Outrageous mark-up on super plus fuels
Discussion
I'm fairly used to having to pay 5-10p a L more for the higher octane petrol, but today i really got stung.
Pulled up to a small BP station, the petrol price was 109.9, which is a little high for the area at the moment, but it was a small station towards a town centre they are often a little higher, but BP ultimate 97 turned out to be 1.39.9, so an extra 30p per l
As usual no price for bp ultimate on the board, just standard unlead and diesel, it was an old fashioned pump with a mechanical display with a single price, so you don't see what it costs until you actually pick it up.
After putting in about £20 i noticed the price so stopped and decided i would fill up the rest of my tank else where, my local sainsburys is 109.9 for super plus at the moment.
Wonder how many other people have been stung with a similar, had i have filled my tank as planned it would have cost me an extra £20
Pulled up to a small BP station, the petrol price was 109.9, which is a little high for the area at the moment, but it was a small station towards a town centre they are often a little higher, but BP ultimate 97 turned out to be 1.39.9, so an extra 30p per l
As usual no price for bp ultimate on the board, just standard unlead and diesel, it was an old fashioned pump with a mechanical display with a single price, so you don't see what it costs until you actually pick it up.
After putting in about £20 i noticed the price so stopped and decided i would fill up the rest of my tank else where, my local sainsburys is 109.9 for super plus at the moment.
Wonder how many other people have been stung with a similar, had i have filled my tank as planned it would have cost me an extra £20
I think its a con anyway. There's hardly any need to use it unless you are running a remapped car with the map designed to use the stuff.
OK I now tests have revealed a drop of one or two ponies but unless you are taking part in time trials then whats the point
Baaaahhh I say its a load of bunkum.
OK I now tests have revealed a drop of one or two ponies but unless you are taking part in time trials then whats the point
Baaaahhh I say its a load of bunkum.
Hmm? Not sure about that Trumpton, most cars with a knock sensor, so from around mid 90's will be designed to perform at their best on 98ron.
Nearly all of them will see a 5% increase in bhp and MPG using the 98 stuff, some cars will see much more.
This isn't snake oil.
These cars have maps on the DME for both fuels, 95 and 98, if you put 95 into your car it wil retard the timing slightly to cope with the lower octane fuel, I know when this was tested on a 530i a while back the difference was not much in regards to power, it was around 10bhp, so less than 5%, however, on the tests the retarded timing reduced mpg by around 8%, so there was no financial value in using the 95 ron that is 5% cheaper.
They did say you could notice the power difference though, more so going from 98 back down to 95.
The other thing worth noting was although it will retard the timing if you suddenly put 95 in after tanks of 98, if you do the other way round it can take hours to go back, so putting 98 in you won't notice it straight away, if you pull the battery the dme resets, so if you suddenly go with 98 maybe do that?
Obviously depends on the car, not all cars have maps on them for higher octane fuel, using 98 in those is a waste of money.
You then get into highly tuned cars and the difference can be staggering.
Thorney Motorsport ran tests on their M3 CSL using 95 and Tescos 99 and it lost over 11%, it lost over 40bhp. OK that is a 360bhp car but some owners were spending £10,000 to try and get another 20bhp out of the CSL at the time, so £6 a tank to keep 40bhp didn't seem too bad at all.
I remember having to put 95 in my M3 CSL in France as they were out of 98 and you could really feel it straight away that something was different, I was really worried at the time that I had got some water or some crap in from the pump, there were fuel strikes at the time and thought maybe I was filling from the dregs at the bottom of the tank. But we made it home fine and didn't get any worse, so must have just been the cheap 95 ron supermarket fuel.
That was the last time I used 95 ron in a car that says it takes 98 ron.
However, with 25% price increase the benefits are no longer so clear cut.
Nearly all of them will see a 5% increase in bhp and MPG using the 98 stuff, some cars will see much more.
This isn't snake oil.
These cars have maps on the DME for both fuels, 95 and 98, if you put 95 into your car it wil retard the timing slightly to cope with the lower octane fuel, I know when this was tested on a 530i a while back the difference was not much in regards to power, it was around 10bhp, so less than 5%, however, on the tests the retarded timing reduced mpg by around 8%, so there was no financial value in using the 95 ron that is 5% cheaper.
They did say you could notice the power difference though, more so going from 98 back down to 95.
The other thing worth noting was although it will retard the timing if you suddenly put 95 in after tanks of 98, if you do the other way round it can take hours to go back, so putting 98 in you won't notice it straight away, if you pull the battery the dme resets, so if you suddenly go with 98 maybe do that?
Obviously depends on the car, not all cars have maps on them for higher octane fuel, using 98 in those is a waste of money.
You then get into highly tuned cars and the difference can be staggering.
Thorney Motorsport ran tests on their M3 CSL using 95 and Tescos 99 and it lost over 11%, it lost over 40bhp. OK that is a 360bhp car but some owners were spending £10,000 to try and get another 20bhp out of the CSL at the time, so £6 a tank to keep 40bhp didn't seem too bad at all.
I remember having to put 95 in my M3 CSL in France as they were out of 98 and you could really feel it straight away that something was different, I was really worried at the time that I had got some water or some crap in from the pump, there were fuel strikes at the time and thought maybe I was filling from the dregs at the bottom of the tank. But we made it home fine and didn't get any worse, so must have just been the cheap 95 ron supermarket fuel.
That was the last time I used 95 ron in a car that says it takes 98 ron.
However, with 25% price increase the benefits are no longer so clear cut.
There was a test a couple years ago on Fifth Gear testing each of the major brands and from what I remember, BP ultimate performed badly. The results were as follows;
Test Car: VW GOLF GTI
1. Shell V-Power - 240.9
2. Esso Supreme - 240.5
3. BP Ultimate - 236.7
4. BP Unleaded - 236.1
5. ASDA regular - 235.8
But more importantly, with regards to BHP / price, regular fuel is fine for most cars.
Link to Vid;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpZ76nrYW7A
Test Car: VW GOLF GTI
1. Shell V-Power - 240.9
2. Esso Supreme - 240.5
3. BP Ultimate - 236.7
4. BP Unleaded - 236.1
5. ASDA regular - 235.8
But more importantly, with regards to BHP / price, regular fuel is fine for most cars.
Link to Vid;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpZ76nrYW7A
ultimateporka said:
There was a test a couple years ago on Fifth Gear testing each of the major brands and from what I remember, BP ultimate performed badly. The results were as follows;
Test Car: VW GOLF GTI
1. Shell V-Power - 240.9
2. Esso Supreme - 240.5
3. BP Ultimate - 236.7
4. BP Unleaded - 236.1
5. ASDA regular - 235.8
But more importantly, with regards to BHP / price, regular fuel is fine for most cars.
Link to Vid;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpZ76nrYW7A
Maybe i was not clear, I don't dismiss that 98 ron makes a difference, it's the difference made that (imho) is not really worth getting excited about unless you really do need that 5% in your life.Test Car: VW GOLF GTI
1. Shell V-Power - 240.9
2. Esso Supreme - 240.5
3. BP Ultimate - 236.7
4. BP Unleaded - 236.1
5. ASDA regular - 235.8
But more importantly, with regards to BHP / price, regular fuel is fine for most cars.
Link to Vid;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpZ76nrYW7A
I would put money on people jumping from one of the above to another and now really being able to notice the difference.
Maybe it's me - Ive owned lots of performance cars - e30, e36, e46 and e90 M3's, Golfs, Astras, RS's from Ford and Audi plus remapped Subarus and Cosworths (good few years ago mind) and all 'recommended' 98. Sometimes I filled up with it and sometimes I didn't and i honestly could not tell the difference.
I'm not trying to be an ass and go against the grain on this - I just honestly think some people waste a lot of their life worrying about their car becoming damaged by having to use a 95 every now and then
s.I wanted to point out that for most cars, 95RON is fine and in the case of the test, the BP fuels generally performed poorly (again depending on quality at the time etc.) but in a previous civic remap I had was carried out specifically on Shell v power to extract everything I could from the engine.
But agree that people just want to put in the most expensive fuels when actually 95RON is sufficient.
But agree that people just want to put in the most expensive fuels when actually 95RON is sufficient.
lord trumpton said:
Maybe i was not clear, I don't dismiss that 98 ron makes a difference, it's the difference made that (imho) is not really worth getting excited about unless you really do need that 5% in your life.
I would put money on people jumping from one of the above to another and now really being able to notice the difference.
Maybe it's me - Ive owned lots of performance cars - e30, e36, e46 and e90 M3's, Golfs, Astras, RS's from Ford and Audi plus remapped Subarus and Cosworths (good few years ago mind) and all 'recommended' 98. Sometimes I filled up with it and sometimes I didn't and i honestly could not tell the difference.
I'm not trying to be an ass and go against the grain on this - I just honestly think some people waste a lot of their life worrying about their car becoming damaged by having to use a 95 every now and then
I would put money on people jumping from one of the above to another and now really being able to notice the difference.
Maybe it's me - Ive owned lots of performance cars - e30, e36, e46 and e90 M3's, Golfs, Astras, RS's from Ford and Audi plus remapped Subarus and Cosworths (good few years ago mind) and all 'recommended' 98. Sometimes I filled up with it and sometimes I didn't and i honestly could not tell the difference.
I'm not trying to be an ass and go against the grain on this - I just honestly think some people waste a lot of their life worrying about their car becoming damaged by having to use a 95 every now and then
Most decent cars will really benefit from 98ron, when it was around 5% more expensive you were far better using it.
Even my old 2.8i Z3 loves it, plus it gets over 10% better economy with super.
It sounds very tappety with 95 ron in, and it took over a tankful to get it back to pulling properly and sounding like a sewing machine again.
Problem is you need to have pure 98 in there for the knock sensors to advance the timing again, where as 1/4 tank of 95 will put it back again.
Even my old 2.8i Z3 loves it, plus it gets over 10% better economy with super.
It sounds very tappety with 95 ron in, and it took over a tankful to get it back to pulling properly and sounding like a sewing machine again.
Problem is you need to have pure 98 in there for the knock sensors to advance the timing again, where as 1/4 tank of 95 will put it back again.
Ive got a switch on the dashboard to change ignition maps. If I have the 98 map enabled on 95 i can hear tinkling under hard acceleration.
If i fill up with 98 and switch it to 95 whilst under hard acceleration, the exhaust note changes a bit, but theres no real noticeable difference.
This is on a twin turbo 5.7 v8, the map pulls about 5 degrees of advance out when you switch. Probably the same as a few tanks of knock retard on a modern ecu.
If i fill up with 98 and switch it to 95 whilst under hard acceleration, the exhaust note changes a bit, but theres no real noticeable difference.
This is on a twin turbo 5.7 v8, the map pulls about 5 degrees of advance out when you switch. Probably the same as a few tanks of knock retard on a modern ecu.
gizlaroc said:
Hmm? Not sure about that Trumpton, most cars with a knock sensor, so from around mid 90's will be designed to perform at their best on 98ron.
Nearly all of them will see a 5% increase in bhp and MPG using the 98 stuff, some cars will see much more.
This isn't snake oil.
These cars have maps on the DME for both fuels, 95 and 98, if you put 95 into your car it wil retard the timing slightly to cope with the lower octane fuel, I know when this was tested on a 530i a while back the difference was not much in regards to power, it was around 10bhp, so less than 5%, however, on the tests the retarded timing reduced mpg by around 8%, so there was no financial value in using the 95 ron that is 5% cheaper.
They did say you could notice the power difference though, more so going from 98 back down to 95.
The other thing worth noting was although it will retard the timing if you suddenly put 95 in after tanks of 98, if you do the other way round it can take hours to go back, so putting 98 in you won't notice it straight away, if you pull the battery the dme resets, so if you suddenly go with 98 maybe do that?
Obviously depends on the car, not all cars have maps on them for higher octane fuel, using 98 in those is a waste of money.
You then get into highly tuned cars and the difference can be staggering.
Thorney Motorsport ran tests on their M3 CSL using 95 and Tescos 99 and it lost over 11%, it lost over 40bhp. OK that is a 360bhp car but some owners were spending £10,000 to try and get another 20bhp out of the CSL at the time, so £6 a tank to keep 40bhp didn't seem too bad at all.
I remember having to put 95 in my M3 CSL in France as they were out of 98 and you could really feel it straight away that something was different, I was really worried at the time that I had got some water or some crap in from the pump, there were fuel strikes at the time and thought maybe I was filling from the dregs at the bottom of the tank. But we made it home fine and didn't get any worse, so must have just been the cheap 95 ron supermarket fuel.
That was the last time I used 95 ron in a car that says it takes 98 ron.
However, with 25% price increase the benefits are no longer so clear cut.
Close, but not quite. Most cars have knock sensors, even some diesels, but unless the car was mapped to run on 98 by the manufacturer, in which case it will tell you to use 98 on the filler cap, then the extra RON won't help. The knock sensor can only trim ignition timing back to prevent pre detonation, it cannot increase timing above a value pre programmed in the ECM.Nearly all of them will see a 5% increase in bhp and MPG using the 98 stuff, some cars will see much more.
This isn't snake oil.
These cars have maps on the DME for both fuels, 95 and 98, if you put 95 into your car it wil retard the timing slightly to cope with the lower octane fuel, I know when this was tested on a 530i a while back the difference was not much in regards to power, it was around 10bhp, so less than 5%, however, on the tests the retarded timing reduced mpg by around 8%, so there was no financial value in using the 95 ron that is 5% cheaper.
They did say you could notice the power difference though, more so going from 98 back down to 95.
The other thing worth noting was although it will retard the timing if you suddenly put 95 in after tanks of 98, if you do the other way round it can take hours to go back, so putting 98 in you won't notice it straight away, if you pull the battery the dme resets, so if you suddenly go with 98 maybe do that?
Obviously depends on the car, not all cars have maps on them for higher octane fuel, using 98 in those is a waste of money.
You then get into highly tuned cars and the difference can be staggering.
Thorney Motorsport ran tests on their M3 CSL using 95 and Tescos 99 and it lost over 11%, it lost over 40bhp. OK that is a 360bhp car but some owners were spending £10,000 to try and get another 20bhp out of the CSL at the time, so £6 a tank to keep 40bhp didn't seem too bad at all.
I remember having to put 95 in my M3 CSL in France as they were out of 98 and you could really feel it straight away that something was different, I was really worried at the time that I had got some water or some crap in from the pump, there were fuel strikes at the time and thought maybe I was filling from the dregs at the bottom of the tank. But we made it home fine and didn't get any worse, so must have just been the cheap 95 ron supermarket fuel.
That was the last time I used 95 ron in a car that says it takes 98 ron.
However, with 25% price increase the benefits are no longer so clear cut.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff