TESCOS 99 WINS FUEL SHOOTOUT

[mr-spider]

TESCOS 99 WINS FUEL SHOOTOUT goto pistionheads home page
intresting reading

[Quigonjay]

for the lazy ones

http://www.pistonheads.com

[Quigonjay]

btw, they where using optimax, not v power

[BenF]

Yep, been following that. Not 100% convinced by the testing that they've done - eg they didn't relaise Rev3 NAs can't adjust their timing as they don't have knock sensors

Been doing some subjective testing, back to back with Shell V-Power and Tesco 99 RON. Just done a couple of tanks of V-Power, Just doing some Tescos 99 RON fuel to see how the Roadster likes them ..

[Gordy]

Yep, been following that. Not 100% convinced by the testing that they've done - eg they didn't relaise Rev3 NAs can't adjust their timing as they don't have knock sensors

You missed the point. The lack of knock sensor on the Toyota engine is irrelevant. It simply represents an older vehicle with an engine that was as good as it got at the time. It was not a test of Toyota engine design verses BMW engine design. Their testing was rational, objective and repeatable.

Thanks for the pointer mr-spider. Very interesting.

[revturbo]

errrrm where am i supposed to look?

anyone have a direct link?

[Gordy]

here you go

http://www.pistonheads.com/news/default ... ryId=14919

[vipernet55]

Interesting result but their methods are severly flawed.

Yes they used scientific methods and principles, but the test wasn't scientific in the slightest.

[Gordy]

Interesting result but their methods are severly flawed.

Yes they used scientific methods and principles, but the test wasn't scientific in the slightest.

Please expain in detail how, in your opinion, they should have tested the fuels to establish which fuel is superior in real-world "engine in vehicle under load" conditions?

I look forward to being educated by you.

[L0rdMike]

Ive tried Tesco 99 a few times and just doesnt feel as good as bp and V Power.

[afennell]

Interesting,
there was an article in jp about this a good few months ago.
Shell optimax won hands down.

If i remember correctly they tested a cossie lump, kept advancing the timing until the engine started pinking.
They measured the standard hp and then the total power out put after advancing the timing.

It would be great if someone could fish out this article.

I’m not saying either way is right or wrong. I don’t know enough to be able to compare.

[vipernet55]

Please expain in detail how, in your opinion, they should have tested the fuels to establish which fuel is superior in real-world "engine in vehicle under load" conditions?

I look forward to being educated by you.

Dude, you forgot the roll eyes at the end of your post

Apologies as I was a little drunk last night but my point is still valid. Their theory is sound but there are way too many variables that haven't been accounted for, or any reasoning given behind some of their choices. If that report was submitted to a journal it would get rejected at the first hurdle. Perhaps the article we read was just a watered down version of the real thing but as it stands from what I read it's not convincing in the slightest. No data is given to back up their assumptions and random statements such as "Four one metre radial fans generate a combined airflow of over 120,000cfm" - That explains what exactly? No quotes as to how much air flow a car actually needs or how the air flow was actually measured. There are no references or exact measurements mentioned, just a few graphs taken from them machine. They go on to explain how the rolling road is "Ego Busting" and yet provide no scientific evidence as to why that is. Plus the fact that half the information is in the wrong place for a proper scientific report. In a proper scientific report you should describe your reasons and give evidence as to why you are using the equipment etc in the introduction not in the equipment section (in a real study the equipment/measures used should actually be in the methods section).
I could go on but it gets kinda nasty and it would take me a while.
The study has been very cleverly devised and written with the intention of looking and sounding legit so as to appeal to car enthusiasts. I'm not saying their results aren't correct, they may very well be, but imho I would take the results with a pinch of salt.

[Gordy]

I don't necessarily agree with all you write, but agree with some points, and am not minded to argue. I do feel however that the pistonheads reporting was probably journalistic rather than scientific. On reflection I feel that the only way to prove it conclusively would be on an engine dyno under controlled lab conditions. I guess that they were doing the best they could with the equipment they have, and as such I think that it is one of the better tests that I have seen over the years. If not 100% scientific it is at least a good pointer.

My almost standard rev3 feels better on Optimax / V-power, even when not being pushed hard.

It would be interesting to see the article that affenell referes to.

BTW, when I said 'educate me', I was not taking the pi$$; it's just my sometimes brash phraseology.

Cheers for now,
G.

[Andy.B]

Yeh i have the artical in Performance Ford, they did it a while ago and tested Optimax, BP Ultimate and Tesco 99 RON. Also a while later they tested the BP 102 RON and that stuff won hands down.

Ill try and dig out the mags and get them scaned in for you.

[Rogue]

Call me cynical, but all I saw was an advert for Thorney Motorsport.

[Gordy]

Call me cynical, but all I saw was an advert for Thorney Motorsport.

I don't think that there is anything cynical about your thoughts, just common sense realisation, as it is surely a big marketing exercise by them. But at least it's useful marketing. Good luck to them.

[afennell]

I will see if i can find my copy, i do remember the test were done with just the engine on a test bed, not in a car or on a rolling road.

I dont know if thats a good thing or not.

[ENSMR2]

A test not supported by shell for once

As a side note, my mate (mapper) said the other day to me and Bry that so far after initial testing Tesco's 99ron seems to have the edge over V-Power.

Testing is ongoing, and I don't have the details. But at least someone totally independant is doing it.

[Bry]

A test not supported by shell for once

As a side note, my mate (mapper) said the other day to me and Bry that so far after initial testing Tesco's 99ron seems to have the edge over V-Power.

Testing is ongoing, and I don't have the details. But at least someone totally independant is doing it.

Yeah,he was very impressed with the new shell v-power fuel wasn't he,but as you said he reckons the Tesco stuff is still the best

[CosmosblueMR2]

I get lower knock readings on Tesco 99Ron than i do with Shell V-Power.

(when ragging it)