View Full Version : Optimax results from Evo
This month's Evo magazine puts three cars through an Optimax test: New Honda Civic type R, Jaguar XJR-R, and a BMW M Coupe.
All three testers reported their cars felt more lively after a few tankfuls of optimax.
In two of the cases, fuel economy wasn't affected, however the M Coupe dropped from 23.9 to 23.2 mpg, but the tester feels he was possibly driving faster subconsciously.
The guys also did a pre- and post-optimax inspection on the valves in the cars. Optimax cleaned out a load of gunk on the civic's and jag's - the Beemer's were virtually fine to begin with.
Evo conclude: You get what you pay for. The higher price for the Optimax gives better results over normal unleaded. So there you go!
Jezz_S13
21-05-2002, 18:01
Has there been any independant research done in to what the long term effects of using Optimax are on valves, rings, turbos etc?
I remember seeing a while ago (before LRP was enforced) a picture on telly of a turbo (hot side) that had virtually been eroded away by LRP or some prototype derivative.
I quite like Optimax myself and won't stop using it even if it is slightly errosive as I'm far more likely to break all of these things myself many moons before the petrol will. But surely these cleaning agents must have some detrimental effect? Shouldn't they?
Are the exhaust gas temps raised by the additives, countering the cooling effects of having higher RON?
Jezz.
Originally posted by andyf
This month's Evo magazine puts three cars through an Optimax test: New Honda Civic type R, Jaguar XJR-R, and a BMW M Coupe.
All three testers reported their cars felt more lively after a few tankfuls of optimax.
In two of the cases, fuel economy wasn't affected, however the M Coupe dropped from 23.9 to 23.2 mpg, but the tester feels he was possibly driving faster subconsciously.
The guys also did a pre- and post-optimax inspection on the valves in the cars. Optimax cleaned out a load of gunk on the civic's and jag's - the Beemer's were virtually fine to begin with.
Evo conclude: You get what you pay for. The higher price for the Optimax gives better results over normal unleaded. So there you go!
Indeed. I have just read the article and as an optimax user I find it to give better throttle response and the car feels genuinely quicker but I agree with Jezz's point. Maybe its a case of "It can't be that good.....can it" but surely cheap tac petrol especially Tesco's (im sure its got water in it:D ) and the like is gonna be worse for the engine and show itself earlier than any problems with Optimax
A lesser of two evils perhaps?
I 'll still buy it
Jezz_S13
21-05-2002, 19:48
Originally posted by H
cheap tac petrol especially Tesco's
I agree entirely with the supermarket petrol sentiment.
It's pretty crap, dunno about water, but possibly not distilled quite so well. Dunno really, but I do know I don't go as far on it.
Since having the S13 I've only used Esso or now I use Optimax as it has arrive in Swansea (happened 3 weeks ago) finanlly.
Did they do any dyno runs before and after? Any scientific testing at all?
If a magazine is gonna give a product the thumbs up because it 'feels' better then I'd ask how many ads that product's manufacturer has just placed...
I would like to say I have an amount of faith for the EVO guys. However, in tying in with your comment, they did a series of acceleration runs before and after using timing gear to illustrate the cars are actually a touch quicker.
And they had a Shell technician on hand to point out the differences to the valves and bits after they pulled the engines apart. He stood there and went "look it's clean now!" or something.
But the timing results show minor improvements to standard (though high performance) cars performance.
i work for an independant motoring agency and we took an Exige, Porsche 911 (I think) and a big barge Chevy to various tracks and there was a difference between Optimax and Unleaded.
Even my lovely Starion notices it - and that's 16 years old!
Must say that I've been sceptical about Optimax in the past, but I definately noticed an improvement when I started using it in the 200. After a couple of enforced fill ups of ordinary unleaded on a trip to Wales it felt like it had lost its edge.
However, in the Volvo, which is also turbocharged (albeit only 170bhp) it doesn't seem to matter whether it runs on Optimax, Asda's finest or that muck they sell at the cheapo supermarkets in France (:D) it runs exactly the same.
Been running Optimax for about 3 months ago, and have to
say that the car seems to be getting better and better.
Noticed a small improvement immediately, but assume
that as the engine has become cleaner (in theory) it has
improved even more (its done 70000 miles).
Even if there is a slight erosive effect, surely thats better
than having an engine bunged up with carbon deposits
and other crap ????
geoff_s14
22-05-2002, 09:47
Originally posted by andyf
I would like to say I have an amount of faith for the EVO guys. However, in tying in with your comment, they did a series of acceleration runs before and after using timing gear to illustrate the cars are actually a touch quicker.
Were these tests performed-double blind, or did the testers know before hand what petrol they were using for each run?
The M3 is tuned and designed to run with 98+ octain fuel (and so are quite a few bimmers) There actual HP rating is based on 98+ octaine fuel, so no suprise there Evo is there!!!
Chris_Lacey
22-05-2002, 12:39
What surprises me is how unscientific the whole experiment was...
They should have dynoed the cars after 2 full fuelups. And also the blind test would have been a good idea too.
Unscientific?
Do several acceleration runs.
Run on optimax for multiple tankfuls / 1000's of miles
Do more acceleration runs.
Notice difference.
Seems fairly easy to get right?
Chris_Lacey
22-05-2002, 13:13
But there are too many variables Andy, they should have dynoed the cars at the same temperature etc, a head or tail wind, different wear on the tyres et can make a difference to the tested performance. Also as someone else pointed out, they seem to be going on "feel" which isn't that scientific.
Still, worth looking at the article though.
Having worked for a magazine which did very in-depth product tests (RiDE), I know how hard it is to do tests like that. As DL says, you have to be really scientific - drain tanks, dyno before and after, double blind, analyse the fuel for RON/MON at an independent lab, etc etc.
As a journalist, I also know how lazy journos are, and how much work a test like that is.
But I do also rate EVO as a magazine, and would probably give them the benefit of the doubt on this one as a 'lite' testing feature. If they did some timing, then that's something. Don't know about having the man from Shell there pointing out the benefits though.
Must go and buy a copy now.
Originally posted by Alan
Having worked for a magazine which did very in-depth product tests (RiDE), I know how hard it is to do tests like that. As DL says, you have to be really scientific - drain tanks, dyno before and after, double blind, analyse the fuel for RON/MON at an independent lab, etc etc.
As a journalist, I also know how lazy journos are, and how much work a test like that is.
But I do also rate EVO as a magazine, and would probably give them the benefit of the doubt on this one as a 'lite' testing feature. If they did some timing, then that's something. Don't know about having the man from Shell there pointing out the benefits though.
Must go and buy a copy now.
Where do you work Alan - and for who?
I work for SuperBike magazine now, based in Croydon. Used to work for RiDE, and MCN before that, for my sins.
geoff_s14
23-05-2002, 09:55
Originally posted by Alan
Having worked for a magazine which did very in-depth product tests (RiDE)
I applied for a job as product tester for RiDE a while back. They contacted me to say they were going to arrange an interview, but they I never heard from them again.
Originally posted by Alan
I work for SuperBike magazine now, based in Croydon. Used to work for RiDE, and MCN before that, for my sins.
Which group is that for?
geoff_s14
23-05-2002, 12:18
Originally posted by Starionman
Which group is that for?
Emap.
I would say that when the Evo guys, charging around in various powerful cars a lot of the time, say they can 'feel' a difference in three different cars, it's probably a good bet other motorists will be able to feel the difference too. The part about it removing crud off the valves seems nice, I suppose - 10 year old cars would probably benefit a bit from this.
Chris_Lacey
23-05-2002, 13:24
I hope so mate, I do 250 miles a week minimum, £40 of Optimax every 7 days, so it'd better be fecking doing something good :)
I am positive that it makes a substantial difference in any vehilce with a NOC sensor.
SuperBike is part of IPC Media, owned by AOL Time Warner. So I'm on the same payroll as Jennifer Aniston. Haha.
Sorry to hear about the RiDE product tester thing Geoff. It's no consolation, but if you had got the job, you would have had many many more disappointments from the management. I'm glad I don't work for Emap any more.
Andyf - the feel thing is a tricky one. I can feel the difference between power on motorbikes, but only to a certain level. I'm not sure I could feel any less than, say, a 5% power change, all other thinge being equal. And if Optimax is claiming a bigger power boost than that, I'd be surprised.
The knock sensor point is valid I suppose, but would depend on other things - how the ECU advances ignition timing, compression ratio, boost, etc etc
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.9 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.