tooquicktostop Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 Interesting read for those that use super unleaded http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7635303.stm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luigi_Gool Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 This is on Pistonheads too, read it about 10mins ago. Stupid thing i see it that V-Power and Super unleaded is of more use to high power and turbo car.....so immidiatly they stick it in a 1.6 Focus....Why Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnny g Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 Yeah, throw it in a car that's designed for it! Useless test and therefore useless information IMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alaing Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 V-power made a HUGE diffrence to my mr2 turbo. I only once put in standard stuff and she wouldnt reach full boost half as fast as with v-power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnny g Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 Exactly - the jap ECU is tuned for 100RON, so V power being 98.x is good for it. How many single powered cars on here would det their norks off if they were run on 95? Most I'll bet... No difference my **** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbourner Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 I never had anything else in the Supra, so wouldn't know, but in my old MGZR160 it made a noticeable difference when I changed over to Optimax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 And diesel can't be trusted either... http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/local/localbrad/3696709.Motorist_hits_out_over_diesel_fine/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorin Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 The BBC new article doesn't give the full picture. http://www.which.co.uk/news/2008/09/super-fuels-are-a-waste-of-money-says-which-157038.jsp Which? Car also looked at the impact of super fuels on turbo- and supercharged engines. The VW Golf’s hi-tech 1.4TSI engine responded well to Shell V-Power, but there was little to choose between super fuels and ordinary petrol when it came to economy and emissions. .... For many cars it’s a waste of money paying over the odds for so-called 'super fuels' They seem to be mainly complaining about the claims of "improved fuel economy" from some of the SUL offerings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juanchan Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 I've never noticed a blind jot of difference between normal and super unleaded in the Supra. However, when switching from Optimax to Tescos 99 RON, it became slightly more responsive. Having a UK car, I run it on 95 RON 95% of the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toyotasupra1980 Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 Just shows how stupid most people are and stick performance fuel into not only a peice of crap FORD car but a 1.6ltr engined one, try testing and inserting the regular fuel and performance fuel into something decent like proper sports cars and you will notice the difference, NO WAY by any means am i sticking unleaded fuel into my supra, going to use shell V-Power like i always do, people like it or not tuff, its my car. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marc_p Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 I use v-power all the time for the Supra. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaz Walker Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 Idiots, cannot believe they've used a 1.5 & 1.6 as a test and didn't have a performance car for a comparision. Surely they are shooting themselves in the foot by putting out results like that as a supposed reputable guide for product comparisons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorin Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 *sigh* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erol_h Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 im sure they tested this on fifth gear on a normal car and it did f**k all then tested it on a scooby and it made a noticable difference in bhp when they tested on rollers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adnanshah247 Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 well, bottom line is i tried shell optimax in my 1.6 corolla. made jack difference but when i put it in the supra i actually felt a big difference. i feel the difference with optimax over all the other petrol stations fuel. i have only put normal unleaded in the sup probably twice. i have a Total near my house which i always fill up at with 97unleaded but when i put in optimax the car feel much quicker....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daston Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 I put it in the tiv for 2 reasons 1) it's better for the engine and 2) it makes more pops and bangs on the over run (thats far more important) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benkei Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 I always use V-power because I hve a Jap import! It's designed to run on higher octane fuel... Plus it's better for the car, thus will make it last longer. If I had a UK car or a non-performance car then I'd stick normal fuel in it as it doesn't need super fuel. Needs and wants really. I don't see the point in Which?'s test either. It was only tested on a hand full of cars, not a wide range. It's still fuel at the end of the day, so it's not like they're being 'green' and saying all fuel is bad and don't use it, so why bother making a poor attempt at bad-mouthing super fuel? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 I'm betting the true Which report has been sensationalised for the headlines (but I can't be bothered to read it as I'm happy with what I use). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorin Posted September 26, 2008 Share Posted September 26, 2008 Oh FFS, as I already posted, the which report said that yes it did make a difference in performance in turbo'd cars, but that's not what their issue was. They weren't saying it's not worth it for all cars, just that it's not worth it for your shopping hatchback. Their issue with SUL is that the oil companies are claiming better fuel economy and emissions, which in their testing was not the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobSheffield Posted September 26, 2008 Share Posted September 26, 2008 Oh FFS, as I already posted, the which report said that yes it did make a difference in performance in turbo'd cars, but that's not what their issue was. They weren't saying it's not worth it for all cars, just that it's not worth it for your shopping hatchback. Their issue with SUL is that the oil companies are claiming better fuel economy and emissions, which in their testing was not the case. This is clearly why you are God Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorin Posted September 26, 2008 Share Posted September 26, 2008 This is clearly why you are God I feel like doing some smiting today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted September 26, 2008 Share Posted September 26, 2008 So in other words, it had been sensationalised then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorin Posted September 26, 2008 Share Posted September 26, 2008 So in other words, it had been sensationalised then. Pretty much yes, but my comments weren't aimed at you Ivan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toyotasupra1980 Posted September 26, 2008 Share Posted September 26, 2008 aaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul mac Posted September 26, 2008 Share Posted September 26, 2008 Oh FFS, as I already posted, the which report said that yes it did make a difference in performance in turbo'd cars, but that's not what their issue was. They weren't saying it's not worth it for all cars, just that it's not worth it for your shopping hatchback. Their issue with SUL is that the oil companies are claiming better fuel economy and emissions, which in their testing was not the case. the sad truth is fella that without all the people who love watching F1 but drive a 1.3 litre naff mobile and are sucked in by all the Ferrari hype to use V-Power, we wouldn't have any decent fuel, we need these people so lets keep it quiet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now