Copyright MRT Performance 2005 1st August 2005 This document can not be reproduced without the written permission of MRT Performance.
Page 1/36
Fuel Comparison
Technical Report On Power Generating Capabilities of Common Fuels
Prepared for:
MRT Performance P/L
Prepared By:
University of Sydney Formula SAE-A
John Busuttil, Andrew Adorini, Alexander Sommer, Roland Stokes
1st June 2005
Copyright MRT Performance 2005 1st August 2005 This document can not be reproduced without the written permission of MRT Performance.
Page 2/36
With so many fuel companies promoting their product as the best,
particularly in the premium fuel market, an unbiased, standardized test on
popular fuels was needed.
It would be of interest to know which company’s fuel provided the most
power, what the fuel consumption is and its cost.
Abstract
Copyright MRT Performance 2005 1st August 2005 This document can not be reproduced without the written permission of MRT Performance.
Page 3/36
1. Background
1. MRT Performance
2. University of Sydney
3. USYD FSAE
2. Aim
3. Objective
4. Introduction
5. Apparatus
1. Fuels
2. Car
3. Dyno
6. Method
7. Result
1. 95 RON Fuels
2. 98 RON Fuels
3. Specialist Fuels
4. Best In Class Comparison
8. Discussion
1. 95 RON Fuels
2. 98 RON Fuels
3. Specialist Fuels
4. Overall Comparison
5. Economy
9. Conclusion
10. References
11. Appendix
Table of Contents
Copyright MRT Performance 2005 1st August 2005 This document can not be reproduced without the written permission of MRT Performance.
Page 4/36
1.1 MRT Performance MRT Performance specialises in the performance and
racing sector of the automotive industry. It has built a strong
reputation as Australia’s leading Subaru tuning company,
offering excellent advice and proven performance.
The team’s racing success (a division of MRT Performance) began in 1988 by
winning the NSW State Rally Sprint Championship. From there MRT won the Canberra
International Rally 1300cc Class for Daihatsu, four years in a row. MRT also had great
success in 0-2000cc Group A rallying. In 2000, MRT entered an ex-Cody Crocker WRX
in the Group A ARC category. The learning curve was very steep and hence the
experience has flowed on. By 2003 and 2004, the car had become very successful,
leading to class and outright wins in the tarmac events.
MRT are constantly building on their experience, producing proven performance
upgrade kits like the P-25 Subaru STi, as well as constantly testing, developing and
marketing new products and custom parts, or conducting tuning clinics for customers
interstate and overseas.
They have recently moved into a larger facility in Rhodes (Sydney) allowing them
to move rapidly into the Ford and Mitsubishi market.
MRT Performance has recently heavily invested in a new, state-of-the-art chassis
dynamometer tuning cell. This high-tech investment comes in the form of a Dynapack
chassis dyno, sound proof room with huge airflow capacity. It is more compact, quieter
and most importantly, the most accurate dyno cell in Australia.
MRT are also Australian/New Zealand distributors of EcuTeK tuning software.
This allows vehicle mechanics to directly access, reflash and totally retune factory
ECU’s.
1. Background
Copyright MRT Performance 2005 1st August 2005 This document can not be reproduced without the written permission of MRT Performance.
Page 5/36
1.2 The University of Sydney
The University of Sydney, founded in 1850, is Australia's first university.
Over the past 150 years, the University has built an international reputation for
its outstanding teaching and as a centre of research excellence.
As one of Australia's leading universities, the University of Sydney is a key
member of the Group of Eight of Australia's major research intensive universities
and the Association of Pacific Rim Universities (APRU).
1.3 USYD FSAE
The Formula SAE-Australasia competition began in Australia in 2000. The
University of Sydney (USYD) Formula SAE team has competed in the
competition since 2001 with largely successful results and a podium finish in
2002.
The USYD F-SAE team is made up entirely of undergraduate students,
studying Mechanical and Mechatronic engineering. The team is based in the
School of Aerospace, Mechanical and Mechatronic engineering faculty. The car
is designed and manufactured by the students, with most of the manufacturing
done in-house.
Copyright MRT Performance 2005 1st August 2005 This document can not be reproduced without the written permission of MRT Performance.
Page 6/36
To determine and compare the power generating capabilities of common
pump fuels and readily available specialist fuels through experimentation.
To draw a conclusion and make recommendations as to which fuels are
the best as outlined in the objectives.
2. Aim
Copyright MRT Performance 2005 1st August 2005 This document can not be reproduced without the written permission of MRT Performance.
Page 7/36
There are three objectives of this report; to determine the following:
1. Are all fuels the same?
2. Which fuel is the best from a performance (Power and Torque) point
of view?
3. Which fuel is the best in terms of horsepower versus dollar value?
3. Objective
Copyright MRT Performance 2005 1st August 2005 This document can not be reproduced without the written permission of MRT Performance.
Page 8/36
How Fuel affects power
Fuel effects power in two ways. One condition is that there is an optimum
air to fuel ratio, which varies with the type of fuel and its density. The other
condition is the fuels’ propensity to combust. The first condition affects power by
the air/fuel mixture being either richer or leaner than this value, thus decreasing
power.
The second condition is important to this experiment. Fuels are rated by
their octane level, the higher the rating the lower the propensity to combust.
Having a low propensity to combust is beneficial when the motor’s power
producing efficiency is related to angle before top dead centre (TDC) where the
spark induces ignition. Having a high propensity to combust can lead to pre-
ignition of the fuel (due to rapidly increasing pressure in the cylinder…) that can
have a negative effect on power production and a potentially detrimental effect
on the motor itself. The higher octane rating of the fuel will allow the ignition
timing to be advanced, hence more power produced.
Refer to “discussion” for more details
How fuel affects Economy Generally along with having a lower propensity to combust, higher octane
fuels are more dense. This means that when you fill up, you will get more fuel in
terms of mass but this is offset by the increased price over regular unleaded
fuel. Under normal engine tune conditions, the denser fuel will create a richer
air-fuel mixture that will affect engine performance. The denser fuel will also be
able to hold more heat, thus reducing the possibility of heat induced pre-ignition.
Refer to “discussion” for more details
.
4. Introduction
Copyright MRT Performance 2005 1st August 2005 This document can not be reproduced without the written permission of MRT Performance.
Page 9/36
5.1 Fuels The fuels used for the comparison fall into one of three categories
• 98 RON fuels,
• 95 RON fuels
• Specialist fuels.
The 98RON fuels consist of:
• Caltex Vortex 98,
• Mobil Synergy,
• BP Ultimate,
• Shell Optimax
• Park Petroleum 98 (10% ethanol).
The 95RON fuels consist of:
• Caltex Vortex
• Park Petroleum 95 (10% ethanol).
The specialist-fuel group is:
• ET Racing 102,
• Sunoco GT 100,
• Sunoco Sun Euro
• Martini Racing Motorsport 102 ULP,
• Elf Turbo Max,
• Elf Turbo Plus,
• Elf LMS.
5. Apparatus
Copyright MRT Performance 2005 1st August 2005 This document can not be reproduced without the written permission of MRT Performance.
Page 10/36
The premium and ethanol pump fuel samples were gathered from high
volume petrol stations local to MRT Performance on the same day, 29/3/2005.
The specialist fuels were bought from regular suppliers. These were delivered in
sealed containers and not known by the companies of the intended use
(Note freight may be extra or by larger drum may be cheaper)
All prices include GST
Pump fuels Delivered at bowser
• Caltex Vortex 98 $1.18 / litre
• Caltex Vortex 95 $1.19 / litre
• Park Petroleum 98 Ethanol $1.17 / litre
• Park Petroleum 95 Ethanol $1.12 / litre
• Mobil Synergy 8000 $1.17 / litre
• BP Ultimate $1.125 / litre
• Shell Optimax $1.17 / litre
Specialist fuels For pricing refer Appendices
• Elf Turbo Max
• Elf Turbo Plus
• Elf LMS
• ET racing
• Sunoco Sun Euro
• Sunoco GT
• Martini Racing 102 ULP,
Caltex Vortex 98 was used as the control fuel. As the test was carried out,
the control fuel was used to ensure changes in the environment did not affect
the fuel performance and to set base graphs.
Copyright MRT Performance 2005 1st August 2005 This document can not be reproduced without the written permission of MRT Performance.
Page 11/36
5.2 Test Vehicle
The test vehicle consists of a MY05
Subaru Impreza WRX STi with the following
modifications:
• MRT Performance three-inch
diameter stainless steel mandrel bend
exhaust from turbo with high flow cat and
rear muffler.
• External (control) fuel tank,
• Standard Subaru sender
• MRT spec 500 HP fuel pump
• Standard Filter basket,
• EcuTeK type 2 tune.
These modifications (typical to this model car) are
a common choice as a “first step upgrade” and also
enable clearer results to be obtained from the
experiment.
The STi’s feature of interest is the engine control unit’s (ECU) capability of
optimising ignition timing. This is termed Active Ignition Timing (AIT) by Subaru.
Varying fuel grades will affect the point where pre-ignition will occur, thus
requiring adjustment to ignition timing. AIT, using knock sensors, enables the
ECU to learn the grade of the fuel and tune the engine’s ignition timing,
maximising power output and avoiding pre-ignition.
Copyright MRT Performance 2005 1st August 2005 This document can not be reproduced without the written permission of MRT Performance.
Page 12/36
The larger
diameter exhaust
increases the
performance
potential of the car
in terms of power
obtained at the
wheels measured
by a chassis
Dynamometer. This means the power gain through optimizing ignition timing will
be magnified and more easily identifiable.
The external fuel tank is a custom unit with the above-mentioned 500
horsepower fuel pump. The stock Sti fuel
pump has staged pressure regulation (via
voltage controlled via the ECU) to meet
pollution emission regulations. The pump
used in this external tank runs at the
same pressure and flow as in the stock
fuel system configuration. The fuel hose
supply and return was the same diameter as standard, however shorter.
The Subaru Impreza STi’s ECU requires voltage-use information so the
external fuel pump was wired directly to the vehicle’s wiring system, thus any
voltage fluctuation due to the fuel pump being active is monitored.
A flow and pressure gauge was connected to the cars fuel system at all
times. This was used to monitor and ensure accuracy though out the test
Copyright MRT Performance 2005 1st August 2005 This document can not be reproduced without the written permission of MRT Performance.
Page 13/36
5.3 Dynamometer
The dynamometer used by MRT performance in the test was a Dynapack
Chassis Dyno manufactured in New Zealand.. It is a four-wheel drive hub
chassis type, meaning the wheels are removed and the Dyno is bolted directly to
the drive shafts of the car. This design is favorable over the more common
“rolling-road” type because it is more accurate, measures Torque (Nm) and
Power (kW) and results are more repeatable.
Benefits of the hub chassis type:
No wheel spin,
Ability to repeat result, i.e. data collected is not
effected by tyre diameter, pressure, temperature, grip, or
ambient temperatures and barometric pressure (all are self adjusted or user
definable to SAE specifications),
Final drive ratio is irrelevant as the Dynamometer is
calibrated to Hub speed and engine rpm,
High speed, high accuracy Fuel mixture, (5 wire
lambda sensor used),
Ability to plot all data,
Infinite choice of data diagnosis for logging of power
runs.
Copyright MRT Performance 2005 1st August 2005 This document can not be reproduced without the written permission of MRT Performance.
Page 14/36
5.4 Dyno Cell
The MRT Dyno Cell is a dedicated environment, with the following features
and equipment:
• 40,000 CFM evacuation fan, that replaces the
complete air volume of the cell every approximately 4
seconds.
o This is primarily used to cool the vehicle.
o Provide reliable, constant (clean) intake air
• 5000 CFM remote fan for cooling the top
mount intercooler with a dedicated supply duct (brown)
• 500 CFM remote fan for evacuating exhaust
gas (via flexible duct and collector) when the main fan is
not operating
• Acoustically lower in ambient noise than local
(external) workshop ambient noise.
• Stand alone 5 wire fast acting (lambda) gauge, measured at tailpipe
• Remote video camera to monitor exhaust mixture.
6. Method
Copyright MRT Performance 2005 1st August 2005 This document can not be reproduced without the written permission of MRT Performance.
Page 15/36
6.0 Measurements
Procedure:
1. Allow vehicle to idle for five minutes with new test fuel in the
external tank,
2. When temperature and humidity are in correct range, commence
first power run,
3. Wait 30 seconds, commence second power run,
4. Wait 30 seconds, commence final power run,
5. Log data,
6. Every fourth fuel, perform 3 “power runs” on control fuel to check
calibration and consistency.
6.1 Fuel change
Procedure:
1. Switch external fuel pump,
2. Run vehicle until fuel lines are dry,
3. Drain external fuel tank,
4. Evacuate all lines of pressure and reassemble,
5. Blow-dry external fuel tank and rinse with control fuel,
6. Blow-dry again and remove any residue with lint-free rag,
7. Fill tank with new fuel.
8. Retune ECU for new fuel category, (if required).
NOTE: refer “ECU Tune”
Copyright MRT Performance 2005 1st August 2005 This document can not be reproduced without the written permission of MRT Performance.
Page 16/36
6.3 ECU tune
The STi ECU is run in closed loop with the adaptive ignition mode
activated. The fuel section within the ECU has separate maps (ie high det, low
det, etc). These control the base map. The parameter that is altered is the
shifting of the base ignition timing “map” from stock base map:
• Specialist fuels: + 8 degrees,
• 98 octane fuels: 0 degrees (standard),
• 95 octane fuels: - 5 degrees.
This is to allow the adaptive ignition window to remain constant. This is
effectively like the old days of “twisting the car’s distributor” a pre set amount.
It is important to note that at no time was any other change made to the
“tune” or “map” of the OEM ECU. The EcuTeK software interface was only used
to data log and monitor the ignition advance and retard.
Ignition advance and retard were electronically controlled independently
via the ECU and no human input was made to effect or change the resultant
settings (other than as mentioned above)
This is worthy of mention
as human intervention allows
“opinion” to effect results and in
this test every effort was made to
minimize this risk.
The results can be relied
on as they are effectively black
and white, directly linked to a computer’s (independent) control.
6.4 Adjusting the ECU
The Subaru ECU is very smart, however it has a factory MAP that is
designed to work in a “window”, with a separate conventional ignition base
timing map, this is designed around premium octane fuel, which is typically 98
RON.
When the car has a higher spec fuel added the ECU limits the opportunity
for the engine to take advantage of this, as the potential is possibly outside the
Copyright MRT Performance 2005 1st August 2005 This document can not be reproduced without the written permission of MRT Performance.
Page 17/36
“window”. Like wise when the car is filled with less quality low octane fuel, the
same applies.
To show the true potential of the 95 octane, and higher spec fuels this was
all that was changed to better show the possible results.
No other “opinion” or human involvement was changed in the ECU, that
could possibly affect the results
6.5 Testing the fuels for chemical content
Several major fuel suppliers were contacted and none were willing or had
the resources to test the main (98 Octane) fuel samples. Caltex however have
an “independent” on road test lab. This vehicle has all the equipment for quality
control testing of Caltex resellers. The van was present at MRT for 4 hours and
was supplied the 98 octane fuels to test them for validity and chemical content.
These tests were sampled in un-marked drums and passed the chemical
analysis by content when compared to a known (electronic) database.
Other (specialist) fuels were not tested.
Copyright MRT Performance 2005 1st August 2005 This document can not be reproduced without the written permission of MRT Performance.
Page 18/36
6.6 Recording Results
Data from the test was logged using two separate methods (at the same
time):
• EcuTeK “Delta Dash” live from the factory ECU through the OBD
factory data port to a DELL laptop PC.
• Chassis Dyno PC
The chassis Dyno data was exported directly into Microsoft Excel and
collated.
• Comparative power
• Average power and
• Power to fuel consumption graphs,
were produced for each fuel group.
• Comparative power to price graphs were produced for the best in
class.
6.7 Graphing the data
Comparative power.
(line graph with multiple samples plotted on the same graph)
This graph shows the commonly viewed Power (kW)to rpm graph that is
typically delivered to a cleint after a dyno power run or dyno tune.
This type of graph indicates the power output of the vehicle measured at
the wheel hubs. The line indicates power as rpm rises over the range of the
“power run”. Typically a car will display the highest power at high rpm, but
commonly this is not at maximum rpm, as many cars, including the test car,
”fall over” at max rpm.
A
Copyright MRT Performance 2005 1st August 2005 This document can not be reproduced without the written permission of MRT Performance.
Page 19/36
Comparative power. Expressed as “power under the curve”.
(Bar graph with single bars per test sample)
Whilst the “comparative power” graph is a common indicator of
performance, it is not a good way of showing “overall” performance. The power
under the curve bar graph, is calculated by measuring the area under the line for
comparison, hence giving an overall comparison or an average to compare to. A
“fuller” graph that has higher (early and midrange) power with a strong “peak”
will generate a better result than a “peaky” graph that may have no low rpm
power but a much higher “top end”. Just because a car has a higher peak power
output does not mean its necessarily better.
The “power under the curve” graph is a means to compare this.
Power to fuel used.
(Line graph with multiple samples plotted on the same graph)
This graph should not be confused with the comparative power graph.
As a way of showing a “value to $$” or “bangs for bucks” this graph shows
Relative Power / Fuel used (no scaling) to rpm graph.
This graph was calculated by multiplying the power by instantaneous
air/fuel ratio. As all runs were over the same rpm range, the air/fuel ratio is the
only variable and thus depicts the different efficiencies of the fuels. The number
produced is a non-dimensional number, and is used to compare one fuel to
another
It a good indicator of fuel “efficiency” or “economy”. The higher the graph
the more power generated by the same amount of volume of fuel.
The power to price graph was calculated by dividing the non-dimensional
power to fuel number by the cost of the fuel.
Power to fuel used. Expressed as “under the curve”.
(Bar graph with single bars per test sample)
Similar to graph “B” except the displayed data is expressed as “power to
fuel used”
B
C
D
Copyright MRT Performance 2005 1st August 2005 This document can not be reproduced without the written permission of MRT Performance.
Page 20/36
7.1 95 RON Fuels Graphs showing comparison of Caltex 95 and Ethanol 95.
A
B
7. Result
95 RON Comparison
0
50
100
150
200
2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000
rpm
Pow
er (k
W)
kW Ctx95-Av.kW Eth95-R1
126
128
130
132
134
136
138
140
Power (kW)
Power 95
Power 131.2082962 139.626096
Caltex95 (kW) Ethanol95-(kW)
Copyright MRT Performance 2005 1st August 2005 This document can not be reproduced without the written permission of MRT Performance.
Page 21/36
C
D
11.30
11.35
11.40
11.45
11.50
11.55
11.60
11.65
11.70
11.75
11.80
Relative Power/ Fuel Usage
Power/ Fuel Usage
Power/ Fuel Usage 11.49 11.77
Caltex Vortex 95 Ethanol 95
Power/ Fuel Usage Curves
0.000
2.000
4.000
6.000
8.000
10.000
12.000
14.000
16.000
18.000
20.000
RPM
2166
2289
2412
2535
2658
2781
2904
3027
3150
3273
3396
3519
3642
3765
3888
4011
4134
4257
4380
4503
4626
4749
4872
4995
5118
5241
5364
5487
5610
5733
5856
5979
RPM
Rel
ativ
e Po
wer
/ Fue
l Usa
ge
Caltex Vortex 95Ethanol 95
Copyright MRT Performance 2005 1st August 2005 This document can not be reproduced without the written permission of MRT Performance.
Page 22/36
7.2 98 RON Fuels
A
B
Power Curves
0.00
50.00
100.00
150.00
200.00
250.00
RP
M21
6422
8524
0625
2726
4827
6928
9030
1131
3232
5333
7434
9536
1637
3738
5839
7941
0042
2143
4244
6345
8447
0548
2649
4750
6851
8953
1054
3155
5256
7357
9459
15
Pow
er (k
W)
kW BP Ultimate AveragekW Optimax AveragekW Synergy 98 AveragekW Caltex 98 AveragekW Ethanol 98 Average
134.00
136.00
138.00
140.00
142.00
144.00
146.00
148.00
150.00
152.00
Power (kW)
Average Power 98
Power 139.87 140.23 142.36 145.04 150.51
BP Ultimate 98-(kW) Optimax 98-(kW) Synergy 98-(kW) Caltex Vortex 98-(kW) Ethanol 98-(kW)
Copyright MRT Performance 2005 1st August 2005 This document can not be reproduced without the written permission of MRT Performance.
Page 23/36
C
D
Power/Fuel Usage Curves
0.000
2.000
4.000
6.000
8.000
10.000
12.000
14.000
16.000
18.000
20.000
RPM
2163
2283
2403
2523
2643
2763
2883
3003
3123
3243
3363
3483
3603
3723
3843
3963
4083
4203
4323
4443
4563
4683
4803
4923
5043
5163
5283
5403
5523
5643
5763
5883
RPM
Pow
er/F
uel U
sage
(rel
ativ
e)BP Ultimate 98Optimax 98Synergy 98Caltex Vortex 98Ethanol 98
11.80
11.90
12.00
12.10
12.20
12.30
12.40
12.50
12.60
12.70
12.80
12.90
Relative Power/ Fuel Usage
Bang For Buck
Bang For Buck 12.19 12.21 12.39 12.68 12.83
BP Ultimate 98 Optimax 98 Synergy 98 Caltex Vortex 98 Ethanol 98
Copyright MRT Performance 2005 1st August 2005 This document can not be reproduced without the written permission of MRT Performance.
Page 24/36
7.3 Specialist Fuels
A
B
Power Curve - Race Fuels
0.00
50.00
100.00
150.00
200.00
250.00
RP
M21
6822
9324
1825
4326
6827
9329
1830
4331
6832
9334
1835
4336
6837
9339
1840
4341
6842
9344
1845
4346
6847
9349
1850
4351
6852
9354
1855
4356
6857
9359
18
RPM
Pow
er (k
W)
kW ET102 Racing AveragekW ELF TurboPlus AveragekW SunocoGT AveragekW Martini Racing AveragekW ELF LMS AveragekW Sunoco SunEuro AveragekW ELF TurboMax Average
144.00
144.50
145.00
145.50
146.00
146.50
147.00
147.50
148.00
148.50
149.00
Power (kW)
Average Power Race Fuels
Power 145.78 145.82 146.71 146.95 146.83 147.19 148.97
ET102 Racing(kW)
ELF TurboPlus (kW) Sunoco GT (kW) Martini Racing
(kW) ELF LMS (kW) Sunoco SunEuro (kW)
ELF TurboMax (kW)
Copyright MRT Performance 2005 1st August 2005 This document can not be reproduced without the written permission of MRT Performance.
Page 25/36
7.4 Best in Class Comparison
A
B
Power Curves
0.000
50.000
100.000
150.000
200.000
250.000
RP
M21
6222
8124
0025
1926
3827
5728
7629
9531
1432
3333
5234
7135
9037
0938
2839
4740
6641
8543
0444
2345
4246
6147
8048
9950
1851
3752
5653
7554
9456
1357
3258
5159
70
RPM
Pow
er
kW Ctx95-Av.kW Eth95-Av.kW Caltex 98 AveragekW Ethanol 98 AveragekW ELF TurboMax Average
115
120
125
130
135
140
145
150
155
Power (kW)
Average Power - Best Performers in Class
Power 131.2082962 139.626096 145.0373453 150.5146694 154.8183349
Caltex95 (kW) Ethanol95-(kW) Caltex Vortex 98-(kW) Ethanol 98-(kW) ELF TurboMax (kW)
Copyright MRT Performance 2005 1st August 2005 This document can not be reproduced without the written permission of MRT Performance.
Page 26/36
C
D
Power/Fuel Usage Curves
0.000
20.000
40.000
60.000
80.000
100.000
120.000
140.000
RPM
2543
3043
3543
4043
4543
5043
5543
RPM
Rel
ativ
e Po
wer
/Fue
l Usa
ge Caltex Vortex 95Ethanol 95Caltex Vortex 98Ethanol 98 TurboMax
115
120
125
130
135
140
145
150
155
Power (kW)
Average Power - Best Performers in Class
Power 131.2082962 139.626096 145.0373453 150.5146694 154.8183349
Caltex95 (kW) Ethanol95-(kW) Caltex Vortex 98-(kW) Ethanol 98-(kW) ELF TurboMax (kW)
Copyright MRT Performance 2005 1st August 2005 This document can not be reproduced without the written permission of MRT Performance.
Page 27/36
8.1 95 RON Fuels Only two of these fuels were tested and it is not fair to compare these fuels
here so it is simply for interest’s sake that we list this.
• Park Petroleum Ethanol outperformed Caltex
• Peak Power difference: 204kW – 190kW = 14kW
• Average Power Difference: 139 – 131 = 8
95 is not 95! It must be noted that when Park Petroleum were contacted
they confirmed that their “95” Octane fuel may or often is a 98 Octane! For this
reason it is even more important not to compare the two (brand) products.
PRICE. Furthermore it was discussed (with park petroleum) that the “95
Octane” fuel would often be sold at the same price as the one labeled “98”.
8.2 98 RON Fuels Originally intended for comparing 98 fuels only,
Ethanol blend was added to the test as it was
considered that this fuel was reasonably available in
Sydney suburban petrol stations.
It must be noted that fuel economy was not
tested and this result should not be confused with
value / km
• Park Petroleum Ethanol 98 outperformed in all,
• Caltex Vortex 98 was clearly second. (winner of “true 98 fuels”)
• Peak Power difference: 216kW (Ethanol 98) – 208 (BP Ultimate) = 8kW
• Average Power Difference: 150 (Ethanol 98) – 145 (Caltex Vortex 98) = 5
8. Discussion
Copyright MRT Performance 2005 1st August 2005 This document can not be reproduced without the written permission of MRT Performance.
Page 28/36
8.3 Specialist Fuels All very close, Elf Turbomax was clearly better above 5000 rpm, as it did
not taper off as quickly.
It must be noted that with the “top end” specialist fuels (such as Sunoco
and Elf) its known that they can produce more power when tuned specifically to
suit. However in this test we didn’t take advantage of advancing any timing
beyond (the test settings) of + 8 degrees Ignition.
• Peak Power diff: 227kW (Elf Turbomax) – 223kW (Sunoco Sun Euro) = 4kW
• Average Power diff: 149(Elf Turbomax) – 147 (Sunoco Sun Euro) = 2
Copyright MRT Performance 2005 1st August 2005 This document can not be reproduced without the written permission of MRT Performance.
Page 29/36
8.4 Overall Comparison Obviously Elf Turbomax, stand out but Ethanol 98, Caltex 98 for value for
money
• Peak Power diff: 227kW (Elf Turbomax) – 216kW (PP Ethanol 98) = 11kW
• Average Power diff: 149(Elf Turbomax) – 147 (Sunoco Sun euro) = 2
8.5 Economy
Ethanol 98, Ethanol 95 obviously best performers for power vs cost.
However, due to incomplete data is yet to determine accurate fuel
economy figures.
8.6 Refinery brands
Depending on where you are may effect the fuel you get.
For example fuel by the drum, such as ELF, Sunoco etc is (it is assumed)
the same worldwide, however this may not be the case with “pump fuel”.
What you buy, may not necessarily be what you get, well sort of!
With the massive start up and running cost of fuel refineries, its common
practice to “stock swap fuel”. Meaning in a location where one brand has no
local refinery, they may get it from another (local) refinery, and then at the point
where the truck is filled they (may) ad some “additives”
However, (based on conversations with the 4 main [Australian] refineries),
with specific regards to “98 Octane” fuels it was discussed that some brands
would either truck, or ship in the fuel exclusively. In some cases the fuel may be
from interstate or from overseas, supplied to a specific specification. See notes
below
REFINERIES.
• Shell, Clyde NSW and Geelong Vic
• Caltex, Kurnell NSW, and leeton
• Mobil Altona Vic, Adelaide is “mothballed”
• BP Brisbane, and Perth
Copyright MRT Performance 2005 1st August 2005 This document can not be reproduced without the written permission of MRT Performance.
Page 30/36
SHELL Optimax is produced at both the Clyde and Geelong refineries. If it cant be
delivered from either, then Shell say they don’t supply it. Meaning if you buy
Optimax, then you are getting it.! Generally Optimax is available in NSW, Vic,
Southern Qld and Eastern South Australia
MOBIL Refused to qualify their answer on the question.
BP Claim that if its sold at the pump then it is supplied and not stock swapped.
CALTEX Claim that if its sold at the pump then it is supplied and not stock swapped
PARK PETROLEUM (Sydney) Stated that 90% of their fuel comes locally from Caltex and the other %10
may come from imported fuel or other local refineries.
Copyright MRT Performance 2005 1st August 2005 This document can not be reproduced without the written permission of MRT Performance.
Page 31/36
8.7 Ethanol blend fuel
Ethanol contains 35 percent oxygen. A 10 percent ethanol blend can
reduce carbon monoxide emissions by around 25 percent and can half
particulate matter. Ethanol is produced from starch or sugar-based feed stock
like corn. It is manufactured in a very similar process to beer, where by the beer
is the byproduct. Ethanol is a very good cleaning agent, it decarbonizes the
engine and fuel system. The ethanol can release the carbon deposits in chunks
which can clog injectors or get caught in valves. This is not a problem if you
have run ethanol blend fuel from new, but if you intend to use ethanol blend fuel
it would be advised that you clean the engine with premium 98RON fuel for a
specific period of time or completely rebuild the motor.
8.6 Ethanol and its effect on the results
We were surprised at the (power) result that the ethanol blend fuels
delivered. OK good for the environment you say.
We know that based on data that Ethanol has “less energy per litre” so
why the better power result?
• Petrol 45 mj / kg
• Ethanol 25 mj / kg
Reference www.Hypertextbook.com
But why were they better? After consulta
8.7 Economy solutions
MRT Performance have been working on improved fuel economy solutions
for some time now.
Several options exist for popular models including Ford, Mitsubishi and
Subaru. As this is not within the boundaries of this report, we will not discuss it
here. For more information, please contact MRT Performance.
8.6 Chemical coctails
Please refer Appendices and chart XXXX before reading this part!
Copyright MRT Performance 2005 1st August 2005 This document can not be reproduced without the written permission of MRT Performance.
Page 32/36
Following the test, and consultation with suppliers, it became apparent that
the content of various brands has a huge effect on the result. OK we pretty
obvious, however what was not clear was the effect of Government legislation,
environmental concerns, marketing and such.
But, Sunoco, Elf, Martini etc may not need to comply with these rules as
they are not sold in “bulk”. Currently it is a minefield of mis information on who
complies and who does not with regard to “non” bulk fuels. To further complicate
this, CAMS and the federal government are constantly in negotiation with
exemptions for leaded and non leaded performance fuels for Motorsport as the
Australian legislation can in some cases be in stark contrast to the rules for fuels
set by the FIA as a “control” fuel for international events such as the World rally
championship, F1 and such.
We wont go into discussion on these issues, more so we will try to explain
what effects the content of a fuel means to you.
SUMMER WINTER MIX
Government legislation limits fuel suppliers to minimize the vapor given off
by fuels. Expressed as the “reid vapor pressure”, this is a measurement of the
amount of evaporation of a fuel at a given temperature. This evaporation
generates smog caused by Hydrocarbon build up.
Summer mix. November 15th to March 15th maximum legislated amount is
62 Kpa @40 deg C.
Winter mix March 16th to November 14th maximum legislated amount is 90
Kpa @40 deg C ?????????????????????
It must be noted that the suppliers start changing the mixture as the dates
draw closer.
OXYGENATES
A chemical way to add Oxygen to fuel which gives better performance
There are several methods, some nice, some not so nice!
All the higher performance specialty fuels admitted to using Oxygenates.
MTBE. (Federal limit 1%)
Often referred to as ethers this product has caused major headache in the
USA where even 1 part in a million makes water “un-potable”. Once it gets into
the water table its extremely costly (in the millions) to get it out. The water can
be still drunk, but it takes poor.
Copyright MRT Performance 2005 1st August 2005 This document can not be reproduced without the written permission of MRT Performance.
Page 33/36
All of the 4 main (98) refineries made a point of stating they do not ad
MTBE
ETHANOL (federal limit 10%)
Like petrol Ethanol is a hydrocarbon, but as it also has alcohol in it, it is
also chemically contains oxygen. As a result it chemically adds oxygen to the
combustive mix.
Copyright MRT Performance 2005 1st August 2005 This document can not be reproduced without the written permission of MRT Performance.
Page 34/36
BEST POWER It can be concluded clearly by the data that if your budget was unlimited
then ELF Turbomax would be your choice.
Economically for power, the ethanol blend must be considered.
If you wish not to use Ethanol blends then Caltex Vortex 98 is the best
solution of the 98 ron fuels.
WHY Clearly the best performers in their class all had high content of
oxygenates, refer to discussion.
ECONOMICAL ASSUMPTION If your car was a daily driver then Caltex Vortex 98 would be a wise choice
as it is yet to be proven if the (Park Petroleum) ethanol blend is economically
fuel efficient. It is worth noting though that on a budget the ethanol blend fuel is
clearly well worth it. (For power)
CONSTANT PERFORMANCE Another point worth noting what is not evident in the test is the way the fuel
reacts to tuning.
For example ELF Turbomax and LMS certainly sustained more power after
successive power runs, (when engine heat build up occurs). No other fuel was
as consistent. PAUL CHECK HERE. Sunoco would be a close second in this
category. Martini and other fuels were not tested, nor have been used as much
by MRT to confidently give a opinion.
ENVIRONMENTAL It is generally assumed that ethanol is better due to the renewable way it is
refined.
9. Conclusion
Copyright MRT Performance 2005 1st August 2005 This document can not be reproduced without the written permission of MRT Performance.
Page 35/36
1. EcuTeK., “active ignition timing”,
a. www.EcuTeK.com.au
b. www.EcuTeK.com
2. MRT Performance, “Dynapack chassis Dyno”
a. www.mrtrally.com.au/performance/Dyno_Tuning.htm
b. www.mrtrally.com.au/performance/DynaPack.htm
c. www.dynapack.com
3. Fuels
a. Sunoco
i. http://www.sunoco.com/
b. Elf
i. http://www.racefuels.com.au Australia
http://www.elfracing.com France
c. Caltex www.Caltex.com.au
d. Shell www.Shell.com.au
e. Mobil www.mobil.com.au
f. BP www.BP.com.au
g. Martini http://martiniracing.net
h. ET Racing
i. Park Petrol’
http://carpoint.ninemsn.com.au/portal/alias__carpointau/tabID__64
91/ArticleID__4806/DesktopDefault.aspx
4. Australian govt data
http://www.deh.gov.au/atmosphere/ethanol/publications/ethanol-
limit/intro.html
a. Other http://www.aie.org.au/canb/canoct02.htm
b. Carpoint
http://carpoint.ninemsn.com.au/portal/alias__carpointau/tabID__64
91/ArticleID__4806/DesktopDefault.aspx
10. References
Copyright MRT Performance 2005 1st August 2005 This document can not be reproduced without the written permission of MRT Performance.
Page 36/36
11. Appendix