petrol in todays daily star
26 September 2008, 02:14 PM
#31
AFAIK
The main function of a higher RON petrol is that it has a greater knock resistance?
Hence the reason why we use V-Power etc in our cars.
The bhp/performance/economy reasons are marketing ploys given by the petrol companies in order to sell more. Therefore I would not be surprised if there was no bhp difference between fuels on lower power cars.
IIRC - Shell V-Power all comes from one refinery (Sanford) and is transported all over the UK. All other petrols and SULs (including Tesco 99 etc) are from the nearest refinery (ie you could be buying BP Ultimate, but it came from a BP refinery) as the petrol companies have agreements to supply each other with petrol. The only difference being additives that are put in each tanker.
Read into that as you wish, but I read it that V-Power is the only SUL with any consistency.
The main function of a higher RON petrol is that it has a greater knock resistance?
Hence the reason why we use V-Power etc in our cars.
The bhp/performance/economy reasons are marketing ploys given by the petrol companies in order to sell more. Therefore I would not be surprised if there was no bhp difference between fuels on lower power cars.
IIRC - Shell V-Power all comes from one refinery (Sanford) and is transported all over the UK. All other petrols and SULs (including Tesco 99 etc) are from the nearest refinery (ie you could be buying BP Ultimate, but it came from a BP refinery) as the petrol companies have agreements to supply each other with petrol. The only difference being additives that are put in each tanker.
Read into that as you wish, but I read it that V-Power is the only SUL with any consistency.
26 September 2008, 02:24 PM
#32
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: www.dsoc.co.nr
Posts: 979
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You're right about Tesco 99. Its made by someone else (can't remember the name for the life of me eco something or other). Tesco do a super-unleaded 97 RON as well and that is probabley the supermarket crap they were on about.
26 September 2008, 02:46 PM
#34
Whereas V Power all comes from one refinery.
But that isn't the debate either, it is whether SUL fuels are a waste of time. Which we know is not true.
Lower RON fuels are more suspectible to det, thus your ECU will retard the timing, hence running like a bag of spanners on 95 RON.
26 September 2008, 03:10 PM
#37
Scooby Regular
Greenergy International Ltd - Tesco 99 Octane
However, I think that they take regular super (97 octane) and blend it with ethanol to increase the octace rating to 99.
Who cares if shell V power comes from its own refinery - at the end of the day in terms of octane V power and tesco 99 conform to the same standard.
Because of the ethanol content in tesco 99 though, it has a slightly lower calorific value per litre than regular non blended unleaded so less miles from a tank as each litre contains less energy. Not sure if V power is also a blend (I did read somewhere that it was).
However, I think that they take regular super (97 octane) and blend it with ethanol to increase the octace rating to 99.
Who cares if shell V power comes from its own refinery - at the end of the day in terms of octane V power and tesco 99 conform to the same standard.
Because of the ethanol content in tesco 99 though, it has a slightly lower calorific value per litre than regular non blended unleaded so less miles from a tank as each litre contains less energy. Not sure if V power is also a blend (I did read somewhere that it was).
26 September 2008, 05:54 PM
#38
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Half way up
Posts: 4,791
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They discussed this briefly on coff**radio2**coff
yesterday and had an AA representative on to comment, basically they asked 'do these super fuels work..?' the one word answer was 'yes'..!
'However, they're really only worth using on 'modern bigger engined (1800cc+) petrol cars that can make use of the higher octane'..!
They went on to say that, turbo diesels also benefit from better fuels, in so much as the detergents are better.
'austinwrx' (i take it you're not the original 'Austinwrx'..?) if you can only afford to put 95 ron in your scoob, then please, do yourself a favour and buy an 'economical' car, that will run how it was designed to on it..!
I just can't understand how some people think..
yesterday and had an AA representative on to comment, basically they asked 'do these super fuels work..?' the one word answer was 'yes'..!'However, they're really only worth using on 'modern bigger engined (1800cc+) petrol cars that can make use of the higher octane'..!
They went on to say that, turbo diesels also benefit from better fuels, in so much as the detergents are better.
'austinwrx' (i take it you're not the original 'Austinwrx'..?) if you can only afford to put 95 ron in your scoob, then please, do yourself a favour and buy an 'economical' car, that will run how it was designed to on it..!
I just can't understand how some people think..
26 September 2008, 06:44 PM
#39
test. They took what appeared to be bog ordinary cars VW Golf TSi 1.4 Anyone owning those cars is about as likely to use Vpower or any other SUL as I am of using NUL! Drivers of those cars are interested in economy and are not about to pay an extra 7p a litre just for the sake of it - I certainly wouldn't!
JohnD
JohnD
VW recommend sul in the FSi engined cars to make use of the technology (more mpg, etc) but nul is ok to use
26 September 2008, 09:41 PM
#40
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Bangor NI/also lancashire
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sticker on the inside of my 1995 WRX petrol flap - Use 100 RON fuel only - 99 seems close enough. I've heard that 95 RON in a JDM is bad news, massive power drop as the knock sensor retards the timing (never done it myself - maybe its just hearsay??) Not willing to risk it though.
Second that already
The reason being - ALL JDM cars in Japan run on 100 - 102 RON as STANDARD, hence the reason they say we run them on as close to 100 Ron as possable!!
Ive seen the damage 95 RON has done on a 95 WRX JDM - not nice at all. Melting was the word described to me!!
Last edited by Steviem; 26 September 2008 at 09:47 PM.
26 September 2008, 11:45 PM
#41
I took no notice of all the hype/hearsay etc about fuels and was running on Total Excellium for about the first 8 months of owning my scoob. Went on holiday earlier this year and the nearest SUL available was V power. The car didn't particularly appear to run better, but I did get noticeably higher mpg. With subsequent fills, this actually continued for a while until it stabilised at around 40 miles more per 45 litres than on excellium. The cost of the two fuels was about the same. I have stuck to v power ever since.
I have knowingly bought a performance car and accept that to get the best from it, it needs a performance fuel. I haven't tried 95 RON fuel, but have use BP ultimate. There was a noticeable difference between that and the excellium. I would agree with other comments that subarus do not run well on BP.
I have knowingly bought a performance car and accept that to get the best from it, it needs a performance fuel. I haven't tried 95 RON fuel, but have use BP ultimate. There was a noticeable difference between that and the excellium. I would agree with other comments that subarus do not run well on BP.
27 September 2008, 08:54 AM
#43
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BP are testing a new fuel in southern England and 1 place in Scotland called BP102 (ron). Being a Northern Monkey i cant get it but was wondering if anyone else has tried/tested it
BP Ultimate UK - BP Ultimate 102 unleaded
this link says where its available
BP Ultimate UK - Where can I buy BP Ultimate 102?
BP Ultimate UK - BP Ultimate 102 unleaded
this link says where its available
BP Ultimate UK - Where can I buy BP Ultimate 102?
27 September 2008, 09:00 AM
#44
Sticker on the inside of my 1995 WRX petrol flap - Use 100 RON fuel only - 99 seems close enough. I've heard that 95 RON in a JDM is bad news, massive power drop as the knock sensor retards the timing (never done it myself - maybe its just hearsay??) Not willing to risk it though.
...as 100/102 wasn't available in Japan until 1996/97?
27 September 2008, 03:03 PM
#45
Scooby Senior
Unless your car requires the extra octane rating of super-unleaded to prevent knock, det, pre-ignition or whatever else you want to call it then spending your hard-earned on super is a complete waste of money.
More miles to the gallon? Take some lead out of your right shoe and that might happen.
Smoother to drive? Get a Bentley if that floats your boat.
Crisper throttle response? You'll convince yourself of anything if you want it bad enough.
Kevin
More miles to the gallon? Take some lead out of your right shoe and that might happen.
Smoother to drive? Get a Bentley if that floats your boat.
Crisper throttle response? You'll convince yourself of anything if you want it bad enough.
Kevin
If you own a turbo variant of a Subaru, you should be running your car on 97> RON fuel. Every Subaru turbo car that I have seen has said use SUL only inside the filler flap. If it wasn't needed, it wouldn't be in black & white.
27 September 2008, 06:01 PM
#47
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Northamptonshire
Posts: 319
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My Uk turbo requires 95 RON says so in the manual!!!!!!
27 September 2008, 06:02 PM
#48
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sheffield; Rome of the North
Posts: 17,582
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Depends what they're trying to do. They're not specifically checking that the fuel meets the advertised RON value, they're trying to determine whether they're beneficial in an ordinary car. Measurements made on a knock engine would be totally meaningless in that context.
What's a shame is that they don't take the opportunity to explain what the octane rating of a fuel actually means, and why it doesn't make any difference in an ordinary engine. My guess is that they simply don't know this themselves - so what chance do the poor readers have?
What's a shame is that they don't take the opportunity to explain what the octane rating of a fuel actually means, and why it doesn't make any difference in an ordinary engine. My guess is that they simply don't know this themselves - so what chance do the poor readers have?
27 September 2008, 07:40 PM
#52
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Ramsey, Cambs
Posts: 1,424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Must admit wifes 34,000 mile blobeye ran the expensive stuff, but it was no quicker and actually quite boring to drive so we sold it and went back to the classics, even tho they've both done around 130,000 miles.
27 September 2008, 07:59 PM
#53
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BP are testing a new fuel in southern England and 1 place in Scotland called BP102 (ron). Being a Northern Monkey i cant get it but was wondering if anyone else has tried/tested it
BP Ultimate UK - BP Ultimate 102 unleaded
this link says where its available
BP Ultimate UK - Where can I buy BP Ultimate 102?
BP Ultimate UK - BP Ultimate 102 unleaded
this link says where its available
BP Ultimate UK - Where can I buy BP Ultimate 102?
27 September 2008, 08:14 PM
#54
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Ramsey, Cambs
Posts: 1,424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Over £100 a tank. Gonna need some serious horsepower increase and double the mpg to warrant that sort of expenditure. Think we will stick to 95RON 
Anyone seen this site?
Free UK fuel prices. 9,719 petrol stations covered - PetrolPrices.com
Anyone seen this site?
Free UK fuel prices. 9,719 petrol stations covered - PetrolPrices.com
Last edited by his-n-her-scoobs; 27 September 2008 at 08:24 PM.
27 September 2008, 10:23 PM
#55
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Besides, do you really think a car with what in standard form is fairly uninspiring performance can be sold on the understanding that it must be run on SUL? I imagine the UK cars are detuned from their Japanese counterparts because Subaru realised a car that had to be run on SUL would damage sales, so hence the STI's for those who want more.
Kevin
Just noticed Jasonius's post saying all newage cars say SUL in the manual.
If that's true I'm surprised they sold any. 2l, 225BHP Bugeye and you have to shell out on super, now that is ridiculous.
Last edited by c_maguire; 27 September 2008 at 10:29 PM.
28 September 2008, 06:14 AM
#56
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
theyre having a giraffe
28 September 2008, 09:28 AM
#57
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 2,381
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having been round the sites of and taught the engineering apprentices at Shell Stanlow, and Shell research .....for the last 18 years, i can assure you there are differences between normal 95 and V-Power fuels.
From a personal point, unless you are running a performance vehicle, you will not realise the benefits from higher octance fuels.
In my own car, which is a 93wrx, with 300bhp rally remap and decat ... i get 300kms per tank with V Power, and apprx 330 with NUL. If im doing every day motoring i use NUL, and when im out for a play i use V Power.
redwrx - ps, my comments are personal and not the expressions of the companys.
From a personal point, unless you are running a performance vehicle, you will not realise the benefits from higher octance fuels.
In my own car, which is a 93wrx, with 300bhp rally remap and decat ... i get 300kms per tank with V Power, and apprx 330 with NUL. If im doing every day motoring i use NUL, and when im out for a play i use V Power.
redwrx - ps, my comments are personal and not the expressions of the companys.
28 September 2008, 10:20 AM
#58
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Half way up
Posts: 4,791
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having been round the sites of and taught the engineering apprentices at Shell Stanlow, and Shell research .....for the last 18 years, i can assure you there are differences between normal 95 and V-Power fuels.
From a personal point, unless you are running a performance vehicle, you will not realise the benefits from higher octance fuels.
In my own car, which is a 93wrx, with 300bhp rally remap and decat ... i get 300kms per tank with V Power, and apprx 330 with NUL. If im doing every day motoring i use NUL, and when im out for a play i use V Power.
redwrx - ps, my comments are personal and not the expressions of the companys.
From a personal point, unless you are running a performance vehicle, you will not realise the benefits from higher octance fuels.
In my own car, which is a 93wrx, with 300bhp rally remap and decat ... i get 300kms per tank with V Power, and apprx 330 with NUL. If im doing every day motoring i use NUL, and when im out for a play i use V Power.
redwrx - ps, my comments are personal and not the expressions of the companys.
Back to the OP, personally, given the 'poor' fuel consumption of our cars and the silly cost of even 95/NUL, I don't feel the 7p extra a litre (~£3.50 per tankful) for v-power is even worth worrying about. If it is for you then get another car, as already said..!
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Sub-Subaru
General Technical
1
28 September 2015 12:47 PM