article from Times on premium fuels

Fuel: The wonder fuels that don't deliver The ads claim they are wonder fuels but our test was less than impressive. Dave Pollard reports

It is, according to Shell, petrol "with a dash of Ferrari". Or as BP prefers to put it, fuel with "extra oomph". Both oil giants are piling massive marketing budgets into their premium fuels - Shell's Optimax and BP' s Ultimate. The fuels are on sale at the same pumps as ordinary unleaded, but cost about 20p per gallon more. The companies are keen to convince you to pay. "Spinach did wonders for Popeye," says BP's latest magazine advert, "BP Ultimate will give your car a similar boost. Perkier performance, sharper response, smoother acceleration." Another claims the fuel "can make a 1.8 litre vehicle perform like a 2 litre". The BP website reinforces this with pictures of cars running on Ultimate zooming past those using conventional unleaded.

Shell's Optimax adverts are heavily circulated on television and radio, with a voiceover by the motoring journalist Quentin Willson. Its website offers similarly enticing promises: "All unleaded vehicles can benefit from using Shell Optimax" and "Optimax can begin to improve your vehicle's responsiveness from the moment you use it".

Yet elsewhere on Shell's own website, the gloss begins to come off this apparent wonder fuel. Shell has included an internet message board, but rather than extolling the virtues of its product many of the messages take a different tone: "I have tried Shell Optimax on several occasions (whole tankful) and have not noticed any difference at all," says one message. "I think this is just another way to get more money out of the gullible motorist."

So do they make a difference? To put them to the test we enlisted the services of Superchips, based in Buckingham, which has been a leading engine tuning company since 1989. It carries out tuning work for several car manufacturers and racing teams but has no links with oil companies. Ford provided a Focus C-Max which we mounted on the rolling road in the Superchips laboratory. Computers attached to the engine measured the power (in brake horsepower) and torque as we ran the car, first on a gallon of standard unleaded, then on Optimax and Ultimate respectively.

The results surprised us all. The torque and power graphs produced for all three fuels as the car accelerated from low through to high engine revs were virtually identical. Maximum torque was the same for the three fuels, and horsepower was almost equal throughout the acceleration range, except at very maximum revs where Optimax and Ultimate managed just one extra bhp. But even this 1bhp is not significant because at other points in the rev range the standard unleaded petrol gave marginally more horsepower anyway.

"Looking at them cold, any automotive engineer would simply assume they were three runs using the same fuel in the same engine, with no alterations to anything," said Ian Sandford, the managing director of Superchips. "There's certainly nothing here to suggest that using either super fuel would give a noticeable difference in performance."

The basic reasoning as to why the super fuels boost performance is that they have a higher octane rating (they are more explosive). Normal unleaded is 95RON (research octane number), while Optimax is 98RON and Ultimate is 97RON. But why didn't the fuel with increased RON rating have the expected effect?

Sandford says modern engine management computers can automatically adjust the ignition timing - to ensure the spark plug ignites the fuel at the optimum moment - if a fuel with a lower-than-normal octane rating is used. However, if better-quality fuel is used, the computer will not normally automatically alter the timing to give more power.

We may have only been testing one car over one gallon of fuel, but the results certainly suggest the implication that all cars will be immediately improved is wildly overblown.

Shell has already run into trouble with this. In February this year the Advertising Standards Authority upheld complaints against the claims Shell was making in its adverts, including that Optimax gives "an extra burst of power just when you need it".

To be fair to the oil giants, they make another key claim about Ultimate and Optimax - that they help keep your engine clean and reduce emissions as well as boosting performance. Detergents within the fuels, they say, significantly reduce deposits on inlet valves and in carburettors. Our test was to see if there was an instant boost - we couldn't test the fuels' long-term cleaning power. But after thousands of miles a clean engine with fewer deposits may well perform better. "We wouldn't expect to see a benefit over just one gallon of fuel," said a Ford spokesman, "but using these fuels regularly is going to give you benefits."

Both Shell and BP said they stood by their claims and had carried out extensive tests to back them up. A spokesman for Shell said tests on 37 cars on the British market found most showed benefits in acceleration and power, and one in eight customers was now buying Optimax. BP said that despite producing leaflets saying Ultimate "starts working from the first tank" they had never intented to suggest the fuel gave an immediate boost from first use. In a statement BP added: "The magnitude of the benefits vary from vehicle to vehicle and full performance benefits increase with distance driven. Because of this, short-term tests will not accurately demonstrate the full benefits of the fuels. However, the test data did also show some immediate benefits on most vehicles."

Over the long term then, these super fuels may have benefits, but as our test shows you shouldn't expect a fill-up with the pricier fuel to turn your Fiat into a Ferrari, or to respond as Popeye would after a good dose of spinach.

begin 666 trans.gif M1TE&.#EA`0`!`)$"````,P```/___P```"'Y! $```(`+ `````!``$`0 (" $5 $`.P`` ` end

begin 666 white.gif K1TE&.#EA`0`!`( ``/___P```"'Y! ``````+ `````!``$`0 ("1 $`.P`` ` end

begin 666 0,,89474,00.gif M1TE&.#EA+ $4`( ``#0T-/___R'Y! ``````+ `````L`10```+%C(^IR^T/ MHYRTVHNSWKP;X(7B2);FB6+@LDYM:\+I3-?V_05R3NVGCPL*A\0&" 9('GFZ M9$[I?#F;*RCUH/QDKZ

Reply to
freddy
Loading thread data ...

It's certainly true that journalists tend to start with preconceived notions that they test, to find they were mistaken.

Higher octane fuel doesn't work like that. 10% higher octane does not mean 10% more power, 10% more MPG and 10% more cost, for all engines. That's just a stupid "experiment".

A much more useful experiment is:

1) brim the fuel tank a few times measuring the mileage per tankful and following a consistent driving style.

2) brim the fuel tank a few more times, but use the premium stuff.

3) repeat as required.

If the car does more mpg with the premium stuff, then your car can take advantage of the higher octane fuel. If they're all identical, then likely it can't. If some are better and others are no better, then Mr Tesco's premium pumps might be sucking from a regular unleaded underground tank.

If the car does do more mpg, it just might be cheaper to buy that instead, depending on the difference in price. If it does more mpg, it is probably managing this by getting more power from the fuel it is consuming. I say "probably", this could be down to God or his Little Pixies, but I reckon it's the fuel doing it more often than not - by producing more power so you need less throttle, as it were.

Most cars won't show any difference at all and buying premium is a waste of money in those cases. Even those that do are probably either not worth the premium or are borderline, I doubt there are many that will save money on premium fuel, although there are undoubtedly engines that don't run right on the cheaper stuff.

Apparently > Fuel: The wonder fuels that don't deliver

Reply to
Questions

That's not what they're saying. Shell and BP specifically advertise the fuel as giving you extra power - they don't mention mpg. It's this "extra power" claim that The Times has debunked.

Reply to
Nom

Nice post, but I'm sure everyone already knows :)

I've tried higher-octane juice > Fuel: The wonder fuels that don't deliver

Reply to
Nom

Think the two must go together. If the fuel provided extra power, then it must follow that less is used at a given power output.

Reply to
Dave Plowman (News)

in news: snipped-for-privacy@news4.newsguy.com, "Nom" slurred :

Except it hasn't. They tried it on one car, and showed that it makes no difference to the full-throttle power of that. However, some turbo'd and some high-CR engines _will_ produce more power with higher octane fuel. It also didn't look at the part-throttle power output. All in all the report proved f*ck all, but filled some column inches.

Reply to
Albert T Cone

You've seen the RX running on s**te fuel yea ;) ?

Reply to
DanTXD

I ran my Peugeot on some of that higher-octane petrol whenever I couldn't get LRP... Shell and BP make a lot of claims about the additives being good for your engine and whatnot but as far as I can see, higher octane petrol really only helps with cars that are producing high compression. There's an interesting error in the middle of that report from the Times:

'The basic reasoning as to why the super fuels boost performance is that they have a higher octane rating (they are more explosive).'

Duh! Unless I'm the one being stupid (it's happened before ;) ) ,the higher octane rating makes fuel less likely to combust under pressure, hence helping to stop pinking on in high-CR engines. In the end, you will find that some cars will run marginally better on Optimax or whatever. Whether it's worth the extra you pay is debatable.

Chris.

Reply to
Chris B

One single sentence that demonstrates the guy writing the article doesn't have a clue what he's talking about. RON & MON are measurements of the point that spontaneous detonation occur run 2 identical engines one on a fuel with a RON of

5 the other a RON of 100 and they will make the same power. The explosive value is normal related to the calorific value (how much energy is contained) and the speed the flame front moves. High RON fuels allow you to run the engine hotter so the engine is easier to build and not as expensive (the amount of cooling required to run an internal combustion engine on something like n-heptane would just be stupid). A greater resistance to spontaneous combustion in a conventional engine will allow more boost and or more advance on the ignition. (Something most modern ECUs will do themselves given time) the one gallon test seems to have been set to make sure the ECU didn't have time to adjust the timing to "prove" the point the "journalist" was trying to make.

As said by the journalist goes nicely with the quote from Ford

Reply to
Depresion

No it's not you being stupid it's the man who wrote the article. If you saw someone on telly standing my the Scream[1,2] talking about how Constable used the tonal values to extenuate... you would think this guy's talking rubbish everyone knows it's a Munch and forget about the guy as he's obviously totally clueless about what he is trying to talk about.

[1] you'd think so he's the one that stole it ;) [2] not the original name.
Reply to
Depresion

In article , snipped-for-privacy@isdead.com spouted forth into uk.rec.cars.modifications...

Actually the RON rating makes them less volatile to explosion surely, otherwise you wouldn't run super (whatever they want to call it) to combat knock and pinking.

Reply to
MeatballTurbo

lol, so to test a fuel that doesn't deliver they enlisted a company whose products don't deliver either.

Makes a warped kind of sense :)

Reply to
Lordy.UK

theres alot of random uses of my name there :)

Why dont they try it on a car that will benefit from using higher octane fuel, like a 1.8T engine and run it over a tankfull of gas, and at the end run it on a dyno, then get a half decent reading?

We are lucky in this country that our fuel although expensive is 95+ RON as standard, in the states they have 87 and 91 and anything higher in most states is well hard to find, APR do make a chip programme for different fuels, 93/95/100 for track days

Ronny

Reply to
Ronny

Yep, if they had expected results, they would have used someone who cost a lot more for their time.

Reply to
Sleeker GT Phwoar

US and UK octane ratings aren't compatible.

Reply to
Dave Plowman (News)

Precisely.

So their "Gives more power !" claim is bollocks in at least one case.

That's exactly the point - only *some* will benefit.

You can't just sell your product as "Gives more power !" if it only does so in a tiny number of cases !

Reply to
Nom

As far as I know, he only tried it once, and it ran like a dog :D

But that's cos, like most highly tuned Jap cars, it's specifically designed to run on higher-octane juice.

Reply to
Nom

2 companies Ford helped out by lending a Cmax. (Presumably on condition that no photos were used so that people don't see just how ugly it is.) ;)
Reply to
Depresion

I'm still stunned he tried it once. Apparantly its going for one of them deep polishes, where they take the topest layer off the paint to bring a back to new shine on it. Have you ever even seen it dirty, let alone faded!?

Reply to
DanTXD

Clearly he has WAY too much time on his hands :)

Reply to
Nom

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.