put £15 worth into his Renault Clio Williams. That bought him 6.2 litres.

Shillingford said he had spent £7,000 souping up his 13-year-old car with gold hubcaps, a stainless steel manifold and a straight-through exhaust. He planned to begin racing his car and hoped the fuel might give him an edge.

"I thought I'd give this a try. I know turbo cars will get more performance out of it. This is a normally aspirated engine - it might gain a little bit, might be a little more responsive. I won't be buying it all the time, though."

The biggest customers for the new petrol were Kent police who made two purchases last week, filling up their Volvo patrol cars using the taxpayer funded police fuel account at the Tudor filling station.

After being contacted by The Sunday Times, Kent police warned staff against using the fuel again, saying it was an "error". Jon Parker, a spokesman, said 95 or 97 octane petrol was adequate for the police force's vehicles.

BP claims to have extensively tested the new petrol on a range of high performance cars, including a Porsche.

Andrew Davis of Porsche says the fuel will not increase power in a Porsche, though it may fractionally reduce fuel consumption and burn more cleanly. "Our engines have a maximum power output. If you put different fuel in, the engine management system won't allow the engine to produce more power. All our cars will run on standard 95 RON unleaded, although we advise

98 RON for some of the turbocharged cars."

Chris Walsh, technical manager of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, says the fuel would be of little benefit to most motorists. He said he would be surprised if there were a perceptible improvement in the performance of Shillingford's Clio Williams.

"Clearly fuel price is a sensitive issue, but some people have got quite a lot of money to spend. I can see that if people were going to a track day they might use it to get half a second off a lap."

BP, which last week unveiled profits of £2.95 billion for the first three months of 2006, stands by its expensive new product. "Performance benefits should be noticeable immediately for those with performance cars," says Nicola Beckett, UK marketing manager for BP Ultimate.

She says trials have shown improved performance on cars including the Mitsubishi Evo, Ford Focus ST and Subaru Impreza, once they were tuned for the fuel. "For someone who does have a car which they've spent a lot of time and money on, we think they will pay the price. This isn't aimed at the average driver - the price to them will seem astronomical."

The fuel will be available from nine sites this year. BP will then assess whether there is a wider demand.

For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling

Reply to
Dori A Schmetterling
Loading thread data ...

Putting it in a car that isn't tuned for it is indeed a waste of time and money.

But, its availability may allow one to tune a motor just a little bit farther into that red zone without incurring detonation. The quote above "once they were tuned for the fuel" is the truth. The guy with the Renault is clueless, he will not "gain a little bit". The turbo guys might be able to dial in a bit more boost or change their ignition timing to make use of it though if they're sufficiently advanced. Joe Porsche owner will indeed gain nothing because the engine is made and tuned for a lower grade of fuel than that.

-Russ.

Reply to
Somebody.

Many cars these days do run fine with regular but some run a bit better with mid range or high grade according to manufacturers. Since at these high fuel prices the difference between grades is still only a dime, it is probably worthwhile testing your car to see if it does make economic sense to put a higher grade in your car. My mileage is up ten percent on a new Odyssey with mid grade so for a dime per gallon more it is worth it. I've compared on several tankfuls and the difference appears real.

Reply to
Art

In my neck of the woods here in the YooEssA - near Philadelphia - there has been for a few years one or two gas stations with a pump off to the side selling 120 octane gas/petrol. I haven't checked their prices recently, but when regular gas was ~$2/gallon, the 120 was $5.

The octane calculation here is (RON+MON)/2.

But of course, without the motor that's capable of using it, it's pretty pointless. Sexy, but pointless nonetheless.

Reply to
Dean Dark

If you read and believe the owner's manual for the E320, you can use regular IF you don't rev beyond 4,000?. For me, a non stop light grand prix racer, that limit is OK.

Reply to
James O'Riley

"James O'Riley" regular IF you don't rev beyond 4,000?. For me, a non stop light grand

Egad, if I didn't use the remaining 3500rpm of my car, I'd give up driving BMWs...

-Russ.

(stoplight drags are for kids)

Reply to
Somebody.

Where I live, higher-octane grades are typically 89 or 91 (regular is usually 87).

My 1992 E34 with an M50 engine is documented as requiring 90 or higher.

Would it be reasonable to alternate fillups of 89 and 91, averaging 90 and saving me a few bucks in the long run, or should I always buy the higher grade?

-- Michael Victoria, BC Canada

Reply to
michael.poplawski

If you only let the tank get to half empty, then this would work, as the fuel in the tank would average 90.

What the engine cares about is the octane of the fuel entering the cylinder at the time...if you run on 89 half the time and 91 half the time, you'll only get full performance out of the engine when you've got 90 or higher coming down the fuel line.

Tom.

Reply to
Tom Sanderson

Michael,

Read the manual closely and you will see that you are comparing octane with different measurements. In North America the octane you see on the pump is meaured RON+MON/2. Europe (and theefore the BMW owners manual) uses RON which tends to me a few points hiogher than the average method.

The point is the "90" RON fuel that is recomended in your manual is roughly equivelent to 87 pump octane in your locale.

formatting link

Reply to
Fred W

There is actually a little wiggle room in this, too. The fuel that is rated as 89 octane is certified to be a *minimum* of 89. In all likelihood it is marginally higher than that. If you minimum fuel requirement is 90 you can get away with 89 in most cases with absolutely no problem whatsoever.

Reply to
Fred W

'Standard' octane rating throughout much of the EU including the UK is 95 RON. I've never seen anything less on sale in the UK since unleaded petrol became the norm. This is what it says to use on the filler of my UK car. 'Super' is also available - although not all filling stations have it - and is between

97-99 RON depending on maker. It makes no difference - that I can determine - in either performance or economy with my 528. M Series cars may well be different.
Reply to
Dave Plowman (News)

Maybe this is why my highway mileage is better then rated by BMW. I used

92-93 octane (US rating) and on long trips averaging about 75mph I get about 37 mpg. Normally about 22 in town.
Reply to
Jack Dotson

Too high an octane may even cost more money, due to engine deposits. The higher octane burns slower, too slow leaves deposits.

Reply to
Spam Hater

Baloney

Reply to
Fred W

I have noticed this in my Toyotas as well. My LHS requires 89 or higher; I run a mix of 89 and 93, for an average of

  1. The Supra gets better mileage with 93, but with that guzzler, who notices?! And a 95 Tercel with a 1.5L DOHC, went from 38MPG to 45MPG with 93 octane!!!!! (long-term test)
Reply to
Hachiroku

Yes. The thrust of the article is the pointlessness of using an octane rating higher than recommended. (FYI standard euro 95 is equivalent to approx 91 US.)

DAS

For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling

Reply to
Dori A Schmetterling

Time you learned a bit more about combustion. Several years ago at least one car manufacturer warned against excessively high octane fuel being used.

Just one of many such notes:

formatting link
............Using a higher octane then necessary is not only a waste of cash > but can cause build up deposits that your engine can't burn. Which will lead > to needed to run this octane to keep it from dieseling (running after > shutting off the ignition)in the first place. (Deposits form causing hot > spots, and pre-igniting the fuel before the Spark plug is suppose to.)Called > detonation or pinging.>

Reply to
Spam Hater

Is that the 3.5L engine which is designed for 89. The 3.3L engine uses 87 octane.

Engines that have combustion chamber carbon deposits run better on a higher octane.

Reply to
Spam Hater

Can you give some more information so I can research this? Because I'd agree with Fred - it's baloney if using road fuel. The difference would be some aviation fuel which still contains lead.

Reply to
Dave Plowman (News)

First off, I already know quite a bit about octane rating and it's effect on the burn rates of fuel. I looked at your linked web source (even with it's annoying pop-up crap) and I don't see any real evidence that supports the claims there (from who knows who?) that a slower burning fuel (aka higher octane) will cause engine deposits. Logic dictates that the unburnt fuel will be discharged out the exhaust and may put an excessive load on the catalytic convector, but since the combustion completes outside of the combustion chamber the deposits should actually be less.

I am not saying that buying excessively high grade of fuel is a good thing, just that the reasons not to has nothing to do with deposits.

Reply to
Fred W

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.