BP Ultimate - The Official story !!!
#31
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: where the wild roses grow
Posts: 5,122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Greasy..
I wasn't blaming BP for anything.
I wasn't blaming BP for anything.
Rebranding occurs when a product starts to perform badly.
I just wonder how they think this product will kick start sales long term as I don't know who it appeals to?
Performance car owners are switched on about Optimax and its promoted "superiority" over super.
The vast majority of GTi/VTR/RS/Impreza (etc.) owners are clueless numpties who wouldn't know what an octane was if it bit them on the bum. TBH many of the so-called enthusiasts who post in places like this aren't much better. I imagine a large number of people who were hoping that Ultimate would be 100 RON were merely working on the assumption that cos the number is 100 instead of 98, it'll magically liberate more power from any engine that runs it...
Joe public will continue buying unleaded from Tesco.
So who's going to switch to the new product?
If the product was 100 RON AND worked out at less then 5 pence per litre (cost of my NF dose) above Optimax prices
...then I would have switched.
The big oil companies - and indeed the supermarkets, don't give a toss about subsets. They're not going to install the pumps, tankage, distribution infrastructure and PR necessary to sell a fuel that only a few thousand Japanese market cars plus a handful of specials with programmable ECU's can usefully run. Even if the law allowed them to, the numbers are financially ridiculous. As mentioned above, pump fuel is a mass-market product. Always has been, always will be.
[Edited by greasemonkey - 10/9/2003 12:48:06 PM]
#33
I want to know when people are going to learn that ron rating is not the be all and end all of fuels.
its like bhp, its great, but not so great if you have a 10 tonne car, when compared with a one tonne car with half the power.
its like bhp, its great, but not so great if you have a 10 tonne car, when compared with a one tonne car with half the power.
#35
I think the assumption that large corporations care nothing for small niche markets is wrong. Companies will want to make a profit (almost) regardless of the size of the market.
While performance car nuts may be rare I think the market is large enough and does not constitute a small group of people. I would think this same argument is happening on lots of other forums for GTI/RS/WRX etc etc boards all over the UK. I also think accusing people of being ignorant over octane rating is wrong. You don't hear people saying, "Do you actually know what's in a CPU?" when they buy a PC and ask for the fastest one?
Why would Shell have made Optimax if the market was so small? Out of the goodness of their hearts? Maybe the Marketing Director has a Caterham in his garage?
Remember BP won't have made a fuel that *they* wanted, they would have made a fuel *we* wanted. Don't buy it and when the marketing people go round saying, why didn't it sell, the same story will come up "we wanted a higher octane rating".
While performance car nuts may be rare I think the market is large enough and does not constitute a small group of people. I would think this same argument is happening on lots of other forums for GTI/RS/WRX etc etc boards all over the UK. I also think accusing people of being ignorant over octane rating is wrong. You don't hear people saying, "Do you actually know what's in a CPU?" when they buy a PC and ask for the fastest one?
Why would Shell have made Optimax if the market was so small? Out of the goodness of their hearts? Maybe the Marketing Director has a Caterham in his garage?
Remember BP won't have made a fuel that *they* wanted, they would have made a fuel *we* wanted. Don't buy it and when the marketing people go round saying, why didn't it sell, the same story will come up "we wanted a higher octane rating".
#36
Scooby Regular
Adam,
Maybe you start educating them then they'll never know unless someone actually explains why the RON value isn't the be all and end all
The percentage of car owners who can actually tell how different fuels affects their cars running and performance is very small. The general public have to go on some sort of simple comparison.
Stefan
Maybe you start educating them then they'll never know unless someone actually explains why the RON value isn't the be all and end all
The percentage of car owners who can actually tell how different fuels affects their cars running and performance is very small. The general public have to go on some sort of simple comparison.
Stefan
#37
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 8,384
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I want to know when people are going to learn that ron rating is not the be all and end all of fuels.
#38
All the hype turned up in the first place because 'Ultimate' is 100 RON in Greece.
If ozzy has tried it & it's making the KnockLink go all 'christmas tree', then either that was a dodgy batch, or there is most certainly not an alternative to Optimax - my car is set up for Optimax & on the whole can take a tank of Esso SUL without being much 'louder' - if any - than usual. So Ultimate is likely inferios to Esso SUL (admittedly the 'best of the rest').
What I don't understand is if they have a refinery producing stuff for Greece @ 100, why aren't they shipping it over here? Technical issues due to the different temperatures (they are effectively permanently on our summer mix), or just mis-marketing?
If ozzy has tried it & it's making the KnockLink go all 'christmas tree', then either that was a dodgy batch, or there is most certainly not an alternative to Optimax - my car is set up for Optimax & on the whole can take a tank of Esso SUL without being much 'louder' - if any - than usual. So Ultimate is likely inferios to Esso SUL (admittedly the 'best of the rest').
What I don't understand is if they have a refinery producing stuff for Greece @ 100, why aren't they shipping it over here? Technical issues due to the different temperatures (they are effectively permanently on our summer mix), or just mis-marketing?
#39
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: WYIOC. The Foxglove, Kirkburton, Huddersfield.
Posts: 5,400
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, if the oil companies aren't bothered about performance car owners and the market they represent, then why did Shell launch Optimax with a higher RON than conventional super unleaded?
Surely it would have been easier to launch/rebrand an existing SUL offering????
Surely it would have been easier to launch/rebrand an existing SUL offering????
#40
LOL, if you want accurate information do not read Scoobynet
From now on I'm taking everything I read here with a pinch of salt.
All the hype of 100RON had the Jap owners cumming in their pants and all they get is a poxy 97.
LMFAO
From now on I'm taking everything I read here with a pinch of salt.
All the hype of 100RON had the Jap owners cumming in their pants and all they get is a poxy 97.
LMFAO
#41
Scooby Regular
Just to clarify things, all I tried was the usual BP SUL stuff. My local BP garage hasn't started rebranding it as Ultimate.
But, if it's just the same fuel now with a different name then I'm staying well clear.
I can easily light up both amber lights at 5,000 rpm and I had one nasty red last night at 5,500 in 3rd.
My car isn't remapped, just a std RB5 with an AE801 ECU. With Optimax, the knocklink barely goes about the first green and I've only ever seen one Red since I fitted the Knocklink some months ago.
It's not very scientific, but the difference is noticeable on my cars Knocklink.
Stefan
But, if it's just the same fuel now with a different name then I'm staying well clear.
I can easily light up both amber lights at 5,000 rpm and I had one nasty red last night at 5,500 in 3rd.
My car isn't remapped, just a std RB5 with an AE801 ECU. With Optimax, the knocklink barely goes about the first green and I've only ever seen one Red since I fitted the Knocklink some months ago.
It's not very scientific, but the difference is noticeable on my cars Knocklink.
Stefan
#42
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: where the wild roses grow
Posts: 5,122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why would Shell have made Optimax if the market was so small? Out of the goodness of their hearts? Maybe the Marketing Director has a Caterham in his garage?
In exactly the same way as Ultimate now, they stressed cleaner engines, lower emissions and better fuel economy as equally important to any power gain. The fact that it was "the fuel developed with Ferrari" was just an additional string to their marketing campaign - and one that BP will no doubt mine through their sponsorship of the Ford WRC team.
#45
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Here!
Posts: 5,145
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That would be worth swapping for sure. I had carbon deposits that stopped my car in its tracks a few weeks ago! Perhaps what is really needed are decent filters to prohibit the carbon deposits in the first place.
#46
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: London
Posts: 7,039
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, Optimax does claim to do that (and EVO did a test which seemed to back that claim up).
I agree that Optimax is aimed at everybody but they make a lot bigger deal of the performance features of the fuel than BP do of Ultimate. I remember all their marketing bumph at the time had diagrams of how much faster (and therefore safer) Optimax made you car allcelerate in an overtaking situation. I also agree that Shell must have had "performance" car drivers in mind as a side line when they made Optimax as otherwise, why not just re-brand like BP have just done rather than go to the expense of making a "new" fuel with a higher octane rating?
To all those people who are upset about the "usual suspect Scoobynet information", can I sugest you don't believe everything you read, and make opinions for yourself. That way, you will be far less disapointed in general when things you have been told turn out not to be the case....
Matt
I agree that Optimax is aimed at everybody but they make a lot bigger deal of the performance features of the fuel than BP do of Ultimate. I remember all their marketing bumph at the time had diagrams of how much faster (and therefore safer) Optimax made you car allcelerate in an overtaking situation. I also agree that Shell must have had "performance" car drivers in mind as a side line when they made Optimax as otherwise, why not just re-brand like BP have just done rather than go to the expense of making a "new" fuel with a higher octane rating?
To all those people who are upset about the "usual suspect Scoobynet information", can I sugest you don't believe everything you read, and make opinions for yourself. That way, you will be far less disapointed in general when things you have been told turn out not to be the case....
Matt
#47
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Here!
Posts: 5,145
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well I am going to try it... being female and persuasive to advertising (it's part of the female make-up) what else am I supposed to do!
I will post my finding after the weekend. Well, I need to empty the tank first to make an untainted opinion don't I!
I will post my finding after the weekend. Well, I need to empty the tank first to make an untainted opinion don't I!
#48
dont give up your day job Soulgirl.
So we have a 97RON fuel, with slightly higher calorific burning energy and more detergents than before.
So you may get more power (how much is unproven, like a bigger engine , yeh, right ), but you wont get any more protection from det.
So we have a 97RON fuel, with slightly higher calorific burning energy and more detergents than before.
So you may get more power (how much is unproven, like a bigger engine , yeh, right ), but you wont get any more protection from det.
#49
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: London
Posts: 7,039
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, has anybody actually tried it yet then, especially anyone with monitoring equipment (DeltaDash, Knocklink, PSI3 etc.) that can quantify the results?
John, I don't suppose you want to try a fuel which may not be as good at preventing det? To my mind, a higher calorific fuel with less knock protection is probably better for someone using Octane Boosters but worse for someone just using Optimax pump fuel?
Matt
John, I don't suppose you want to try a fuel which may not be as good at preventing det? To my mind, a higher calorific fuel with less knock protection is probably better for someone using Octane Boosters but worse for someone just using Optimax pump fuel?
Matt
#50
Not really true Matt. The reason people use Octane boosters is to prevent det, not gain power. Thats the case with the Jap spec cars. Others use OB to increase power by allowing more ignition advance to be used with the available fuel.
So in both cases you are using OB to prevent det. If you have mapped the car to use a 98RON to protect against det, using a 97RON even if that provides more energy per volume, still gives you a risk of a badly detting engine which would fail. You may get more power by remapping for this 97RON because that will allow you to run at a safe ignition level and gain the benefits of the higher calorific content. Just putting 97RON in if you mapped for 98RON is a bad idea.
So in both cases you are using OB to prevent det. If you have mapped the car to use a 98RON to protect against det, using a 97RON even if that provides more energy per volume, still gives you a risk of a badly detting engine which would fail. You may get more power by remapping for this 97RON because that will allow you to run at a safe ignition level and gain the benefits of the higher calorific content. Just putting 97RON in if you mapped for 98RON is a bad idea.
#51
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Here!
Posts: 5,145
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dont give up your day job Soulgirl
Just kiddin.. and besides... a change is as good as a rest right?
#52
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: London
Posts: 7,039
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crossed wires I think John
I thought that higher calorific content would produce more power without having to remap (unlike higher octane)? Based on that assumption, I thought a higher calorific fuel with Octane booster to take it to the same Octane rating as say Optimax would perform better than Optimax with no modifications to the car?
Matt
I thought that higher calorific content would produce more power without having to remap (unlike higher octane)? Based on that assumption, I thought a higher calorific fuel with Octane booster to take it to the same Octane rating as say Optimax would perform better than Optimax with no modifications to the car?
Matt
#53
In performance car tests BP Ultimate gave equivalent or better performance than Shell Optimax. Also BP Ultimate has twice the cleaning power of conventional fuels and will not only keep your engine clean but will also clean away deposits that are already there.
It’s not all about octane rating! BP have tested high performance cars that are sensitive to octane and we saw no benefit for 98 versus BP Ultimate petrol in these vehicles.
A few figures for you:
up to 7.1% more power
up to 5.2% Sharper Acceleration
up to 5.8% improved fuel comsumption
also reduces noise up to 52%
BP Ultimate Unleaded prevents 97% of (intake valve) deposits forming.
It’s not all about octane rating! BP have tested high performance cars that are sensitive to octane and we saw no benefit for 98 versus BP Ultimate petrol in these vehicles.
A few figures for you:
up to 7.1% more power
up to 5.2% Sharper Acceleration
up to 5.8% improved fuel comsumption
also reduces noise up to 52%
BP Ultimate Unleaded prevents 97% of (intake valve) deposits forming.
#55
Hey guys - can you answer this question pls
Considering Shell Optimax is basically SUL + Octane Boosters, does adding a further octane booster like Millers or STP auctally make a difference??
Or am I just wasting money?
Considering Shell Optimax is basically SUL + Octane Boosters, does adding a further octane booster like Millers or STP auctally make a difference??
Or am I just wasting money?
#58
A few figures for you:
up to 7.1% more power
up to 5.2% Sharper Acceleration
up to 5.8% improved fuel comsumption
also reduces noise up to 52%
up to 7.1% more power
up to 5.2% Sharper Acceleration
up to 5.8% improved fuel comsumption
also reduces noise up to 52%
Does "up to" just mean "less than", or did you really see these figures on actual vehicles? What were the tests against? "7.1% more power" would be pretty impressive if true.
I have no idea what "sharper acceleration" means, or how you measure it - can you enlighten us? Is it the proportion shaved off the 40-60 time or something?
The noise figure obviously isn't true if it refers to total vehicle noise. I presume it's some minor component of the overall noise.
#59
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: London
Posts: 7,039
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shizzle,
What tests are these that you refer to and where can we see the data? I notice that you have posted the exact same post on the other thread but have no substatiation. Assuming that you are not just repeating marketing speil, as has been mentioned, can you enlighten us as to where you are getting your information?
Hopefully, in the comming weeks, we will have some hard facts from people testing the two fuels, but until then, it's speculation with the onus being on BP to provide something substative, something they have yet to do (though I won't hold my breath because I do realise that as long as BP convince Joe Average in the street, the campaign will be marked as successful).
Matt
In performance car tests BP Ultimate gave equivalent or better performance than Shell Optimax.
Hopefully, in the comming weeks, we will have some hard facts from people testing the two fuels, but until then, it's speculation with the onus being on BP to provide something substative, something they have yet to do (though I won't hold my breath because I do realise that as long as BP convince Joe Average in the street, the campaign will be marked as successful).
Matt