FTO AUSTRALIA

OK, I had been running Caltex Vortex Gold (96 RON) for about two months, then decided to fill my GS FTO with Mobil 1 (98 RON). I found the M1 to make my car a lot less responsive and just felt quite de-tuned. I filled it up 3 times with M1 before changing back to VG. The differance now is amazing, it changes gears quicker (auto) and fells like it has new life.

Do the different premium fuels have different things that some engines may not like?

Are you talking about the Mobil Synergy 8000 fuel or their premium unleaded?

By the way, I was told that Caltex Vortex Gold is 97.8 RON. Can anyone confirm?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Mobil 1 is actually a fuel.

Pretty sure Mobil 1 products are things like lubricants, engine oil and transmission fluids - your usual car maintenance stuff.

As for Caltex Vortex Gold (Ampol GOLD), this is what they said on their Australian website:

"With an octane rating of no lower than 95, and in some markets 96, will satisfy the Octane needs of most cars in Australia."

Yeah M1 is the name of their lubes etc, but last time I filled up I am pretty much so positive it was called Mobil 1 premium, could be wrong though.

Well the 98 RON mobil premium is labeled synergy 8000.

THen you've got the standard premium, which is 95RON but that's only sold at stations where synergy is not available.

Must remember RON is a rating for the resistance of spontaneous combustion of a given fuel. Mind you, higher RON fuels tend to be more refined but it's generally not good to rely on the RON rating alone when it comes to fuels.

MADFTO wrote:Well the 98 RON mobil premium is labeled synergy 8000.

THen you've got the standard premium, which is 95RON but that's only sold at stations where synergy is not available.

Must remember RON is a rating for the resistance of spontaneous combustion of a given fuel. Mind you, higher RON fuels tend to be more refined but it's generally not good to rely on the RON rating alone when it comes to fuels.

Hi, i've read about articals from NRMA as they once do research on fuels. Just follow the RON rating according to your car manual. Changing to higher RON fuel is a waste of money. Its just one of the marketing strathegy offered by the fuel giants.

Mobil1/gold=expensive lubricant, not fuels.

mate whats the deal with posts from 2003 and 2004? no recent ones useful to you?

apart form that u don't own an FTO do u? or obviously never tried filling up with 91 ron in it.

u will get heaps of knock with 91...and little with 95-98. 100 is questionable unless its been tuned to it...as the ECU really doesn't know or care what fuel is in it it simply backs off the timing when it senses knock which will come from sh*t fuels.

*laughs* I was wondering why I don't remember posting that =)

Japan has 100-RON fuel readily available, thus it'd be safe to assume that this is pretty much their "standard fuel" and most of their cars from factory would be attuned to it.

You've got to realize the RON rating is just a rating to resist spontaneous combustion, there are other attributes to fuels that each gasoline provider is marketing, additives being the primarily differentiator between the major fuel companies in the boutique fuels market.

So, yeah, going by RON rating alone might be a load of palony for your every day sedan that ordinary mum and dads would be driving, which is what the NRMA survey (or infact any other major insurance group survey) would be able. They would be testing against what would be the average group of cars for their members would be.

However cars which have been modified will notice the effects such as better fuels much more readily than family sedan.

hes post didnt ask a question......

his post was an attempt to join a conversation 3 years ago...

I finally tried out the Shell Optimax Extreme and did notice quite a difference. The car runs a lot smoother and reaches high speeds with less effort - kinda like the feeling you get just after you've pumped up your tyres.

Even cruising on the freeway it sits about 200-300rpm less than normal at 100km/h.

Nacho wrote:I finally tried out the Shell Optimax Extreme and did notice quite a difference. The car runs a lot smoother and reaches high speeds with less effort - kinda like the feeling you get just after you've pumped up your tyres.

Even cruising on the freeway it sits about 200-300rpm less than normal at 100km/h.

No offence Joal but I'm doubtful it makes that much of a difference. I've tested them all and found no evidence over 3-4 tanks it gave better performance or Kms against a BP Ultimate for example..

Only some some high performance cars, tuned for it properly may u see a difference I saw some results from other guys on the dyno...basically it was inconclusive.

That's cool......it wasn't the power or kms I saw much difference in anyway. It was generally a lot smoother to drive while accelerating.

Nacho wrote:That's cool......it wasn't the power or kms I saw much difference in anyway. It was generally a lot smoother to drive while accelerating.

yeah dunno...it might be. I have nothing against it just didn't find any difference.

I don't if anyone else read it, but Toyota claimed that the new Aurion V6 will produce 200kw with 91ron fuel and 204kw with 95ron, so even big company had confirmed that fuel rating will make a different on performance.

I wonder what 98ron will do to it....206kw??

FTO338 wrote:I don't if anyone else read it, but Toyota claimed that the new Aurion V6 will produce 200kw with 91ron fuel and 204kw with 95ron, so even big company had confirmed that fuel rating will make a different on performance.

I wonder what 98ron will do to it....206kw??

depends on how they have tuned and setup the car. the fuel by itself doesn't do anything.

i certainely notice a difference between 91 and higher ron fuels in the lancer. I can tell if someones topped it up with the cheap stuff if they borrow it, as stated....it just feels more sluggish, less freely revving, etc etc.

I'm sure they tuned it for 95ron and have it to compensate for 91ron.

I know my daily car will feel the different from 95ron to 98ron. It had more low end "snap" with 98ron. Time to upgrade the ECU when i have the chance, to optimize 98ron.

FTO338 wrote:I'm sure they tuned it for 95ron and have it to compensate for 91ron.

I know my daily car will feel the different from 95ron to 98ron. It had more low end "snap" with 98ron. Time to upgrade the ECU when i have the chance, to optimize 98ron.

basically all the compensation it does is back off the timing if it senses knock. not much else u can do really...if the fuel is crap then its crap.

I don't think you need to explain that to me bro.

Its not so much for u dood. For everyone else.

The ECU will never advance timing beyond the base plus correction lookups in the map. These will based on the highest octane rating expected to be encountered. In theory it sounds good but most ppl find the amound of extra timing dialed in doesn't equate to much, but it will do somthing for sure.

to stop all the debate chekc this out from FTO-WA. Should answer every1s questions based on real tests:

These are really good reads:
http://www.ftowa.com/html/workshop/workshopart05.html
http://www.ftowa.com/html/workshop/workshopart06.html

In the end...no real benifit was shown.