BP Ultimate 102
Discussion
Just come back from a great day at Goodwood FOS. The M15 was there and looked and sounded great.
2 questions regarding topic.
1) Has anyone used BP Ultimate 102? BP were showing off a Porsche GT3 on a rolling road with it in the tank.
2) If used in the Noble would it require re-mapping or would I expect any noticable difference just by filling the tank with the stuff? I guess 3rd question is if it does need re-mapping, could I subsequently use super unleaded as 102 not yet widely available.
Many thanks.
2 questions regarding topic.
1) Has anyone used BP Ultimate 102? BP were showing off a Porsche GT3 on a rolling road with it in the tank.
2) If used in the Noble would it require re-mapping or would I expect any noticable difference just by filling the tank with the stuff? I guess 3rd question is if it does need re-mapping, could I subsequently use super unleaded as 102 not yet widely available.
Many thanks.
If you hanged around they said that the Porsche had been specifically re-mapped.
Remember a 'knock' sensor just retards the ignition, so the stock map is the key part. Most car ECU's are set at 95, a few (like my 4.4i X5) are set at 98 as standard and hence with 95 run with a permanent retardation on the ignition.
It's that that means you 'feel' more power with Optimax than standard, but really the ECU is just going back to standard.
Hence, 102 would be completly wasted on the X5.
The Noble is mapped to 95 RON as standard, so a double waste of money in that sense....
BP are just smarting from the success of Optimax.
J
Remember a 'knock' sensor just retards the ignition, so the stock map is the key part. Most car ECU's are set at 95, a few (like my 4.4i X5) are set at 98 as standard and hence with 95 run with a permanent retardation on the ignition.
It's that that means you 'feel' more power with Optimax than standard, but really the ECU is just going back to standard.
Hence, 102 would be completly wasted on the X5.
The Noble is mapped to 95 RON as standard, so a double waste of money in that sense....
BP are just smarting from the success of Optimax.
J
I have been on about this topic a few times but never really got an answer.
102 aside but talking about optimax here...........Its been shown (fifth gear and many mag tests) that on some cars (scooby most noticably) there can be a 10-15% power gain in using optimax.
I understand that the Noble has no sensor or learning ECU, but surely if the car was mapped to run on 98 ron fuel, you would see a 20-30 bhp increase in performance that cost you nothing to achieve.
Getting a 30 bhp gain from modding the car would cost you £1000 plus and could damage other things.
Are we not all missing out on the simplest and cheapest mod of all?
Every town in the UK (and Europe?) now has gas stations that sell 98 ron fuel. And anyway, if "mainstreem" cars like Justins X5 are mapped to 98 then surely ours can be too.
I would like to hear a final verdict on this, maybe even from the factory as would have been the case in those good old Micknall days!
Greg
102 aside but talking about optimax here...........Its been shown (fifth gear and many mag tests) that on some cars (scooby most noticably) there can be a 10-15% power gain in using optimax.
I understand that the Noble has no sensor or learning ECU, but surely if the car was mapped to run on 98 ron fuel, you would see a 20-30 bhp increase in performance that cost you nothing to achieve.
Getting a 30 bhp gain from modding the car would cost you £1000 plus and could damage other things.
Are we not all missing out on the simplest and cheapest mod of all?
Every town in the UK (and Europe?) now has gas stations that sell 98 ron fuel. And anyway, if "mainstreem" cars like Justins X5 are mapped to 98 then surely ours can be too.
I would like to hear a final verdict on this, maybe even from the factory as would have been the case in those good old Micknall days!
Greg
Yes I do, but it always seems silly to be doing so when there is no benifit from it to performance.
If its simple to just re-map the car for 98 ron and gain power, why the **** don't we all do so?
Its something we could all get done at the NOC days or when the cars in for a service/tune.
G
If its simple to just re-map the car for 98 ron and gain power, why the **** don't we all do so?
Its something we could all get done at the NOC days or when the cars in for a service/tune.
G
vixpy1 said:
I see, why did Noble not map the cars for 98 ron?
Considering most TVR's have to be run on Super, and the Noble is an enthusiasts car, seems silly to me to have it mapped for 95 only..
at the very least, there could be a switch to switch between the two maps like the Cerbs have.
Considering most TVR's have to be run on Super, and the Noble is an enthusiasts car, seems silly to me to have it mapped for 95 only..
at the very least, there could be a switch to switch between the two maps like the Cerbs have.
Big cosequences being turbo I'd assume
The extra money one pays for Optimax is not for the octane hike alone, it is also for the "top of the range" detergents and other aditives. We put the best oil we can buy in our cars, why should it be any different with fuel?
I'm with you on this Greg, it sounds like common sense that there is a little more power to be had with a remap. Comment from the factory or Yellowshed would be most welcome.
Martin.
I'm with you on this Greg, it sounds like common sense that there is a little more power to be had with a remap. Comment from the factory or Yellowshed would be most welcome.
Martin.
Edited by V6GTO on Monday 10th July 13:45
I was going to join in this debate as I read the thread, then I realised that I didn't know what you are all talking about !
However, my contribution comes to this: My Tuscan handbook suggests running on 95 and some people have suggested that this is more than adequate, following other related discussions I started running 97/98 about 6 months ago, specifically Optimax & Ultima (shell & BP) and have noticed how much smoother the whole car runs, not just the engine. This has related itself to a seemingly more powerful drive although I don't think this has anything to do with HP, more torque related. Add that to the benefits Martin is talking about re. cleaner engines and the relativly small difference in price and I will never go back (touch wood).
I've just read that back to check the spelling and it looks spookily like sense........just going for a lie down.........
However, my contribution comes to this: My Tuscan handbook suggests running on 95 and some people have suggested that this is more than adequate, following other related discussions I started running 97/98 about 6 months ago, specifically Optimax & Ultima (shell & BP) and have noticed how much smoother the whole car runs, not just the engine. This has related itself to a seemingly more powerful drive although I don't think this has anything to do with HP, more torque related. Add that to the benefits Martin is talking about re. cleaner engines and the relativly small difference in price and I will never go back (touch wood).
I've just read that back to check the spelling and it looks spookily like sense........just going for a lie down.........
Without knock sensors you could easily wreck an engine mapped for 98 on 95 in just a few 10-100's of miles.
As 98 isn't available everywhere (ever tried to find it on the Isle of Wight? There is *one* petrol station that sells it) you can imagine the calls of Noble being irresponsible when the first post appeard on here about someone damaging their engine.
We've discussed this a few times on here.
What amuses me is most of the claims about smoother running are certainly down to the 'other' stuff they put in rather than the Octane rating. Given Optimax is 3-5ppl more, and if you do 10,000 miles at 5mpl, then that is about £100 a year. For people driving around in £50-60k cars that one could hardly call 'slow' it makes me smile when people complain about 'wasting' £100 a year on fuel.
That's one oil change....
J
As 98 isn't available everywhere (ever tried to find it on the Isle of Wight? There is *one* petrol station that sells it) you can imagine the calls of Noble being irresponsible when the first post appeard on here about someone damaging their engine.
We've discussed this a few times on here.
What amuses me is most of the claims about smoother running are certainly down to the 'other' stuff they put in rather than the Octane rating. Given Optimax is 3-5ppl more, and if you do 10,000 miles at 5mpl, then that is about £100 a year. For people driving around in £50-60k cars that one could hardly call 'slow' it makes me smile when people complain about 'wasting' £100 a year on fuel.
That's one oil change....
J
mr2turbo300 said:
I personally always 97/98 just to help lower the risk of the engine running lean and you getting detonation if you happen to get a poor batch of fuel or the car overboosts etc. ( The experts will be along to say why this isn't true soon)
Rob.
A good, nay, very very good reason. Rob.
Without knock sensors you're only defense is to run it on higher octane. In high temps, on track for lap after lap, do you want to really trust that that with a '95RON' map that 95RON petrol put in really is 95, rather than being 94 or even 93.....
J
Justin is 100% right, it's a couple of quid every time you fill up and will help reduce any det, optimax was also shown by evo to clean the engine pretty well.
Wonder how much effort would be needed for a knock sensor, presumably ford use them already? Can the MBE utilise one? Will the M15 have one as it uses the Ford ecu?
Wonder how much effort would be needed for a knock sensor, presumably ford use them already? Can the MBE utilise one? Will the M15 have one as it uses the Ford ecu?
Gassing Station | Noble | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff