greasemonkey

Yeah, I know. Just making the point that a lot of the speculation kicked up in places like this isn't entirely helpful. As it is we have an alternative to Optimax, which is a good thing. The way some people are acting though, it's like someone stole their baby - and all because the speculation that this fuel was 100 RON turned out to be incorrect.

Not necessarily. It happens for a variety of reasons, including when someone else's product starts to steal market share.

It's obvious innit? It's designed to appeal to everyone , hence the emphasis on lower emissions, cleaner engine, better fuel economy etc. They're not selling it purely on the basis that it produces more power, so forget any idea that it's aimed at performance car owners. It's aimed at Everyman - just like Optimax was/is. In fact, the only principal difference as far as the marketing is concerned is that they're also targeting diesel owners.

I'm starting to sound like a scratched record here, but petrochemical companies don't give a sh*t about "performance car owners"/clued-up motoring enthusiasts as they represent a tiny fraction of the driving population. Pump petrol is by definition a mass-market product.

The vast majority of GTi/VTR/RS/Impreza (etc.) owners are clueless numpties who wouldn't know what an octane was if it bit them on the bum. TBH many of the so-called enthusiasts who post in places like this aren't much better. I imagine a large number of people who were hoping that Ultimate would be 100 RON were merely working on the assumption that cos the number is 100 instead of 98, it'll magically liberate more power from any engine that runs it...

Joe Public has, in increasingly large quantity, been buying Optimax from Shell over the past couple of years. This is a large part of the reason why more and more supermarkets have been stocking SUL.

Anyone and everyone so BP hope.

That's a big "if" really, isn't it? What would you have done if they'd introduced a 100 RON fuel that had been priced at £1 a litre? It's not just the R&D and refining costs, there'd also be an increase in tax to consider.

Ah, so if you and all the other JDM car owners switched, plus a handful of others, how much do you think that'd add to their profits? It wouldn't even make a blip on their chart, and in fact it'd be a big net loss, given that the other 26 million people would see the extra 5p a litre and immediately f**k off down the Supermarket - or Shell...

The big oil companies - and indeed the supermarkets, don't give a toss about subsets. They're not going to install the pumps, tankage, distribution infrastructure and PR necessary to sell a fuel that only a few thousand Japanese market cars plus a handful of specials with programmable ECU's can usefully run. Even if the law allowed them to, the numbers are financially ridiculous. As mentioned above, pump fuel is a mass-market product. Always has been, always will be.

[Edited by greasemonkey - 10/9/2003 12:48:06 PM]

speedking

therefore OK.

Adam M

I want to know when people are going to learn that ron rating is not the be all and end all of fuels.

its like bhp, its great, but not so great if you have a 10 tonne car, when compared with a one tonne car with half the power.

quicksprint

Like i said before..............i'm gonna stick with Optimax (at least i know this fuel hasn't caused me any problems).

steve

Miniman

iTrader: (2)

I think the assumption that large corporations care nothing for small niche markets is wrong. Companies will want to make a profit (almost) regardless of the size of the market.

While performance car nuts may be rare I think the market is large enough and does not constitute a small group of people. I would think this same argument is happening on lots of other forums for GTI/RS/WRX etc etc boards all over the UK. I also think accusing people of being ignorant over octane rating is wrong. You don't hear people saying, "Do you actually know what's in a CPU?" when they buy a PC and ask for the fastest one?

Why would Shell have made Optimax if the market was so small? Out of the goodness of their hearts? Maybe the Marketing Director has a Caterham in his garage?

Remember BP won't have made a fuel that *they* wanted, they would have made a fuel *we* wanted. Don't buy it and when the marketing people go round saying, why didn't it sell, the same story will come up "we wanted a higher octane rating".

ozzy

Adam,

Maybe you start educating them then they'll never know unless someone actually explains why the RON value isn't the be all and end all

The percentage of car owners who can actually tell how different fuels affects their cars running and performance is very small. The general public have to go on some sort of simple comparison.

Stefan

DrEvil

Adam I suspect this will happen when car manufacturers explain in depth what is best for their cars - but then all we have to go by whats written on a petrol pump, which at present is only the RON rating, there is no other info on the product being dispenced (bar it being unleaded).

nom

All the hype turned up in the first place because 'Ultimate' is 100 RON in Greece.
If ozzy has tried it & it's making the KnockLink go all 'christmas tree', then either that was a dodgy batch, or there is most certainly not an alternative to Optimax - my car is set up for Optimax & on the whole can take a tank of Esso SUL without being much 'louder' - if any - than usual. So Ultimate is likely inferios to Esso SUL (admittedly the 'best of the rest').
What I don't understand is if they have a refinery producing stuff for Greece @ 100, why aren't they shipping it over here? Technical issues due to the different temperatures (they are effectively permanently on our summer mix), or just mis-marketing?

Harry_Boy

So, if the oil companies aren't bothered about performance car owners and the market they represent, then why did Shell launch Optimax with a higher RON than conventional super unleaded?

Surely it would have been easier to launch/rebrand an existing SUL offering????

john coffey

LOL, if you want accurate information do not read Scoobynet
From now on I'm taking everything I read here with a pinch of salt.
All the hype of 100RON had the Jap owners cumming in their pants and all they get is a poxy 97.
LMFAO

ozzy

Just to clarify things, all I tried was the usual BP SUL stuff. My local BP garage hasn't started rebranding it as Ultimate.

But, if it's just the same fuel now with a different name then I'm staying well clear.

I can easily light up both amber lights at 5,000 rpm and I had one nasty red last night at 5,500 in 3rd.

My car isn't remapped, just a std RB5 with an AE801 ECU. With Optimax, the knocklink barely goes about the first green and I've only ever seen one Red since I fitted the Knocklink some months ago.

It's not very scientific, but the difference is noticeable on my cars Knocklink.

Stefan

greasemonkey

Optimax was (and still is) marketed to everyone, it was never meant to be a "niche" product as you are making out.

In exactly the same way as Ultimate now, they stressed cleaner engines, lower emissions and better fuel economy as equally important to any power gain. The fact that it was "the fuel developed with Ferrari" was just an additional string to their marketing campaign - and one that BP will no doubt mine through their sponsorship of the Ford WRC team.

Soulgirl

It claims to clean your engine.. does Optimax do that also?

SlowBoy

iTrader: (1)

Yep, I think Evo did a test ages ago and part of this involved checking for carbon deposits, or something like that. Sorry, but memory's not what it used to be. Can't comment on the value of their findings though.

Soulgirl

That would be worth swapping for sure. I had carbon deposits that stopped my car in its tracks a few weeks ago! Perhaps what is really needed are decent filters to prohibit the carbon deposits in the first place.

mutant_matt

Yes, Optimax does claim to do that (and EVO did a test which seemed to back that claim up).

I agree that Optimax is aimed at everybody but they make a lot bigger deal of the performance features of the fuel than BP do of Ultimate. I remember all their marketing bumph at the time had diagrams of how much faster (and therefore safer) Optimax made you car allcelerate in an overtaking situation. I also agree that Shell must have had "performance" car drivers in mind as a side line when they made Optimax as otherwise, why not just re-brand like BP have just done rather than go to the expense of making a "new" fuel with a higher octane rating?

To all those people who are upset about the "usual suspect Scoobynet information", can I sugest you don't believe everything you read, and make opinions for yourself. That way, you will be far less disapointed in general when things you have been told turn out not to be the case....

Matt

Soulgirl

Well I am going to try it... being female and persuasive to advertising (it's part of the female make-up) what else am I supposed to do!

I will post my finding after the weekend. Well, I need to empty the tank first to make an untainted opinion don't I!

johnfelstead

dont give up your day job Soulgirl.

So we have a 97RON fuel, with slightly higher calorific burning energy and more detergents than before.

So you may get more power (how much is unproven, like a bigger engine , yeh, right ), but you wont get any more protection from det.

mutant_matt

So, has anybody actually tried it yet then, especially anyone with monitoring equipment (DeltaDash, Knocklink, PSI3 etc.) that can quantify the results?

John, I don't suppose you want to try a fuel which may not be as good at preventing det? To my mind, a higher calorific fuel with less knock protection is probably better for someone using Octane Boosters but worse for someone just using Optimax pump fuel?

Matt

johnfelstead

Not really true Matt. The reason people use Octane boosters is to prevent det, not gain power. Thats the case with the Jap spec cars. Others use OB to increase power by allowing more ignition advance to be used with the available fuel.

So in both cases you are using OB to prevent det. If you have mapped the car to use a 98RON to protect against det, using a 97RON even if that provides more energy per volume, still gives you a risk of a badly detting engine which would fail. You may get more power by remapping for this 97RON because that will allow you to run at a safe ignition level and gain the benefits of the higher calorific content. Just putting 97RON in if you mapped for 98RON is a bad idea.

Soulgirl

If you knew what my day job was you wouldn't want me to give it up

Just kiddin.. and besides... a change is as good as a rest right?

mutant_matt

Crossed wires I think John

I thought that higher calorific content would produce more power without having to remap (unlike higher octane)? Based on that assumption, I thought a higher calorific fuel with Octane booster to take it to the same Octane rating as say Optimax would perform better than Optimax with no modifications to the car?

Matt

shizzle

In performance car tests BP Ultimate gave equivalent or better performance than Shell Optimax. Also BP Ultimate has twice the cleaning power of conventional fuels and will not only keep your engine clean but will also clean away deposits that are already there.

It’s not all about octane rating! BP have tested high performance cars that are sensitive to octane and we saw no benefit for 98 versus BP Ultimate petrol in these vehicles.

A few figures for you:
up to 7.1% more power
up to 5.2% Sharper Acceleration
up to 5.8% improved fuel comsumption
also reduces noise up to 52%

BP Ultimate Unleaded prevents 97% of (intake valve) deposits forming.

Boss Hogg

up 7.1% more power than what? Normal u/l - who cares?

We eant to know how it performs/is priced against optimax -otherwise what's the point?

Adam555

Hey guys - can you answer this question pls

Considering Shell Optimax is basically SUL + Octane Boosters, does adding a further octane booster like Millers or STP auctally make a difference??

Or am I just wasting money?

brickboy

It's fine for us diesel owners -- 56 cetane instead of 51 . Should be a bit of a boost to our real world performance

Scooby96

"also reduces noise up to 52%"

what noise???

Rog Ford

Shizzle - if you actually know anything about this figures (rather than having just read them in a marketing brochure) can you give us some more details?

Does "up to" just mean "less than", or did you really see these figures on actual vehicles? What were the tests against? "7.1% more power" would be pretty impressive if true.

I have no idea what "sharper acceleration" means, or how you measure it - can you enlighten us? Is it the proportion shaved off the 40-60 time or something?

The noise figure obviously isn't true if it refers to total vehicle noise. I presume it's some minor component of the overall noise.

mutant_matt

Shizzle,What tests are these that you refer to and where can we see the data? I notice that you have posted the exact same post on the other thread but have no substatiation. Assuming that you are not just repeating marketing speil, as has been mentioned, can you enlighten us as to where you are getting your information?

Hopefully, in the comming weeks, we will have some hard facts from people testing the two fuels, but until then, it's speculation with the onus being on BP to provide something substative, something they have yet to do (though I won't hold my breath because I do realise that as long as BP convince Joe Average in the street, the campaign will be marked as successful).

Matt

BT52b

RON schmon!
What's the MON? That's what we should be asking

Mark