Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

News: Premium petrol a waste of money?

Discussion in 'Motorcycling News' at netrider.net.au started by ForumBot, Feb 24, 2006.

  1. RACV research, due out next month, shows that the use of premium unleaded in most vehicles is a waste of money.

    ... more

    This is an automated posting of a new news item added to Netrider News by Netrider.

  2. They forgot one very important test (which they could have done) which would have been to dyno the engines to see if there was any increase in power as a result of using a higher octane fuel (reduced fuel consumption would suggest there was). People might not be willing to use Premium if there's no benefits to economy, but there would be plenty willing to pay for a little extra horsepower. Would love to see a long term test too - run two identical engines on the bench, one on standard, one on premium, then strip them down and see if there's any differences.
  3. umm they only tested 2 cars??? kinda pointless unless you do at least a variety of cars in a variety of situations would think......

    i know with my car ive done a few long trips and put in regular going one way and premium on the way back..

    the fuel consumption and costs with premium on highway driving was great....no reall effect on round town driving though.
  4. How do you know that they didn't do dyno testing? There was no mention of what tests they conducted.

    Anyway, the article's spot on. I've never seen any performance or economy improvements in any of my vehicles that I've run either Optimax or other bands of 98 RON fuel. These include a 1998 5l V8 Commodore SS, a 2003 5.7l V8 SS, a 1990 ZZR1100 and a 1995 Honda CBR1000F.

    A mate has a 2003 GSXR-1000 and he runs ULP in it. He reckons that it runs fine. Another with a 2004 Blackbird has run various fuels in his bike, and he said that he couldn't spot any difference, other than cost.

    As the article says, if your owner manual says "91 RON or higher" for fuel type, then that's all it needs.
  5. It was a test conducted by Ford though, they don't really have all that many models to test. But yeah hardly a representative sample though - neither car's selling particularly well at the moment.
  6. depends on the vehicle, some you notice it on, some you dont. there are some real fusspot bikes around and even a few cars. my bandit would run like a dog on anything but mobil8000/bp ultimate, my thundercat ran on anything, my zx7r runs better on the 96 stuff than the 91 stuff but no difference on 98.

    efficiency... our mazda929 gets about 50ks more to a tank on most 96 fuels when driven placidly (which is 99% of the time in a car). not 100% sure on the new magna yet, but that got 50ks less out of a tank using standard fuel than the 929 got out of a tank of premium. and the magna has 2 less cylinders and .4l less capacity :?

    just gotta have a play. if it runs fine on standard, use it. if theres a gain and you like it, then use a premium...
  7. It would have ben perhaps more appropriate if they had tested performance-oriented cars, such as an XR6 Turbo or V8 (although they would probably stipulate using PULP?).

    I wouldn't have though that running PULP in these dinosaurs (Falcon and Festiva) would have shown any gains whatsoever, and I was suprised to see the improved highway economy.

    Why would anyone use PULP if the manual only recommends ULP anyway?

    I can definitely notice a performance increase in my turbo car, as it retards the timing (and consequently lowers boost) if detonation occurs.

    I use PULP in my moto as it's a Jap import, built with 95 RON fuel in mind.
  8. My bike manual says to use 95RON or higher, and when it has been run with lower octane fuel ie standard unleaded it starts to ping real bad under hard acceleration! :)
  9. Your post is invalid bc you are not even aware of what tests were or werent preformed
  10. Tested two vehicles? Says who :LOL:

    U on drugs or what? :LOL:
  11. Wasent conducted BY Ford.. :roll:

    It was conducted by RACV AT THE FORD LAB.

    No mention of vehicles tested, so ya drawing unfounded conclusions
    once again.
  12. Yeh bro, ya basically gotta work out whether the percentage increase
    in milage is greater than the xtra percentage cost in purchasing the
    premium fuel.

    As Mr Cummings said, the fuel manufactureres have never proven
    their claims with public test results backing their claims which RACV
    is going to do shortly. RACV tests have shown any negligible improvements
    you obtain are not worth the additional costs.

    Camera's were here again yesterday, so who knows what the next
    story is going to be about :grin:
  14. Comment when the full test results are released by RACV Cammo :)
  15. I'm usually happy with the choices in fuels I make, but what really gets to me is wondering how accurate the meters are on the pumps, how often they're calibrated and by whom (external agency?). Not meaing to hijack.
  16. Incorrect.
    The testing was conducted by Ford. RACV simply paid them to do it, and told them what to test. The actual scientific testing and results gathering was done by Ford.

    I hate it when people pretend to know what they are talking about in an attempt to tell others they are wrong :roll:
  17. If it was conducted at the Ford lab then it would have been conducted by Ford engineers, they'd be the ones most qualified to operate the testing equipment. And as far as I know the RACV does not have an engineering research department :p. I'll admit I'm assuming they didn't run any dyno tests based on the fact there's no mention of the results in the summary. Horsepower gains or lack thereof would be just as important as fuel consumption and should have been included in a summary if they existed.
  18. Michael Case, RACV’s Chief Engineer of Vehicles

    Are you? You appear to be contradicting what your employer is publicly saying.
  19. So let me get this straight for clarity
    They tested a few ford cars and came to these conclusions?
  20. i think its pretty simple really.
    as they summerised on A Current Affair when they ran this story.....

    if your car was produced in OZ, then it was produced for 91RON fuel. the cost/benefit analysis was based on that presumption. and they concluded that if that was the case, then its not worth paying extra for the PULP as your car wont make use of it.

    Their conclusions didnt say 'no one should use PULP' they simply said stick with whatever fuel your manufacturer recommends and dont bother going above their reccommended RON cause it wont be worth it.