Thursday 25th September 2008

Super Fuels A 'Waste Of Money'

Which? claims super fuels don't save money or improve performance

---

Expensive ‘super fuels’ do not improve a car’s performance and are a ‘waste of money’, according to consumer magazine Which? Car. The publication tested three so-called super fuels (Shell V-Power, Tesco Super Unleaded and BP Ultimate Diesel) against standard fuels and found that there is little benefit for motorists.

The fuels cost more at the pumps and it is claimed they optimise fuel economy and boost a car’s power. Which? Found that Shell V-Power, one of the unleaded super fuels tested, gave a 1.6-litre Ford Focus a marginal power increase. But filling the car on this petrol for 12,000 miles would cost £115 more than using Shell’s standard petrol.

Tesco’s Super Unleaded – another of the super fuels on test – actually decreased the Focus’s power. Which? Car also looked at the impact of super fuels on turbo- and supercharged engines. It found that the VW Golf’s hi-tech 1.4TSI engine responded well to Shell V-Power, but there was little to choose between super fuels and ordinary petrol when it came to economy and emissions. BP Ultimate diesel – the only diesel super fuel on test – actually made the fuel economy and performance of a Renault Mégane 1.5 slightly worse.

Which? Car editor Richard Headland said: 'For many cars it’s a waste of money paying over the odds for so-called "super fuels". The standard fuels we tested were all up to the job, whether from a major fuel brand or a supermarket. There’s no conclusive evidence to show that super fuels are better for your car in the long run - so in a time of high oil prices, why would you choose to pay more?'

Which? Car recommended that motorists would do better to drive less frequently and more economically if they want to protect the environment, as the super fuels tested only had a marginal effect on emissions and pollutants.

[Jeffmaniac]

Well if they tested it with a performance car it might have been a better test... M3, Civic Type R etc...

I bet there would have been a difference then!

[Fastra]

Perhaps a coincidence, but I've been using ASDA for ages now and over the last couple of weeks been suffering from a tapping noise when revving over 3500rpm - put some Shell V power in a couple of days ago and it seems to be getting quieter now.

Or its just me willing the extra cost to actual make a difference.

Not noticed any power difference, but than again on an Astra 1.6 16v I pretty much doubt I will.

[SkinnyBoy]

Honda recommends 98ron for my car, so I'll go with what their engineers designed it for not some lazy test in a magazine!

[dele]

What a load of bull

My Astra 2.0 Turbo runs much better on V-Power and feels more powerful in the lower rev range

[Fotofrog]

Focus RS im using recommends 98 RON fuel + but hey if Which? say that there is no benefit using the higher RON fuel id better ignore the FORD performance engineers recomendations and just use dirt cheap tesco fuel ...

Im sorry but on a performance car im a strong believer that the higher Ron fuels are a benefit.. if you fill an M3 up with Tesco basic fuel im sure you will notice some difference than if you filled with VPOWER for example..

Edited by Fotofrog on Thursday 25th September 11:30

[cas84]

Which are a bunch of fking idiots.

Premium fuels are for performance cars, or cars that have been mapped to run on higher octane fuels.

They do make a difference for an absolute fact, because I can run more timing with 98 before I start to get knocking than with 95.

These tests have been done before on tuned / performance cars and large gains have been observed.

For the average 1.6 naturally aspirated family car - fair enough, waste of money. But that's not what the premium fuel is there for.

[berkorich]

Jeffmaniac said:

Well if they tested it with a performance car it might have been a better test... M3, Civic Type R etc...

I bet there would have been a difference then!

I agree. Didn't Fifth Gear find exactly that a couple of years ago? The 98RON fuel only made significant differences to power output on higher performance vehicles. I don't think that 98RON is aimed at shopping hatchbacks.

[snuffy]

I have run my Noble M12 on Super unleaded and before that I used it in my Esprit V8. I can say I've never noticed one jot of difference in performance of either car compared to normal unleaded.

[C5L]

Guess Thorneys fuel tests were for nothing then

Super fuels do work, there is actual proof, WHICH, more like WON'T !!

[dpbird90]

Fastra said:

Perhaps a coincidence, but I've been using ASDA for ages now and over the last couple of weeks been suffering from a tapping noise when revving over 3500rpm - put some Shell V power in a couple of days ago and it seems to be getting quieter now.

Or its just me willing the extra cost to actual make a difference.

Not noticed any power difference, but than again on an Astra 1.6 16v I pretty much doubt I will.

I had similar issues with a Fiat Seicento Sporting. It made a hell of a racket when you started it (like a quite old diesel) and calmed down a little bit once it warmed up, but when I stopped putting 95 RON petrol in and gave it some Shell V Power it was a hell of a lot quieter. Still no difference in power but I am certain that top end has improved (I saw 100mph on the speedo once with V Power in!)

That comment at the end of the article about driving less frequently so you use less petrol, must have been put in there as propaganda by DAS FUHRER BROWN, why else would they say such a thing. And yes, they should have used a performance car, then they would find out how much more power you get, not a shopping car (mind you, I can't talk!)

And like it has been said, they should have used a car things like V Power were developed for, not a

[martyn748]

Well if they will test these fuels on NORMAL engines then they wont see any differance.
My Volvo T4 hates supermarket fuel, but vpower or simular makes it back in to a rocket ship.
What moron planned this test??

[RJDM3]

why do they allow idiots like this to write for these magazines? Obviously has no understanding of fuel properties and the pro's and con's of higher and lower octane fuels. Sounds like he has no understanding of flame fronts and burn characteristics and needs of a performance engine.

Perhaps he should advise race teams to stop wasting money on race fuel as it offers them no benefit ....what a tw*t

[groovychainsaw]

I'm pretty sure its down to how the engine has been tuned. If you tune your engine for a higher octane fuel, you'll get the power, but if its tuned for 95ron then you won't see the power difference (apart from psychologically!!!).The engine can't tell, even with the best computer driven fuelling systems, that it should change the ignition timing to accomodate for more explosive fuel.
Many performance cars are recommended to run on 98ron because they are tuned for 98ron. Japanese imports, for example are mapped for 100-102ron which is why you should run them on the highest octane fuel possible to prevent knock.

[horney_MK2_Gti]

I think you're all missing the point. Your average Which? reader drives a 1.6 Astra/Focus/Golf/Civic etc etc. For their readership (and 90% + of road users) it clearly is a waste of money. No where int hat article does it say you should use 95 in a car rated to take 98+. Infact I'm pretty sure the article even says that for performance cars it can make a difference.

Nick

[carl hammond]

I have always used Shell V-Power in all of my performance cars ranging from Escort RS Turbo's when i was younger to the R33 GTR V-Spec, I recently sold my nitegra Type R and I can confirm that V-Power felt more responsive and gave better mpg against ALL of the other's.

I found that the BP and Tesco's higher ron super-fuel was cack in the Integra, the Tesco's fuel felt like it slowed the car and the BP gave a lot less MPG to the Shell V-Power.

At the end of the day it all comes down to the cars mapping and settings, if you run the wrong fuel you can cause the car to pink and in time cause more damage to a cars engine.

But in the g.friends 1.2polo I just use normal fuel and its perfect and runs fine, would not and do not see the point in putting anything like v-power in it, waste of money

Edited by carl hammond on Thursday 25th September 11:43

[bigbadbikercats]

I'm not a big fan of Which? as a general rule but it would appear that in this case the PH readership have been somewhat more lazy and slipshod than the researchers. Clearly at least some people aren't reading past the headlines otherwise they'd have noticed this bit...

"Which? Car also looked at the impact of super fuels on turbo- and supercharged engines. It found that the VW Golf’s hi-tech 1.4TSI engine responded well to Shell V-Power"

...and the "many" qualifier in this bit...

"Which? Car editor Richard Headland said: 'For many cars it’s a waste of money paying over the odds for so-called "super fuels"."

There's no doubt in my mind that at least some fuel manufacturer/distributors/whatever (yes, I'm looking at you Mr Shell with your "Ferrari Fuel" promotional material) are over-selling the benefits of higher octane premium fuel formulations in most "ordinary" cars and observation at the pumps suggests that many consumers are either falling for the scam or not looking very carefully at which nozzle they're picking up.

By and large (and I speak here as someone who until recently drove an Audi A4 FSi Turbo where higher octane "Super Unleaded" fuels made enough difference that even my normally disinterested wife could tell the difference...) I'm with Which? on this one - fuel's expensive enough already for most people without being scammed out a few extra pence per litre by dodgy advertising...

--
JG

[The_Ox]

berkorich said:

Jeffmaniac said:

Well if they tested it with a performance car it might have been a better test... M3, Civic Type R etc...

I bet there would have been a difference then!

I agree. Didn't Fifth Gear find exactly that a couple of years ago? The 98RON fuel only made significant differences to power output on higher performance vehicles. I don't think that 98RON is aimed at shopping hatchbacks.

They certainly did. They tested standard vs high-octane petrol on a fairly standard car (no difference), a Golf GTi (slight difference) and an Impreza STi (bigger difference).

I notice a difference in power between putting Tesco 98RON and Sainsburys 97RON in my TVR so Which should go and retest with some other cars!

Ox

[rbdett26]

THEY NEED TO TRY IT ON SOME REAL CARS. WHICH CAR??
WE'LL TELL YOU WHICH F*ck*n CAR Performance cars these so called WHICH guys are jokers???

[anonymous-user]

I'd love to be there for the moment of realisation when it occurs to them that that test was a total waste of time!

Really, whose idea was it to run a Super Fuels test using a bunch of cars designed to run on 95 RON fuel?!

Been using Shell V-Power in my Mk5 Golf GTi since day one. On the odd occasion I have been forced to put in non-premium fuel I have noticed a marked difference in the power delivery.

Numbskulls!

[C.A.R.]

Don't American cars run on a lower octane fuel?

Therefore if you have a big American V8 on a standard setup you'd be better off on the cheap stuff?!

I totally agree with what the majority have said. I'm certain that if I was lucky enough to own an Enzo or a Carrera GT I wouldn't be putting cheapo fuel in it.