Premium unleaded - worth it?

GolfBravo

fivetide wrote: »

Notice none of the manufacuteres say it will increase mpg. they all say it can or may but not will. Shell had to pull their fuel save adverts because they couldn't prove it.

5t.

Because it is all just fairy dust. It makes the buyers feel better that they look after their "car investment" by feeding it special fuel.

I remember driving through Germany last year, and all Shell stations had Diesel V-power adverts saying Saves Fuel!* in big fonts.

And then in smaller font:
* up to 2%, varies between cars, subject to driving conditions

The price difference was about €0.09 per litre

NeverEnough

GolfBravo wrote: »

Because it is all just fairy dust.

No its not. Just because you don't happen to agree with it doesn't mean it is not worth it to those who have cars with high performance engines. So have you got personal experience of using it in a high performance car, then?

I agree with w211 above. For the right engines, it is worthwhile. Speaking from experience with several big engined cars over many years.

GolfBravo

NeverEnough wrote: »

No its not. Just because you don't happen to agree with it doesn't mean it is not worth it to those who have cars with high performance engines. So have you got personal experience of using it in a high performance car, then?

I agree with w211 above. For the right engines, it is worthwhile. Speaking from experience with several big engined cars over many years.

Yes I have personal experience of using it in high performance cars, both privately and professionally.

Working for GM a few years ago a number of engineers from my department were involved in engine testing (including occasional work for BMW Australia) mainly for engineering evaluation and benchmarking. All tested engines, including high compression BMW, were happy with the regular unleaded. No significant performance drop (2-3 bhp), no knocking, no increased fuel consumption - modern fuel additives and engine electronics compensate for all that. In fact all our onsite fuel bowsers were only regular ULP. However, all those engines required PULP in the US as their octane rating is much lower.

And unless your car's handbook clearly specifies PULP only you are just throwing money out the window. I don't see how 3bhp reduction influences your daily commute.

I'd be more concerned about the fuel quality and where it comes from than about the higher octane rating (that is measured only at the refinery and starts to drop as soon as it leaves the refinery).

kingstreet

My 1999 3.0 lpt V6 9-5 Griffin is designed to run on superunleaded at 98 RON. I occasionally fill it with Tesco Momentum or Shell V-Power.

I mostly stick to 95 RON standard unleaded and notice little difference.

forgotmyname

high performance car and taking it to the track then fill it up with the better stuff.

Otherwise dont bother, Noticed any adverts for the fuel saving fuel? No. Wonder why?

Ads got pulled because of too many complaints that it didnt work.

fivetide

NeverEnough wrote: »

No its not. Just because you don't happen to agree with it doesn't mean it is not worth it to those who have cars with high performance engines. So have you got personal experience of using it in a high performance car, then?

I agree with w211 above. For the right engines, it is worthwhile. Speaking from experience with several big engined cars over many years.

Sorry but Golf Bravo's description is spot on.

It will make next to no difference. I have had high performance cars that have used it and even had my Subaru mapped for Tesco 99 to use it properly.

It might keep things a bit cleaner with a slightly cleaner burn but as for improving mpg it will be neligable at best. Likewise performance.

As I already said, you will not notice an immediate difference. You'd need to use the stuff for months before the ecu, assuming it can take advantage, tweaks the engine to make any difference at all.

5t.

NeverEnough

fivetide wrote: »

Sorry but Golf Bravo's description is spot on.

no its not. That's your opinion. Doesn't mean that you are so right in all your smugness.

fivetide wrote: »

It will make next to no difference. I have had high performance cars that have used it and even had my Subaru mapped for Tesco 99 to use it properly.

.

It does make a difference - certainly has done over years and with several cars, in my case. So that's simply not true or accurate. Luckily my cars have never had to be "remapped for Tesco 99 to use it properly", I don't use Tesco fuel anyway and my cars manufacturers recommendations was to use the high RON fuel anyway so no "remapping" necessary. Your cars may not have shown any difference but mine certainly have.

NeverEnough

GolfBravo wrote: »

Yes I have personal experience of using it in high performance cars, both privately and

So have I.

And for the record, you don't spend my money for me, nor do you have any say over how I spend it. I happen to believe that my experience is perfectly well founded on the results I have had with various vehicles over the years I have used the higher RON fuel.

I did point out it certainly wasn't for everyone and that only a relatively small number of vehicles would benefit.

Doesn't give you the right to arrogantly trash anyones opinions which don't agree with yours.

I am very happy with the results in my cars so far.

fivetide

NeverEnough wrote: »

no its not. That's your opinion. Doesn't mean that you are so right in all your smugness.

Smugness? Really? (That for reference was sarcasm, the first post was simply polite. You asked about experience with performance cars. don't get upset when you don't get the answer you want).

It does make a difference - certainly has done over years and with several cars, in my case. So that's simply not true or accurate.

That's definitely your opinion. If it were true the petrol producers would be allowed to say it in their adverts. They can't becuase they can't prove it. So, them, with their millions in R&D invested in proving they have the best product and marketign it globally with expensive sponsorships can't find a shread of evidence but you, pootling to the shops know it as a fact?

http://cars.uk.msn.com/news/shell-fuelsave-ads-banned

Shell said Fuel Save worked because it reduces friction. Have a look at BP Ultimate for example, see how they say it "may" help improve economy...

Luckily my cars have never had to be "remapped for Tesco 99 to use it properly",

Then you know nothing about tuning perfomance cars and should probably stay off the subject.

I don't use Tesco fuel anyway

Shell V-Power is seen as the best for performance, followed by Tesco 99 as both hit 99 RON.

BP Ultimate is only 98

Esso 97 as are the majority so not a big boost at all.

and my cars manufacturers recommendations was to use the high RON fuel anyway so no "remapping" necessary. Your cars may not have shown any difference but mine certainly have.

Again, if you use nothing but that then you will be getting slightly, only slightly better performance from the motor but only if it is a tuned or turbo charged car really.

As said, putting 95 in will cause the car to knock the timing back and marginally, reduce power to protect from knocking/pinking.

If you next fill up with super it'll be a mix of the two and the car still won't perform on song. Again, as I said it will take a while and several tanks of fuel to get the car back to standard settings and anyone who turns the key after filling up with super from 95 is simply getting a placebo effect. Especially if they drive a 1.6 zetec Focus or some other regular car.

I thought my response initially was quite polite. This post has been written to follow the tone of yours.

5t.

Bongles

NeverEnough wrote: »

The cost of the fuel is only a fraction of the total running costs of any car.

I've seen people say that before and I'm not sure I understand. Of course it's only a fraction, as there are other costs too . But in my experience it's a pretty big fraction. Whenever I've worked out the total cost of running cars I've owned and cars I've considered buying in terms of tax, insurance, fuel, maintenance and depreciation, the cost of fuel has been one of the biggest contributors.

In my daily car I do about 16000 miles a year, which works out to around £2,300 of fuel. I'm not sure the other four costs (tax, insurance, maintenance and depreciation) would come to much more than that combined - maybe not even that much.

My weekend toy car does around 7000 miles a year, but being about fun not fuel efficiency, by coincidence that also works out to around £2,300 on fuel per year. Again, I don't think all of the rest of the costs combined add up to that much.

I suppose there are ways that I could get some of the other costs to contribute more. I appreciate that insurance is a much smaller cost for me, with experience and no claims discount, than it's likely to be for young and inexperienced drivers - but I'm not unusual in that respect. If I chose to own new or nearly new cars I'd pay more in depreciation than I do. I don't cut corners on maintenance - sticking to servicing schedules and reparing/replacing things when they start to go wrong - but I do look for a fair price from independent garages I trust rather than paying main dealer prices for example.

But lots of people are experienced and have plenty of NCD, drive cars that are past the initial steep part of the depreciation curve and look not to pay over the odds on maintenance. I'd have thought that for anyone like that, the cost of fuel is a major contributor, quite probably the biggest single contributor to the total cost of running a car - and possibly even more than everything else put together.