Premium fuels = waste of money

BigglesPiP · 28 Sep 2007 at 12:15

FAIL!

If they used a car with:
1. Some form of knock sensor.
2. An ECU program which allowes the ignition timing to advance according to the knock sensor.

They would have had vastly different results.

The Focus does have a knock sensor, but the ECU will only retard the timing to prevent damage to the engine from pinking/knocking, not advance it for more power with a higher octane fuel.

Dangerous Dave · 28 Sep 2007 at 12:15

I'd personally go with the Evo review where they actually ignored the MPG front and dyno'd the cars. They saw a clear increase going up the RON ratings of fuel when used on cars that could adapt to the different fuel grades.

Pyscho_Si · 28 Sep 2007 at 12:19

I always tend to use the BP Ultima Diesel as I do think you can feel a difference in the higher gears. Also it is suppose to be a little greener so I guess that isn't a bad bonus.

Dogbreath · 28 Sep 2007 at 12:23

Simon said:
They could have at least used something that is designed to run on higher octane.

That would require them to be able to differentiate their arse from their elbow, not something that "What Car" (or indeed any of the "What xxx" magazines) has ever been very good at.

"We put premium fuel in cars designed to run on standard unleaded and we didn't notice any improvement".

I'm surprised they have the mental capacity to breath by themselves :rolleyes:

Housey · 28 Sep 2007 at 12:24

Thorney Motorsport did a detailed test on premium fuels and came to a different conclusion to What Car (based on above comments), but then they did use cars that would be able to take advantage of the extra RON's, and did outline that if the car was not able to adjust or be remapped to take advantage of it there was little benefit.

I have mostly used 98 or 99 RON fuel, there is a difference in my experience, though its not night and day, typically effecting the sharpness of the engine and its pickup. No idea about the consumption levels as I tend only to use 95 RON in emergencies.

Born_2_Kill_83 · 28 Sep 2007 at 12:28

Clarkey said:
No they did not, V-power did not exist in 2005, and certainly didn't in 1992.

I'm guessing he means high octane stuff? :confused:

Ring Peace · 28 Sep 2007 at 12:48

What Car is targeted to "normal" "everyday" drivers of "normal" "everyday" cars it would be pointless testing a 911 or Scooby because the drivers of those cars will not be having a subscription to What Car. What Car readers drive 1.6 Foci and Octavia 2.0TDi and to them this is very relevant, mainly saying just use the cheap stuff the expensive stuff isn't worth it.

Just because you have remapped your car to run on 99 RON makes no difference to this article, what you should be asking yourself is why am I reading this it has no relevance to me.

West · 28 Sep 2007 at 12:52

Ring Peace said:
What Car is targeted to "normal" "everyday" drivers of "normal" "everyday" cars it would be pointless testing a 911 or Scooby because the drivers of those cars will not be having a subscription to What Car. What Car readers drive 1.6 Foci and Octavia 2.0TDi and to them this is very relevant, mainly saying just use the cheap stuff the expensive stuff isn't worth it.

Just because you have remapped your car to run on 99 RON makes no difference to this article, what you should be asking yourself is why am I reading this it has no relevance to me.

Thats the thing though, it does make a difference, and I have a Bottom engine spec Mini, yet on a tank of ultimate I get nearlly 50+ Miles more out of a 45L tank.

lordrobs · 28 Sep 2007 at 12:55

Looking at those figures though you'd assume that Esso 97 Supreme was the stuff to go for

I fill up with 95 from BP or Shell or 97 from Sainsbury's but only because its only 3ppl more than 95

Fr0dders · 28 Sep 2007 at 12:57

BigglesPiP said:
FAIL!

If they used a car with:
1. Some form of knock sensor.
2. An ECU program which allowes the ignition timing to advance according to the knock sensor.

They would have had vastly different results.

The Focus does have a knock sensor, but the ECU will only retard the timing to prevent damage to the engine from pinking/knocking, not advance it for more power with a higher octane fuel.

they did

they used the Golf GTI

if you remember evo did a test on this, and found significant BHP increases from the fuel on the GTI. But they did a rolling road BHP test

they didnt attempt to do any mathmatical calculations on actual mpg.

So basically

Superfuel doesnt improve your mpg, but if your car is designed for it, it does offer bhp increases at the wheels.

and it is probably also cleaner for your engine, but you have to be mad to pay 6p/l more for your picasso just to keep it "clean"

BigglesPiP · 28 Sep 2007 at 13:02

MrLOL said:
they did

they used the Golf GTI

if you remember evo did a test on this, and found significant BHP increases from the fuel on the GTI. But they did a rolling road BHP test

they didnt attempt to do any mathmatical calculations on actual mpg.

So basically

Superfuel doesnt improve your mpg, but if your car is designed for it, it does offer bhp increases at the wheels.

and it is probably also cleaner for your engine, but you have to be mad to pay 6p/l more for your picasso just to keep it "clean"

They used a 1.9 Golf TDI, and a 1.6 Focus.

lordrobs · 28 Sep 2007 at 13:02

Is there any truth in the rumour that Sainsbury's fuel is supplied by BP and is exactly the same as you'd get from a BP pump? If so does that mean that Sainsbury's 97 RON is infact BP Ultimate?

Housey · 28 Sep 2007 at 13:02

I am suprised actually, as my wife's GTi used to show a difference when running on Super over normal unleaded. It was less sharp on unleaded, I could actually tell when she had filled it up with normal leaded.

spaz · 28 Sep 2007 at 13:03

BigglesPiP said:
They used a 1.9 Golf TDI, and a 1.6 Focus.

AND a GTI...

lordrobs · 28 Sep 2007 at 13:03

BigglesPiP said:
They used a 1.9 Golf TDI, and a 1.6 Focus.

...and a 1.4 Focus and a 2.0 Golf GTi

EDIT- too slow

MTA99 · 28 Sep 2007 at 13:11

But the figures for the GTI are only for Shell 95 and V-power not the whole range as with the 1.6 Focus.

I agree with Ring Peace about the target market for this test but a wider range of vehicles would have been better....heck even testing all the fuels on the cars they had would have been better than this easily misinterpreted tripe. OK, the majority of What Car readers don't drive Scoobs/Evos but there are sensible cars out there which might have been more representative than a base Focus.

DannyW · 28 Sep 2007 at 17:38

On a small normal aspirated engine high octane fuels wont make a blind bit of difference, me and my dad tried out ours cars ages ago, I always try put shell v-power diesel in my focus turbo diesel, its more revvy and responsive like a petrol, and v-power diesel is refined from gas not oil.

Amps · 28 Sep 2007 at 18:11

DannyW said:
On a small normal aspirated engine high octane fuels wont make a blind bit of difference, me and my dad tried out ours cars ages ago, I always try put shell v-power diesel in my focus turbo diesel, its more revvy and responsive like a petrol, and v-power diesel is refined from gas not oil.

Surely doing that kind of negates the penny pinching ethos of a diesel?

zain · 28 Sep 2007 at 18:25

I used to use it but realised it was probably just psychological and I do not need optimum performance as I do not race, so ordinary fuel suits me!

richyfingers · 28 Sep 2007 at 18:32

I swear my car runs better on V-power, when I picked it up first it had half a tank of normal unleaded in it, I used up most of that and then started filling up, always using v-power. Seems a bit more responsive and I get a few extra miles out the tank, does it not also have some sort of cleanser for your engine too?