Alfa Romeo Forum banner

1 - 18 of 18 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
566 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Hello All,

I've done some calculations after using Optimax in my 1.8 T.Spark Veloce after switching from Supermarket petrol :tut: and have found Optimax to be worth the extra money.

Pretty much all my driving is urban, going to and from work down a 30mph road, stopping and starting etc. and I can get 7% better economy with Optimax (must be even better on dual-carriageways etc.) Considering Optimax is only 5p more than standard Shell (91.9p and 86.9p respectively) this benefit outweighs the 5.4% additional cost :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
627 Posts
Good man, although i have always used BP Ultima (collect the old nectar points) Same as you in my style of driving, stop n start, never bothered to work out exact comparisons but it feels better.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,154 Posts
I generally always use Optimax. I've never done the math, but I certainly notice less responsiveness and more lumpiness whenever I have to use 95 RON.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
33,643 Posts
I will give Optimax a go next time I go on a decent run (Probably NAD).
95 RON will do me for 'round the doors' though as I need to travel about 5 miles to find a garage selling Optimax.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
668 Posts
I assume that Optimax is the same as the V-power they sell over here in Ireland. I was going to try it out on my 147 to see if there was any improvement over normal crap petrol from Texaco.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,038 Posts
As a retired Shell engineer I use V-power for a long time and my car's performance is better and so is the mileage per liter. Just back from a trip to the Alps I filled up in Germany with V power 100 ....woooow that is more than a difference, the 156 ticked the 230 mark with 3 persons a dog and wintersport outfit onboard . I did 2100 km with an average of 8.4 litre/100 km.

definitively worth the money (btw V power in Switzerland was .93 eurocent !!! the Swiss are not so stupid to join the Eu union)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
511 Posts
I would like to see this done as a double blind test where neither the driver nor the person doing the sums/comparisons know which was used......
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
161 Posts
I tracked every tank of fuel in my 1.8TS from 1999 to 2004 over 45,000 miles.

In mine, Optimax was much better on a run (7-8%), which made it cost effective but the economy was no better round town! I used to have to make a choice what sort of driving I was going to do when deciding what to use in each tankfull!

Having said that, the engine was noticeably better running on Optimax. After some months of supermarket fuel, it used to "hesitate" at low revs in high gears (trundeling along at 35 in top...). Using Optimax stopped this.

I tried Optimax in my JTS and, at first, it seemed to make no difference, but have tried it again and the trip computer shows an average of 39.0mpg over two separate 80mph 340 mile trips to Newcastle & back! I know that the computer overreads by 3-4 mpg, but that's still brilliant!
 
G

·
:rolleyes: I was "compelled" to use Optimax in my 155 as it had a Squadra chip fitted....a tad pricey but no probs ;)
:p When I traded it for a GTV (standard-no chip) I gleefully looked foward to saving 5p a litre and using normal stuff,always Shell or Texaco though......
:( My hopes of instant wealth were dashed though,as the car got all lumpy and "snatchy" at low revs :( ..........Back to the Optimax which cured the problem after a couple of good runs :p
:cool: A tankful is about £47 which is good for about 350 miles of mostly motorway journeys,not bad but enough to keep me away from V6's which I reckon would seriously affect my wallet :eek: :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,248 Posts
I find that an after-market (e.g. STP) Octane booster works out the same price per tank as Optimax.

Tarquini (12V V6) doesn't notice the difference with Optimax really - but more octanes via the additive is smoother and improves fuel consumption.

Ralf S.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
230 Posts
I don't quite understand how a fuel at 98 octane can benefit a car with no active knock sensor. I don't think Alfas have them (I may be wrong). If the engine timing is set by the manufacturer at 95 ron petrol, it can deal with lower grade fuel, but not higher. This is why chip tuned cars need optimax to take advantage of the retune (the timing has been advanced - or retarded can't remember which).

I'm going to try Esso ultima this week as I drive up and down to Edinburgh each week as opposed to normal Esso unleaded. If the mileage consumption is worth it alone then I'm happy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,786 Posts
mallo said:
I don't quite understand how a fuel at 98 octane can benefit a car with no active knock sensor. I don't think Alfas have them (I may be wrong).
The workshop manual I have for my 155 2.0 8v mentions the knock sensor. Maybe it depends on the specific engine.

Cuore_Sportivo_155
 

·
AO Car Of The Year Winner 2015
Joined
·
3,202 Posts
I use V-Power /Optimax/ almost exclusively so I cant compare with "normal" fuel. When there is no Shell station in sight, I usually fill at OMV. Last year I tanked three or four times V-Power Racing 100 octane. I think the car run even better and with 0,2-0,4 L/100km better fuel economy, but psychological effect plays its part too :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,038 Posts
The knock sensor in the 156 signals the ECU to set the ignition for the chosen RON number. So 100 RON will have a drastic effect on the 156's engine. It is very noticeable as I mentioned before.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,038 Posts
FLO said:
:p Hmmm,I know of a source of Avgas....that'd have to make a difference? :D
as long as it is 100LL it will destroy your cat but what the heck...
 
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
Top