Gez

After reading many posts on this subject both on scoobynet and the Skyline forum i decided to call in a favour from one of my universuty palls.
I dont really want to publish any names but this chap is a chemical engineer that works for a Very large Petrochemical company. I owe him a drink for this. He whent and bought a jerry can full of Optimax and carried out a number of lab tests over a five day period. These were his conclusions, (dont worry i will use plain English)
After using some high tech equipment he can confirm that the petrol was only 97.2 Ron. One of his findings was that Optimax contains many additives one of which is the same as NF. But dont hesitate, its not all bad, Optimax does do a very good job of cleaning internals BUT his tests were not carried out long enough to see if the cleaning action causes harm after prolonged use. The most interesting part of the test is yet to be told, he found that over a five day period the petrol decayed to 95.3 Ron, this would answer a lot of questions for a lot of people. Unfortunatley he couldnt test octane boosters. At some stage he will be as he wants to buy an import and would like the car to run reliably.
Now, these were tests run at a petrochemical labs where some of the equipment that was used costs a hell of a lot of money so i trust the accuracy of these results.
I dont want to put anyone off Optimax as i think its great stuff but only for a short period. Im not telling anyone to stop using the stuff and from my opinion it should be used in small quantities and shouldnt be left in the tank for prolonged periods. These tests were carried out as a favour to me! People should use what they and their cars are happy with. I hope that my friend has been of some assistance. He has im sure, put a lot of our heads to rest and he assures me that when he has time, he will be carrying out tests on octane boosters.

Regards

Gez

dhorwich

Great work mate...!!! just wondered how long the optimax he got from the pump was actually in there... still a drop of 2 RON is a lot.....

Even if fresh optimax is 98.6 RON a drop of 2 RON over 5days would still take it to 96.8 ron (great maths ey..!)

Might just stick with normal SUL only thing is ts about 80p/L

Dan

johnfelstead

if that were the case, and not the case for other SUL fuel, why would Shell's competitors not publish this themselves?

Your arent trying to tell me they havnt analysed their competitors fuels already are you?

Gez

Dhorwich, unfortunatley he didnt ask when the petrol had arrived but it couldnt have been in the tanks for that long as many scooby/evo drivers use that petrol station. How much is optimax in your area? In N-london its exactly the same as SUL! I wonder why???

Gez

Johnfelstead, i really dont know what to say! Im only passing on the information that he passed on to me!
If the oil industry is the same as the industry i work in then im sure if X petrol company discovered that Optimax was a hoax then there would be a lot of under-table dealings etc.
Regarding SUL im afraid he didnt carry out a test on it but if what one of NF's emplyees told me on an email that i posted a few days ago is true, then i would have to say that SUL is safe. Basically he found Australias version of Optimax is Very unstable compared to their SUL, ie he had detected more knock on Optimax than SUL.

dhorwich

optimax is 75.5p and SUL from a total petrol station is around 80p...!

Dan

Gez

Unfortunatley we have to pay London prices, SUL is 79.9 alongside Optimax which is also 79.9. They really know how to con us dont they!

johnfelstead

thanks Gez, not having a go, this just seems a rather bizarre and to be honest, very worrying trial. I run on Optimax and NF in my STi5 TypeRA. Now if i were testing it with det cans on a good batch then get a crap one that could make a mess of all my testing (and maybe my engine).

I guess investing in a Knocklink would be pretty wise. (well i knew that but this kind of forces the issue).

Any chance your mate can do a test on Esso SUL?

We run the rally car on Carless WRC spec fuel kept in big 50 litre drums that are sealed, so we get a consistent 115Ron (think thats what it is, its nuts anyway ) but with SUL i cant control the supply.

Shark

Not Shell then

David

Des

Hi.

I would be very interested to know what the decay rate is on SUL. It may be that optimax competitors have a similar decay rate hence nobody pointing the finger at Shell. Just my 2 pence. Anybody know?

Cheers

RichardPON

Bit of an unfair test, since no other fuels have been tested.

Just a shame that people have to rubbish the only possible good thing that's going for us performance car drivers. Not having a go at all - just my 2 penny's worth.....

Didn't EVO mag do a test on this a while back....?

Gez

Guys im just as baffled as anyone else by the results. From what my friend told me, in order for optimax to live up to its name it would have to be kept in special tanks where decay is minimised. He advised me to only fill the car with small amounts of fuel to maintain Ron values. What i will be asking him next time he's in town is whether or not Optimax is MODIFIED 95ron! As he only had five days to carry out tests he did not manage to see when decay would even out and what the stable ron value would be. In some ways it makes sense that NF doesnt really work that well with optimax as they both contain the same additives so the ron rating wont really increase by that much. Many people have said that SUL with NF works better so it may be that ESSO and BP dont use chemicals that NF use thus allowing the booster to work to its full potential! Another question which i would like answered is at what RON does petrol start from? Does it start life at 95RON and with additives becomes 97RON or is it dpendant on the refining process???? This would explain the stability of petrol. Modified petrol with additives would decay at a much faster rate than modified petrol. Personally the results point that Optimax is modified! It is a shame that there was not enough time to ascertain this!
Regarding the fittment of a knocklink, im very unsure whether or not to invest in one! Again after reading many posts on Octane boosters i have come to the conclusion that if what i have been reading is correct then a knocklink is useless! Many people said that by adding octane booster to petrol doesnt actually raise the RON instead it fools knock detectors! I dont know how reliable this is but a lot of people put up a good arguement! I think the only real solution is to fork out for a new ecu in order to prevent the dreaded detonation!

Regards

Gez

Gez

This is directed to Johnfelstead!
Have you ever tested your car with detcans while running on Optimax + NF! Would be very interested in the results!
PS: Is the Carless fuel readilly availabe! Wouldnt mind getting some for trackday use!

Regards

Gez

pslewis

Isnt the internet wonderful!!

Did you all know that the word Gullible has been removed from the Oxford Dictionary??

Pete

Gez

Pslewis! I thought i would make the effort and call in a favour from a pall who happens to know a thing or two about petrol! As i said he did the test as a favour to me and i thought i would let scooby owners know. I didnt tell you or anyone to stop using Optimax. If you are happy with the fuel and you feel that your car is running well with it then i v-happy and by all means dont stop using it! As it has been a topic of conversation for a while now i thought i would put peoples mind at rest.

pslewis

Thanks Gez - I KNOW you were only telling what your scientific friend said.

All I am saying is; if the case was that it isnt what it says it is when they sell it to you, ie. its been in the tanks for a few days - then they are facing one hell of a lawsuite so they would certainly NOT try anything like that on. Wouldnt you think?

Or is Shell another Enron in the making????? nah dont think so - so forgive me if I dont take the words of someone we dont know, of a company we dont know, using equipment we dont know, conducting tests under conditions we dont know - very seriously.

I do not doubt your genuine desire to help the scoobynet community - I am just being devils advocate

Pete

Kingsize K2

Gez,

V. interesting thread. But how exactly are you putting people's minds at rest I am now 10 times more confused!

Does all petrol drop it's RON content over time? Should I only fill my tank up 1/2 way each time? Is NF useless, or even damaging, when used with Optimax? Etc, etc...

Put my mind at rest, it ain't

johnfelstead

anyone fancy some carless??? Only costs £12 a gallon.

fatherpierre

A friend of mine who owns a heavily modded MR2 Turbo had his motor dynoed in Feb with SUL from Esso and he got 344bhp at the flywheel. In April and with no extra mods he got 351bhp at the flywheel on Optimax. He swears by it. The rolling road was the same for both tests, and the same operator who said most cars using it show an increase in output. I use it in my MR2 Turbo and haven't really noticed any performance increase, but I have recorded a 5mpg increase.

EdMax

Gez,
I would question the reliability and accuracy of your mates findings.
Where did he actually source the fuel from ?
As for the RON deteriorating 2 octanes over 5 days - under normal operating conditions - hard to believe.

As for Optimax being a modified 95 RON is also wrong, - the component blend make-up is quite different.

cheers
Max

ustolemyname??stevieturbo

iTrader: (1)

Decaying by 2 pts over 5 days????? And how long was it in the filling stations tanks, which were then transported in a tanker, from the depot. How long was it in the depot's reservoirs???
Maybe it starts at 120 octane, to allow for it lying about for 30 days or so, in various tanks.
While Im sure the fuel may not be perfect ( and totally unavailable in Norhtern Ireland ), if it decayed that fast, then it would be virtually impossible to see any benefits from the fuel. It would be no better than UL.

Eagle7

look, surely from just using common sense, optimax is not a real 98 ron fuel, otherwise it would cost more than 97 ron SUL.

you get what you pay for. Plus shell have admitted in other countries that it is normal unleaded with additives.

if it is 95 + additives to take it to 98+, then for best performance fill up with SUL and then put your own additives in to take it too 100+.

just my tuppence worth

EdMax

As I said earlier Optimax is not ULG95 modified.
The make-up profile is significantly different.

Max

Trout...

When Millars tested Optimax (mind you Millars might be owned by Shell - but I don't know) it tested at over 98RON.

Just from my personal experience - I have found Optimax to be very consistent - although primarily from one source - I have used it from a number of sources.

My car would certainly be compromised using SUL - knock, knock, knock - as it is mapped specifically for Optimax and the map is different from the SUL map.

A couple of final points - if Optimax relies on additives like NF then surely NF would also go off - how long does it last - five days - jeez - we would need to get it delivered like milk.

Also - I personally find that Millars to be a less effective additive to Optimax than NF - based on my personal experience.

Finally I love these threads - someone tries harder to produce something we want and we trash it. Gez - is your mate going to test SUL next to prove that it's RON is less than PULP - because SUL is only PULP with additives

Trout

Mellow Yellow !

iTrader: (1)

Steve Simpson when fitting and mapping my Type RA V Ltd was able to advance the mapping far greater than most due to the fact that my RON reading was 102

I use Optimax and NF

Devil's Refugee

There have been several threads on this topic, one of which started by me a month or so back.
I think it's fair to say that until long term tests are conducted on the fuel, we'll not really know what the benefits/ downsides are.
I've kept on using the fuel myself after moaning about it to begin with and the rough running has ceased I have to admit. But I am worried about the number of tests which have been conducted by expert friends of 'netters which have come to the conclusion that the RON rating deteriorates rapidly.
I would hope that the petrochemical industry can answer these claims honestly and without prejudice.
Perhaps concerns could be voiced outwith this forum to someone who can answer the questions......

(and I can't end a serious thread without adding the usual conspiracy theory about the bloke who re-engineered his engine to run on water and got wasted by hitmen of the industry to keep their money flowing.....)

slippyr4

Slightly misleading thread.

All "octane enhanced" fuels (SUL and Optimax included) deteriorate with time.

The Octane in these products is boosted with various chemicals, most of which are Benzene based (eg. Toluene). These are very valent indeed, and evaporate much easier than base petroleum.

Now, I don't know the exact mix of Optimax Vs. SUL, but, in simple form these fuels are in fact NUL with extras in. So they both degrade over time to NUL.

The more air that can get to the fuel the more the fuel will degrade, and quicker too.

Sticking 10 litres in a tank, thus leaving 50 litres of air to go with it, is probably not the best idea for keeping your fuel in tip top condition. I would recommend filling to the brim every time, and make sure your filler cap is in good condition.

The factor that you have no control in is that fuel tanks in the ground at petrol stations have air breathers for pressure equalisation. These basically consist of valves with cleaners, dryers and carbon filters (to remove hydrocarbons). The result of this is that the spare space in the fuel station is full of air. Thus the fuel is degrading before you even buy it.

You can ask in your local shell garage when and how often they get a delivery of optimax... then try and time your filling up to get it when it's fresh.

Personally, I regard optimax as 97+ RON. ie, i'm pretty sure it's always 97, and if i'm lucky i get a bit more.

I've never had optimax that's been really low... my skyline runs very badly on NUL, and i'd notice anything approaching 95.

Jon

Luke

Jon...One of the best points made.Fill up and keep it up!!

Gordo

I for one am not surprised - was keen to get the benefits of this wonder fuel and used several tanks from different sources. Result was all the same.

The P1 didn't hate it quite as much as 95 RON but it sure as hell didn't like it and noticeably lost power at the bottom end.

lots of laughs at Slippyr4 - 'fill your tank to the brim every time' (to stop air getting to the fuel). does this mean it doesn't degrade when you've used half a tank? do you have to keep topping it up to stop any air getting in there? fill up at every garage you pass? time it to get to the garage after a delivery so it's 'fresh'

Gordo

[Edited by Gordo - 7/26/2002 8:59:38 AM]

dingy

CraigH's car was mapped on Optimax and NF, and ran more ignition than Elf 103 race fuel could give it, engine has been apart after 10k and no det what so ever.

Never had knocklights on the knocklink (however accurate they are), never heard det thru the cans either.

I personally Use SUL + NF as its cheaper in derby, and my engine was mapped on SUL.

Just for reference.