Diablo

Just been reading the optimax threads with interest and amusement.

Apparently its "Enhanced 95" to get around trading standards/customs issues. But shell quote "It is greater than 98 Research Octane Number (RON)." on their public website and public literature. So whatever they call it on "official documents" is completely irrelevant as far as TS/C&E, etc are concerned .

If it ain't over 98 Ron, Shell are deeply in the sh$t for mis-selling.

Apparently it degrades over a short time to a RON number below 98. Seemingly, in the forcourt tanks.

Again, if it ain't over 98 Ron when it leaves the pump, Shell are deeply in the sh$t for mis-selling.

Has anyone tested apparent degredation in other pump fuels? Is there a comparison?

How many people will be sh$tting themselves if it is discovered that 95 becomes 90, 97 becomes 93, etc, etc, etc.....

Now, Im no petrochemical engineer, but I would have thought any testing process undertaken by Shell would have included a stability/degredation over time. I would also have thought that Shell would have tested this fuel over a longer period and under more rigerous and accurate testing conditions than anyone.

They got it wrong in the past with their advanced fuel that ultimately damaged a number of Vauxhall (IIRC) engines over time. That cost Shell an immesurable amount not just in terms of cash, but also in the loss of public confidence in their products.

Somehow I doubt they would make the same mistake again

For the record, I have no connection with Shell whatsoever. While I appreciate the interesting posts on testing that has been done, I would also appreciate those posts carrying the appropriate caveats and qualifications, instead of one or two unverified tests being taken as gospel (although they may not have been posted with that intention)

Not to mention all the "jumping on the bandwagon" pish that follows.

For the record, I've just tested optimax and can tell you that after 5 days of extensive testing on various suitable samples, 9 out of 10 "winos" prefer meths although Optimax did clean their internals more effectively.....

Lets cut the crap and get the facts...

D

mutant_matt

Would "cutting the crap" include people not starting umpteen threads all asking the questions about Optimax???

Matt

[Edited by mutant_matt - 7/26/2002 5:14:39 PM]

Diablo

Definately

D

RB5-Black

I've never understood all the talk about optimax. It's just petrol, at the end of the day it's the " My dad's bigger than your Dad " argument over and over. 98/95 who cares !

Sheepsplitter

RB5-Black: My ECU cares. You can get a measurable improvement in boost with 'good quality' Optimax, and experiments by Evo proved that it does clean the crap out of your engine.

RB5-Black

ok I'll put my hands up I noticed NO change from sul

I'm not Evo magazine, don't have a RR and don't care. My car's great fun and fast ( for a soob )

The DP made the big difference

Mycroft

You should read the entire Skyline thread and its companion thread, No Optimax, interesting result'.

It is heavy going and if you mis-interpret any part wrong and have no opportunity to clarify these things with the main protagonist then you are gonna be confused. There is no shame in that.

You may be too young to remember Shells last foray into this exotic fuel territory, it destroyed lots of engines and was withdrawn after just over a year.

You are Guinea-pigs, like it or not.

Attu

Ive just been to do my weekly fill up and for the first time in a good few months i went to BP and put SUL in instead of Shell Optimax.
I also never noticed any change when i went from SUL to Optimax but I dont like the thought that it "may" degrade to standard UL whilst in my tank.
I guess there will be alot more discussion on this subject before its put to bed and im still being open minded about the whole thing.

Andy

daz b

sul or optx i find no difference

Mycroft

If you can go to a TOTAL/FINA/ELF garage and use their SUL for a while, then post your findings.

They produce the Highest calorific value fuel in the UK.

Octane is just a measure of Knock inhibition, it is nothing to do with fuel efficiency or direct explosive power.

Steve001

iTrader: (7)

You are right, the chances of Shell making the same mistake twice i dont think so (i hope! as i have used opti exclusively since i got the scoob 6 months ago).

Lets not forget ladies and gentlemen Fararri have endorsed this product as well and something tells me that they ain't going to jump in blind!

no difference SUL vs Optimax?? Price for one (well here anyways)

Steve

dhorwich

The only thing i think is.... if this where to be correct and some optimax degrades to around 95 RON, surly my MY95 WRX would be pinking and running very crap.... which ive not noticed....

Dan

Big Goon

Could somebody thats literate e-mail the Shell press office and point them to these threads and ask for some clarification ?

Steve001

iTrader: (7)

Plus while your at it, can you ask them to send me the 4 Trump cards that i need

pslewis

Can someone PLEASE put to bed the idea that petrol degrades over a short period of time - by the time a Scoobie has emptied its tank and its time for another its barely had time to settle for ***** sake!!

The indication that between refining and igniting in your engine the petrol is losing RON value faster than a 'Grey Impreza' loses value is complete bollox - IMHO of course!! Imagine what RON it would have to have when it left the refinery - 110 RON? 120RON? it would HAVE to to be able to sell at 98RON wouldnt it??

Wake up and smell the coffee - its great stuff - just enjoy it!!

Pete

[Edited by pslewis - 7/26/2002 11:37:31 PM]

dhorwich

Being a scientist i tend to believe the 'facts'...!! and althought i dont know the exact detail of the experiment undertaken by the bloke who tested the optimax,i am inclined to belive it (its seems logical), i also dont think we should believe everything shell tell us i mean at the end of the day they want our money full stop..!!

I dont think this lad would of made the results up.... there are other numerous sites e.t.c showing that optimax is not all great....

So 'you pays your money' but i would rather have an open mind about it and say show me some more evidence rather than say everyone is stupid for even considering that optimax is not what it might be...!! im sure there will be plenty more tests done.......

Dan...

DJB

Used to think Optimax was the best but beginning to question this now. As I understand it, Optimax is NUL with octane booster already added. The additive will be one which does not affect the tax duty on the fuel (such as lead substitutes).

I remember several years ago, much to my annoyance, the Government of the time markedly raised duty on SUL because it was believed (so they said) that the additives (benzene and other noxious aromatics) were harmful to the environment and possibly carcinogenic (can cause cancer for the un-initiated). This policy was then reversed or partially reversed a few years later. But the NUL vs SUL price differential never returned to levels prior to the duty increase.

I am assuming that SUL is subject to higher duty than NUL for the above reason. It maybe that Shell has used this to their (financial) advantage. Lets release a fuel with the same taxation burden as NUL but using additives (which raise the RON but doesn't improve its calorific value (sorry if this terminology is wrong)) we'll (Shell) sell shed-loads of this high-octane fuel at close to NUL prices and therefore make huge profits.

I filled my tank with Esso SUL tonight having used nothing but Optimax in my STi7 for the last 1000 miles or so. I'd swear that it ran better on the SUL. More responsive from low revs and higher top end power.

I smell a rat.

D.

jamesa

SHELL Optimax vs TOTAL SUL vs BP SUL

No measureable / noticeable difference in our P1 or the old Mk1 Golf !

mutant_matt

In my MY00, I found that Total/ELF/FINA SUL did not make the car run as smooth, and did not feel as powerful as when running on Shell/Esso/BP SUL. When I switched from Shell/Esso/BP SUL to Optimax, the car felt a little smoother and more powerful once more.

I also noticed a 1-2mpg improvment from NUL to SUL and another 1-2mpg better from SUL to Optimax.

Who knows if it's placebo or not but the seat of the pants seems better!

Matt

moz.g

Well just to confuse everyone even more.....

My STi 7 has been run on Optimax since new.
A couple of weeks ago the power delivery at high revs (+6K) started to become a bit "jerky" (soz I'm not very technical!), so after reading some threads on this bbs I filled up with some Sainsburys SUL.
This cured the "jerky" acceleration but the car felt less responsive.
Couple of days ago filled up with Optimax and it's like a different car, it's bloody fantastic.
Anybody care to have a guess at why??
Cos I'm buggered if I know

Graham

Steve Whitehorn

iTrader: (13)

Well I emailed Shell and this is their response.


My e-mail question -

I have been a Shell customer for many years

I drive a performance car that needs to run on 100RON Octane fuel.

Is Optimax 95 RON fuel with octane bosters added to take it to 98.6RON?

Or is it pure 98.6 RON?

It is unclear from your pumps/web site what Optimax ACTUALY is.

Once I know the answer to this question I will be able to determine what
fuel to put in my car with what Octane booster, if any.

Thanks in advance for your reply.
Best wishes
Steve Whitehorn


Shells Response -

Thank you for your e-mail regarding Shell Optimax.
We guarantee that the octane rating of Shell Optimax is 98, but more
typically it is slightly higher, up to 98.6. This is the highest octane
fuel currently available in the UK.
It is not just the octane rating that differentiates Shell Optimax from
other fuels. Shell Optimax is a unique highly refined new formulation which
burns more cleanly to give you smooth power delivery. It is able to do this
because:

* as the petrol with the highest octane rating in the UK it enables advanced
modern design engines to work more efficiently thereby delivering more power

*it has the ability to remove performance sapping deposits left by other
fuels from the airways of the engine

*it is free of the heavy constituents of petrol that leave dirty residue in
you engine.

The combination of these effects means that the fuel and air flow smoothly
and quickly to the engine, buring more effectively to give you increased
performance and a quicker response.

If you require any further information then please do not hesitate to
contact our Customer Service Centre on our free phone number 0800 731 8888.

Regards,


Fuel Quality Co-ordinator
Shell U.K. Oil Products Limited
Rowlandsway House, Rowlandsway, Manchester M22 5SB, United Kingdom



If you read carefully they haven't answered our question.
So only tests undertaken by our fellow Scoobynet fuel spod types will clear this one up

Cheers
Steve




[Edited by Steve Whitehorn - 7/27/2002 6:55:35 PM]

[Edited by Steve Whitehorn - 7/27/2002 6:56:50 PM]

Diablo

If Optimax is 95 ron UL plus boosters, to say that

"Shell Optimax is a unique highly refined new formulation"

Would be in serious breach of the Trades Description Act IMHO

NUL + Boosters is neither unique (cos anyone can do it) or new.

Thoughts?

Oh, and where did the 95 plus boosters rumour start? No one seems able to prove that comment yet.


D

Andrewza

I believe that started from shell's description of optimax like fuels they've started selling in other countries, though I don't know who said that first

CraigCH

I'm sure I've heard of the trading standards or someone similar randomly testing fuels at petrol stations to make sure of their quality. I can't believe Shell would take the risk by selling dodgy fuel after such a massive marketing program singing the praises of Optimax.
Craig

Gez

Hi all,
Some of you might have read my thread '' Optimax, is it a conspiracy?''. I manged to get through to Shell and speak to one of their Technical Advisors, she assured me that Optimax was rated at OVER 98RON BUT she couldnt confirm whether or not it was modified 95 RON and if it degraded over time (how convenient). I did however get their technical fuel directors phone number who should be able to answer my questions in full. As soon as i get some more results i shall let everyone know.

Regards

Gez

[Edited by Gez - 7/29/2002 10:00:32 AM]

ProperCharlie

Here's my unscientific and unsubstantiated two pence worth:

Up until Saturday I had only run my car on Optimax, as the dealer told me that it was the best fuel to use. I have done 2k miles purely running this fuel. On saturday I was low on petrol and there was no Shell station about. Eventually I found a BP station that had SUL and filled up. It was 3 pence a litre cheaper than what I have been paying for Optimax. On the drive home I thought the car felt better, more pokey. But then it was the middle of the night and I wanted to get home ASAP. A haven't got to the end of the tank yet but it looks as if I will get as good if not slightly better MPG than Optimax was giving.

I think I will stick with SUL for a bit and then maybe try Optimax again and see if there is a noticable difference.

Maybe we should email BP/Esso etc and ask them if they think their SUL is as good as Optimax...

Charlie.

chiark

Charlie, in the middle of the night the air will be cooler, therefore more dense. It's been suggested that a hot day will sap a LOT of power from the Impreza (up to 20bhp has been mentioned, not sure if that's substanciated at all) so driving at night will give you more power.

Optimax does show more knock on my knock sensor. Dunno why.

adamm

I made a jokey comment at my local shell station on Sunday morning. As I drove in, I noticed they had just taken a delivery. (tanker was still there!)

As I paid, I asked if they had just filled up the optimax, and the man said yes. I replied - "oh great, nice and fresh stuff that hasn't gone off yet" - he immediately replied - "it would only degrade after 4 years" and got very huffy at that point.

You will notice I did not say "degrade" but he did!!? - has shell already briefed their garage managers ??? /conspiracy mode off/

slippyr4

In fact, all cyclic hydrocarbons (anything benzene based (inc aromatics (all perfumes), phenols (disinfectant, TCP etc)) are all carcinogenic. To varying degrees.

Interestingly, the laws which govern the description of goods sold (including petrol) is actually the Sale of Goods act. The Trade Description act covers stuff like when a builder is supposed to have built your extension to " a reasonable standard", that has no hard and fast definition.

Diablo

Whitchever act, it would still be a breach, would it not?