fuel comparison - internodekristopher/capabilities_of_common_fuels.pdf · 1.3 usyd fsae the formula...

Copyright MRT Performance 2005 1st August 2005 This document can not be reproduced without the written permission of MRT Performance.

/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


/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


/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


/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


/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.


/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


/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


/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


/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


/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.


/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.


/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


/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.


/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


/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”


/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


/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.


/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


/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


/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)


/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


/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)


/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


/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)


/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)


/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)


/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


/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


/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


/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.


/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!


/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.


/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.


/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


/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


/36

11. Appendix

fuel comparison - internodekristopher/capabilities_of_common_fuels.pdf · 1.3 usyd fsae the formula...

Documents