fuel economy with PULP

I totally agree with your comments....PULP i get 270kms a tank vs 240 a tank with ULP....
(motorcycle).....

I've got a new 3.5L V6 and I ran 3 tanks of Optimax through it.

Didn't get any noticeable improvement in economy and performance measured against a stopwatch didn't improve either. Tried the same with my XR8 a few years ago with similar results.

However I did tow a 17 foot boat with a 2.6L Magna a few years back and it had noticeably better pulling power, especially up hills.

Barry Lake wrote a technical article on high octane fuel in MOTOR a couple of years ago saying that if the engine isn't designed for PULP, it won't help.

The hanbook in the Magna quoted different power output according to fuel type and it did make a difference. Makes me think Barry Lake's theory is correct.

My conclusion is check with manufacturer if they have built a car that will benefit from PULP. It may be a windfall or a waste of money.

Cheers,

Jim.

I noticed a huge difference when using PULP in my 80 series. 1.5 - 2.0l/100km in fact! I went from struggling to get 18l/100km on a highway run to my current best of 16l/100km (albeit driving for economy as well) using shell optimax. As you can understand this makes a huge difference in the thirsty 80 series. Power is noticeably better as well.

I think the key here is not whether the engine is designed for PULP (which certainly will make a difference) but whether the engine has knock sensors fitted to sense pinging/detonation and then adjusts the ECU accordingly. I know other 80 series owners who have had similar results. I also know owners of other vehicles who so no difference whatsoever.

Cheers
Ron

I don't always notice the difference going from ULP to PULP/98 in a 3.5 Jackaroo, but I always notice the drop in performance going from PULP/98 back to ULP. ;-)

I also get consistently better fuel economy on highway/freeway running using 98 than I do with ULP, usually about 2L/100km improvement. But there is bugger all economy improvement around town.

There is a post somewhere here about how a Prado ECU adapts to fuel qualities but does so over a very long time. It states that to get the benefits out of PULP or 98, you need to use it consistently over something like 3000-5000km. It could be the case that a number of other ECUs have the same characteristic.

I'm currently doing a "test" where I exclusively use Optimax in the Jacakaroo for 6 months and see if and how economy improves. In 6 months, the Jack should do about 7000kms.

The ECU has been reset to factory defaults last week after two tanks of Optimax, and I'll be graphing consumption for the next 26 weeks. The Optimax will cost me about $7 extra per tank over ULP and I generally go through a tank a week.

Hi Socmky.I ve got a gq 4.2 efi .I only use pulp i find I get better consumption and power.I dont use gas ,I find the Shell pulp the better of the lot for my wagon
regards uppy

G'day all,

thanks for your responses.

I'm sure there will also be variances depending on the type on PULP as well. BP has normal at 92 octane, PULP at 95 and Ultimate at 98, all obviously at increasing prices.

I intend also doing a long term documented experiement using different types of fuels and will put together a spreadsheet.

Would be interested in any other data you may want to submit. Even in the Crumpledore I had previously, I got better economy and more power out of higher Octane fuels, so there is definately something to it.

Cheers.

Hi Smocky, in regards to running PULP the general feel is that it does make a difference, but because different brands use a slightly different mix it is sometimes a case of trying a few brands to see which is best for your beast.
Will

gday.
i used pulp once in our 6v jack no difference.
listening to the radio today they were talking about e10 fuel i think it means ethanol 10%.almost every body who rang in said they were getting far more ks to a tank one guy said 100ks but most were around the 50ks.
also it is cheaper than unleaded.