BP Ultimate fuel

VBH did a test of these fuels on Fifth Gear and there was no(basically) advantage in any way, power of economy. She mused that they maybe cleaner but for sure no more power(maybe half to one HP).

You would be better off spending the money on quality rubber...
 
Alex1975 said:
VBH did a test of these fuels on Fifth Gear and there was no(basically) advantage in any way, power of economy. She mused that they maybe cleaner but for sure no more power(maybe half to one HP).

You would be better off spending the money on quality rubber...
Click to expand...

In your typical family hatchback, yes. In turbo cars the difference is much larger, if your ECU can recognise the difference in fuel and adjust the timing/ ignition accordingly, then premium fuel is worth every penny.

Oh and that must have been before 5th gear re-did the test with 3 different cars. Nicked from another forum:


Renault Clio - and found that the premium fuels made no difference to the power output of 81bhp
VW Golf GTI - Found that Ultimate increased power output from the standard 172bhp to 174bhp and Optimax increased output to 177bhp.
Subaru Impreza WRX STI - found that power increased from standard 235bhp to 248bhp with Ultimate and 249bhp with Optimax.
The conclusion being that the more highly tuned Subaru, and to a smaller extent the Golf GTI, did benefit from the change in fuel. To quote the programme: -

"That would result in a more willing engine, happier to accelerate hard from low down in the rev range. So premium fuels can make your car go faster and, on the basis of our tests, Shell's Optimax is a more performance orientated fuel than BP's Ultimate, but only if your car can appreciate the difference."
 
Last edited:
gregk2 said:
If Mercedes/ Brabus put "Minimum 98 RON" notice on my fuel cap, i'm not going to argue.
Click to expand...

Ah. so as with most cars that carry that sign it's due to the fact that the ECU has been mapped to handle the higher octane burn rather than the fuel doing it.
Anyone with a ODB2 or CANBUS can pretty much do the same to promote better power, better economy or both.

I once remapped my V6 puerly for power, output went from 244 to 275 but mpg went from 28 to 9. I then did it for economy and power went from 244 to 220 and mpg when up to 39 (whoop).
I decided in the end to balance it at 255BHP with 34mpg. Runs sweet and that's with "normal fuel".

So you can do a lot to maximise efficiency by just adjusting the ECU mapping.
 
Back to my normal commute this morning and i can confirm that the MPG has improved by around 4.5/5.5 in comparison to usual runs.

I drive a 70 round trip everyday but not motorways, a duel carriage way (East Lancs) so its stop start all the way really - the roads were no different to any other day, traffic lights halting me as per and got into work with 56.5MPG whereas i'm normally around the 51 mark.

Is it worth paying an extra 21p per litre for though...like another poster said, I may just treat it/him/her with a top up of the good stuff every now and then.
 
GreiginFife said:
Ah. so as with most cars that carry that sign it's due to the fact that the ECU has been mapped to handle the higher octane burn rather than the fuel doing it.
Anyone with a ODB2 or CANBUS can pretty much do the same to promote better power, better economy or both.

I once remapped my V6 puerly for power, output went from 244 to 275 but mpg went from 28 to 9. I then did it for economy and power went from 244 to 220 and mpg when up to 39 (whoop).
I decided in the end to balance it at 255BHP with 34mpg. Runs sweet and that's with "normal fuel".

So you can do a lot to maximise efficiency by just adjusting the ECU mapping.
Click to expand...

The bolded part makes no sense to me. yes the ECU has been mapped to 98+ RON fuel, and will run on 95 by detecting knock and retarding the ignition / timing. the fuel and map work together.

Sounds like your remapping simply adjusted air/ fuel ratios to be running rich or lean?
 
gregk2 said:
The bolded part makes no sense to me. yes the ECU has been mapped to 98+ RON fuel, and will run on 95 by detecting knock and retarding the ignition / timing. the fuel and map work together.

Sounds like your remapping simply adjusted air/ fuel ratios to be running rich or lean?
Click to expand...

Yes the fuel and map work together but you won't get the same performance out of 95 with a map for 98. whereas a map for 95 I have yet to see a difference in performance where 98+ has been used.

The remapping adjusted the EGR apperture, butterfly response and ICV conditions as well as the fuel/air mix (which is, ultimately the important part I conceed) but without adjusting the rest it would run like a bag of carp.

I do think that these fuels have their place as cleaner burning and certainly notice a difference in exhaust smell from BP regular to Ultimate diesel.
 
GreiginFife said:
Yes the fuel and map work together but you won't get the same performance out of 95 with a map for 98. whereas a map for 95 I have yet to see a difference in performance where 98+ has been used.

.
Click to expand...

All depends whether your ECU can detect engine knock and advance or retard ignition accordingly. Generally as these are high performance fuels you would only really use them on engines that require it by manufacturer or have been re-mapped to make full advantage.

My engine is designed to use it, so i do.
 
gregk2 said:
All depends whether your ECU can detect engine knock and advance or retard ignition accordingly. Generally as these are high performance fuels you would only really use them on engines that require it by manufacturer or have been re-mapped to make full advantage.

My engine is designed to use it, so i do.
Click to expand...

I think most from CUSCAN upward can. Not sure about the lower market models but most modern engines I have worked on have knock sensors that link to advance/retard in the ECU.

Do you think you would notice a discernable difference if you had to use 95 though? I know you would be screwed at 3 garages up my way as none offer the premium option.
 
GreiginFife said:
I think most from CUSCAN upward can. Not sure about the lower market models but most modern engines I have worked on have knock sensors that link to advance/retard in the ECU.

Do you think you would notice a discernable difference if you had to use 95 though? I know you would be screwed at 3 garages up my way as none offer the premium option.
Click to expand...

It is noticeable as i was forced to use 95 before, runs a little lumpy and returns about 5-10% less mpg. Top end of rev range is where it felt most different performance wise. I would use it solely for the mpg increase even if i didn't notice the feeling of power loss though.
 
Top quality fuel makes the engine run smoother, return more power, (maybe not noticeable) and improves response to throttle input, it also (in the case of Shell Nitro+) cleans valves and carbon deposits, including egr and turbo charger. Almost every engine in a production car since 2002 has had to use a combined engine management system rather an ignition system and fuel system, because of this most use knock sensors to determine safe ignition positions at every available rev range, throttle range and load. I use Shell fuels and recommend them to all my customers, Nitro + diesel is only 7p a litre more than standard diesel and I can vouch that it improves engine emissions and response.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Robster59
Buying my company car
Replies
10
Views
516
Billysboots
Billysboots
Crazyface
Mobile Phones HELP !!!!!!!
Replies
14
Views
705
Robster59
Robster59
Mudball
Not a major Car Accident
Replies
16
Views
1K
3 jabber
3
N
Non Conforming Feature Switchability
Replies
11
Views
793
Swango1980
S
Tashyboy
Water on concrete slab
Replies
0
Views
389
Tashyboy
Tashyboy
Top