Local garage bins Super Unleaded.

[TooMany2cvs]

SuperchargedVR6 said:

But not exclusively.

So there we go - that'll change map to adjust to the fuel. It's one of the few that will.

And as for lambda sensors - everything petrol since 1992 has had one of them...

[markymarkthree]

charltjr said:

markymarkthree said:

Its popular at my new local Shell, every day I see folk putting it in their std cars and when questioned they haven't a clue.

You question random people about their choice of fuel? That's..... uh..... different?

Correct.
Today I questioned a plasterer as he was about to put fancy fuel in his van.
He thanked me saying he was still half asleep and moved to another pump.

[caelite]

I have the opposite problem, local garage (an Esso) has been removing 'normal' diesel from half of its pumps during a refurbishment, it has 4 pumps, 2 on the right sell unleaded, premium unleaded & premium diesel, 2 on the left sell unleaded, premium unleaded, & normal diesel. It just looks like a really stty tactic to try an sell their fancy diesel (which is probably their least popular fuel), especially considering the pumps on the right side are much easier access to trucks, they are probably banking on people pulling up and not bothering to reverse back out to go around the other side (like I did the first time I came in there). I refuse to pay 138p/litre for fancy diesel in my X reg off roader . (normal was 112p)

[Composite Guru]

TooMany2cvs said:

Composite Guru said:

Amazing that people don't realize that more octane = more bang and less required on the go faster pedal. Its not much but does make a difference.

Amazing that more people don't realise that only applies if the car is set up to take advantage of it. Unless there's some way of knock sensing, to change the mapping according to the fuel in use - or if it can't use 95 - then it will make absolutely zero difference.

Most modern cars are so that's why it worked in mine. I wouldn't of carried on putting it in if there wasn't any difference.

[kambites]

poing said:

They tested a few performance cars but I think it was the BMW M5 that kept the same bhp no matter the fuel due to a clever ECU.

That would be due to a stupid ECU rather than a clever one; clever ECUs can change timing on the fly to take advantage of higher knock resistance of higher octane fuel.

[kambites]

TooMany2cvs said:

So there we go - that'll change map to adjust to the fuel. It's one of the few that will.

It's increasingly common; certainly anything with VAG's TFSI/TSI lump in will.

We have one car that does and one that doesn't so I run the Lotus on Asda's finest 95RON and the Skoda on Shell Optimax.

[PositronicRay]

TooMany2cvs said:

Composite Guru said:

Amazing that people don't realize that more octane = more bang and less required on the go faster pedal. Its not much but does make a difference.

Amazing that more people don't realise that only applies if the car is set up to take advantage of it. Unless there's some way of knock sensing, to change the mapping according to the fuel in use - or if it can't use 95 - then it will make absolutely zero difference.

A higher octane rating doesn't result in more "bang" all UK petrol on sale has the same energy value.

The additional octane value gives you knock resistance, thus used in higher compression engines, some turbos and allows greater ignition advance.

[kambites]

PositronicRay said:

More octane doesn't result in more "bang" all UK petrol on sale has the same energy value.

It actually results in (slightly) less "bang". More octane means less actual fuel.

[PositronicRay]

kambites said:

PositronicRay said:

More octane doesn't result in more "bang" all UK petrol on sale has the same energy value.

It actually results in (slightly) less "bang". More octane means less actual fuel.

Good point well made. In a car not optimised to take advantage of higher octane fuel using it is just wasting money.

[amancalledrob]

daemon said:

We've no choice here in NI. The highest rated fuel is 97RON. To get higher than that for our previous 370z GT, we used to add an octane booster.

Must be a very high compression engine for that to be necessary. They make a great noise, too

[Trabi601]

Sheepshanks said:

I do wonder how much they sell - I've heard (but might be internet bks) Shell stations can go months between refills of V-Power.

I can assure you it's internet bks!

[The Beaver King]

TooMany2cvs said:

The Beaver King said:

I'd be annoyed if the two Texaco garages near me stopped selling Super Unleaded.

I believe they are (or at least were) one of the few petrol companies that use little to no ethanol in their premium fuel

Nope. They get the same E5 from the same regional distribution depots who got it from the same refineries down the same pipelines. Then they tipped their own bucket of jollop into the tanker.

Hence the use of the term 'or at least were'...

TooMany2cvs said:

The Beaver King said:

compared to the 5% (soon to be 10%) used by the rest.

If/when it comes to pumps here, E10 - which has been available on the continent for the thick end of a decade, and is the default in the US - will still have to be clearly labelled as such, and E5 will remain the default.

Not 'if' but when, it is already in the pipeine to roll out in the next few years. I'm not really bothered with it for day to day use.

TooMany2cvs said:

The Beaver King said:

Not a big deal to 99% of people, but quite important if you have a classic car or a motorcycle with a plastic fuel tank, like me

Plastic tanks are just fine on E10+. There can be problems with some rubber pipes etc, but not with plastic tanks. Unless you think every single plastic five litre emergency fuel can is also at risk from ethanol...?

Personally, if I had rubber fuel components that weren't up to the vast vast majority of fuel available... I'd replace the components. Oh, wait. I have. Including the fuel pump diaphragm in a now-two-year-old Stihl strimmer. Twice.

Okay; well I can tell you for a fact that the fuel tanks on 2000 - 2010 Ducatis and MV Agustas are not designed for ethanol based fuel. There were big problems for these two manufacturers a few years back in America, as the ethonal was eating and warping the tanks. They are now recommending draing the tanks if you plan to leave the bikes standing for more than a month.

With regards to rubber hoses; it isn't easy/cheap finding/replacing all of the fuel hoses/carb internals on two 80's TVRs, two Italian motorbikes and a pre-war racer....

[amancalledrob]

TooMany2cvs said:

And as for lambda sensors - everything petrol since 1992 has had one of them...

No lambda sensors on my 1999 FireBlade, it runs on carbs. Doesn't run well on 95 fuel either.

[TooMany2cvs]

The Beaver King said:

TooMany2cvs said:

The Beaver King said:

Not a big deal to 99% of people, but quite important if you have a classic car or a motorcycle with a plastic fuel tank, like me

Plastic tanks are just fine on E10+. There can be problems with some rubber pipes etc, but not with plastic tanks. Unless you think every single plastic five litre emergency fuel can is also at risk from ethanol...?

Personally, if I had rubber fuel components that weren't up to the vast vast majority of fuel available... I'd replace the components. Oh, wait. I have. Including the fuel pump diaphragm in a now-two-year-old Stihl strimmer. Twice.

Okay; well I can tell you for a fact that the fuel tanks on 2000 - 2010 Ducatis and MV Agustas are not designed for ethanol based fuel. There were big problems for these two manufacturers a few years back in America, as the ethonal was eating and warping the tanks. They are now recommending draing the tanks if you plan to leave the bikes standing for more than a month.

Perhaps I should have said "It's not a widespread problem"... There's always going to be exceptions, I s'pose - more than a bit f'ing stupid of the manufacturers, since E5 has been the European standard since unleaded was introduced in the 1980s, and E10 has been in use in the US since the 1970s.

amancalledrob said:

TooMany2cvs said:

And as for lambda sensors - everything petrol since 1992 has had one of them...

No lambda sensors on my 1999 FireBlade, it runs on carbs. Doesn't run well on 95 fuel either.

Yes, I forgot how far behind bikes were with emissions. There's a lot of bhing at the moment because 2005's emissions standards are just being introduced, right?

Edited by TooMany2cvs on Thursday 8th December 08:58

[pits]

To be fair you should count yourself lucky when you have a petrol station like the one where I live.

Petrol is 118.9
Diesel 120.9
Super 145.9

But usually they never have any super, or unleaded or diesel, usually you pull up to all the the pumps bagged off and sign with "fuel tomorrow", what this means is they will get some fuel in the next week, but the fuel tomorrow will be about 200 litres of petrol and diesel.

It's not even like it isn't a busy petrol station, it is always busy they just don't pay their bills for fuel so now have to pay up front for it.

If they do have fuel though, they're still a pain as the guys behind the counter are always on the phone, get off the fking phone you ride , what is this current trend in smaller owned franchised stores, where the guy has to be taking to their mate and not serving?


I'd happily drop super unleaded from my local if we could get rid of the useless bds in charge.

[Trabi601]

caelite said:

I have the opposite problem, local garage (an Esso) has been removing 'normal' diesel from half of its pumps during a refurbishment, it has 4 pumps, 2 on the right sell unleaded, premium unleaded & premium diesel, 2 on the left sell unleaded, premium unleaded, & normal diesel. It just looks like a really stty tactic to try an sell their fancy diesel (which is probably their least popular fuel), especially considering the pumps on the right side are much easier access to trucks, they are probably banking on people pulling up and not bothering to reverse back out to go around the other side (like I did the first time I came in there). I refuse to pay 138p/litre for fancy diesel in my X reg off roader . (normal was 112p)

The awkward configuration will be down to tanks and pump mapping.

They will have swapped a single tank over, as it's cheap to do, digging up the forecourt to re map lines is difficult and expensive.

[Sheepshanks]

kambites said:

TooMany2cvs said:

So there we go - that'll change map to adjust to the fuel. It's one of the few that will.

It's increasingly common; certainly anything with VAG's TFSI/TSI lump in will.

We have one car that does and one that doesn't so I run the Lotus on Asda's finest 95RON and the Skoda on Shell Optimax.

I thought all petrol cars did this now. Years ago I had a Cavalier company car and that had a switch under the bonnet that you changed position of depending on the fuel. It was flat as anything on the lower grade setting.

[amancalledrob]

TooMany2cvs said:

amancalledrob said:

TooMany2cvs said:

And as for lambda sensors - everything petrol since 1992 has had one of them...

No lambda sensors on my 1999 FireBlade, it runs on carbs. Doesn't run well on 95 fuel either.

Yes, I forgot how far behind bikes were with emissions. There's a lot of bhing at the moment because 2005's emissions standards are just being introduced, right?

Edited by TooMany2cvs on Thursday 8th December 08:58

Yep. Leading to massive catalytic converters and enormous exhaust cans, both hard to hide on a sportbike designed for lightness, also fuel mapping that cuts noise (and consequently power and responsiveness) around the 5k rpm mark. Part of the reason I prefer my old 'Blade, I find carbs much more responsive and I enjoy the pops, bangs and general dirty noises it makes.

I don't know why it doesn't run well on normal fuel, but when the throttle is closed and then opened again at high revs it really hesitates unless it's on the good stuff. Maybe premium fuel has a better detergent pack and keeps the carb needles cleaner? Just guessing, really. Wouldn't expect it to be affected by the octane content which as you've pointed out is purely for knock control

[TooMany2cvs]

Sheepshanks said:

Years ago I had a Cavalier company car and that had a switch under the bonnet that you changed position of depending on the fuel. It was flat as anything on the lower grade setting.

That'd have been for 98 4*/95 unleaded, back in the '80s.

[Baldchap]

amancalledrob said:

TooMany2cvs said:

amancalledrob said:

TooMany2cvs said:

And as for lambda sensors - everything petrol since 1992 has had one of them...

No lambda sensors on my 1999 FireBlade, it runs on carbs. Doesn't run well on 95 fuel either.

Yes, I forgot how far behind bikes were with emissions. There's a lot of bhing at the moment because 2005's emissions standards are just being introduced, right?

Edited by TooMany2cvs on Thursday 8th December 08:58

Yep. Leading to massive catalytic converters and enormous exhaust cans, both hard to hide on a sportbike designed for lightness, also fuel mapping that cuts noise (and consequently power and responsiveness) around the 5k rpm mark. Part of the reason I prefer my old 'Blade, I find carbs much more responsive and I enjoy the pops, bangs and general dirty noises it makes.

I don't know why it doesn't run well on normal fuel, but when the throttle is closed and then opened again at high revs it really hesitates unless it's on the good stuff. Maybe premium fuel has a better detergent pack and keeps the carb needles cleaner? Just guessing, really. Wouldn't expect it to be affected by the octane content which as you've pointed out is purely for knock control

TBF my 15 Brutale 800 RR runs a treat on anything, makes genuine laugh out loud dirty noises and has the most beautiful exhaust ever fitted to a vehicle.

Not all modern bikes are soulless...