Tesco 99 ron or Shell optimax

Been using tesco 99 for a while now but just after reading petrol report in Banzai Mag with it saying optimax is the one .

What should be best keep tesco 99 OR Optimax know test was not on supra engine.

Why ???????????????????????

Also people voting on this pole must have access to both petrol's supplies.

I hope the people voting for Shell Optimax have access to Tesco 99, otherwise theres hardly any point of this poll...

If Shell are adopting a more 'open' policy (as of late), then why don't you try writing to them and ask for a specsheet just like Tesco99 has got.

That would make direct comparisons more fair.

Magazine tests (with the exception of Which?) are all questionable because they have vested interests (direct or indirect)

Hearsay from other users is only circumstantial and nowhere near as conclusive either.

Independent tests under proper lab conditions are unlikely to ever be published because the stakes are too high (same as automotive oils)

....and tainted/unreliable/skewed/misleading tests are *worse* than no tests at all.

(I'm not voting on this by the way)

Is there really any difference between the two with a BPU car? The reason I ask is that a lot of the single turbo car or with high boost will suffer from det if the fuel is rubbish.

I got BPU and I use shell or tesco only but not sure if either will make any difference. The only different thing for me is price. Tesco is cheaper to start off with and the club points are better than the shell card to although I have both.

China

Is there really any difference between the two with a BPU car? ..

who knows?

Both are widely-available pump fuels, so quality control is nothing like race-fuel. So you could get a good, fresh batch from one and a shitty batch from the other. Fair comparison? Hard to tell if you perforate a piston in the meantime:innocent:

I wouldn't rely on any of the two for det protection, that's why I use lots of water and methanol under high boost.

Tesco99 might have a clear specsheet and posted random test analyses, but it's still sold by a supermarket chain that is trying to cut costs and make profits. So quality control is anyone's guess.

It's not like you open the can at the very last moment, and you keep it in the shade in the meantime --- is it?

Tesco 99RON for me.

I've used both and would still use Optimax if I couldn't get Tescos...why? Tesco 99RON is higher octane rating and costs me 93.9p per litre - which if I get a 5p off per litre suddenly becomes ridiculously cheaper...

I also have a friend who works for BP. The things he tells me about the automotive fuel industry have certainly made me less picky about which SUL Brand to choose, and which fuel has the higher octane rating...

Optimax is more expensive and you always hear that supermarket fuel is a bit dodgy so I alternate between the two.

over numerous tests optimax can consistently provide 98ron

tesco 99 has been tested and it may well randomly peak to 99ron but it averaged 97ron.

I will try to trace the tests down for you all to see for yourself

Is 3p a litre or whatever it is worth skimping on when you own this calibre of car........ :)

After reading the article in Banzai i'm sticking with Optimax. The closest way to test the petrol properly is they way they did it with the bench test. When ever a test is done, be it bench or not optimax still sits at the front as the best so it makes sense. I bought a supra for the performance and not because of the cost of the car. If i have to spend a extra to squeeze a few more bhp then so be it.

I go for Tescos 99 ron because it's available locally and is supposedly higher ron. The car seems to like it, been using it solely for the last 6 months or more and no issues, car is bpu and runs really well.

I think you should use what ever feels best for you on your car. I do think optimax is so overpriced though.

I favour Tesco because of price (every little helps....I'll get my coat)

Some people favour Tesco, Some Optimax, Some Ultimate.

I think as long as you use one of the 3 you won't really feel much of a difference with everyday driving

Tesco 99.

With Tesco 99 I found that my car seemed more urgent at low speeds but also seemed to be more urgent to dump power too. If that makes sense.

Also, it's the same price as Optimax here and Optimax has a whole load of cleaning additives and sh*t.

The next time - there's a meet at rolling road session. Might be interesting - to get half the car's running Tesco and the other half running Optimax.

Assuming, of couse that the cars are at the same level of mods.

I know it's not the best kind of dyno comparison test - but who's going to pay for a rolling road session, waste a tank of Optimax .. then fill up with Tesco and pay for another RR session.

The only problem with 99ron is it comes from different suppliers so you can get a "bad batch" saying that optimax can go stale. So downsides to both. Funny though 99 came out better than optimax in Autoexpress survey

After reading the article in Banzai i'm sticking with Optimax. The closest way to test the petrol properly is they way they did it with the bench test. When ever a test is done, be it bench or not optimax still sits at the front as the best so it makes sense. I bought a supra for the performance and not because of the cost of the car. If i have to spend a extra to squeeze a few more bhp then so be it.

i completely agree here mate, i've just bought the mag and the tests made very interesting reading, i think that the article highlighted that dont be fooled by figures like 99 ron is the highest so it must be the best, (must admit thats exactly what i thought) and there is more to quality petrol than just the ron figure, possibly the reason Tesco came 3rd was because they had a bad batch of fuel but these are circumstances completely beyond the control of the testers and maybe highlight the way a supermarket handles its fuel, i think its a well known fact that petrol for these big hypermarkets is a loss leader in that it doesn't make a profit (or very little) it may explain why their petrol didn't hit the mark despite having the quoted highest ron, to me the facts from that test were loud and clear even if i could get Tesco fuel i now would not be using it

Optimax, banzai test was good enuff for me. Before someone goes preaching dont believe what you read, if thats the case why should we believe what we read about stock jdm power figures. LOL (In a world of my own, gladly)

if they were the same price, then your gona put shell in........no??? it has to be better surly.

tesco 99 has been tested and it may well randomly peak to 99ron but it averaged 97ron.

that doesnt make sense....since Tesco advertise it as 99, it should be 99...

that doesnt make sense....since Tesco advertise it as 99, it should be 99...

I think people read things into this magazine test that are just not there.

They didn't use the special apparatus to establish RON figures.

They just tried to derive the *possible* results from dialling in more ignition advance to an engine. It's not the same thing though, because many more parameters are not fixed.

Well, just to put the cat amongst the pigeons

My Supra "seems" to run best on BP ultimate and the Griffith definitely prefers Tescos 99 to Optimax or Ultimate.

I've got to admit with the Supra its just a slighty smoother feeling with Ultimate, and I can't really tell the difference between Opti and Tescos, with maybe Tescos having a slight edge.

Saying that I've only recently (3 months) been able to get Tesco 99 locally, so haven't really had the dry roads to really test if there is a lot of difference.

With the Griffith, however, it runs far smoother and even makes a good attempt at idling with Tesco 99 with Opti or Ulti it exhibits a lot more "shunting" in traffic and doesn't want to idle as smoothly (in this case, smoothly is a relative term )

Strange really, because the ECU is fairly basic, and can't take advantage of any increase in octane rating. It doesn't detonate with any SUL fuel, but TBH it's not really the type of car that you can drive for any length of time with your foot on the floor to listen for it

I've put it down to different additives in the fuel that seem to make it run smoother

there is no other fuel that will constantly provide 98ron like optimax can....this justifies the price....

I only use optimax and i also put in a very high quality octane booster every time, and i have and still do see/feel the benefits

over numerous tests optimax can consistently provide 98ron

 

tesco 99 has been tested and it may well randomly peak to 99ron but it averaged 97ron.

 

I will try to trace the tests down for you all to see for yourself

 

Is 3p a litre or whatever it is worth skimping on when you own this calibre of car........ :)

Not being funny ... but is 1 ron really noticeable???? Surely not?

I think people read things into this magazine test that are just not there.

 

They didn't use the special apparatus to establish RON figures.

They just tried to derive the *possible* results from dialling in more ignition advance to an engine. It's not the same thing though, because many more parameters are not fixed.

John, i learn all about how ron figures are derived doing my HNC but i think thats really not the point here i'me no petro-chemical engineer (we could really do with one now lol) but i think the essence of the article is petrol is not just about an out and out ron figure its a very complex mix, sure they could have tested the ron figure before the engine test but why should they- me or you dont have that oportunity in the forecourt do we, reading the article it seems to me Shell have got it right (hence the price), as for the way the fuel was tested i think it was spot on surely a real world engine test with a dyno operator with det cans has more relevance to us than boffins in a lab boiling off 10ml of fuel in a petri dish and saying fuel x will make more power, based on the facts of this test optimax came out 24 hp ahead of tesco, tommorow i will be mostly filling up with Optimax:D