Fuel? What's best for an rs?

[Aib668]

Ok, i have been steered to BP ulimate by advice from tuner friends, but they all have atmo"s. Can i run E85? Or is there somthing better than BP? Yes, Elf would be nice, but an't none of them servos about in brisvegis. 

[Deet]

I am currently doing a remote rune With RSTuning and we found that BP Ultimate was causing timing issues as if it was low RON

switched to caltex 98 and the errors went away

 

[Jamiec]

57 minutes ago, Deet said:

I am currently doing a remote rune With RSTuning and we found that BP Ultimate was causing timing issues as if it was low RON

switched to caltex 98 and the errors went away

 

On past vehicles have found Caltex 98 and Mobil Synergy 8000(now Supreme+ 98) to be great.

[Docmattic]

1 hour ago, Deet said:

I am currently doing a remote rune With RSTuning and we found that BP Ultimate was causing timing issues as if it was low RON

switched to caltex 98 and the errors went away

 

I had this problem too with BP ultimate when Paul came to Aust earlier this year. Wish I had got a better batch in there, I'm sure it cost me some power gains. 

Edited 15, October 2019 by Docmattic

[ttimbo]

Just a note on this. I’m very skeptical there is much, if any, difference between fuels in Australia.

 

As you will have seen or read in the news, Australia has a very high dependence on imported refined fuels and a corresponding low fuel reserve (c.23 days). These are (correctly) regarded by the fuel companies operating in Australia as a commodity, and thus purchased (against a spec) based on price. Yes, once here, they may include some additives, but there is no guarantee the Shell, BP, Mobil, Caltex.... 98 you buy today is from the same refinery source as last month.

 

A bigger issue is the lower quality specifications for our fuels, which can especially affect European motors tuned for higher quality fuels.

 

It’s all a bit of a scandal, really — another fundamental failure in Australia’s energy policy....but I will stop the rant right there.

 

[Deet]

10 hours ago, Jamiec said:

On past vehicles have found Caltex 98 and Mobil Synergy 8000(now Supreme+ 98) to be great.

Once I have the tune finished, I will be trying Mobil next. New servo opened near me, and the caltex is the most expensive servo in my area. 

 

[Dave200]

2 hours ago, ttimbo said:

Just a note on this. I’m very skeptical there is much, if any, difference between fuels in Australia.

 

As you will have seen or read in the news, Australia has a very high dependence on imported refined fuels and a corresponding low fuel reserve (c.23 days). These are (correctly) regarded by the fuel companies operating in Australia as a commodity, and thus purchased (against a spec) based on price. Yes, once here, they may include some additives, but there is no guarantee the Shell, BP, Mobil, Caltex.... 98 you buy today is from the same refinery source as last month.

 

A bigger issue is the lower quality specifications for our fuels, which can especially affect European motors tuned for higher quality fuels.

 

It’s all a bit of a scandal, really — another fundamental failure in Australia’s energy policy....but I will stop the rant right there.

 

I have been trying to say this across different threads for some time. especially the east coast, by and large all petrol comes from the same storage tanks at the distribution centres. 

 

Places on the south coast such as some parts of VIC and SA however do have fuel from Altona Mobil still produced and refined locally which is a point of differentiation over other states. WA also has the Kwinana refinery owned by BP.

[ktee]

6 hours ago, Deet said:

Once I have the tune finished, I will be trying Mobil next. New servo opened near me, and the caltex is the most expensive servo in my area. 

 

The Mobil at Littlehampton is worth trying - for price if no other reason... Yesterday their 98 was 35 cents a litre less than the nearby Caltex 🤨

[Deet]

1 hour ago, ktee said:

The Mobil at Littlehampton is worth trying - for price if no other reason... Yesterday their 98 was 35 cents a litre less than the nearby Caltex 🤨

Same over here, Stirling Caltex is about the same 35c difference to the new Mobil In Aldgate. Just want to finish the tune with the same fuel I have been using before I try a tank

 

 

[ktee]

1 hour ago, Deet said:

Same over here, Stirling Caltex is about the same 35c difference to the new Mobil In Aldgate. Just want to finish the tune with the same fuel I have been using before I try a tank

 

 

Didn't realise there was a new Mobil in Aldgate, will try there next time 👍  My car seems happier on either Caltex 98 or Mobil Supreme+ 98...

[Deet]

Its on Mt Barker Road. 
its the old BP that was disused for a few years

[rayrs]

14 hours ago, ttimbo said:

Just a note on this. I’m very skeptical there is much, if any, difference between fuels in Australia.

 

As you will have seen or read in the news, Australia has a very high dependence on imported refined fuels and a corresponding low fuel reserve (c.23 days). These are (correctly) regarded by the fuel companies operating in Australia as a commodity, and thus purchased (against a spec) based on price. Yes, once here, they may include some additives, but there is no guarantee the Shell, BP, Mobil, Caltex.... 98 you buy today is from the same refinery source as last month.

 

A bigger issue is the lower quality specifications for our fuels, which can especially affect European motors tuned for higher quality fuels.

 

It’s all a bit of a scandal, really — another fundamental failure in Australia’s energy policy....but I will stop the rant right there.

 

that's the reason i fill up with 7 11, Premium 98 Fuel

[benzino]

My Astra is tuned for 98. The only times I have had issues with what feels like timing retard (lots of boost and noise but no go) seem to correlate with tanks of Caltex 98. 

I have not had the same issues with BP 98 or United 98. I don't use shell as it is usually much more expensive compared to BP in Albury. 

 

 

[ttimbo]

that's the reason i fill up with 7 11, Premium 98 Fuel

Mobil sourced , same as Costco

[Rene]

Costco = Mobil in SA & Vic but not in NSW and Qld also Costco have their own additives so even in these states not the same as Mobil.

 

BP and Mobil supply from same tanks in Vic & Qld. I’m also pretty sure they both load ex Vopak in Botany.

 

Then as mentioned in earlier posts you need to look at the supply chain eg Viva Geelong and Mobil Altona all pipe into Yarraville/Newport then there is the offshore cargoes into all locations even if there is a local refinery.

 

Some coys also boost 91 to 95 and 98 using improvers rather than source ex refinery.

 

Regardless all have to meet the requisite specification, something all the large companies will do.

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

[rentaspace]

I never touch Shell as it is always expensive and from my experience in multiple cars, have had timing retard after filling with their 98.
My old Caldina was tuned for E85 only so was always from United.

My White RS got BP Ultimate and Costco 98 (Casula Station) and I have found no problems with either.



One of the guys I was chatting with back in the day when I had my Celica worked for one of the servos and pretty much all the fuel comes in from the same sources and then additives are added to bring the RON up to the desired level and whatever injector cleaner they decide to add. The different feels could be that the particular batch had not enough additive added to it so it isn't actually 98. The skeptic in me says this may also be cost-cutting on the companies part...

[oscargamer]

I've just bought my 2018 RS Megane 280.

The fuel filler cap says either 95 or 98 is OK.

Is there a reason I can't use 95 ?

[rentaspace]

13 minutes ago, oscargamer said:

I've just bought my 2018 RS Megane 280.

The fuel filler cap says either 95 or 98 is OK.

Is there a reason I can't use 95 ?

Not really, but I found the Clio pings and retards the timing badly which is results in a super noticeable lack of power. 
I also found I get about 80km more using 98. 

[Deet]

21 minutes ago, oscargamer said:

I've just bought my 2018 RS Megane 280.

The fuel filler cap says either 95 or 98 is OK.

Is there a reason I can't use 95 ?

Having done a lot of log runs looking at timing error. I can say you are better iff with 98. But NOT BP Ultimate 

Much lower timing  errors with Caltex98 and slightly better with Mobil98

That is in SA. Results in other states may vary

[oscargamer]

As a noob here, I really don't want to be rude, but when the manufacturer says 95 is OK (on the fuel filler cap) then I'm questioning why people are insisting 98 is the recommended fuel?

For a random internet person to say that the manufacturer is wrong and only XXX servo branded 98 is suitable, I scratch my head and ask, what the?

[rentaspace]

Just now, oscargamer said:

As a noob here, I really don't want to be rude, but when the manufacturer says 95 is OK (on the fuel filler cap) then I'm questioning why people are insisting 98 is the recommended fuel?

For a random internet person to say that the manufacturer is wrong and only XXX servo branded 98 is suitable, I scratch my head and ask, what the?

The car CAN run on 95, just not efficiently or well. This is more of a just in case you find yourself in an area with no 98 fuel. 
The higher octane allows the car to have the optimal timing for both power and efficiency. 
This is also the reason why on some vehicle you can get better economy from higher octane fuels and some others you can’t, it just depend what the manufacturer used for their base maps in the car. 
 

My mates V6 liberty runs like crap on all fuel in Australia because Subaru tuned it to run on Japanese 100 octane, it pings on 98 lol. 

[oscargamer]

Again, respectfully, I don't accept what you are saying over what the manufacturer says.

It's a common misconception that 98 is 'better' than lower RON fuels.

There are many manufacturers that state "you can use xx RON occasionally, when the recommended yy RON is not available". That is not the case here. Renault have stuck a sticker on the filler cap saying 95 AND 98 are acceptable.

I have only had 3 tanks used so far. 2 at 98 and 1 at 95. I can't tell the difference but will keep score over the next year or so and report back the actual numbers, rather than the 'vibe or mabo or feel' of a tank of a particular RON.

[Deet]

6 minutes ago, oscargamer said:

Again, respectfully, I don't accept what you are saying over what the manufacturer says.

It's a common misconception that 98 is 'better' than lower RON fuels.

There are many manufacturers that state "you can use xx RON occasionally, when the recommended yy RON is not available". That is not the case here. Renault have stuck a sticker on the filler cap saying 95 AND 98 are acceptable.

I have only had 3 tanks used so far. 2 at 98 and 1 at 95. I can't tell the difference but will keep score over the next year or so and report back the actual numbers, rather than the 'vibe or mabo or feel' of a tank of a particular RON.

results can vary between models

and you may not notice a difference during normal driving but average fuel economy can seriously vary based on the fuel ron

I have had a lot of conversations with guys in Clio3s and they have issues running 98. Troubles with cold starts that are solved as soon as they run 95 

I have been documenting my car’s performance over the last few months and have measured the differences in my cars performance using various fuels

Admittedly the car is being tuned for 98ron. But still looking at baseline data before the tuning process you could see the differences 

Edited 22, October 2019 by Deet

[oscargamer]

6 posts up and in my signature.

2018 RS Megane 280

EDIT - I love it when people change their post after a reply. Deet originally asked what my car was.......

Edited 22, October 2019 by oscargamer

[ttimbo]

A few years ago, with a Golf that said it needed 95 or 98, I ran a fairly extensive test of both. Will see if I can find the data, but the difference was discernible and measurable in terms of fuel economy (car used about 1.5-2L/100k more on 95), and through the world famous butt dyno - car just felt lethargic on 95, and lively on 98, in comparison.

[oscargamer]

I would love to see your data (but less so, the butt dyno ! )

[Ogier]

back around 1995, I had a 1990 Daihatsu Applause with a 1.6 SOHC 16V engine good for 77kW I think.

ULP (91) or premium (98) (No E10 back then) made no difference to the butt dyno, but with accurate and repeated measuring of fuel economy, the 98 got more than 10% extra kms.

I'd measure how many litres of fuel I put in to get the first click/shutoff from the bowser, divide L by Kms travelled or vice versa.

In essence, 40L of 91 octane would only get 400km, but with 98 in the tank, 40L would easily get 440km from the same driving style.

Back then, 98 was only 10c / L more expensive than ULP, so an easy choice.

Every other car I've had since, if it didn't need premium, premium made no difference to mileage. (non premium cars: Hyundai Excel, Eunos 800, AWD Magna, '09 Suzuki Swift)

 

So, yes, some vehicle's ECUs can self learn and advance timing to make better use of higher octane fuels. Most probably don't.

My last car was  Subaru Forester XT - I've learned from it that a bad batch of fuel will result in the ECU retarding timing to protect the engine, but it doesn't return to normal.
ECU downloads showed some red flags and it needed a ECU reset (disconnect battery for x minutes) to get timing back to normal learning mode.

Edited 23, October 2019 by Ogier

[eight]

From my observations the quality of fuel vary between the servos. Same brand of fuel from different sites can give different results. The servos that have new tanks or had tanks cleaned recently have better quality of fuel that give that feeling of car performing noticeably better. Sometimes the fuel can vary between the pumps at the same station. That's why I usually fill up at the same station and the same pump. Then the results are more comparable.


Sent from Tapatalk

[Rene]

So many perceptions v reality.

In all city’s with the exception of Sydney and Perth the majors all deliver fuel from the same terminal/tank to their retail sites.
Occasionally they may load from a competitors/different terminal if there is a product shortage. So depending on where you are located the fuel being delivered will be the same from site to site unless it’s a slow mover and you could possibly have product from a previous shipment (v unlikely in the cities as deliveries occur multiple times per week).
In Sydney and Perth a function of logistics would tend to see the same fuel in clusters based on transport economics where a supplier pulls from more than one terminal so unless you are on the cusp there will be no difference.

As for different results from different browsers this again is unlikely except possibly where there are islands on different sides of the servo or on a very old site. This is because the tanks are manifolded underground to aid inventory and minimise stock outs.
Also tanks are flushed and cleaned if there is a grade change so not an issue even if not manifolded.

In the bad old days there was the possibility of fuel substitution at dealer owned sites but I have not heard of this occurring for years. Dealer owned sites can under law purchase some fuel from an alternate supplier to the brand on the site but this is not a common occurrence on the branded major oil coy sites.

In some remote locations you may be lucky enough to get 98 out of a 95 bowser but never the other way around.

As for benefit of 98 v 95 v 91 etc you will for non ethanol fuels get more km/litre if your ECU can adjust for it so the Q is gain v cost. I personally find you get bang for your buck so I’d rather have the good stuff in my tank with the superior additives.

And yes the product spec can vary between seasons based on RVP.

Interestingly on my M3 I consistently find the computer overstates the litres of fuel burnt v what I put in the tank.
Then if you get anal and want the exact answer in terms of litres/100km etc you need to correct for Speedo/Odometer error.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[speedfiend41]

Yeah.

 

What Rene said. 👍

[eight]

Most of the time I fill up full tank to the first click off.
At the Caltex the pump meter is 0.5 litre less than the computer figure.
At BP pump shows 1-2 litres more than car computer.
How do you calibrate this?

Sent from Tapatalk

[oscargamer]

I asked Renault Australia this question...

"Hi,  I have just bought a Megane RS 280.  Just wondering the RON fuel to use. 95 or 98?"

They replied,

" Thank you for your online enquiry. Your Megane R.S. can use 95 or 98 RON.  For future reference please refer to the sticker on the inside of your fuel flap."

 

Fairly definitive. No words like 'recommended' or 'advised' or similar.

 

[Rene]

Most of the time I fill up full tank to the first click off.
At the Caltex the pump meter is 0.5 litre less than the computer figure.
At BP pump shows 1-2 litres more than car computer.
How do you calibrate this?

Sent from Tapatalk

The meters at a Servo are regularly calibrated to comply with the Weights & Measures Dept in the state of operation. In general they should favour the customer.
The other variable here is the sensitivity of the trigger nozzle.
Ever had one that continually trips?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[eight]

In general they should favour the customer.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

The Caltex one works in my favour [emoji16], won't be using BP for a while

Sent from Tapatalk

[Aib668]

I am enthusiastic about the debate, but in all sense - 98 octane fuel is great with a turbo. And good for an atmo with over 10:1 comp. We can all hope that one day we can get euro/jap spec fuel. But don't hold your breath. I'm getting 11lt per 100km with using bp over October. Caltex is the next. Keep you posted. 

[oscargamer]

9 minutes ago, Aib668 said:

And good for an atmo with over 10:1 comp

My previous Mazda 3 Skyactiv SP25 was exactly the same with 91 vs 95 vs 98 (power / butt dyno / fuel consumption) over 5 years.....

[Aib668]

Yes it would, it has a more flexible engine management hard/soft ware than the Renault which is tuned for more inflexible applications. 

[oscargamer]

14 minutes ago, Aib668 said:

Yes it would

Would what?

[abb6027]

On our recent trip to Tasmania with the megane 280 RS we found ourselves in places that only had 95. I checked the manual and as per the fuel door you can use 95 and the car ran perfectly probably a bit less responsive and used more fuel but otherwise good.

 

[Haakon]

Know someone involved in fuel testing, and it turns out most 98 in Australia is very rarely 98c - usually 94-96 at best. 

Save your money, just use 95. Alfa 1.4 Multiair turbo and the very highly strung Clio 0.9 3 pot turbo couldn’t care less if it was 95 or 98. No difference at all.

Use the minimum rated, don’t get contaminated fuel and call it a day. The engine engineers spend a lot of time and money making it behave on the rated fuel, and anything else the ecu will do for protection (that’s an annoying trick Subaru does not reverting to normal after a bad fuel event!).

You have to remember that all grades of fuel contain the same energy - it’s only the resistance to self ignition that differs, so any changes are dependant on the engine design. If the engine’s map has been held back for 95 with the deliberately designed ability to advance more with 98, rock and roll. But I’d love to see that written down from someone from Renault or a timing light out on a car on a dyno with controlled tests with both grades...

[apple3337]

Is 95 really 95 then??? According to your source.

[Haakon]

52 minutes ago, apple3337 said:

Is 95 really 95 then??? According to your source.

I believe so. Variations of course as well but more like what is written on the tin. 
 

There are a handful of suppliers and the premium stuff I think all comes in from Singapore (I think... A lot of our fuel does I know for sure though), the only differences is that the different retailers drop i their own additives. 
 

Back in the day when I had carburettors and points ignition, I could “tune” it for the different fuel grades (unleaded or super) but these days just look at the label, find a servo without crap in their tanks and enjoy. 
 

Be more concerned with the disgusting levels of sulphur and the lack of Euro 6 and 6B engines available here... And the lack of a co2 emissions standard (we are the only country in the OECD without one) for new cars that would have saved the public billions in reduced fuel costs but was shelved after lobbying from car importers who feared less profits from selling old school engined cars

[Haakon]

1 hour ago, apple3337 said:

Is 95 really 95 then??? According to your source.

Also worth noting that there is a Determination (technical standards) under the Australian Fuel Quality Standards that provides the standard for 91 and 95 octane fuel that suppliers are legally obliged to meet. There is no standard for 98 and it’s left to commercial interests - how much do trust oil companies to provide products as advertised?

[Rene]

Know someone involved in fuel testing, and it turns out most 98 in Australia is very rarely 98c - usually 94-96 at best. 

Bull


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Haakon]

Just now, Rene said:

 

 

Bull


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

Ok. Why?

[Rene]

I guess 39 years in the industry means I know nothing.

I’ve never handled the stuff, never tested it, nothing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Haakon]

1 minute ago, Rene said:

I guess 39 years in the industry means I know nothing.

I’ve never handled the stuff, never tested it, nothing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Righto. What industry is that? Care to share testing results?

[Rene]

What an aggressive I’m right little Vegemite, always wants to be right.

Oil Industry if you must know, personally responsible for handling billions of litres of the stuff.

I don’t need to go into long spiels about the testing etc. Just think of the consequences of putting one thing on the bowser and selling something of a lesser standard else and you will know what you say is crap. The converse can occur occasionally where you may get 98 out of a 95 bowser.

Also as I’ve mentioned previously there have been shonks in the industry who didn’t do what they should and from their bowsers you could get anything.

End of conversation.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[eight]

[emoji378]

Sent from Tapatalk

[apple3337]

2 hours ago, Haakon said:

Know someone involved in fuel testing, and it turns out most 98 in Australia is very rarely 98c - usually 94-96 at best.

I'd really like to know more:

1. About the person.  IE their actual job.
2. How often and how many servos get tested.
3. More details on test results.
4. Why is 95 RON OK when 98 is not?
5. What happens if the companies sell misrepresented fuel? Are they penalised?