bp ultimate?

[gsexr]

V power...the way to go

[BulletMagnet]

But I like strong coffee and Shell.....

[chubbster]

But I like strong coffee and Shell.....

 

Hmmm - That's a problem.

 

Maybe drink the petrol and put the coffee in your car? ...anything's worth a try.

[mbcx4jrh]

or maybe the map adjusts for the petrol over time .. then with a different one doesnt respond as well..

[Cake]

Correct me if I'm wrong but don't the ECU's adjust over 200 miles so maybe the tests where lag is being experienced is that the mapping isn't quite right on the different fuel.

 

A friend ha thier car mapped and the tuner got a base BP ultimate mapping, his car had Tesco momentum and the guy had to start again as it wasn't as good.

 

Saying that I run Tesco momentum and happy with it.

[AMT]

95 is ONLY okay on HR 350s or the 370 as they have knock control for it at high revs. DE and Revup 350s do not, and you can cause massive engine damage by using 95 on those cars.

 

 

Is this true?? I didn't know this... still not planning on using it but ...nice to know lol

[Ekona]

It is true, yes.

[N9JAH]

I use Tesco Momentum most of the time just because its 7p @ 136.9 cheaper then V-Power Nitro @143.9. I have used V-Power in the past and car seemed a little smooth and not empty the tank as fast. But 7p is a lot over 70 Litres

[hensh65]

I filled up with V power for £1.39 the other day, just depends on where you are in the country. Interesting to know who gets it cheapest!

[djb55]

Exactly. I mean lets think about it logically. Does Shell get first dibs on the good stuff, or is it more likely that the UK is supplied with fuel from distributors in exactly the same format within which each company adds their own additives then sells it on forecourts? Can these additives substantially change the power of the fuel? Course not, otherwise there would be huge claims all over the forecourts such as 'proven to be better than BP' - which there isn't.

 

Does Tesco drill for and convert its own fuel? Or does it buy it from the same place BP or Shell or anyone else buys it from? Its 99% the same stuff on the whole - the rest are company specific additives and some very good marketing.

 

Texaco are not an upstream supplier, they are downstream only. The parent company is Valero in San Antonio, Texas. Valero sold all the rigs and finding/drilling equipment some time ago and now just concentrate on being a supplier to both retail and commercial customers. They have just invested heavily in reopening the Manchester fuel terminal and the fuel comes by pipe from the Pembroke refinery in Wales.

 

When a tanker driver loads at a terminal he enters a code into the loading rig that tells the rig the amount of fuel he requires and if he is supplying Shell, Esso, BP, Texaco etc etc. So for Shell he might load 30000 litres of ul95 and then the system adds a squirt off V Power or for Esso a squirt of Tigers or Tesco a squirt of momentum, all fuel is exactly the same its only the additives that differ.

 

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk now Free

 

 

[spursmaddave]

I bet if I filled up your tanks with a different brand none of you would have a clue.... the main point here is that you all went out of your way to change and then looked for differences....

 

 

Sent from the Jaaaaaag at the golf club

 

YAAAARRRRRRRPPPPPPPPPP

[HollowPoint]

I'm a little confused by those claiming all fuel is the same, then in the same post pointing out that it isn't, because of the additives.

 

The additives are not marketing, they're science, they make a difference, if they didn't, the fuel companies wouldn't plough money into developing them and adding them in the first place! Shell VPower has a higher octane rating than BP Ultimate, because of the additives, just like the Octane booster you can buy off the shelf at Halfrauds and various petrol stations, it increases the octane rating of the fuel ...... with additives. In addition to that, the additives added by various fuel companies for carbon build-up resistance etc. are not just marketing, they're scientific chemicals, added to the fuel, to do a job. All fuel is NOT the same. Nor is all super unleaded, the same.

 

Saying all fuel is the same, except for the additives, is like saying Race fuel is just Super Unleaded, with some additives. It is exactly that........but I bet you a million quid your car runs better on it! Why? Because of the additives.

 

As for the people suggesting the map being the issue, you're exactly right. A map achieved on fuel with one octane rating/set of additives, will not work so well with a different fuel, with a different octane rating/set of additives. In the case of modern ECUs, where they learn and are not just stuck on the Map the car gods gave them, that Map will change to compensate for the readings it gets from the engines sensors and eventually, will run fine again. In essence, if you run vPower all the time, then put some Tesco in, it'll run like crap until it re-maps, or you put more vPower in and likewise, visa versa. If you chop and change your fuel all the time, as most people with non performance cars do, you'll NEVER get the best out of your car, because the Map is constantly trying to compensate and never knows where it stands, if you run it on one or the other super-unleaded ALL the time, you'll get the best out of it.

 

Personally, I run Shell in my Zs and my BMW and whatever is cheapest locally, in my P38. I've done extended 'tests' over the years, in various performance cars, both NA and turbo and Shell has always been the fuel that gets the most out of my cars. By extended tests, I'm talking months on one fuel type, then switching, resetting the ECU with a battery disconnect, then driving for months on the new fuel. By various cars, I'm talking Jag XJS 5.3 V12, P38 4.0 V8, BMW 3.0, 300zx Twin Turbo, R32 GTR, etc. etc. I've also tried the off the shelf additives, which really are a marketing ploy, because with newer cars, by the time your ECU has adjusted, you've emptied the tank that had the octane booster in it and unless you repeatedly put the same fuel in, with the same brand of booster, your ECU isn't going to adjust to it. It did however used to make an instant difference to my Ford Capri 2.8i and would probably make a difference in my 280zx.

 

Hope this helps?

[djb55]

In simple terms crude oil is refined to produce petrol, which is then passed to the terminals where all the companies load fuels for thier retailers. There is no difference. Only the additives make it different. In fact one additive that Shell used about 20 years ago destroyed Vauxhall engines and cost them dear in lawsuits. Google it.

 

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk now Free

 

 

[HollowPoint]

So you repeat the same thing, it's all the same except for the additives......that's exactly the point.

 

If two cookies are made the same, up to a certain point, by the same baker, in the same oven, but then have different ingredients put into them at the final stage, by two different bakers, are they the same cookie? Do they look the same? Do they taste the same? Or are they going to taste different, look different and probably have a very different affect on how much weight you'll gain by eating them?

 

As for Shell using an additive 20 years ago that hurt Vauxhall engines, I fully believe it, it makes no difference to the argument at hand.

 

Even though the fuel begins the same, right the way from the crude oil to the refinery, it isn't the same at the pump, end of story, not possible to argue the point, it is chemically different, if you take a jar of one and a jar of the other and break down it's chemical structure, it is, guess what, different. If you take two chemically different structures and burn them, are they going to have the same result? Answer: No.

[Sam Mcgoo]

+1 on hollowpoints thinking on additives making a significant difference to fuel types and ecu's 'learning' and adjusting to different fuels used.

 

My personal preference is tesco 99/momentum.

Edited October 10, 2013 by Sam Mcgoo

[coldel]

Still stand by a lot of peoples comments that its the same stuff, I don't think its invalid to say it is - yes companies add their own little mix into it afterwards but generally it is petrol at its base point of collection. Once added those mixes compose of maybe 0.5% of the content added (total guess!) which each company adds. So the base is the same product. Thats generally how I read it when people say 'its the same stuff'

 

Do they make a difference? Probably, is it significant, probably not. In a lab environment with stable testing conditions if BP is worse than Shell by 3% in a measure such as mpg that difference can be wiped out in about 2 minutes of country road driving. I still haven't seen any evidence on the net showing a conclusive test that one works significantly better than another.

 

No offence to home tests but I prefer to see things tested properly before coming to a conclusion (hey I did stats as a degree, you get programmed to test things) and simply running a car on one fuel then another is in no way comparable (weather changes? driving habits? road types? did you go on a few long drives over summer on holidays vs tucking the car away in colder weather? people in the car other than the driver? drivers weight! contents in the boot? did you flush the fuel system through before switching fuels? etc etc) all these things are variables of differing impact levels, these impact your test, the more variables you have the bigger the requirement for the difference to be to prove that the difference you are seeing is real and not a function of the test itself. So yes if you saw that there was a 50%+ difference you are probably right to have a claim the fuel makes a difference GIVEN the variability in the test, if you are looking at 5% 10% differences the chances are its not fuel related and more likely something else your variables are creating.

 

I have googled for a real 'proof' of one bettering another, and there is nothing, if it is so clearly cut and dry one is better, how comes there is nothing out there saying so apart from many debates by under-qualified people to have the debates such as us?

[HollowPoint]

I'm a programmer and an IT engineer, so for me, logic, science and facts rule. My tests were for my own benefit to find out which was the best in my opinion, not to prove it to others one way or another. I've run these tests purely out of curiosity and in the search of the best driving combination. The reason I mention them here, is purely to illustrate the ECU learning curve, which is a fact and not a myth, modern ECUs learn as they go.

 

It is perfectly valid to say that claiming they are the same is invalid. As I've said, once additives are added, the chemical structure of the liquid becomes different, they are therefore, instantly, not the same. This is not a guess, this is not a myth, this is a scientific fact. Whether those additives make any difference once the fuel goes through your engine, I'd say considering how tight the laws are in this country on false advertising, they do. Considering the majority of the drivers out there will use any unleaded they can find cheaply and many don't even look at the prices and just stick the nozzle in the tank regardless, the market for premium fuels isn't a huge one, this is why only the bigger players put the R&D time and money into developing them. You ever driven into a Jet, Texaco, Gull, Murco etc. and seen a heavily advertised premium fuel, that claims to clean your engine, reduce emissions, reduce detonation, etc.? No, of course you haven't.

 

Shell, BP, Tesco and now Esso are the only people who claim to have superior premium-fuel. BP don't really shout about it, nor do Tesco, only Esso and Shell make a big deal out of it, to try and target the comparatively very small performance car market. What HAS been proven, is that higher octane fuel burns more efficiently. This is scientifically proven, it's also why manufacturers insist performance cars run on high octane, premium fuel. The trade descriptions act covers any false claims of higher octane fuel, not actually being higher octane (It's actually the law to publish what octane rating the fuel has.........which means if Ultimate comes from the same distribution center as vPower, somewhere before it hits the forecourt, an extra 2 octane is added to it) so you tell me, considering it IS true that the fuel all begins the same when the tankers collect it, but at the pump IS a higher octane, do you genuinely believe that there is no difference between them when you put them in your car?

 

As I've said before, if you run your car on Momentum all the time, it's probably going to be fine, same with Ultimate, vPower, Esso premium, etc. But the simple fact is, if you then change it, your car WILL react differently, there is simply no argument to this, it's not theory, it's fact. We know the octane ratings are different, it is a fact and we know the engine will burn different Octane fuel in a different way, this is a fact too and we know that the ECU will read the sensors in the engine and re-map itself to compensate, this is also a fact.......I can't really make it any more simple than that. There's nothing uneducated going on here, it's simply piecing facts together and making 4 from the equation of 2+2.

[coldel]

I think you are not reading my post fully, I said, yes there could be a difference of 3% say in a lab but out on the road you put your foot down for 2 minutes and that difference is gone. Is it effectively day and night in reality, not at all.

 

I guess being IT then to be the same things have to have an identical code frame or the like. Which is fine but being a statistician you dont look for things to be identical, you try to measure a difference, which is different to measuring if something is identical. In the real world, it is almost impossible to find two things you can test alongside which makes the test identical, which is why you have statistical difference testing. Simply being 1% different (be it chemically or otherwise) is not actually different given certain variability from a statisticians point of view. Nice clash of careers as understanding the same concept me thinks ...

 

There is an interesting article done by a uni in Australia on its cyclists. They tested them exercising until they lost 5% water content in their bodies, then rehydrated them with nothing, water and sports hydration drinks. Clearly the ones that took on water did better than the ones who started exercising again without anything. Actually the sports drinkers did better than the water drinkers - advertising you often see on TV now. Cut and dry you might think. They then repeated the test, this time the three groups took on water, sports drinks or nothing at all intravenously so they wouldn't know which group they were in. All three groups independently of each other performed equally well.

 

So yes, you can try cars out on the road, you can draw conclusions for yourself, but be aware that you yourself are a bias and it can be a big one.

[HollowPoint]

Oh I agree there's nothing better than a placebo for making someone 'think' that something is better. Whilst I also agree with you that there is very little of the additive going in there, I don't agree that you can in any way call them, the same. I gave the cookie analogy before, which is a very simplified analogy, but illustrates the point very well. If the first cookies extra ingredients involved say sugar replacements, whereas the second cookies ingredients were all sugar based, the taste of and the effect of each cookie on your digestive system, energy levels and the effects on your waistline would be very very different, even if the amounts used were small enough to go into a cookie and more importantly for the illustration, small enough that you couldn't see them with the naked eye (i.e. < 2-3%).

 

My point here is not that vPower is better than momentum - Fact, lol. My point is that you cannot describe two things that are chemically different, as the same. My point is also, you cannot claim that 2 octane isn't a lot, if it wasn't a lot, then it wouldn't matter if we drove our Zs on 95 octane, instead of 97, would it? If 97 octane makes enough difference for the manufacturers and people like Ekona to warn against people running a Z on 95 octane altogether, then do you not agree, that with the knowledge that higher octane burns more efficiently, cleaner, with less waste, that 99 octane must therefore be better than 97? So if we do agree this and I assume we do, as it's a scientific fact then the only argument that can be had, is over the additives in Momentum 99 vs the additives in vPower +Nitro, because we automatically agree that BP Ultimate and Esso 97 Premium are crap in comparison.

 

The argument between the two 99 octane fuels, is one that we cannot really make, because we don't know the secret ingredients and as you point out, there are no scientifically published studies into which is better for your car, or performance in general. I'd say the two are much of a muchness, as they both have 99 octane, therefore better than any other 'premium fuel' out there in terms of efficiency. Both have extra additives which claim to clean your engine and claim to aid performance. What we can say, is that cars will react differently to the two fuels and certainly if the car is mapped to run on Shell and you put Tesco in it. Unless someone scientifically proves which is the better fuel, I'll go with the 99 octane fuel made by the company who supply race fuel extensively to the Motorsport industry and I'll continue to have a generally unfounded (But unscientifically tested by me) belief that the Tesco stuff probably isn't very good, because it's Tesco, lol.