Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

As we all know petrol prices are phuckin ridiculous at the moment, especially if ur driving imports cars and the like. My question is which premium unleaded petrol is best to use here in PERTH, Caltex Vortex or Shell Premium Unleaded?

And don't say use BP Ultimate...! :D

ta :D

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/48535-quick-petrol-question/
Share on other sites

if ur running the stock ecu shell premium will do u fine, its 96 RON. its even better if u shop at coles as u get 4c off per litre :D

caltex vortex is 95 RON and has an injector cleaner in it. it make my car ping with stock ecu stay away from it.

Gull's premium unleaded is suppose to be 98 RON, but i haven't used it yet.

that said if you have an afterward ecu or major mods i would only use bp ultimate 98.

As you prolly know - BP Ultimate is only made in Kwinnana and distributed Australia wide (kinda sh1tza when it's cheaper in Sydney than Perth doesn't it). I suspect that it is also sold under another brand, but have never had this confirmed.

For this reason alone, it should be the freshest fuel providing you buy from a popular station.

Paul, that reminds me - make sure they drain my fuel and change the fuel filter before firing up the new donk- that crap's been sitting in my tank for 8 months now!

caltex vortex is 95 RON and has an injector cleaner in it. it make my car ping with stock ecu stay away from it.

Gull's premium unleaded is suppose to be 98 RON, but i haven't used it yet.

Gull gets the dregs of the other fuel companies, kind of the crud that's left over from all of the crude oils

Caltex Vortex is 97RON though, but yeah has cleaner in it

thanx for the replies guys, apparently and sadly my line is a *cough* n/a *cough* :Oops: but yea never use normal unleaded but, always use premiums at least, ok just checked their websites and shell is 96RON and vortex is 95. But the thing is i think i always gets more kms from using vortex, no noticable difference in terms of performance though. and yea i kinda mix the 2 together sometimes, i hope thats ok?

:)

Hi Guys. There is another thread going in the General Automotive about different fuels at the moment. I just left a message on that to direct people to the thread below from back in May. There is a fair amount of discussion in it, but some quite informed views. The main thing to note for us in Perth is that every last drop of fuel that you buy in Perth originates in BP Kwinana. Shell, Caltex and everyone else buy the raw 95 ron Premium off BP and add their own soup to it to make it theirs. Shell claim their standard premium is 96 ron, but they are starting from a 95 ron basic fuel, bought from BP. So anything else that they gain in octane rating is achieved through additives.

BP Ultimate is the only thing to use!

Here's that thread:

http://www.skylinesaustralia.com/forums/sh...ead.php?t=38750

Cheers.

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

    • Yeah, that's fine**. But the numbers you came up with are just wrong. Try it for yourself. Put in any voltage from the possible range and see what result you get. You get nonsense. ** When I say "fine", I mean, it's still shit. The very simple linear formula (slope & intercept) is shit for a sensor with a non-linear response. This is the curve, from your data above. Look at the CURVE! It's only really linear between about 30 and 90 °C. And if you used only that range to define a curve, it would be great. But you would go more and more wrong as you went to higher temps. And that is why the slope & intercept found when you use 50 and 150 as the end points is so bad halfway between those points. The real curve is a long way below the linear curve which just zips straight between the end points, like this one. You could probably use the same slope and a lower intercept, to move that straight line down, and spread the error out. But you would 5-10°C off in a lot of places. You'd need to say what temperature range you really wanted to be most right - say, 100 to 130, and plop the line closest to teh real curve in that region, which would make it quite wrong down at the lower temperatures. Let me just say that HPTuners are not being realistic in only allowing for a simple linear curve. 
    • I feel I should re-iterate. The above picture is the only option available in the software and the blurb from HP Tuners I quoted earlier is the only way to add data to it and that's the description they offer as to how to figure it out. The only fields available is the blank box after (Input/ ) and the box right before = Output. Those are the only numbers that can be entered.
    • No, your formula is arse backwards. Mine is totally different to yours, and is the one I said was bang on at 50 and 150. I'll put your data into Excel (actually it already is, chart it and fit a linear fit to it, aiming to make it evenly wrong across the whole span. But not now. Other things to do first.
    • God damnit. The only option I actually have in the software is the one that is screenshotted. I am glad that I at least got it right... for those two points. Would it actually change anything if I chose/used 80C and 120C as the two points instead? My brain wants to imagine the formula put into HPtuners would be the same equation, otherwise none of this makes sense to me, unless: 1) The formula you put into VCM Scanner/HPTuners is always linear 2) The two points/input pairs are only arbitrary to choose (as the documentation implies) IF the actual scaling of the sensor is linear. then 3) If the scaling is not linear, the two points you choose matter a great deal, because the formula will draw a line between those two points only.
    • Nah, that is hella wrong. If I do a simple linear between 150°C (0.407v) and 50°C (2.98v) I get the formula Temperature = -38.8651*voltage + 165.8181 It is perfectly correct at 50 and 150, but it is as much as 20° out in the region of 110°C, because the actual data is significantly non-linear there. It is no more than 4° out down at the lowest temperatures, but is is seriously shit almost everywhere. I cannot believe that the instruction is to do a 2 point linear fit. I would say the method I used previously would have to be better.
×
×
  • Create New...