Shell 'Optimax'

Posted by: J.N. on 13 October 2002

Is it worth it?

Anyone tried it?
Posted on: 24 October 2002 by John Sheridan
quote:
There is nothing better than overtaking a quick car on the outside of a roundabout when turning right!!


quote:
Who said anything about speeding?? I stick within the speed limits at all times. I just get there quicker!!



so in fact you're not overtaking 'quick' cars at all - after all, how can they be 'quick' if they're driving below the speed limit?
So what exactly was the point of your first post then? Hardly a great achievement.
Of course if you had any real talent you'd be able to outrun superior machinery on track wink
Posted on: 24 October 2002 by NB
NB goes back to smoking his pipe and sitting in his armchair with his favorite slippers on!!

big grin
Posted on: 24 October 2002 by John Sheridan
quote:
NB goes back to smoking his pipe and sitting in his armchair with his favorite slippers on!!

don't you know that smoking will kill you! big grin

btw jokes aside, have you driven the supra on a track?
Posted on: 24 October 2002 by NB
Seriously now, yes I have driven my Supra on the track. One of the best experiences of my life.

I have spent four years on upgrading my Supra, not just the engine but the brakes and suspension and electronics as well.

I had some fun and overtook some very fast cars, got overtaken by some even quicker cars. In the back of my mind though was one slip and my car would be written of, so I could have gone a bit quicker.

One thing that really surprised me was I thought I was a decent driver but some of the more experienced drivers made me look slow.

NB
smile
Posted on: 24 October 2002 by John Sheridan
quote:
In the back of my mind though was one slip and my car would be written of, so I could have gone a bit quicker

Yep, funny how that works. Of course if you're driving someone elses car the thought never enters your mind smile

quote:
For 'Experienced' I think you can also substitute 'Crazy Motherfucker'.

have to disagree there. I'm was more relaxed being driven around a track by a professional driver than with the average muppet out on public roads. There's no craziness, they're just very smooth, precise and have excellent car control.
Posted on: 24 October 2002 by NB
I have to agree with you. I have had professional training for both speed and safety. The drivers who were overtaking me were just in a different league and could maintain a higher average track speed.

They were not "crazy motherfuckers" and their car control was just unbelievable.


Regards

NB
Posted on: 24 October 2002 by John Sheridan
quote:
I've seen a few 'hot' laps where the car and driver have been on the edge putting in a fast time only to have it all end in a crumpled mess next lap around.

at least they're smart enough to be doing that on the track rather than on public roads.
Posted on: 25 October 2002 by NB
This raises the question, do people watch motor sports for the racing or for the crashes?

Regards

NB roll eyes
Posted on: 25 October 2002 by Hammerhead
..then it's the first corner pile ups that are the highlight of the 'race'. The rest is boring. Touring car racing has the best of both worlds - racing and crashing/bumping. Marvelous!

Steve
Posted on: 25 October 2002 by Tony Lockhart
Touring cars here in the UK are slow and boring. If you think F1 is processional......
The engines sound flat.
Tony
Posted on: 25 October 2002 by BigH47
Johan R I hope you don't have a Vodafone mobile?

Regards

Howard wink
Posted on: 25 October 2002 by Mark Dunn
...then try watching NASCAR. Billy-Joe Bob and his beer buddies driving an endless loop for 200 miles. The biggest giggle is when they do a pit stop and think that 1 minute is a really fast time for tires.

Best Regards,
Mark Dunn
Posted on: 26 October 2002 by NB
All that excitement in one minute, how do you handle it??

NB


wink
Posted on: 26 October 2002 by Craig B
NB,

I have it on good authority (Toyota engineering) that none of their transmissions will handle anything near 450bhp (or more correctly the likely torque levels associated with that hp level). According to them they are pushing the limits with certain of their unofficial industry hp race contenders.

As you didn't mention it, what has been done to yours to prevent it from poping its cogs.

Craig
Posted on: 27 October 2002 by Rana Ali
As an auto engineer working for UK's leading consultancy I think there are a few things people should know. I hope I'm not being patronising but people's safety could be a risk. I hope that fellow Naimee, BMW's Mr. O'Reilly, will chip in as well if he's looking in.
1. In the EU, you should only notice a benefit on higher RON fuels if your manufacturer has calibrated the engine knock control system to a higher RON. If it is calibrated to 95 RON only you will see no benefit, because calibrations are conducted with reference grade fuel (i.e. where 95=95) as opposed to pump fuel which varies from station-station and winter-summer but is usually 95-97 RON. HOWEVER, some manfacturers (& I started this trend in a previous company I worked for) calibrate to 98 RON and let the knock control system correct the engine torque to avoid sustained knock, but tell the owners to use "95 RON minimum". In this case you should notice a difference in performance using 97+ fuels. If you have a recent model and are interested, check your handbook for recommended RON fuels or email me at rali@ricardo.NOSPAM.com and I will try and find out for you. For the previous Mini-owning respondant, I think the new Mini Cooper S was calibrated at 98 RON and standard Cooper was 95 RON, but I have to check (the final calibration was done in my company).
2. Having said that, day-day variations in atomospheric temperature, pressure and humidity will have an equivalent effect in changes in engine output in most gasoline non-boosted cars. Cool ambient temperatures, high barometric pressures and damp conditions will "increase" the output of your engines noticeably.
3. Giving you engine a regular thrashing, after the engine is warmed up, will do more wonders for cleaning your valves than Shell Optimax! Sceptical as I am of such fuels (I'm with Dev on this one), using the best quality lubrication (of appropriate grade) is definitely recommended if you are like spirited driving and want a powertrain that lasts. Modern engines will generally benefit from fully-synthetic oils.
4. I suspect that items 2 & 3 probably accounted for the respondants who said Shell Optimax made a big difference, especially the respondant who he took his Alfa to Scotland. But I may be wrong, because I wasn't there.
5. MBTE is foul stuff. The USA are on the right track and the EU generally follows legislative developments the USA with respect to gasoline vehicles. Why do you think that forecourt attendants are largely a thing of the past? It's not just efficiency...it's also having an eye towards health of employees and (cynically) potential future litigation.
6. Mr. Best is right. But the ramifications are more serious. If you insist in "upgrading" your engine management systems to boost your performance, PLEASE remember that manufacturers are now running their engines to the limit anyway with respect key pressure, vibrationally & thermally loaded components (valves, pistons, con-rods, bearings, crankshafts, gaskets, pipework & ancilliaries etc.) so don't go chipping your car and expect it to be durable - especially if it's a newish one. Older engines were quite possibly "over-engineered" with respect to pressure loaded components. This also goes equally IF NOT MORE for the transmission & drivetrain for any vintage vehicle. If your transmissions & driveshafts are rated and tested to a certain performance level (as is economically necessary), don't go expecting them to last if your torque output is increased. Factors of safety in engine components are usually 1.2 to about 1.7+ depending upon the component and manufacturer. But manufacturers may make components run closer to the bone on cars where the chances of using the max limits (of unchipped engines) are rare. I've seen too many bent con-rods, destroyed piston, detached valve heads, and fires due oil/fuel pipe failures from ALL grades of manufacturers to sit quietly by.

Cheers

Rana

[This message was edited by Rana Ali on SUNDAY 27 October 2002 at 10:15.]
Posted on: 27 October 2002 by Mike Harris
I believe that Toyota UK know very little about the Supra Turbo. The only dealers that will service it will also be Lexus dealers. They were the only outlets allowed to sell it.

Getting a reliable 450bhp out the three litre twin turbo engine is trivial. You just need to raise the boost pressure from the standard .8 bar to ~1.3 bar. (Although you should do something about keeping exhaust gas temperatures at a sensible level. Front mounted intercooler and/or water injection are the obvious solutions.)

There are several ways of getting this sort of power, cheaply by removing the cats in the stock exhaust system, more expensively by using electronic controls. Of course the fuelling has to be corrected when doing this, because the standard ECU and fuel system can really only handle upto 1 bar.

Regarding the gearbox being able to handle this sort of abuse. The supra has either a six speed getrag, or a four speed auto. The German getrag box is known for its strength, and the auto is electronically protected. Temperature, pressure etc are monitored by an ECU and if anything should go outside limits, the ECU will reduce the power output of the engine accordingly. It’s also got a water/oil intercooler, for the gearbox, fitted as standard.

I’ve heard the supra really is quite a beast. I recon the chap at Toyota engineering that Craig was talking to was referring to the current range of cars. I wouldn’t expect a Corrolo or Yaris gearbox to handle that sort of power smile

If for instance the ECU had been replaced by an aftermarket unit (probably Japanese, as that’s where most of them come from) then you may well see a significant power increase when using Optimax. The ECU would have to be reset so it could ‘relearn’ the knock threshold etc. As it is most standard spec Supra owners see some increase when using it.

I do agree with more modern engines being run close to the limits, but he JZA80 Supra engine appears to be seriously over engineered, and can reliably handle these sort of upgrades.

Hope this helps

Mike.
Posted on: 28 October 2002 by NB
I am still using the standard gearbox, however I have upgraded the clutch to
a dual friction model that will handle 600 bhp.

I use a company called Torque Developments in Essex and thear MD Mark
Catchpole is the country's leading expert on Toyota Supra's. I have used his
expertese in every stage of the development on my Supra and he assures me
that my gearbox will handle the additional horsepower.

However due to the age of the car and development in gearbox technology the
gearbox is the next modification I will make. Yet at ten thousand for a new
gearbox I have to decide whether it is worth it. For that kind of money I
could purchase a new 300 and SL2's for my system.

The biggest problem with the Supra is the reliability of the standard head
gasket. It is easy for the head gasket to fail on the standard 230 bhp
Supra. I have had mine fail at a steady seventy on the M1 returning from
Sheffield before I started to modify my car. This resulted in a steel
headgasket with an enlarged cylinder head, larger air intake and larger
exhaust with new camshafts. Not only did this lead to an increase of
approximately 50-70 bhp but it improved the reliability of the engine and
started me of on the modification route.

I have not just increased the engines bhp, I have improved the brakes,
handling and transmission. I have also increased the reliability and safety
of the car. I now have a very powerful car that is very reliable, very safe
and great fun to drive.

Regards

NB
Posted on: 28 October 2002 by Dev B
quote:
Originally posted by Rana Ali:

3. Giving you engine a regular thrashing, after the engine is warmed up, will do more wonders for cleaning your valves than Shell Optimax! Sceptical as I am of such fuels (I'm with Dev on this one), using the best quality lubrication (of appropriate grade) is definitely recommended if you are like spirited driving and want a powertrain that lasts. Modern engines will generally benefit from fully-synthetic oils.
4. I suspect that items 2 & 3 probably accounted for the respondants who said Shell Optimax made a big difference, especially the respondant who he took his Alfa to Scotland. But I may be wrong, because I wasn't there.


smile
Posted on: 28 October 2002 by Brian OReilly
Hello Petrolheads, hello Rana,

yeah, I've been following the thread with curiosity. I would broadly agree with Rana and re-state what several people have already said regarding engine tune. If the engine is not mapped to utilize higher octane fuel then there will simply not be any gains from using that fuel.

Euro spec engines will generally be mapped using reference grade 95RON ULG, but if fitted with a knock sensor (or sensors) they can be tuned to run up to the Detonation Borderline,(or DBL ha ha) taking advantage of the additional knock protection of higher octane fuel.

The performance improvements from using 97 or 98RON would be very vehicle specific - for example I think that the early Rover K16 was not limited by detonation above 4000RPM so would show no increase in power when using anything above 95RON. Not sure about that though.

I am not quite as cynical towards Optimax as some however. If you can detect a difference between 95 RON and 97 RON then you could probably detect a difference between 97 and 98RON. Difficult to carry out an objective test in your own cars though.

Regarding the engine cleaning properties of Optimax ? Well yeah, why not ?. I'll take it at face value, but I'd ask if the detergent additive is so good then why isn't it used in all Shell branded fuel ?. Again results very specific to different engines/combustion chambers I would guess.

Overall then, a nice attempt to sew up the high octane market, possibly with benefits to the consumer ?

Aftermarket engine tuning ?. Think you can do better than us, huh ? Well do ya punk, huh ?

Well good luck, buy a fire extinguisher and a tow rope.

Regards,

Brian OReilly
Posted on: 28 October 2002 by Craig B
JN,

Well it does sound as thought you have dotted your I's and crossed your T's wrt tuning your car.

The only reason that I asked was that my query to my Toyota insider was brought upon by an experience that my wife and I had one day a few years back.

I was driving my wife to work one morning when a hopped up Honda decided to shed its transaxle all over the road in front of us. I had to do some pretty creative manoeuvring to avoid ripping my oil pan off.

The young driver was luckily none the worse for wear, but his car wasn't quite so fortunate as its front right wheel decided that it really wanted to go its own way (another strike against front wheel drive?).

The poor little bugger had a horribly sad look on his face as I helped him pick up his car parts off of the roadway. I gave him my condolences, reminded him that he was lucky to be alive and offered to drive him to his destination. He was grateful but declined, deciding instead to stay with the deceased.

For me the moral of the story is that unless one is prepared to cover all of the bases it is best to leave the 'engineering' up to the manufacturer.

YMMV (whoops),

Craig

PS. I use Optimax Gold in both our cars (VW turbos) as the manufacturer specifies 91 R+M/2. Many vendors round these parts offer 92 to 94 though I can't say that I've noticed any difference between Optimax and the other vendors closest equivalents. BTW, our valves and injectors never get a chance to get dirty big grin
Posted on: 26 September 2003 by Dave J
Dev,

If you by any chance pick up on this do you know anything about high octane BP Ultimate that is rumoured to be launched in the UK in October?

Cheers

Dave
Posted on: 26 September 2003 by HTK
Sorry to be boring and drag this back on topic... I used Optimax from time to time in a 1.8 and the performance improved along with slightly better fuel consumption. This over 60,000 miles and all very subjective. In the last four motnths I've racked up 11,000 in a 2.8 and the car does feel a bit sluggish unless it's Optimaxed. Fuel consumption is around 3% better - less noticable than on the previous car. No, I don't have a degree in fuel technology and I can't say that isn't all in my head. I don't know where the Shell garages I use get their juice from and what's added or not added. All I know is how my car feels. So I'll always go for Optimax when I can and if that's contary to other peoples knowledge or experience then fair enough. Each to their own.

As for the merits of graduating from the Ayrton Senna school of motoring (fast, incisive and dead), the power of marketing over engineering and how to trash your car on a track, I'll leave that discussion to those with more knowledge of "real driving".

Oh, and BMW ROCKS! There. Now I've said something decisive and expect to shot down accordingly.

Cheers

Harry
Posted on: 03 October 2003 by iiyama
Having used Optimax for sometime in my Corrado VR6, i can say that it has made a difference, it responds better and it is smoother.
I don't know why! but it is, and in my opinion if you own a high performance car it is worth the extra cost.
Posted on: 09 October 2003 by HTK
Since my last post I've been Optimaxed for about 5000 miles. A defenite improvement in fuel consumption over that time although I'm unconvinced about smoothness and pick up. Yes it's good, but how relatively good it is I couldn't say. I'm now using the stuff in preference to anything else without even thinking about it, so my brain appears to have made the decision.
Posted on: 09 October 2003 by Tony Lockhart
Dave,
It seems that BP Ultimate is only 97 octane, but has similar cleaning properties to Optimax. Therefore, it should be cheaper than Shell's offering.
Tony