ClioSport.net
Register a free account today to become a member!
Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Read more here.
anybody using optimax
- Thread starter funkimic
- Start date
Was a Clio 1.8 16v
Yeah i filled mine up this week with the stuff after hearing Reno recommend a 97+ ron rating of fuel for the 16v engine.
Not to much different unless u fill up when ur tanks drip dry and then put it in, but that happens when using the normal stuff. I used to notice it a LOT in my 1.4 Mk1 Clio, but havnt with my 16v but then it feels faster some days rather than others anyway.
Was a Clio 1.8 16v
Yeah its noticably better when using Optimax only it costs 80p a litre!
As for increasing MPG, forget it. It is better cause of the higher octane rating, which causes the fuel to burn quicker/easier, thatll just mean better accleration but should give same MPG really.
Mikey is wrong. EVO magazine, the GOD of automotive publications, did an in depth study on a Civic Type R, a Jag XJ8, and a Z3. In all cases it cleaned the engines whisper clean (except the BMW cause it was brand new), provided more reponse and slighly more power (especially in the mid range), and returned marginally better mpgs for all the cars (although the mpg results vary from car to car).
Definately the best fuel on the market at present
EVO! dont make me laugh, that bunch of muppets!
Anyway, will it affect performance?
Nope, you wont make any more power.
Why?
Higher octane fuels effectively burn SLOWER not faster, they go through PRE-flame changes slower thana lower octane fuel.
This allowes you to start the burn earlier so at TDC youhave the whoe mixture burning and you use all the pressure rise as efficiently as possible.
But since the 16V does not have any means to check octane rating, you wont benefit until you change the ignition curve to make use of the higer octane.
Astra 1.9cdti XP
I get worse MPG with optimax, I must drive harder! Dont use it that much cos I dont think its worth the extra you pay for it.
Was a Clio 1.8 16v
The 172 requires 97+ ron fuel does it not?
BTW i know its safe to use 95 ron, but Reno say so!
Can someone explain why it would improve MPG 4 me? Cheers.
Its VERY unlikely you will feel any difference by putting in Optimax as opposed to Super or normal unleaded.
You only think you feel more power / responce is because you are expecting it.
The higher RON rating suits jap cars where there ECU are programed for 100+ron which is available straight out of the pump over there, and a must for turbod cars running higher boost than stock (helps prevent detination)
It makes me chuckle when I see posts like these with people claiming they can feel a big difference after putting in optimax.
LOL BenR I better get the flags out! For once I entirely agree with everything you said in your post, and you almost took the words out of my mouth. Forget Evo, theyre just a rich boys club who like to call each other by their surnames just like when they were all at Eton together. I emailed SHELL when Optimax first came out and questioned them on it and they admitted that on a non-adaptive ECU like on the old 16v the only benefit that Optimax would have were the advanced detergents they use. In other words it will keep your engine clean and tip top but thats it. On modern cars, 172s etc the ECU can adjust the ignition for higher octane, advancing the ignition for more power because the higher the octane, the more resistant to knock it is, and the SLOWER it burns. Not much point firing a mixture early if the burn if finished before you even get to TDC! The point is you get a longer more sustained burn which keeps the pressure up on the piston for longer hence more torque out of each cylinder.
Sheesh, if you wanna get technical......i said they burn slower as most people wouldnt really get the gist if i purely said that they dont go through actual compbustion slower, but pre flame reactions slower. Thus reducing the cahnce for spotaneous combustion (detonation).
So, since they do go through pre flame reactions slower, one a definate spark comes alone, the time for a complete burn and presure rise takes longer than on a lower octane fuel
Happy now?
http://www.shelloptimax.co.ukwww.shelloptimax.co.uk
Theres a link for the message board. Have a butchers at it.
The handbook for the 1995 Clio recommends the use of 95 or 98ron fuel - but that certainly doesnt say anything about Optimax! As I understand it, the 16v ECU will change the settings to accomodate either 95 or 98ron and so no difference will be noticeable.
I use a good quality fuel whenever I can - and in Bristol that happens to be Optimax. I can confirm that Optimax makes absolutely no difference wahtsoever to the performance of my 16v. But, if were going on the psychological argument, Im not expecting anything, so Id not notice it anyway.
