Tesco 99Ron Fuel

Author
Discussion

Condi

Original Poster:

17,085 posts

170 months

Saturday 24th March 2012
quotequote all
R300will said:
If this study was sponsored by tesco, which it looks like it was, then you cannot trust the results or the method they used for accuracy.
I know, but there is a full description of the method and full disclosure of results of the site. I dont believe the results, but Im at a total loss to see where they have fudged them unless their raw data is somehow skewed.

The reason I posted this was hoping someone else would see something obvious I have missed and thus explain where their results are coming from.


StuB; FROM the pdf of results;

Lower Medium
Ford Focus 1.6 Zetec
Registration Year: 2008
• Miles covered on 95 Octane Fuel: 928
• Miles per Gallon achieved on 95 Octane: 29.30
• Miles covered on Momentum 99: 1160
• Miles per Gallon achieved on Momentum 99: 36.62
Average of 25.00% Increase in Fuel Economy
• Average of 77.33 Miles Extra per Tank
• Maximum Power Gain of 3 BHP (3.5%)
• Maximum Torque Gain of 5 ft/lbs (4.7%)

http://www.tesco.com/Momentum99/files/Tesco-Moment...

Ved

3,825 posts

174 months

Monday 26th March 2012
quotequote all
The testing methodology is valid but unless this is against other fuels like BP and Shell, it is too narrow for anyone to take notice with any real confidence. As a few others have said, Shell 95 is probably just as good as Tesco 99 and can cost less so the benefits may not be there.

It's worth noting that I've ran my R32 for 18k on Tesco 95 and have averaged 29mpg and can easily get 33 to 35 on long steady drives too. I cannot see any way of me getting more than this on Tesco 99.

kambites

67,460 posts

220 months

Monday 26th March 2012
quotequote all
25% sounds very optimistic to me; my experience has been about 10% on cars with a knock sensor, no difference at all on cars without (compared to 95RON).

I've never noticed any difference between different fuels of the same octane rating.

Wild Rumpus

375 posts

173 months

Monday 26th March 2012
quotequote all
I use it regularly, I haven't noticed any difference in fuel consumption, but it makes my Mini JCW pop and bang more on gear shifts, which I consider to be well worth the price premium!

R12HCO

826 posts

158 months

Monday 26th March 2012
quotequote all
I probably noticed 1-2 at the very maxium in my turbo petrol car.

jmcc500

644 posts

217 months

Monday 26th March 2012
quotequote all
Why go to all that trouble and then do a pseudo-scientific test on the road? Better to put each car on a chassis dyno and measure fuel consumption at fixed speeds and loads representative of real world driving.

Or drive a real world cycle (ARTEMIS, FTP75) with defined shift points.

Also, unclear on fuel measurement protocol - using the dash warning light as a means of defining an end position seems rather amateurish to me.

The problem with the real world is it changes all the time, measuring things under these conditions for comparison purposes is not really appropriate. IMO of course.

Howitzer

2,828 posts

215 months

Monday 26th March 2012
quotequote all
I used to get on average 10% less to a tank when I was using 99 in the Merc.

I think it was a thread on here that said they used 10% ethanol or something after i'd spent months trying out all the different fuels. At the time the best was V-Power by quite a margin but realise it is engine dependant.

I've found quite a difference in the performance and economy of my donkley diesel 200tdi Defender on MOrrisons and Shell regular diesel, Morrisons stuff is noticeably more sluggish and I get less to a tank, rarely breaking the 400 mile mark. The best was BP ultimate diesel, despite it having no affect on my old GT TDI Golf.

Dave!

philmots

4,630 posts

259 months

Monday 26th March 2012
quotequote all
My Saab is mapped for 99 so have to run it, when it was standard though mpg was up by 1 or 2 running the 99 over standard fuel.

My OH's 206 GTI gets worse mpg off the 99 and i can't understand it. Runs a lot smoother on it but instead of averaging 36mpg it's down to 33.

Sam1990

398 posts

166 months

Monday 26th March 2012
quotequote all
My car is mapped for 95 ron, has no knock sensor but without a doubt runs so much smoother on it. Of all the premium fuels Momentum delivers the smoothest ride and miles per tank. There shouldn't be a difference but normal 95 ron fuel makes my car a lot more bogged down below 2K RPM, it actually feels as if there is more torque available lower down when running on Momentum. When running 95 and starting the car from warm the revs drop very low before settling at usual tickover, when Momentum this problem disappears.

Ved

3,825 posts

174 months

Monday 26th March 2012
quotequote all
I've put a tank of 99 in the R32 tonight and will put 5 tanks worth in over the next few weeks and report back.