Ultimate Fuel. An Experiment

Further to comments made in a recent post I have today fed the 'Old Cow' with 80 litres of BP Ultimate at a whopping cost of £101.96. I'm not expecting my car to turn in to a rocket, but to be honest I do expect 'results'.

On the last fill of Tesco standard grade I got 21.8 to the gallon. So we'll see what difference, if any, this fuel makes.

woogoo said:

Further to comments made in a recent post I have today fed the 'Old Cow' with 80 litres of BP Ultimate at a whopping cost of £101.96. I'm not expecting my car to turn in to a rocket, but to be honest I do expect 'results'.

On the last fill of Tesco standard grade I got 21.8 to the gallon. So we'll see what difference, if any, this fuel makes.

Click to expand...

80 litres of the easiest stuff to make from crude oil at £101.96 would be hillarious if it wasn't so bloody serious. How can we be paying this much for something that costs a few pence per litre to produce. It is much easier to produce than petrol yet is more expensive. WHY?

Ah well that's easy. In the early days you'll recall that Unleaded and even 4* were cheaper than diesel as the number of users were in the majority, now of course it is the other way round so Mr. Chancellor taxes accordingly. It's all motivated by greed, it is in my opinion nothing to do with the environment, if it did then we shouldn't be paying (twice) on the extra on our road taxes.

I've been trying Shell "V-Power" diesel in a 1995 Toyota Estima (2.2 diesel) and a 1997 1800 diesel Fiesta. I think the BP and Shell fuels make the same claims.

What I've seen so far is that the economy improved. Estima went from about 29 to 32 and the Fiesta from about 47 to 52. These figures on exactly the same trudge to work.

So - costs are about the same, almost nothing in it.
Benefits - whatever Shell claims, I suppose. Assuming they're being straight.
If it really does burn cleaner, the lube oil should stay in condition longer.

I did a similar experiment a few years back on a Ford Mondeo. At the time I think super stuff was about 9p per gallon more expensive and whilst it did give me better mpg it did not reduce my cost per mile. Now a days the difference is about 5 or 6p per litre (20p per gallon) so I doubt if you will get any benefits. Lets be honest, better MPG is all you can really hope for as expecting improvements in performance is like feeding a horse shredded wheat and expecting it to plough faster...

I've been playing with the spicy stuff like Ultimate and V-Power as well and have been doing so with my last few cars and although I did get a slightly better mpg figure, the increase in costs anyway meant it was almost of negligible benefit if any at all. To me if there is a benefit at all I'd say it was from their cleaning properties. I've started feeding my P38 with it to try and bring it back to life a little. It's had a hard life I think and been run on low tanks probably quite a bit. I'm kind of hoping that by sacrificing my wallet to the god of fuel pumps that he'll take pity on me and add a bit more life into the beast.

Given that I'm only planning on about 5K miles a year it deserves to sip on some of the better stuff when possible. The only thing I wasn't sure of and I posted in the V8 forum on this was whether a car as old as mine (N-reg) was capable of adjusting itself to the higher octane rating or whether I would actually be chocking the poor thing to death making it drink stronger stuff than perhaps it was designed to do. Is it possible to do more harm than good by putting the higher rated stuff in?

The various tests point to the fact that they did get a noticeably higher bhp figures when using the better fuels but only in cars that had performance engines and were capable of making good use of the extra in the fuels. The smaller cars didn't do anything with it at all because they just weren't built with performance in mind. I'd love to know if my lovely, snorty 4.6 can handle it and whether it will do some good. Given my fairly low mileage in it the extra mpg will probably not add up to a whole lot of savings as the better fuels are a lot more expensive. It would be worth it though if it can clean things up a little on the inside and help put a bit more zing into the engine.

Octane ratings, in themselves, do not produce power. Basic power is a function of the calorific value of the fuel.
Octane rating is a measure of a petrol-type fuel to resist detonation (pre-ignition, pinking).
Availability of a higher octane fuel allows the use of a higher compression ratio. It is compression ratio that governs the thermal efficiency of an engine and the amount of power it can produce.
So, if your engine needs 95 octane, putting 98 or 100 in it won't make it produce more power. If you put 89 octane in it you'll probably get pre-ignition and plug and/or piston damage in the long run.
Clever modern engines that have knock sensors are usually calibrated to 'listen' for pre-ignition and the ECU will then back-off the ignition advance until the knock stops.
Retarding the ignition like this will reduce power output and also make the engine run hotter.

I only ever use BP Ultimate now, except in a situation where it just isn't available!! I think its made the world of difference to my Rangie, and she's still running sweetly after 6 years of ownership and 136 000+ miles. We use it in our other cars as well, most of the indies we use recommend it, if affordable. I get about 22-24mpg after using Ultimate consistently over years in the 4.6 Vogue, and there is no lack or power. Perhaps its all in the mind, but on the rare occasions I've used normal octane, the car has felt sluggish after approx 20 miles and improves when I fill up with Ultimate again. Maybe she's just addicted. Hic.

wammers said:

80 litres of the easiest stuff to make from crude oil at £101.96 would be hillarious if it wasn't so bloody serious. How can we be paying this much for something that costs a few pence per litre to produce. It is much easier to produce than petrol yet is more expensive. WHY?

Click to expand...

In the middle east it would cost you about 15-20 quid to fill up a P38....just shows how baddly we get ripped off.

Nik_B said:

In the middle east it would cost you about 15-20 quid to fill up a P38....just shows how baddly we get ripped off.

Click to expand...

When you think about it, it is quite a feat from getting the oil out of the ground to having it available in your local filling station. You have the cost of the initial exploration, the drilling platform, the tanker that takes it to the refinery, the cost of the refinery and then all the distribution costs from the refinery to the filling station. All that for a fiver a gallon. What gets me is why beer is 3 quid a pint..

jt_armstrong said:

When you think about it, it is quite a feat from getting the oil out of the ground to having it available in your local filling station. You have the cost of the initial exploration, the drilling platform, the tanker that takes it to the refinery, the cost of the refinery and then all the distribution costs from the refinery to the filling station. All that for a fiver a gallon. What gets me is why beer is 3 quid a pint..

Click to expand...

There is a very simple reason why beer is three quid a pint, there is also a very simple reason why petrol is five quid a gallon. When the first should be around 25p a pint and the latter should be around £1.00 a gallon. TAX.

Well the experiment has ended, and on this fill I got 22.2 to the gallon, driving conditions were much the same as before, just in case you were thinking otherwise.

However, what I am about to say I will stand by, as (IMO) it can easily be proven, so I really don't care if you all look at your monitors thinking "Yeah, yeah whatever". I'd say I was a level headed kind of person, very logical and a realist but...

When using this fuel, I did notice an obvious difference in the way the car ran and accelerated as it was evidentially smoother (was that down to the cleaning agents in the fuel). When you bury the accelerator pedal in the carpet the revs climb easier and quieter (engine noise) and getting up to speed seemed less of an effort.

Bonkers? Well before you flame me try it for yourself. Remember though that on the fill before this one (the one that gave me 21.8MPG) my car was fully serviced, and had its No 4 injector replaced, so this 'test' is based on these two fills I've had since and I think a very fair comparison.

And, yes, I went back to BP to refill to me it was a 'no brainer'.

bill_gj said:

Octane ratings, in themselves, do not produce power.
Clever modern engines that have knock sensors are usually calibrated to 'listen' for pre-ignition and the ECU will then back-off the ignition advance until the knock stops.
Retarding the ignition like this will reduce power output and also make the engine run hotter.

Click to expand...

This is why I use 'super-unleaded' in my 3.5efi auto. The manual states a requirement of 97octane for the 9.35:1 comp. with the timing set at TDC +/-1degree. I find that using 'standard' 95 causes the engine to pink during hard(ish) acceleration & for the low annual mileage I do it's not worth risking damage to an engine that's only done 44k. To put the cost vs risk factor into perspective (assuming no mpg improvement with the 97 octane) a forthcoming 1000 mile round trip will cost me an extra £11!

woogoo said:

Well the experiment has ended, and on this fill I got 22.2 to the gallon, driving conditions were much the same as before, just in case you were thinking otherwise.

However, what I am about to say I will stand by, as (IMO) it can easily be proven, so I really don't care if you all look at your monitors thinking "Yeah, yeah whatever". I'd say I was a level headed kind of person, very logical and a realist but...

When using this fuel, I did notice an obvious difference in the way the car ran and accelerated as it was evidentially smoother (was that down to the cleaning agents in the fuel). When you bury the accelerator pedal in the carpet the revs climb easier and quieter (engine noise) and getting up to speed seemed less of an effort.

Bonkers? Well before you flame me try it for yourself. Remember though that on the fill before this one (the one that gave me 21.8MPG) my car was fully serviced, and had its No 4 injector replaced, so this 'test' is based on these two fills I've had since and I think a very fair comparison.

And, yes, I went back to BP to refill to me it was a 'no brainer'.

Click to expand...

If it works for you William that's all that matters. By the way recently bought going against all my lifetimes experience, a performance air filter. One of those washable K&N jobbies guaranteed 10 years, more power, more MPG, more acceleration. Result. Not one iota of difference. So net result. £40.00 expended, filter will last 10 years so £4.00 per year plus the cleaning and re-oil kit for it once a year £9.99. £13.99 per year. So over ten years total outlay for K&N £130.90. Performance advantage over standard filter. Zero. Fitting new standard filter once a year for ten years. £4.99 by 10 = £49.90. Now that's a no brainer if i ever saw one. I have never seen a BP but i do believe i once heard a wasp fart.

wammers said:

If it works for you William that's all that matters. By the way recently bought going against all my lifetimes experience, a performance air filter. One of those washable K&N jobbies guaranteed 10 years, more power, more MPG, more acceleration. Result. Not one iota of difference. So net result. £40.00 expended, filter will last 10 years so £4.00 per year plus the cleaning and re-oil kit for it once a year £9.99. £13.99 per year. So over ten years total outlay for K&N £130.90. Performance advantage over standard filter. Zero. Fitting new standard filter once a year for ten years. £4.99 by 10 = £49.90. Now that's a no brainer if i ever saw one. I have never seen a BP but i do believe i once heard a wasp fart.

Click to expand...

Mmmm, I can see you now typing away with your tounge stuck in your cheek, but honestly there is a noticable difference; try it.

woogoo said:

Mmmm, I can see you now typing away with your tounge stuck in your cheek, but honestly there is a noticable difference; try it.

Click to expand...

No not at all, use of inferior fuel as opposed to really good stuff can be quite noticable. But the K&N produced no change at all when swopped for a nearly new standard filter. If increasing the airflow has such a dramatic effect as they claim then just take the filter out altogether for 50MPG and 200 BHP. If you have an old clogged up filter, putting in a £40.00 K&N will of course improve things, but no more than fitting a £4.99 standard one does. So that's my contribution to after market surveying done for this year. £40.00 just to prove a point, what a bloody idiot i am. (No comments regarding my last statement will be taken notice of whatsoever).

The only think I like about after market air filters is the extra noise, it's somewhat reminiscent of an old man with a phlegmy chest running up a hill. But £40 for a sound effect, I think the money could be better spent.

woogoo said:

The only think I like about after market air filters is the extra noise, it's somewhat reminiscent of an old man with a phlegmy chest running up a hill. But £40 for a sound effect, I think the money could be better spent.

Click to expand...

To true. If you live in London it's almost five pints of beer. If you live in Glasgow it's 15 pints a blow job and a fish supper.

You could attempt a fairer test, avoiding the "placebo effect". In order to do this you need to be ignorant of the fuel in use, thereby avoiding subjective reading of vehicle performance. Just get someone else to fill her up, and in order that you don`t work out which fuel is in the tank they`ll have to pay too.
I`ve been looking for an assistant in this experiment for the last two years.... voulenteer anyone?

jt_armstrong said:

When you think about it, it is quite a feat from getting the oil out of the ground to having it available in your local filling station. You have the cost of the initial exploration, the drilling platform, the tanker that takes it to the refinery, the cost of the refinery and then all the distribution costs from the refinery to the filling station. All that for a fiver a gallon. What gets me is why beer is 3 quid a pint..

Click to expand...

Idiot the tax is the main reason it costs so much:doh: