Total Excelium 97 or Tesco Momentum or Esso 97?

[QD MBE]

Pulled from another website, and makes interesting reading.  I know it has been done to death............ Nearly as often as Monte's new wheels........

greenenergy is the company that supply tesco with 99ron see here for all info

http://www.greenergy.com



for hard facts see this test that was very indepth nearly 12,000miles between tesco 99, vmax and BP102ron
the results speak volumes......


heres a quick glimpse of there work please read the full test above for a great read into this subject




and for those who cannot be bothered to read. heres a extract from the conclusion of the test.

The General Conclusion
In simple terms, Shells V Power is near identical to the Optimax product that it replaced, in power and ‘feel’ terms it continued to out perform all 95 octane fuels and we’d still recommend owners of all performance cars use the highest quality fuel they can find. However the performance offered by the fuel was sometimes inconsistent.

The Tesco 99 fuel again outperformed V Power in all the tests but the differences between the two fuels were marginal and we doubt most people would tell the difference in their cars on a day to day basis. However the Tesco fuel was the most consistent.

The BP 102 fuel showed the best gains in terms of ‘feel’ and performed better on the dyno and on initial fill up, when the fuel was fresh the power gains were noticeable even above the Tesco 99 fuel. However the gains seemed to dramatically diminish over time or with increases in engine bay temperature a feature which we are continuing to test.

The testing we have conducted deliberately concentrated purely on the performance gains offered by the premium fuels without reference to cost, cost is a financial measure not a performance one. However it would be puerile to simply ignore its reference in testing deigned for the general fuel buying public. In pure cost/performance terms its very hard to beat the Tesco product, on average the Tesco 99 fuel was 5-6% cheaper than the V Power (up to 10% cheaper when compared to some motorway fuel stations). The BP fuel at almost £2.50 a litre was obviously the most expensive and even with our £50,000 per year fuel bill it would be impossible to justify using the fuel with any degree of regularity - £147 to fill the tank of the CSL was even worthy of a picture of the pump price guage.


Bottom line? Use the Tesco 99 fuel where you can find it, it offers the best, most consistent performance of the fuels available and it’s cheaper than V Power. If you can’t find a Tescos that sells it then go for Shell’s V Power. If you’re feeling really flush, have a point to prove on a rolling road day (days where car enthusiasts compare their cars power on a dyno) or want to extract the maximum potential out of the car on a track day then the BP 102 fuel is worth a go, just bear in mind that £150 a tank would pay for a good proportion of tyres or some decent driver training.

Thorney Motorsport is continuing the fuel testing (we’ve made a rod for our own backs now it seems) so next up on the agenda is a performance test of all the race fuels currently available to see how they compare to the BP 012 fuel which we will undertake on our fleet of Vauxhall VX220 race cars and on our new Corsa VXR road car. We hope to have this next instalment (starting to feel like a soap opera now) at the end of the year. In the meantime we will continue to test the pump fuels and will continue to publish all of our findings.
John Thorne

Thorney MS run a car in BTCC

http://www.btcc.net/html/driver_detail.php?id=192

[Mk5 GTian]

/\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\

Fair enough, that seems like a pretty compelling case for Momentum. I stand corrected with my 'bad bunch' comment! 

[mvb12]

the BP 102, i have never seen this in BP before? i only see Ultimate which is 97? is it particular BP stations with offer this octance level?

[RedRobin]

the BP 102, i have never seen this in BP before? i only see Ultimate which is 97? is it particular BP stations with offer this octance level?

....I don't know for certain but I think that BP no longer offer their 102.

[ub7rm]

People seem to get all bent out of shape over the choice of what is effectively the same thing, even the difference between 95 and 99 RON is not as dramatic as the hype would lead you to believe although I accept for modified cars where the map has been written specifically for 99 RON the difference will be more apparent.

The 2.0 TFSI engine, found in the GTI's, S3's, repmobile A3's and A4's will handle 95 RON without any hint of problems whatsover.  In fact the engine is designed to adapt itself to whatever its fed.

Furthermore based on my real world click to click mpg figures there is feck all difference between the fuel economy you get with 95 RON or 99 RON.  The difference is so small it absolutely doesn't outweight the additional cost of 99 RON and indeed leaving your car idleing for a couple of minutes more, the temperature outside, whether you have a boot full of crap, whether you have a passenger or not will completely obliterate the tiny improvement you might make.

From a performance point of view mine feels a touch more lively at the top end of the rev range on 99 than it does on 95 but as most of my driving is a fairly sensible commute its not often I stray into that range.

I believed the hype on 99 and fed my car that religiously for 3 years.  Then I was forced to use 95 for an extended period of time and suddenly realised that, contrary to the 'wisdom' of the internetz, my MPG hadn't changed, the car still performed pretty much exactly as it used to.  A year on I've saved some money and - astonishingly - despite feeding it 'inferior' (but widely sold and favoured by most of the motoring population) fuel my car still hasn't blown up! 

If you need to examine a graph with a magnifying glass to see if there is an improvement then there probably isn't.

Geting rid of the spare tyre will make more difference. 

Cars specifically mapped for 99 might be more sensitive to the difference, but stock cars are not 

[RedRobin]

The 2.0 TFSI engine, found in the GTI's, S3's, repmobile A3's and A4's will handle 95 RON without any hint of problems whatsover.  In fact the engine is designed to adapt itself to whatever its fed.

Cars specifically mapped for 99 might be more sensitive to the difference, but stock cars are not  

....Remapped cars are more sensitive to the RON when the remap is set to work best on the higher RON - As is mostly the case with the established reputable tuners.

It's when you are enjoying driving enthusiastically or going for a fast overtake for example, that a lower RON can cause your 2.0T FSI to 'hiccup'. That is hardly reassuring! I prefer a car to be tip-top and have performance I can rely on.

JKM scoped the state of my valves etc a couple of days ago and even after 100,000 miles of remapped enthusiastic driving they are in a very good state and not in need of cleaning or replacing. Why? - Several factors:

- Using a Catch Tank (Forge).

- Changing the oil (full service) every 10,000 miles regardless.

- Exclusively using a petrol such as V-Power which contains beneficial additives. < I got it wrong! 

Sorry, but I own a modified Mk5 GTI because I'm enthusiastic about every single mile I drive, obviously subject to road and traffic conditions etc. You don't keep an Arab horse couped up in its stable or only take him/her out for just a trot - You give such a horse free rein whenever you can.

[Mk5 GTian]

the BP 102, i have never seen this in BP before? i only see Ultimate which is 97? is it particular BP stations with offer this octance level?

They have the BP102 pumps at the Egham bypass garage on the A30 in Surrey, but that might be because it's opposite Maranello Ferrari!

[ub7rm]

The 2.0 TFSI engine, found in the GTI's, S3's, repmobile A3's and A4's will handle 95 RON without any hint of problems whatsover.  In fact the engine is designed to adapt itself to whatever its fed.

Cars specifically mapped for 99 might be more sensitive to the difference, but stock cars are not 

....Remapped cars are more sensitive to the RON when the remap is set to work best on the higher RON - As is mostly the case with the established reputable tuners.

It's when you are enjoying driving enthusiastically or going for a fast overtake for example, that a lower RON can cause your 2.0T FSI to 'hiccup'. That is hardly reassuring! I prefer a car to be tip-top and have performance I can rely on.

JKM scoped the state of my valves etc a couple of days ago and even after 100,000 miles of remapped enthusiastic driving they are in a very good state and not in need of cleaning or replacing. Why? - Several factors:

- Using a Catch Tank (Forge).

- Changing the oil (full service) every 10,000 miles regardless.

- Exclusively using a petrol such as V-Power which contains beneficial additives.

Sorry, but I own a modified Mk5 GTI because I'm enthusiastic about every single mile I drive, obviously subject to road and traffic conditions etc. You don't keep an Arab horse couped up in its stable or only take him/her out for just a trot - You give such a horse free rein whenever you can.

No need to apologise.  But I think you missed the bit I wrote about mapped cars being more sensitive to the difference in RON vs stock cars.

Furthermore the fuel you choose has nothing to do about the state of your valves - the fuel doesn't go anywhere near them.  Its not usually the part you can see from the cylinder thats a cause for concern anyway, its the stems and springs which have a propensity to gunk up.  The catch can may well help in this respect.

If your car is missing at high revs I would suggest the modifications you have done have compromised the versatility and driveability of your car.  I've used 95 for the last year and have never experienced such a 'hiccup'.  VW state quite clearly that the 2.0 TFSI is designed to be run on 95 and higher octane fuels.

[Hedge]

Robin - why on a direct injection engine is the state of your valves related to fuel used? 

[RedRobin]

Robin - why on a direct injection engine is the state of your valves related to fuel used? 

....I was confused and got it wrong! 

[Hedge]

Bless. 

[RedRobin]

If your car is missing at high revs I would suggest the modifications you have done have compromised the versatility and driveability of your car.  I've used 95 for the last year and have never experienced such a 'hiccup'.  VW state quite clearly that the 2.0 TFSI is designed to be run on 95 and higher octane fuels.

....I haven't experienced such 'hiccups' yet either but I have been warned that I might expect it if driving hard on 95 RON on Revo Stage2. I've got a 480-mile round trip next week and I'm not going to want to 'granny' it when overtaking, so we'll see what happens.

[ub7rm]

I should qualify that my experience in terms of little to no difference in mpg, very little reduction in power and no issues in drivability / reliability are based entirely on my own driving style, journeys (rural A roads with a little traffic) and stock car. 

My point isn't to say that high RON fuels are a waste of time, they aren't - there is definitely a small power advantage even in stock form - but there seems to be a bit of hysteria on this forum about how great high octane is and a genuine fear / belief that 95 RON is damaging to the engine.  Just wanting to add some balance to this point of view as I think it has been greatly exaggerated / plain wrong in some cases. 

As stated before though, if your map has been developed only to run on 99 then your car will suffer when run on 95 in a way that stock cars will not.

[RedRobin]

^^^^
Totally appreciated, ub7rm 

[QD MBE]

The point Ub7 makes is valid, you won't notice any difference in everyday driving due to the flexibly versatile nature of OE generic mapping. I use 98+ in the shed because the map was RR bespoke set up using that fuel.  If in doubt seek advice from whoever mapped your car.

Ps the daily gets 95.