Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Are all premium fules the same??

I think BP ultimate is the best, purely and simply because I have never had any problems while running it. I refuel my car a full tank at a time so I tend to pick diferences in fuel performance. When I use Caltex/Ampol I sometimes notice a marked reduction in power and the engine runs a little rougher. I first noticed it with my toyota sprinter and now with my skyline.

These problems are not always present but only develop when using Caltex/Ampol, Shell is fine (though I don't use it often), and BP I have never had a problem with.

Is it just me or has anyone else had problems with some premium fuel?

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/30944-are-all-premium-fuels-the-same/
Share on other sites

  • Replies 42
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Caltex (Ampol) Vortex is only about 95..as opposed to the other ones which are 98, off the top of my head.

There's a stack of fuel related topics here..everyone has their own opinions / experiences. All I have to say is that when I asked my compliancers which fuel to use, they said BP Ultimate or Optimax.

Ghostrider, I think that’s his nic, did a sample testing post about a year ago, I could not find it but I do remember the results.

The guy is a chemist and did specific measurements on 3 different samples of each petrol. The results?

BP Ultimate was the best, it had the highest consistent octane, I think it was about 98.2 with the least sulfur.

Mobile 8000 was next about 98.0 with a little more sulfur.

Shell Optimax was the worst. 97.6 with heaps of sulfur.

Caltex Vortex is only a Premium unleaded 96 Octane fuel with an injector clean added and was not recommended for the skylines.

Now these test are at least a year old and the fuels may have been changed or refined more but at the time this was the best analysis we I have seen done. The other factor was the time to market. Shell was the first out and was less refined then the others. Mobile next with BP a late last, but the BP has a min of 98, while the other specify up to 98 octane.

I notice the best performance and running on BP and have continued to use it for about 18 months in my GTR.

All the 98 RON fuels use aromatics to boost it up to 98.

All I can say is that anyone that says "fuel X is the best" is talking out of their arse. They are all different and run differently in different vehicles. Optimax may be the "dirtiest" by having the most sulfur and aromatics, but that doesn't necessarily make it the worst.

I get the best economy out of Optimax on my Skyline. However my motorcycle doesn't like it as much, and it gets the best economy on Mobil 8000. So I use Optimax in the car and 8000 on the bike.

So the correct answer as to which is the best is "it depends". The only way to tell is to try them all yourself and make your own decision. BP Ultimate gives me virtually the same economy as Optimax for me (car), and I'll use it when I can't get Optimax in the car. But Optimax is usually cheaper and easier to find so I tend to buy that more often.

I said it a while ago in a thread... can't remember which one.

The BP had the highest octane rating and is the only one gauranted to be 98 ocante at the least, that was consitent among any batch.

and then i got flamed for it!

good to see in this thread that people finally agree with what i said a long time ago.

there was a news paper article too that compared the fuels.

but again, that was 12 months ago things might have changed

One other reason I dont use Optimax, I find it goes off after about 4 weeks, I had to get my bike retuned a couple of times after it backfired itself out of tune. The other issue is that on track days I get a little amount of spillage from my tank, Optimax stains my paint, BP does not.

Yes, sometimes BP is cheaper, and I tend to grab it if it is :P Like I said, I can't really tell the difference, but I do know that I get considerably worse mileage out of 8000 on the 'line. My worst was 19L/100km on 8000 recently, nfi what happened there! This is why I avoid it for the car.

I only "prefer" Optimax really because there are so many more Shells in my area. Plus only half the BP's around me have Ultimate, whereas every Shell has Optimax. So it's mostly a convenience thing.

But the bike loves 8000! I get an extra 10-20km per tank easy over BP/Shell. I don't do it to save money (because 8000 is usually more cpl above ULP than Shell/BP) but to save the hassle of having to fill up as often.

I've had a lot of fuel of all types spill out the side, no stains/marks as yet. All that happens is it strips the wax and sticks to the paint, I just clean it as normal and re-wax the affected section.

I found that thread have a read and let me know if you think ghostrider

http://forums.skylinesdownunder.co.nz/show...25&pagenumber=1

Now this info is 15 months old and shell have have made some chages to the optimax to comply with Ghost's coments on specific gravity, but read the whole thread, Ghost did his research.

In Sumary: an extract

SHELL OPTIMAX (98.3 RON)

Under it's present formulation, it will not pass the drivability index set down by the EPA for fossil fuels, that will become law sometime in 2003 (1 July) at a guess and therefore will be illegal to sell. Also, it contains over 4% Benzine & Sulphur and tested at 98.3 octane (RON). So if you want to breath all of this SH1T go for it, we will all come and visit you in La La Land.

For Optimax to meet the drivability index, the company must spend MULTI MEGA MILLIONS of DOLLARS on their refinery to allow them to crack LOW SULPHUR crude oils.

MOBIL SYNERGY 8000 (98.5 RON)

Contains less than 0.4% Benzine & Sulphur, tested at 98.5 octane (RON) and complies with the drivability index NOW!! as is. A much cleaner, more environmentally friendly fossil fuel.

BP ULTIMATE (98.8 RON)

Contains similar quantities of Benzine & Sulphur to Mobil and tested at 98.8 octane (RON) and also complies.

GETS MY VOTE as NUMBER1.

"G" EVOLUTION

After some lengthy discussion and research, this fuel from Traffigura compares favourably with both BP Ultimate & MOBIL Synergy 8000 in all aspects. What you must decide is this, Evolution is not manufacture here, it is produced in Singapore and transported here via tanker and stored in Melbourne.

I've had great fuel mileage on both Optimax (540km) and BP Ultimate (552km). As far as im concerned their is no accurate way to compare fuel mileage unless you put your car on a dyno, peg it at 100km/h and let it run till the tank is empty on 2 different tanks of fuel. I run my tank empty (and i mean empty) every single time just to get 400km out of it and my car runs superbly.

Just by getting 2 or 3 extra sets of traffic lights a day could mean 30-40km less at the end of the week in your fuel mileage.

I -always- fill up my tank with Optimax purely because its the nearest petrol station to my house (excluding the Woolworths station because that shit shouldn't even be legal). If BP was closest (or on my side of the road) then I would fill up with that... pretty simple really.

Personally i dont mind either Optimax or BP, but my preffered is Optimax, I do remember reading something about Shell recently changing the either makeup or entire creation/refinement of Optimax and alot of their other petrol range.

I used BP for about a month, was almost empty, put in optimax and i could feel the difference. I guess its just upto the person.

Mobil Synergy 8000 ./ ? ive never heard of it, then again ive never gone into Mobil Petrol station to fill my car up!

The BP on wynnum road where 'fast and furious' workshop used to be has 20L drums of 100octane racing fuel on the store floor. Was thinking of using it for 1/4s or just occasionally for some boooost :P

It says you need some kind of 'minor' racing lisence etc to buy it

In my car ultimate gets me the best milage and gives me the best response. Optimax is up there, but it leaves this nasty monkey ass sulphuric gone off egg smell around the exhaust... and I get dirty looks when people walk aroudn the back of the car. Ultimate on the other hand does not leave any sulphuric odour.

I only "prefer" Optimax really because there are so many more Shells in my area. Plus only half the BP's around me have Ultimate, whereas every Shell has Optimax. So it's mostly a convenience thing.

mmm. Quite a TRUE point that indeed!

lucky im 5 mins from the airport... they got all sorts of nice fuels there :P

But the BP has the ultimate so im lucky. But i know of a number of other BP's in my area that dont stock the Ultimate though... as opposed to the Shell's which ALL have optimax.

I read that they have BANNED cars from getting fuel from the airport. It was because of some tax BS that is not on the fuel there.....

Anyone heard of this ?

I also think BP ultimate is the besty as I will rather pay +7c p/l for BP than +9c p/l for Optimax

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • I thought that might be the case, thats what I'll start saving for. Thanks for the info 
    • Ps i found the below forum and it seems to be the same scenario Im dealing with. Going to check my ECU coolant temp wire tomorrow    From NICOclub forum: s1 RB25det flooding at start up Thu Apr 11, 2013 7:23 am I am completely lost on this. Car ran perfectly fine when I parked it at the end of the year. I took the engine out and painted the engine bay, and put a fuel cell with an inline walbro 255 instead of the in tank unit I had last year. After reinstalling everything, the engine floods when the fuel pump primes. if i pull the fuel pump fuse it'll start, and as soon as I put the fuse back in it starts running ridiculously rich. I checked the tps voltage, and its fine. Cleaned the maf as it had some dust from sitting on a shelf all winter, fuel pressure is correct while running, but wont fire until there is less than 5psi in the lines. The fuel lines are run correctly. I have found a few threads with the same problem but no actual explanation of what fixed it, the threads just ended. Any help would be appreciated. Rb25det s1 walbro255 fuel pump nismo fpr holset hx35 turbo fmic 3" exhaust freddy intake manifold q45tb q45 maf   Re: s1 RB25det flooding at start up Fri Apr 12, 2013 5:07 am No, I didn't. I found the problem though. There was a break in one of the ecu coolant temp sensor wires. Once it was repaired it fired right up with no problems. I would have never thought a non working coolant temp sensor would have caused such an issue.
    • Hi sorry late reply I didnt get a chance to take any pics (my mechanics on the other side of the city) but the plugs were fouled from being too rich. I noticed the MAF wasn't genuine, so I replaced it with a genuine green label unit. I also swapped in a different ignitor, but the issue remains. I've narrowed it down a bit now: - If I unplug and reconnect the fuel lines and install fresh spark plugs, the car starts right up and runs perfectly. Took it around the block with no issues - As soon as I shut it off and try to restart, it won't start again - Fuel pressure while cranking is steady around 40 psi, injectors have good spray, return line is clear, and the FPR vacuum is working. It just seems like it's getting flooded after the first start I unplugged coolant sensors to see if its related to ECU flooding but that didnt make a difference. Im thinking its related to this because this issue only started happening after fixing coolant leaks and replacing the bottom part of the stock manifolds coolant pipe. My mechanic took off the inlet to get to get to do these repairs. My mechanics actually just an old mate who's retired now so ill be taking it to a different mechanic who i know has exp with RBs to see if they find anything. If you have any ideas please send em lll give it a try. Ive tried other things like swapping the injectors, fuel rail, different fuel pressure regs, different ignitor, spark plugs, comp test and MAF but the same issue persists.
    • My return flow is custom and puts the return behind the reo, instead of at the bottom. All my core is in the air flow, rather than losing some of it up behind the reo. I realise that the core really acts more as a spiky heatsink than as a constant rate heat exchanger, and that therefore size is important.... but mine fits everything I needed and wanted without having to cut anything, and that's worth something too. And there won't be a hot patch of core up behind the reo after every hit, releasing heat back into the intake air.
    • There is a really fun solution to this problem, buy a Haltech (or ECU of your choice) and put the MAF in the bin.  I'm assuming your going to want more power in future, so you'll need to get the ECU at some stage. I'd put the new MAF money towards the new ECU. 
×
×
  • Create New...