Why super unleaded instead of unleaded
Why super unleaded instead of unleaded
Author
Discussion

Jayho

Original Poster:

2,413 posts

200 months

Sunday 22nd May 2011
quotequote all
Hey all!

I drive a Suzuki Ignis Sport and many similar Octane threads there's always people questioning WHY I use high octane. Well today indeed decided that super unleaded is the ONLY thing ever going in my car.

To lead up to why I must explain that I just completed my fourth year of Uni without a part time job. Therefore, having no money, am pritty much skint all the time. (Except for student loans)

Being so skint I decided on my last tank to save a couple of £ by using reg unleaded, and £40 tank for roughly 30L I enjoyed a good old 200miles... I kid you not, only 200 miles, when 30l of super I get roughly 280-300 Miles.

That is quite a lot of difference in milage, and unfortunatly I did not have as much fun due to the lower level of responsiveness of the car in general.

So to everyone who cannot see the point of putting super in my 1.5, there is a reason!

And for everyone who owns or are planning to own a Suzuki Ignis Sport, use super unleaded! wink

v8will

3,310 posts

226 months

Sunday 22nd May 2011
quotequote all
From experience I've never found the benefits in MPG to be so large, especially in smaller capacity cars but certainly anything with forced induction that I've owned has always felt more responsive running on high octane stuff.

sparks_E39

12,738 posts

243 months

Sunday 22nd May 2011
quotequote all
Makes a difference on motorway journeys in my petrol E39 528, 42 mpg over 180 miles between Poole-Richmond and back, admittedly with very little else on the road either way and at 60 mph. Normal fuel same journey same conditions 38 mpg

FamilyDub

3,587 posts

195 months

Sunday 22nd May 2011
quotequote all
Using two different 2,000 mile samples, at the same time of year, same type of use, Super Unleaded was giving 3-4mpg more than regular in my car.

RacingPete

9,197 posts

234 months

Sunday 22nd May 2011
quotequote all
It does depend on your car being able to sense that it is using a higher octane fuel, or that it is tuned to be more efficient for a high octane fuel. Some cars have knock sensors that allow a car to advance the timing to increase the performance - some just don't have this. So it is down to specific cars if super really works or not.

Personally I don't think I could do a scientific enough experiment to work out if super gives me further miles or not as there are so many other factors involved, so I still think if I am not on a race track it is not worth it.

Just my 2 pence (saved from my standard fuel fill per litre)

sadako

7,080 posts

268 months

Monday 23rd May 2011
quotequote all
My MR2 seems to run smoother on super, but right now I can only afford to put cooking petrol in. I already know that I will not get more miles out of it with the lack of tech in my car.

alfa pint

3,856 posts

241 months

Monday 23rd May 2011
quotequote all
Didn't see any discernible difference between super unleaded vs normal with the twin spark engine. Pretty much exactly the same mpg, pretty much exactly the same feel from the car in terms of performance.

Works for some engines, not for others. Mate who had an s2000 had to use super unleaded fuel.

g3org3y

22,471 posts

221 months

Monday 23rd May 2011
quotequote all
Jayho said:
Being so skint I decided on my last tank to save a couple of £ by using reg unleaded, and £40 tank for roughly 30L I enjoyed a good old 200miles... I kid you not, only 200 miles, when 30l of super I get roughly 280-300 Miles.
A difference of 80-100 miles between super and regular?

According to this: http://www.torquecars.com/tools/uk-mpg-calculator.... that's the difference between 45.46mpg and 30-33mpg.

Super can make the difference of a few mpg but >10mpg? Struggling to believe that tbh.

SlimRick

2,277 posts

195 months

Monday 23rd May 2011
quotequote all
My old 850 T5 went from 22mpg to 28mpg using Shell Optimax.

5678

6,146 posts

257 months

Monday 23rd May 2011
quotequote all
Might give this a go in the 650.

5lab

1,921 posts

226 months

Monday 23rd May 2011
quotequote all
i somehow suspect that if super really gave more mpg, shell, bp et all would be singing its praises. As it is they suggest an average of 3% improvement (which is approx 1 additional mpg) which seems to be mostly down to the cleaning abilities of the fuel.

300bhp/ton

41,030 posts

220 months

Monday 23rd May 2011
quotequote all
Jayho said:
Hey all!

I drive a Suzuki Ignis Sport and many similar Octane threads there's always people questioning WHY I use high octane. Well today indeed decided that super unleaded is the ONLY thing ever going in my car.

To lead up to why I must explain that I just completed my fourth year of Uni without a part time job. Therefore, having no money, am pritty much skint all the time. (Except for student loans)

Being so skint I decided on my last tank to save a couple of £ by using reg unleaded, and £40 tank for roughly 30L I enjoyed a good old 200miles... I kid you not, only 200 miles, when 30l of super I get roughly 280-300 Miles.

That is quite a lot of difference in milage, and unfortunatly I did not have as much fun due to the lower level of responsiveness of the car in general.

So to everyone who cannot see the point of putting super in my 1.5, there is a reason!

And for everyone who owns or are planning to own a Suzuki Ignis Sport, use super unleaded! wink
1. Why don't you have a part time job??? confused

2. Is your car turbocharged and/or tuned only for superunleaded? If not, I don't believe you'd see such a difference. Road conditions, weather and driving style or something wrong with your car are far more likely.

Meoricin

2,880 posts

199 months

Monday 23rd May 2011
quotequote all
I use super because if I don't, I'm driving with the engine light on, and in addtion to hesitation under acceleration, I get lovely knocks and misfires.

I assumed most cars which require super would be similar?

pilchardthecat

7,483 posts

209 months

Monday 23rd May 2011
quotequote all
My car prefers it, especially at the top end. It also pops and burbles more on the overrun

I get maybe 1 or 2mpg more (25/26 instead of 23/24) but its only 1p more at waitrose.

rhinochopig

17,932 posts

228 months

Monday 23rd May 2011
quotequote all
Doesn't really explain why though.

Why does it need super, when a litre bike will make 170+ bhp per litre on normal unleaded.

Seems an odd design decision as it reduces the potential market.

The Wookie

14,209 posts

258 months

Monday 23rd May 2011
quotequote all
rhinochopig said:
Doesn't really explain why though.

Why does it need super, when a litre bike will make 170+ bhp per litre on normal unleaded.

Seems an odd design decision as it reduces the potential market.
In simplest terms bikes use high revs to make power, cars use more torque at lower revs. Engines tend to become knock limited at high BMEP numbers (analogous to torque per litre) which I suspect bikes don't get to, even when they're putting out massive bhp/litre numbers

anonymous-user

84 months

Monday 23rd May 2011
quotequote all
A very unscientific test gave me an extra 1-2mpg over a full tank of super unleaded, not enough to offset the extra cost per litre. I didn't notice any improved performance either, though wasn't paying a lot of attention.

DannyVTS

7,543 posts

198 months

Monday 23rd May 2011
quotequote all
Isn't the Ignis made to run on Super?

Man from UNCLE

3,762 posts

248 months

Monday 23rd May 2011
quotequote all
Was the wind behind you? Was it a different brand of fuel? I honestly don't think that simply using super instead of regular would make that amount of difference.

I get more miles per tank from regular Esso diesel than I do with regular Shell diesel.

rhinochopig

17,932 posts

228 months

Monday 23rd May 2011
quotequote all
The Wookie said:
rhinochopig said:
Doesn't really explain why though.

Why does it need super, when a litre bike will make 170+ bhp per litre on normal unleaded.

Seems an odd design decision as it reduces the potential market.
In simplest terms bikes use high revs to make power, cars use more torque at lower revs. Engines tend to become knock limited at high BMEP numbers (analogous to torque per litre) which I suspect bikes don't get to, even when they're putting out massive bhp/litre numbers
Thanks for that. The reason has bugged me for a long time.