Super Fuels not worth it ?

Wasn't doubting you could get 40-odd mpg from a mini, just that the 34-40mpg difference was solely down to using V-power or whatever.

...and it 40mpg considered 'good' for a petrol car? :)
 
Heard this on the radio today whilst at work - "research shows people using super fuels are being ripped off!!"... Sod off..the media are idiots and really dont have a clue...

I just hope sales don't plummet as bp/shell etc might stop selling ultimate/v-power then all of us with modified motors will be going back to the tuners for a re-map on 95ron!!:mad:
 
High octane fuel doesn't give cars mapped for it better performance, lower octane fuel gives it worse performance, if you catch my drift.
 
rs125 said:
I just hope sales don't plummet as bp/shell etc might stop selling ultimate/v-power then all of us with modified motors will be going back to the tuners for a re-map on 95ron!!:mad:
Click to expand...

That concerns me too. I definately wouldn't get mapped for 95ron though, I'd just start buying octane booster.
 
aproctor said:
High octane fuel doesn't give cars mapped for it better performance, lower octane fuel gives it worse performance, if you catch my drift.
Click to expand...

Of course you get better performance if you have your car mapped for high octane fuel. The higher the octane, the more ignition advance you can run, therefore more power.
 
DreXeL said:
That concerns me too. I definately wouldn't get mapped for 95ron though, I'd just start buying octane booster.
Click to expand...

I cant see it happening, their biggest market is people who drive performance cars and actually understand that their car is better off running high octane fuel.

The normal numpty in the street who will sit there thinking "hmm yeah, they are ripping people off" most likely wont even have a car that warrants the use of V-Power.
 
aproctor said:
High octane fuel doesn't give cars mapped for it better performance, lower octane fuel gives it worse performance, if you catch my drift.
Click to expand...



Coarse it does lol.......If a cars mapped for 98 thats it its maped for 98 full stop..(like my rx7) If you run them on 95 then your daft to thrash it or risk detonation and potational engine failure (espeially on my rx7!)..
 
the two toyota vvti engines i've had 2zz and 3s, are both quite high compression and can advance ignition timing based on sensor feedback, and the difference when running on super to non is quite obvious, the 2zz suffered hugely at low revs on normal petrol.

It does depend on the application but the original article posted is just a waste of time, if it doesnt work for you dont buy it and move on.
 
rs125 said:
Coarse it does lol.......If a cars mapped for 98 thats it its maped for 98 full stop..(like my rx7) If you run them on 95 then your daft to thrash it or risk detonation and potational engine failure (espeially on my rx7!)..
Click to expand...

How coarse! I think he meant, the car will run as it is meant to run on 98, however on 95 it will run not as good. The 98 RON performance is the standard, benchmark, normal, expected, goose for Christmas.
 
West said:
P250908_18.59[01].JPG


:)
Click to expand...

Wow I have had 42mpg out of my MR2 once.
 
rs125 said:
Coarse it does lol.......If a cars mapped for 98 thats it its maped for 98 full stop..(like my rx7) If you run them on 95 then your daft to thrash it or risk detonation and potational engine failure (espeially on my rx7!)..
Click to expand...

I see his point.

If a car is mapped from the factory for 98 and you put 98 RON in you wont get better performance than the expected output as IT IS running 98 RON. What you may find is a drop off from the factory figures if you run lower octane fuel and the knock sensor has to pull the timing back a little.
 
If the car has a knock sensor and the adaptive mapping allows ignition advance then it makes a difference, especially low down grunt.

Also, the better additives may well reduce wear/degradation of components in the fuel system.

Granted, it not going to save you money, but to me, £100 a year is worth it.

In summery, the motoring journalists are complete prats who don't have any idea what they're talking about, as usual. And you should confirm your car can take advantage of higher octane before using it.
 
I can defo feel a difference with vpower, the throttle feels more responsive and the engine sounds smoother too. I get around the same mileage per tank on the same commute though but the difference I found was with the vpower I'd get the same mileage driving both normally and fast whereas with normal shell unleaded I'd get slightly less mileage doing the same.

The manual recommends 98 ron too so I guess it makes sense.

I've bounced between a few tanks of unleaded and a few tanks of vpower at a time to notice this difference.
 
DreXeL said:
Of course you get better performance if you have your car mapped for high octane fuel. The higher the octane, the more ignition advance you can run, therefore more power.
Click to expand...

rs125 said:
Coarse it does lol.......If a cars mapped for 98 thats it its maped for 98 full stop..(like my rx7) If you run them on 95 then your daft to thrash it or risk detonation and potational engine failure (espeially on my rx7!)..
Click to expand...

no if you run them on 95 ron you get worse performance, the cars mapped for high ron fuel were not designed to run on 95 ron i.e. an Olympic athlete eats a healthy diet, then he switches to cheese burgers and then back to the healthy stuff, he doesn't perform better because he is on the better diet, he performs worse when on the cheese burgers.
 
Just seems the artical is more focused on getting better economy and the fuel being more environmentally friendly. Personally I'm not bothered about either of those two things! I wouldn't have the car I did if I did and it is only a Pug 306 gti6. Power and throttle response is what it is all about. Mine has only been mildly modded, head skim, cams, exhaust, re-map etc. Runs ok on both though it was mapped on Super and I was Told by Wayne at Chipwizards it would run its best on higher octane fuel but would still be ok on the normal stuff. I notice a difference in throttle response between the two but no difference in mpg for me.

Exactly what that article is trying to make us believe I dont know. Any enthusiast will know the true differences and benefits certain cars shall have when a higher octane fuel is used. The media are just the biggest bunch of muppets going!!!!
 
aproctor said:
no if you run them on 95 ron you get worse performance, the cars mapped for high ron fuel were not designed to run on 95 ron i.e. an Olympic athlete eats a healthy diet, then he switches to cheese burgers and then back to the healthy stuff, he doesn't perform better because he is on the better diet, he performs worse when on the cheese burgers.
Click to expand...

TBH I wasn't talking about standard cars factory mapped for 98ron, I was talking about cars that are specifically aftermarket tuned for high octane fuel. I misunderstood your original comment :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom