Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hi all...

I was wondering how many of you have tried using the Shell Optimax Extreme fuel??

I put it in the other day and I have to say I don't like it at all...

My car seems a bit slugish in the higher rev range.

I've been told that this fuel is a denser fuel and one of my friends had the same problem with his problem....

What are your thoughts?? Yay or Nay?

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/104042-how-do-you-rate-optimax-extreme/
Share on other sites

  • Replies 42
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I have tried the Shell Extreme and dont like it. My car (XR6 Turbo) runs rough, doesnt idle properly and with no noticable difference in performance.

Remember only about a year or two ago there was uproar around service stations selling fuel with ethanol. Cars were not running properly, there was a lot of press about it. Well this is the same thing with our Government trying to promote it as a 'clean' and renewable fuel and Shell's spin doctors doing a great marketing job by selling it as a high performance fuel and charging a premium for it!. :P

Suffice to say my car runs much better on Optimax and I wont be using Extreme again. Scale of 1-10, I would say 4.

Anyone else had the same issue with rough idle?

Edited by Silverback

Thats interesting mate... I'm not going to use it again, I'm quite happy using the BP ultimate and the Mobil synergy fuel... Those fuels are great and I seem to have a smoother engine with those fuels!

Good to know....

So, anyone else experienced this?? It's so damn expensive as well! I wonder if the ethanol is bad for our engines???

All I know is that it consists of 5% ethanol and has a 100 RON rating. I paid 140.9 p/ltr the other day!!

What you mean it comes down to tuning mate? If I can use bp ultimate 98 and get a better run out of it, why would I use the extreme and tune my car to it? Is that what your getting at?

I've run 1 tank through it. I noticed the car did feel stronger through the rev range, so if I know I'm going to do some quick driving I might use the fuel.

However, with the various unknowns when it comes to pre 2004 Australian delivered Nissans and ethanol-blended fuels (reservations I've previously expressed and won't get into again) I won't be doing it as a regular thing.

All I know is that it consists of 5% ethanol and has a 100 RON rating. I paid 140.9 p/ltr the other day!!

What you mean it comes down to tuning mate? If I can use bp ultimate 98 and get a better run out of it, why would I use the extreme and tune my car to it? Is that what your getting at?

I think he means that if a car is properly tuned for 100RON fuel you SHOULD see improvement from the 90RON fuel.

I wouldn't use it unless your car is tuned for it.

However, people that have tuned their cars for it have had significant gains.

I tried a full tank of it once,

and its not as nice as SHELL ULTIMAX,

Only Ultimax Forever

ps.

I only go to 1 particular shell station, when ever i can.

that is how picky i am on fuel.

You can't be that picky if you remember it as a portmanteau and don't know what it's called :(

Hey,

I found Shell Extreme isn't good fuel as I feel more laggier (RB30ET) with these fuels compared to Optimax, Mobil Syngrey 8000 and BP Ultimate.

So i won't use it again as it's 12 or 13 cents a litre dearer than regular unleaded so not worth to pay 2-3c a litre extra for these if it cause more lag...

Thats what i found out after using these fuels. After all it's my 2c

Cheers

Grant

There was a write up in either Zoom or HPI about the fuel in the last few issues. From what I can remember there is a difference in the density of the fuel, ie the ethanol blend sg is lower. For this reason alone I would be careful in using the stuff as it may change your AFR's to the extent of damaging your motor.

Having said that - the ethanol is a very useful additive. It raises the octane number of the fuel & adds oxugen to it. Hence (as the article showed) when properly tuned for this fuel you can get a useful gain in hp.

Bottom line - like most things in life - used properly it is a good thing. :(

powerfc uses can easily benefit from it by simple doing IGN and INJ correction, more fuel and more IGN timing should make it run quiet well.

*should* i will try and it out one day and see if it goes boom or not

Mine went fine

My car is tuned at 12:1 flat.

With the 100 ron stuff, the tune would go back to about 12.2 to 12.3:1 which is perfectly fine.

I put it in, went to Calder, added 4 degrees and some boost and ran a 112 mph .

My car was perfectly happy.

Ive used it a few time, on very hot days my knock was only 10 and at night with the cooler air i noticed an improvement with performance... Fuel consumption was better as well, im now winding more boost into her so ill be tuning it on 98 but then using 100 octane as a safety net...

Guest Mashrock
All I know is that it consists of 5% ethanol and has a 100 RON rating. I paid 140.9 p/ltr the other day!!

What you mean it comes down to tuning mate? If I can use bp ultimate 98 and get a better run out of it, why would I use the extreme and tune my car to it? Is that what your getting at?

what i mean is your car is tuned for 98. or whatever.

even with a self learning computer i'd think it would take alot of driving for it to learn the new may..

i beleive alot of ignition timing has to be played with..

and that stated here somewhere in zoon or hpi they used a power fc and found pretty large gains in using the fuel..

so once again..

it comes down to tuning the car..

zoom ran the boost 98 10% ethanol blend (i think it's from united), not shell 100.

I have a united about 1 minute down the road and they sell it. I have been thinking about running a tank through and seeing what happens, maybe even use it on my next tune when i get cams in (though i'll talk to the tuner first)

a fellow nissan driver has done a write up about it's effects on his s15. Great information for any queries anyone might have.

http://www.waspperformance.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=212

Peace

Mykal

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Yeah, the latter. No diff should have a centre replaced without checking clearances because its unlikely to be the same as whatever came out. Not that that stops most people just checking a new centre in
    • Major thread necro but how bad of a job is it to DIY? Looking at it online it looks like if you reuse your ring and pinion as long as those are in good condition it should be fine to just pull the axles/front cover and replace the diff that way? Or should I be replacing everything and doing preload measurements/gear mesh testing like the factory service manual mentions for the rear diff?
    • in my list I had the R33 GTR as the best Skyline. Infact I had all GTR's (33>34=32), the NSX, the GTO, the 300ZX, the 180SX, the S15 better than the FD RX7. I had the MR2 and the A80 as 'just' better. I also think the DC5R Integra looks better but this is an 01 onwards car. I also think the FC>FD. It's almost like aesthetics are individual! The elements @GTSBoy likes about the FD and dislikes about the 180 are inverse in my eyes. I hate the rear end of the FD and it's weird tail lights that are bulbous and remind me of early hyundai excels. They are not striking, nor iconic, nor retro cool. The GTO has supercar proportions. I maintain these look much better in person (like the NSX) especially with nice wheels and suspension which is mandatory for all cars pretty much. Some (or all) of these you have to see in person to appreciate. You can't write a car off until you see one in the flesh IMO. Like most people we probably just like/dislike cars which represent certain eras of design or design styles in general. I also think the 60's Jag E type looks HORRIBLE, literally disgusting, and the 2000GT is nothing to write home about. FWIW I don't think the Dodge Viper Gen1's have aged very well either. You can probably see where I rate bubbly coupes like the FD. I know we're straying now but the C4 and C5 absolutely murder the Viper in the looks department as time goes on, for my eyes. Wouldn't surprise me if people who love the FD, also love the MX5, Dodge Viper, Jag E Type, etc etc.
    • I used to hate R31s, and any of the other Nissans that led up to it, and any of the Toyotas with similar styling, because of the boxiness. They were, and remain, childish, simplistic, and generally awful. I appreciate R31s a lot more now, but only the JDM 2 door. The ADM 4 door (and any other 4 door, even if they are unique compared to our local one) can eat a bowl of dicks. The Aussie R31 is also forever tarnished by their association with stereotypical bong clutching Aussie R31 owners of the 90s and early 2000s. I think the Nissans of the 70s (other than 120Y/180B/200B) are far superior looking to the 80s cars. The 240K era Skylines are boss. The same is broadly true of Toyotas. Hondas don't ever register in my thinking, from any era. Mitsus are all horrid shitboxen in any era, and so also don't register. Subarus are always awful, ditto. Daihatsus and Suzukis also don't generally register. They are all invisible. I think the SW20 MR2 looks fiddly. The 3000GT/GTO is like that but way worse. Too many silly plastic barnacles and fiddly gimmicks ruined what could have been a really nice base shape. Kinda-sorta looks like a big heavy ST165 Celica coupe (and I'm not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing). I think the 180SX is dreadfully bland. It's not bad looking. But it has no excitement to it at all. It's just a liftback coupe thing with no interest in its lines, and bad graphical elements (ie wide expanses of taillight plastic on the rear garnish). The S13 Silvia is a little better - getting closer to R32 shapes. But still....bland. S14? Nope. Don't love it. S15...a little better. Probably a lot better, actually. Benefits from not being like a shrunk in the wash R34 (where the S13 was a shrunk in the wash R32 and the S14 looked like a Pulsar or something else from the stable on Nissan mid 90s horrors). The Z32 was hot as f**k when it came out but hasn't aged as well as the A80. Keep in mind that I think the R33 is the most disgusting looking thing - and out of all the previous cars mentioned is objectively closest to my precious R32. It's just....real bad, almost everywhere you look. And that is down to the majority of what was designed in the 90s being shit. All Nissans from that era look like shit. Most other brands ditto. In that context, the FD absolutely stands out as being by far the best looking car, for reasons already discussed. Going behind the aesthetics, the suspension alone makes it better than almost any other car.  
    • If they just called it the "Mazda Tiffany", it would have been spot on.
×
×
  • Create New...