Fuel quality. Any difference between companies? [Archive]

discotex

13th March 2009, 06:32

Challenge brings in their own fuel...

Really? I thought it was only Gull that bring in their own gas.

But anyway. Check with your manual before running Gull's ethanol blend 98.

Other than that I find Caltex and Shell 95 better than Mobil and BP 98. I only run 98 if I know I'll be near redline alot e.g. track days.

CookMySock

13th March 2009, 06:57

I have never been able to tell the difference between fuels. Lower octane fuels will ping a bit at low rpm and large throttle openings, and wont do as many kilometers - thats it.

Steve

Quasievil

13th March 2009, 07:04

3umph

13th March 2009, 07:29

Challange use to bring in its own fuel and it was a lot better when they did...
Since it was sold off im pretty sure that they source it from the same place as the rest...

Additives are added by the different companies but that's if they actually get put in as been told it happens quite a bit that they dont get added

my_r32

13th March 2009, 09:45

All I know is that I'd never use 91.....its shit. In anything. period. .

I use Shell V-power in my bike and car. Dont have issues, only reason I go there is for fly buys:done: I cant tell the difference between companies, only way you'd find anything out is to test it....properly, like in a lab.

My boyfriend however, swears by BP Ultimate. We dont have anything to compare it to down here though as everything moves a bit slower down south and haven't got the Mobil 98 yet

Pixie

13th March 2009, 10:08

I was wondering if any of you have opinions regarding fuel quality form different companies? Is it better from Mobil, Shell or BP?

Challenge was bought out by Chevron years ago,so I expect they have the same product as Caltex

Nasty

13th March 2009, 10:14

Definately tell the difference in octane 91v98 .... I got 91 this time .. they were out of 98 ... I am spewing cos I couldn't get to another station .... the gas is crap!

discotex

13th March 2009, 15:51

Lower octane fuels will ping a bit at low rpm and large throttle openings, and wont do as many kilometers - thats it.

Well that depends.

Using lower octane than the engine and ECU are designed for may cause knock. If the engine has knock sensors it will then retard the ignition which will cause worse fuel economy. Putting 91 in a turbo or supercharged engine is a great way to kill it too.

But... Putting 95+ in an engine designed and fueled for 91 will result in wasted $$ as you won't get any better fuel economy and you can't stop non-existent knocking.

I'm pretty sure most bikes are designed for 95+ given their high-performance nature.

Gubb

13th March 2009, 15:56

The fuel is all the same, it all comes in on the same boat, the companies then store it in their own tanks, and add their specific additives.

All the additives do exactly the same thing as the other companies. They all clean your engine better than the others, and perform better, with greater economy.

As Quasi said, the Oils are a different story.

fridayflash

13th March 2009, 15:58

I seriously doubt wether any of you could tell the difference between the companies fuels, difference between high and low octane perhaps but not between the companies themselves.
Oils....now thats a different subject.
There is only one refinery in the country jointly owned by the Oil companies (the main four) we use to own it but a past Govt sold it to them. In this area all the bulk delivery trucks work out of one storage area.

AllanB

13th March 2009, 16:00

91 & 95 taste much the same, but an evening on 98 gives you a sick hangover the next morning..........

racefactory

13th March 2009, 16:42

What about that 'Pack and Save' fuel though? Got a feeling that's fucking dodgy for some reason. 6 cent discounts from shopping there too. Could it be shit quality ?

Gubb

13th March 2009, 17:12

What about that 'Pack and Save' fuel though? Got a feeling that's fucking dodgy for some reason. 6 cent discounts from shopping there too. Could it be shit quality ?

Like I said, it all comes in on the same boat. It's the same fuel.

Cloggy

13th March 2009, 17:39

What about that 'Pack and Save' fuel though? Got a feeling that's fucking dodgy for some reason. 6 cent discounts from shopping there too. Could it be shit quality ?
Pak and Save get their fuel from BP, same with G.A.S., also BP.

Ocean1

13th March 2009, 18:02

Like I said, it all comes in on the same boat. It's the same fuel.

Exactly correct.

Occasionally a shipment of imported fuel is slightly different, and may be delivered to just some ports, eventually being delivered to just some outlets. Even then it's usually noticable more by a slightly different smell than any relevant, quantifiable specification.

dwnundabkr

13th March 2009, 18:42

for Bp,shell,caltex and mobil yes all from the same imports, gull is the only company which was importing its own fuel
the 98 from BP and the gull 96 was coming from singapore refinary now this info is about 4 years old so could not be that up to date.
when working for gull there where shipments that where getting as high as 100 plus octane rating

Ocean1

13th March 2009, 20:20

there where shipments that where getting as high as 100 plus octane rating

Research octane number. It's not exactly meaningless, but it’s a reference measurement, an indication of knock rate, (which is what actually matters), and which can't be calculated easily the way octane numbers are nowadays.

To define knock rate you buy a fuckoff big single cylinder engine specifically designed for the purpose and manufactured to a huge list of standards. You’ll need a sizeable wad of cash for that. Then you gas it up with a sample and mess with the adjustable compression, timing, mixture etc etc etc, until you get a set of numbers that describe exactly what the fuel's relevant combustion characteristics are.

Bear in mind the purpose of all this is to make sure the product meets a particular standard, not to prove it’s potency or value. A higher knock rate affects engine performance only if, firstly the engine management system is capable of recognising the minuscule difference in burn-rate, and secondly if the engine itself is designed to run it.

Motorcycles might trend towards what most might call the higher performance end of the automotive engine range, but their engine management systems are comparably crude. In short, gassing up with fuel beyond the octane rating your engine is designed to run is pointless.

McWild

13th March 2009, 20:34

I'm a believer that every bike is different, just gotta play around and see what you like best. I've been using 95 from Mobil since I've had my bike, but I'm going to start playing with 91 as soon as I need to fill up again, once I get the bike back from the shop.

What do you guys think about two strokes?

Hiflyer

15th March 2009, 13:48

hmmm shell nearly got wasted by the govt for their slogan "takes you further" so there was a big study done which proves it does in fact take you further, but only by 5% .. .. . must be the additives they put in.

Monty69

17th March 2009, 16:28

The 1 time i filled up at challenge, my super reliable cbr was crippled with shit in the carbys causing it to run like a dying dog. Cost me $500 to get carbys and filter sorted. Followed mechanics advice i went back to good old shell. Im not sure what company is best but i knw which is worst.

awayatc

18th March 2009, 04:36

$500 for carby and filter clean.......?
You gotta be kidding me!

Monty69

18th March 2009, 15:58

$500 for carby and filter clean.......?
You gotta be kidding me!

They didnt know it was the carbys strait away, a lot of time was spent checking everything else to eliminate all possible problems. time is $. and $100 for new airfilter

Dragon

18th March 2009, 16:45

Definately tell the difference in octane 91v98 .... I got 91 this time .. they were out of 98 ... I am spewing cos I couldn't get to another station .... the gas is crap!

I had the same thing happen to me and my car hates 91

meowmix

18th March 2009, 17:15

I bought (and sold) an MR2, which still had a tank of 91. Two tankfulls of 95 later and there was a difference. The engine seemed to run alot smoother, probrally due to the timing being closer to where its meant to be.

On my carb'd bike however... I still use 95, mainly because as its air/oil cooled the temps aren't reliable, and I'd rather avoid any knocking.
Its a common misconception that 95 octane will give more power or better economy then 91, unless you have an ECU that detects the amount of timing advance it can give.

I worked at a petrol station once, (recently) and had to check the levels in the underground tanks. Those tanks are filthy, there is alot of sediment and gunk in there. Never fill up if the truck has refuelled the station recently.

And as for the topic, I think more then what company you buy from, you should watch the cleanliness of the station. The old, dirty, poor back country station will go a looong time without cleaning their tanks.

awayatc

18th March 2009, 17:29

but also a loooong time between that station's refuels.....

sparky.scott

18th March 2009, 18:51

[QUOTE=meowmix;1986703]Its a common misconception that 95 octane will give more power or better economy then 91, unless you have an ECU that detects the amount of timing advance it can give.

[QUOTE]

Ok i work on cars and the likes everyday and i know this but recently ive changed to 95 from 91 on my bike and ive found that my fuel economy has improved by about 20kms per tank, the bikes revs seemed to have dropped by about 500rpm when sitting at 100kms and to top it off the bike seems to have more power too.

Not sure what to make of it seeing as my bike is carbd and fairly simple really.

Ocean1

18th March 2009, 19:29

the bikes revs seemed to have dropped by about 500rpm when sitting at 100kms and to top it off the bike seems to have more power too.

More power, possibly, but the only way the revs can change at any given speed is to change the gearing.

Bow-Down

3rd May 2009, 21:01

BP 98 - best you can buy

sunhuntin

4th May 2009, 08:41

ive been running v power for a couple of years now. ive found i get more ks to a tank than i did on 91. never forget the night we rode to bulls with grub, and i neglected to fill up. we were about half way between bulls and turakina when i had to flick to reserve... reserve is meant to give me another 20k, which i estimated would get me to turakina for gas. get there, and its shut [about 8pm] somehow, that small amount of gas got us all the way back to wangas. i think i figured i got an extra 10k on reserve, which wouldnt have happened on 91.

meow... i worked at bp for 3 years and never once did i hear about the underground tanks being cleaned. i did the dip levels as well on sundays and never noticed any undue dirt or other crap. i did catch a pump tester about to dump a jug of diesel into the 91 when they were calibrating, lol.

and yep, pak n save is bp gas. i only go there for the airpump now.

motorbyclist

4th May 2009, 10:12

search function, anyone?

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?p=1486804#post1486804

all my road bikes so far have had such an increase in mileage on 98 that it actually works out cheaper to run.

experiments with the yamaha yz400f and the yz426f both give markedly longer sparkplug life on 98. shell 91 was the worst.

the fxr150 seems to have more power on 98. my mate's 2L V6(?) mazda also seems to have more power on 98 (but the mileage doesn't quite pay for it)

vfr400 didn't seem to have a power increase, but the mileage increase was almost 20%, easily outweighing the 5% price premium

but of course, riding in cold conditions/at night also seems to give better performance. the yamaha yzf manual actually says you should change the fuel mix in cold conditions so it doesn't run too lean!

....

and if it's all a psychological thing? who cares? - you still get something for the extra dollar a tank

in short, get a finnicky motor and test it. shell gave me 3 hours of plug life among other problems. BP 98 gives over two years of flawless performance.

and about 50% of the time i fill at a mobil station I end up having to drain my carbs/tank of what appears to be more water than petrol, and it's hit a few of my mates too. since stopped filling there if ever given a choice.

sunhuntin

4th May 2009, 13:01

and about 50% of the time i fill at a mobil station I end up having to drain my carbs/tank of what appears to be more water than petrol, and it's hit a few of my mates too. since stopped filling there if ever given a choice.

ive never filled at my local mobil and never will, simply cos the owner is the biggest cunt under the sun. got no security cameras, so if the servo gets robbed, whoever is on staff has to fork out.

i must have used a mobil at some stage... cant really remember though, lol. certainly dont recall any major problems resulting... it would have been only one tankful while travelling.

motorbyclist

4th May 2009, 17:19

ive never filled at my local mobil and never will, simply cos the owner is the biggest cunt under the sun. got no security cameras, so if the servo gets robbed, whoever is on staff has to fork out.

i must have used a mobil at some stage... cant really remember though, lol. certainly dont recall any major problems resulting... it would have been only one tankful while travelling.

farking hell that's a bit rude! it's a wonder he can find employees with that attitude!

yeah the water problem is only an issue when it comes to starting the bike a few hours after filling up... oh and on the old man's old r6 he got about 1km (far enough for the mobil fuel to hit the injectors) before a serious misfire developed and he ended up riding home on whichever two of the four cylinders were still able to fire. pretty sure it was the fuel that caused it - the petrol smelt really off (like varnish, almost) and bike ran fine after draining and filling with fresh BP98 and cleaning what were by then very coked up sparkplugs. that really was the final staw for me (and him) buying mobil.

McDuck

4th May 2009, 17:22

Really? I thought it was only Gull that bring in their own gas.

They buy of Mobil....

Morepower

6th May 2009, 23:19

The TL seems to run fine on anything so I just bung in 91 . My car however is very fussy ( Big block Mopar ) it only likes BP98 , seems to be a much better brew for carburetors . The Gull 98 with 10% ethanol is shit.

scumdog

6th May 2009, 23:39

All I know is that I'd never use 91.....its shit. In anything. period. .

I use Shell V-power in my bike and car.

My boyfriend however, swears by BP Ultimate. We dont have anything to compare it to down here though as everything moves a bit slower down south and haven't got the Mobil 98 yet

If I remember correctly V-Power is only 93 octane.

But yes, Ultimate is good in high-compression engines, mine run way better on it.

driftn

7th May 2009, 08:23

I'm a firm believer in bp 98, Used to use V-power for the fly buys but then found it is no longer done off dollar value it is no 1 point per 20 liters :angry2:. After 2 tanks of ultimate in bothe car and bike I noticed a big difference. Much smoother at idle, revs nicer and is more responsive on the throttle. My 2 cents worth.

Maki

8th May 2009, 10:29

Filled up with Mobil 98 a while ago. The "Yamaha tick" got a lot worse but I didn't notice any other bad effects. Will avoid it in the future though. Seems like the consensus is that BP98 is best...

Flip

11th May 2009, 17:14

Mobil, BP and Shell and Caltex all share their terminal assets and own the NZ refinery, so the petrol is all the same. Gull import their own fuel. Caltex is not party to the Wiri and Christchurch pipeline agrement so have to truck fuel into these areas.
They do however add different additives when filling the delivery tankers which add some form of marketing point of diference. But the BP 98 is a unique to BP fuel.
The fuel we all buy has by law to comply with the NZ fuel regulations and the MOC-MOED kick @ss if the fuel is out of spec, and yes they do check.
I have never seen an underground service station tank being "cleaned". What is in the tank is what you get. If the station leaves the dip hatch open and rain water gets in you get wet fuel. I have seen a few being pumped out but never actually cleaned. This was usually because the tanker driver filled the petrol tank tith diesel or vice versa. The dispencers have strainers but not particle filters, the strainers are to protect the internal meter parts from nuts and bolts not your fuel injection system.
A few years ago I got a slug of water in the fuel from a Mobil Levin, I have some industry experience but even so was fobbed off until I threatened dobbing them in to the MOED. They paid for my fuel system on my bike to be drained and cleaned.
If you are having a problem with the fuel, call the company you got it from, take and keep a sample (one litre) and raise hell, you will usually find the fuel is a shandy or is wet.
Oh I like the BP 98 as well.

YellowDog

11th May 2009, 17:47

Good thread guys. I had tried 98 and found that I got more journeys to work out of it, but didn't really test it properly.

91 has been fine for me however I will give the higher octane another go.

R1madness

14th May 2009, 21:36

actually not all fuels are created equal. There is major differences in the blends and additives each company specifies. The trick is to find a gas your bike likes and try to stick to that brand as much as possable. We always ask what brand of gas do you use when doing tuning work and use the gas from your tank into a dummy tank for running the bikes while being serviced. Try changing from Shell to BP or visaversa and you will see what i mean...

huff3r

23rd September 2009, 11:08

Sorry for bringing up an old thread...

Just a few things to point out:

Challenge, because it is owned by Chevron, is simply Caltex fuel without their "Techron" additive.

Also, Caltex puts far more of their "Techron" additive into their fuel than any of the other companies. Not because they need to, but because they can, and that way they end up with a high quality fuel. If only they had 98 :(

motorbyclist

23rd September 2009, 12:24

Also, Caltex puts far more of their "Techron" additive into their fuel than any of the other companies. Not because they need to, but because they can, and that way they end up with a high quality fuel. If only they had 98 :(

so, does anyone even know what "Techron" is yet, and how this makes their fuel of a higher "quality" (whatever than means)?

no doubt it makes an improvement, of course, but they all put additives in, in varying amounts, so what you're saying is pretty meaningless really....

and do you get knocking on their premium fuel? if not, 98 is of no real benefit to you.

I just find what does/doesn't work, check the money per mileage figures, and stick with the the top two or three as location dictates

(and lol, no large company does stuff "because they can" without looking at the bottom line - if they find a good fuel is good for business they will sell it)

vifferman

23rd September 2009, 12:46

In Mrka, "Techron" is sold as a fuel additive, to clean your fuel system and give moar pwer!

You coulda found this out yourself, by typing "what is techron (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Techron)" into Google.

PirateJafa

23rd September 2009, 12:49

Also, Caltex puts far more of their "Techron" additive into their fuel than any of the other companies. Not because they need to, but because they can, and that way they end up with a high quality fuel. If only they had 98 :(

Bet you a dollar that it's cheaper than petrol - they're just crowing because they're able to sell you watered-down (well, "techron'd-down") petrol in such a way that you actually WANT to buy it.

huff3r

23rd September 2009, 13:00

Ummm... actually it improves fuel quality significantly. My dad has all the data, but of course he cant release any of that because of corporate sensitivity etc, but yeah... Techron definitely makes you're engine run considerably better.

imdying

23rd September 2009, 13:32

Oh well, if your Dad says so, then it simply must be true... if even if you can't provide even the slimmest of facts :rolleyes:

YellowDog

23rd September 2009, 13:34

vifferman

23rd September 2009, 13:42

Bet you a dollar that it's cheaper than petrol - they're just crowing because they're able to sell you watered-down (well, "techron'd-down") petrol in such a way that you actually WANT to buy it.
In a sense, that's true. :yes:
The additives they add to petrol to "improve it" are by and large by-products of the refining process. Petrol is a mixture of low boiling point volatiles such as heptanes, and the additives they put in to "clean the fuel system" and increase the octane rating are generally things such as toluene and xylene that are good at dissolving the tar deposits and varnish that can accumulate inside your engine. Conveniently for the fuel companies, many of these substances are things that have a limited market compared to petrol (making their price fairly low on the market), so they need to find an alternative use for them. Xylene and toluene, f'rinstance, are used as paintbrush cleaner, and also used as part of paint and plastics manufacture.

You could say in a way that they're using petrol as a convenient outlet for disposing of some of their industrial waste. In doing so, it means they don't have to spend as much money refining the petrol in the first place, which ironically means that the petrol itself is responsible for the very deposits their additives are put in to remove. Kind of a circular argument...
Nett result is an increase in their profits, and in some ways a fuel that's more toxic and less clean than the nasty old leaded perol they used to produce.

vifferman

23rd September 2009, 13:44

I understand that a barrel of oil is about 92 litres (give or take) and costs around NZ$120 ish depending upon the day of the week time of the month.

Can anyone tell me how many litres of 95 grade fuel can be produced from a litre from such a barrel?

I am just curious to know if the ratio is more or less than 50/50.
No, but I can tell you that basically all they do to make 95 is take 91 and add extra crap to it. I seriously doubt it costs any more to make.

Edit: Scrub that - I googled it (http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/eng99/eng99288.htm) (it was SO hard, and took all of 5 seconds). One 42 gallon barrel makes 19.5 gallons of gas. If you click my link, note that US octane ratings are different: their 87 is the same as our 91(RON).

motorbyclist

23rd September 2009, 15:41

note that US octane ratings are different: their 87 is the same as our 91(RON).

don't you mean to say our "91" is actually closer to 87(RON) (by the time we get it from the pump)?

In Mrka, "Techron" is sold as a fuel additive, to clean your fuel system and give moar pwer!

You coulda found this out yourself, by typing "what is techron (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Techron)" into Google.

...consisting of a family of compounds known as polyether amines.[1] Techron reduces accumulation of deposits in fuel injectors and on intake valves, and minimizes build-up of deposits in the combustion chamber.[2] With the introduction of Techron, Chevron gasolines became designated as meeting TOP TIER standards for fuel cleanliness.

right, so it doesn't actually clean my engine so much as slow the rate at which it is ruined by their fuel?

lol

Ocean1

23rd September 2009, 16:39

One 42 gallon barrel makes 19.5 gallons of gas.

Depends on the refinery. Some are optomised to produce light end stuff, (petrol) and some aim for mid-range products like Deisel and heavy fuel oil.

I believe Marsden Pt was originally designed to maximise Deisel output, that being driven by market prices at the time. Needless to say the market changed significantly once production started.

pete376403

23rd September 2009, 20:43

Also I believe marsden point is designed to be best with cheap (shitty) high sulphur oil as a feedstock, so the really nice oil they are pulling out of the ground around taranaki gets sold overseas at a premium price.

StoneY

23rd September 2009, 20:53

Ran on some 97.5 that was so called 50/50 bio fuel petrol mixture and seemed to gain some milage from that fill up - recall i seemed to get 30k's further on that tank than usual
Some place in Masterton- forget the brand

Or was it a tailwind that day? :confused:

KrazyGixxerBoy

23rd September 2009, 21:27

I always use BP Ultimate...higher octane, better performance, more km's, etc. 91 is utter crap!

Gremlin

23rd September 2009, 21:52

Two most important factors are the compression of the motor, and now, bio fuel compatibility. Higher compression motors needed the higher octane rating (ie, sportsbikes need 95+, while say, a hornet 900 will be fine on 91).

Euro bikes tend to need higher octanes (even 97.5+) as their fuel is a higher quality, so the bikes are designed with it more in mind...

With bio-fuel, some bike's fuel lines are not designed with it in mind, and can ruin the lines etc, so don't use it unless you know the bike is compatible with it.

Other than that, plenty of threads have been done. I find my bikes normally have a preference of sorts, getting better mileage on some brands than others...

cruza

24th September 2009, 16:14

actually not all fuels are created equal. There is major differences in the blends and additives each company specifies. The trick is to find a gas your bike likes and try to stick to that brand as much as possable. We always ask what brand of gas do you use . Try changing from Shell to BP or visaversa and you will see what i mean...

Ya Reckon, Apart from bp 98 , you wouldn't know where your 91 or 95 or diesel came from , weather it was a import ,nz refined , it may have been loaded from another company's depo in another city and trucked 400km.