Tesco 99 RON Super Unleaded A+++++
Discussion
rawenghey said:
Lol that's so embarrassing. V-Power is the same octane as tesco momentum, so what is this massive difference the OP has noticed? Should've said the Tesco was 102 and he'd have noticed an even bigger jump.
As you may or may not know, RON is testing the knock resistance at 600rpm. The same RON number doesn’t mean that much in real world conditions, it’s just a bench test number. That said, I have not tested Tesco 99 vs let’s say V-Power so I have no idea if there are differences. But car dependent, it wouldn’t surprise me if you can tell the difference.
Abacus21 said:
I filled up on Esso 99 and there is definately a difference for the worse.
Perhaps the Esso and Shell dont have 99 even if advertised as such . Tesco.... well I cant wait to use this fill up and refill with Tesco 99. Beautiful stuff
V-Power, Esso Synergy Supreme+ and Tesco Momentum are all RON 99.Perhaps the Esso and Shell dont have 99 even if advertised as such . Tesco.... well I cant wait to use this fill up and refill with Tesco 99. Beautiful stuff
This thread reminds me of the episode in Peep Show when Jez and Mark have got "big mad Andy" the handyman to come and paint their flat. They ask for white, but Andy turns up with some off white colour. Mint green, magnolia, something else that isn't quite full white. After Mark and Jez try and forcefully make it clear it's not the colour they wanted, Andy (who's a bit unhinged and a bit of a unit) says "Look mate, whatever you wanted, that's what it is, yeah?"
Rock on OP, and remember, don't let the truth get in the way
rawenghey said:
V-Power, Esso Synergy Supreme+ and Tesco Momentum are all RON 99.
But yet, if you've read the thread(?) you'll see from their spec sheets that, RON aside, they're constitutionally quite different. Tesco has a higher MON, for starters, which is arguably more important than RON on the road. It also has a different olefin and aromatics content. That's before we even get to alcohols content (and I don't just mean ethanol). The rolling road ignition advance and power band experiments video also showed different results for V-Power than M99 right across the rev range. That said, with all the derision you've posted, I'm assuming you have a PhD in chemistry and work at a fuel development lab or similar? Any actual intelligent input along those lines, then, would be appreciated.
rainmakerraw said:
But yet, if you've read the thread(?) you'll see from their spec sheets that, RON aside, they're constitutionally quite different. Tesco has a higher MON, for starters, which is arguably more important than RON on the road. It also has a different olefin and aromatics content. That's before we even get to alcohols content (and I don't just mean ethanol). The rolling road ignition advance and power band experiments video also showed different results for V-Power than M99 right across the rev range.
That said, with all the derision you've posted, I'm assuming you have a PhD in chemistry and work at a fuel development lab or similar? Any actual intelligent input along those lines, then, would be appreciated.
I never said they were chemically identical. Nobody needs a PhD in Chemistry to know that none of the fuels on sale today provide a night and day difference, unless you do something radical like put petrol in a diesel car.That said, with all the derision you've posted, I'm assuming you have a PhD in chemistry and work at a fuel development lab or similar? Any actual intelligent input along those lines, then, would be appreciated.
If the placebo effect in drug trials can make people think the intensity of a pain has been reduced when they've taken nothing more than a sugar tablet, it can certainly make people think their car "revs more freely" or is "much more urgent" on M99, V-Power, Esso Synergy whatever.
Blind test every one and you wouldn't have a clue which was which.
Abacus21 said:
Proof is in the pudding. Go have a fill up.
If you know what fuel is in it, your test is invalid.Get someone to fill up some jerry cans, number them, run each one at a time and then rate them. Only then do you get to know which fuel is in which can.
I'd bet you that you can't tell once you remove the psychological aspect of it.
To illustrate what I mean, here's some real-world experience of the power of psychology in a highly subjective area. I ran some tests when I was at Uni and had some access to incredibly high precision measuring stuff and useful labs and things. Surveyed some people as to their confidence they could discern 128kbps MP3 from the original PCM when listening to music. Survey said ~100% of people could "easily" discern. Reality was that only one person out of ~50 got it correct. Repeated it for a whole bunch of things, like asking people which hi-fi interconnect they preferred between X and Y when in fact everyone listened to Z for all tests, we just made it look like we were changing stuff. When you think you know there is supposed to be a difference, you hear it. People were coming out with all manner of fantastical BS about "immediacy" and "depth" and "detail" - quite hard to keep a straight face knowing that they were talking absolute crap.
I *promise* you that it is the same for everybody for lots of things. Telling the difference between two 99RON fuels in a road car with standard manufacturers ECU maps is one of those things. It is too close between them for almost anyone to discern and even then the difference will be slight, not night and day.
DRZ said:
Abacus21 said:
Proof is in the pudding. Go have a fill up.
If you know what fuel is in it, your test is invalid.Get someone to fill up some jerry cans, number them, run each one at a time and then rate them. Only then do you get to know which fuel is in which can.
I'd bet you that you can't tell once you remove the psychological aspect of it.
To illustrate what I mean, here's some real-world experience of the power of psychology in a highly subjective area. I ran some tests when I was at Uni and had some access to incredibly high precision measuring stuff and useful labs and things. Surveyed some people as to their confidence they could discern 128kbps MP3 from the original PCM when listening to music. Survey said ~100% of people could "easily" discern. Reality was that only one person out of ~50 got it correct. Repeated it for a whole bunch of things, like asking people which hi-fi interconnect they preferred between X and Y when in fact everyone listened to Z for all tests, we just made it look like we were changing stuff. When you think you know there is supposed to be a difference, you hear it. People were coming out with all manner of fantastical BS about "immediacy" and "depth" and "detail" - quite hard to keep a straight face knowing that they were talking absolute crap.
I *promise* you that it is the same for everybody for lots of things. Telling the difference between two 99RON fuels in a road car with standard manufacturers ECU maps is one of those things. It is too close between them for almost anyone to discern and even then the difference will be slight, not night and day.
Ambient air temperature and humidity seems to make a difference to the arse dyno in my experience.
I mostly put 95 in my 986 Boxster as most of my journeys are long and a tank was emptied every 4-5 hours. However when the car is not being used for a week or more I put in Esso 99. There is s difference, I can feel it almost immediately in the throttle response. I was not expecting this as its an older NA car.
Conversely I almost always put Esso 99 in my 675LT. In the fuel crisis I could not get 99 so put in 95. What a difference, and in a positive way! Much more whip cracks, burbles and acoustic accompaniments from the engine and exhaust. This surprised me a lot, must be something to do with the ECU re mapping the engine, however I could not feel any difference in performance. I checked this with the other 675LT owners I know and those that had used 95 reported the same, much more drama in the sound department. I still use 99 though as I have been convinced by advertising that its better long term.
I once put Momentum in my Mini Cooper S, it ran like a dog, I thought the engine had died. Took 3 tanks of V power to wash it out and normal service to resume. Have never used supermarket fuel since. I accept that could have been a bad batch or contaminated. I am keen to try it again but TBH I am still worried about putting supermarket fuel in my McLaren, might try it in the 986.
I've had bad steaks and great steaks that look and cost the same, I am sure petrol has the same variances as its mixed by a chemical chef.
Conversely I almost always put Esso 99 in my 675LT. In the fuel crisis I could not get 99 so put in 95. What a difference, and in a positive way! Much more whip cracks, burbles and acoustic accompaniments from the engine and exhaust. This surprised me a lot, must be something to do with the ECU re mapping the engine, however I could not feel any difference in performance. I checked this with the other 675LT owners I know and those that had used 95 reported the same, much more drama in the sound department. I still use 99 though as I have been convinced by advertising that its better long term.
I once put Momentum in my Mini Cooper S, it ran like a dog, I thought the engine had died. Took 3 tanks of V power to wash it out and normal service to resume. Have never used supermarket fuel since. I accept that could have been a bad batch or contaminated. I am keen to try it again but TBH I am still worried about putting supermarket fuel in my McLaren, might try it in the 986.
I've had bad steaks and great steaks that look and cost the same, I am sure petrol has the same variances as its mixed by a chemical chef.
Gassing Station | McLaren | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff