Premium fuels tested, results suggest no improment over 'normal' fuels

[Lowe]

http://www.whatcar.com/news-special-...253&EL=3217470

Interesting...

/edit - I fancy a tank full of that Esso 97 Supreme!

[Skii]

confirms my long held suspicions anyway

[Gr44]

Well, I don't use 'Superfuels' but I did go through a phase a while back of using them for a month or so.

To be fair, on average with normal petrol... I get 290-300 to a tank. With the shell premium ( whatever it was called then - wasn't V-power? ) I would get 320-330.

I wonder if it does more good for older engines.... newer engines are probably more robust and don't care so much unless it's a special block?

I don't want this to get into some sort of flame either, that is just my experiance on using premium fuel. I don't use it any more because I don't think the gain is really worth it.

[MadduckUK]

very interesting, ta!

[Howard]

Once I've finished paying off various debts and will be more flushed with cash I'm going to try this to see if it makes any difference to anything in my car

[chicken]

I used premium petrol in my old 206 1.1 and found it made it quite a bit more responsive.

I've just tried some in my Focus 1.6 and I don't think I can tell the difference, going to see if I notice a drop on the next fill of normal fuel.

[Funkstar]

I used to find that my old MKIV Golf 2.0 was smoother with BP Ultimate, didn't notice any performance benefits though.

Not tried them with the MKV

[99Flake]

I used premium petrol in my old 206 1.1 and found it made it quite a bit more responsive.

It was a 106! 206 would probably behave more like a Focus as it is a newish car.

[Shad]

I've always thought the economy claims were a bit dubious. I've only ever used it for the performance benefits; the CRX was mapped specifically to take advantage of 98ron fuel and would suffer from det when using 95ron. I think for the most part it is a bit of a con, but it has its place in the enthusiast market IMO.

[chicken]

It was a 106! 206 would probably behave more like a Focus as it is a newish car.

oops, sorry typo... didn't realise I'd typed 206!



Edit: You really are e-stalking me today aren't you! Didn't think you'd notice me post in here!

[malfunction]

I've always heard that you shouldn't run a car that needs premium fuel on normal stuff but I've always wondered - and never had a decent answer - as to whether or not running a normal engine with higher octane fuel can damage it (surely higher octane fuel = a bigger bang = higher compression?).

[schmunk]

It was a 106! 206 would probably behave more like a Focus as it is a newish car.

It's the same engine in the 106 and 206...

[kalniel]

I used to have to put at least quarter of a tank of super-unleaded in the old Nova - otherwise it'd knock going up hills.

Aside from that I've never noticed any benefit.

And what happened to the names? Premium used to be normal unleaded, super was the higher octane stuff.

[99Flake]

It's the same engine in the 106 and 206...

What that old 1.1? It was an old N reg 106, surely the engine changed by the time the 206 was released?

[mycarsavw]

I've always heard that you shouldn't run a car that needs premium fuel on normal stuff but I've always wondered - and never had a decent answer - as to whether or not running a normal engine with higher octane fuel can damage it (surely higher octane fuel = a bigger bang = higher compression?).

There's a theory at the moment on the 1.4 16v (I think) VAG range engines. People are using "normal" fuels without realising the engine is designed to run on "super" fuels and as a result some components are showing signs of failure.

My apologies for the vagueness, I can dig out the facts if need be.

[kalniel]

Surely that only applies to lack of lubricants/cleaning agents in the fuel (which could happen in a 'premium' fuel anyway)? Lower octane shouldn't cause any ill effect given that modern cars don't pink.