Alright, WTF is this?

[Ollie Walsh]

<http://www.20uk.net/carmod/>

OR

<http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2432329135 &category=32094>

OR

<http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2432173313 &category=43120>

Yes I know they've been mentioned before, but check the last link, look at the sellers feedback!!

Can anyone give me a reason why this wouldn't work? Or why I shouldn't buy one?

Cheers guys ;o)

It claims the advance the ignition timing by giving a false engine temp. I don't know if modern ecus advance the timing when cold. Older syetems like the L-Jetronic (most 205gtis) would probably just run richer thinking the engine hadn't reached operating temp yet, they do not control the ignition timing. In any case it's just a cheap resistor.

 

[Chris (3)]

<http://www.20uk.net/carmod/>

OR

<http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2432329135 &category=32094>

OR

<http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2432173313 &category=43120>

Yes I know they've been mentioned before, but check the last link, look at the sellers feedback!!

Can anyone give me a reason why this wouldn't work? Or why I shouldn't buy one?

Cheers guys ;o)

 

[ph12]

It looks like a ceramic body wirewound resistor.... cost around 50p from RS Componenets

Yes I know they've been mentioned before, but check the last link, look at the sellers feedback!!

Don't see any feedback to say it works....just quick delivery and as described, super ebayer etc.

Can anyone give me a reason why this wouldn't work?

extra power with no extra fuel consumption.....does it sound likely?

Or why I shouldn't

buy one?

Nope, you've got me there

 

[ph12]

Don't see any feedback to say it works....just quick delivery and as described, super ebayer etc.

Sorry, missed one.

 

[Hannu Montonen]

This resistor just fools that there is "extra" air and gives more gasoline to injection. Real Chipping changes also ignition timing with different revs and usually with normal driving fuel economy is better what you dont never get with this. But its up to you if you wanna try this expensive resistor....

-307 1,6 Wagon-

 

[Chris Barnard]

<http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2432173313 &category=43120>

Yes I know they've been mentioned before, but check the last link, look at the sellers feedback!!

Can anyone give me a reason why this wouldn't work? Or why I shouldn't buy one?

As stated by other people, it's just a resistor - which, as described, will make your ECU think that the air intake or engine temperature sensor is colder than it actually is. How exactly your ECU will respond is up to the way it's been designed. I don't believe the part which says that it makes the system 'send the sparks quicker'. If you have an older injection system with 'normal', distributor-driven, ignition, then there's no way on earth that the ECU can make the sparks 'quicker' - which I suppose is meant to mean that it'll advance the timing. IMO, the most likely thing that'll happen is that the fuel map will change - probably to it's 'cold' setting - like when you first start your car and it idles high for a while until it's up to temperature. The ECU would probably want to increase the richness of the air/fuel mix - probably by pumping more fuel into the cylinders. The outcome I see is that your car will run rich - in the long term, worst-case scenario, the plugs will foul up and you may have a problem with pinking which can cause engine damage. The other outcome is that the resistor might actually fool the ECU into thinking that the engine is very hot or at the correct temperature - leading to poor cold running and no difference when the engine is warm.. unless the driver suddenly feels more compelled to stick their foot flat to the floor to test out their new-found performance and surprised at how quick the car accelerates in first gear at high revs. They might have been equally surprised if they'd tried the same thing before fitting the resistor.

I wouldn't recommend it, as you're basically trying to get the ECU to do something that it is not designed for, you'd be taking out one of the variables that the ECU uses to decide what is best for the engine and since different ECUs can work in different ways, you'd really have no idea how your system would react unless you knew exactly how the ECU works and what value the resistor was.

Definately don't bother paying £8 for this resistor. If you really want to do something like this, then find out what resistance range your temperature sensor reads at and then buy a variable resistor which runs between those ranges from Maplin or RS Components for something like £1. Then you could mount it on your dashboard, run the wiring to the temperature sensor and hey-presto, you'd have fitted something akin to a manual choke.

Chris.

 

[djimbo]

<http://www.20uk.net/carmod/>

OR

<http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2432329135 &category=32094>

OR

<http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2432173313 &category=43120>

Yes I know they've been mentioned before, but check the last link, look at the sellers feedback!!

Can anyone give me a reason why this wouldn't work? Or why I shouldn't buy one?

It's a device aimed at the one that's born every minute, a bit like the magnet next to the fuel line that lines up all the fuel molecules ;-) If there were a simple way to make ANY car more economical or give 15BHP gain for a 10p W/W resistor (Or a 2p magnet for that matter), the manufacturers would be doing it already. imo. Strange thing is, with human nature being what it is, people that buy these things want to believe they are working.

jim.

 

[SimonDS]

the important part is in the last line of the last link. "For best results use premium fuel" Premium fuel would be optimax which gives better performance anyway.
It's a con.

Simon

 

[Chris (3)]

"Chris Barnard" wrote in

How exactly your ECU will respond is up to the way it's been designed.

My main concern was what affect it might have on the ECU (and the engine in general) in the long run. A fudged up ECU is not something I want!

The outcome I see is that your car will run rich - in the long term, worst-case scenario, the plugs will foul up and you may have a problem with pinking which can cause engine damage. The other outcome is that the resistor might actually fool the ECU into thinking that the engine is very hot or at the correct temperature - leading to poor cold running and no difference when the engine is warm.

Thanks. This is the kind of information I was looking for. All three links state quite clearly 'it will not do damage to your engine' when clearly it will. What gets me is the fact they use the word 'proven'! I'd like to know how they've proved this actually works and doesn't do any long term damage!

Definately don't bother paying 8 for this resistor. If you really want to do something like this, then find out what resistance range your temperature sensor reads at and then buy a variable resistor which runs between those ranges from Maplin or RS Components for something like 1. Then you could mount it on your dashboard, run the wiring to the temperature sensor and hey-presto, you'd have fitted something akin to a manual choke.

Nah, after reading the neutral and negative feedback, there was no way I was going to purchase from these guys. One negative feedback states its only a 4K7 resistor - I could buy one of those from Maplins for less then 10p!! Speaking to someone I know whos more in the know, he said similar to what you said. Check the Haynes manual for resistance ranges for the IAT, buy the resistor and stick a POT in the dashboard to turn it up and down )

You'll no doubt flame me to the pits of hell but I'm one of those who actually bought an Ecotek (www.ecotekplc.com) and I can honestly say that DID make a difference to my acceleration in 1st, 2nd and 3rd gear on my Pug 206. Nice addition to my induction kit )

 

[Chris Barnard]

"Chris" wrote:

Thanks. This is the kind of information I was looking for. All three links state quite clearly 'it will not do damage to your engine' when clearly it will. What gets me is the fact they use the word 'proven'! I'd like to know how they've proved this actually works and doesn't do any long term damage!

No problem. It does look like a massive con. Ollie Walsh summed it up rather more succinctly than I managed - I have a habit of rambling on when it comes to stuff like this

You'll no doubt flame me to the pits of hell but I'm one of those who actually bought an Ecotek (www.ecotekplc.com) and I can honestly say that DID make a difference to my acceleration in 1st, 2nd and 3rd gear on my Pug 206. Nice addition to my induction kit )

I've heard some different reports on the ol' EcoTek. My brother fitted one to his Mazda 323F and it didn't make any discernable difference. I kinda got the impression that it didn't do much good on injector-based cars, but at least the principle seems a little more sound than this resistor. Still, I do think these things only make very minimal gains. If you really want to improve power, then pay the money and get your ECU chipped along with a proven induction and exhaust system that is known to work well together. You'd probably want to move into bigger throttle bodies and the like. Might as well try to fit a more powerful engine - or buy a faster car.


Chris.

 

[SimonDS]

higher octane rating 98 not 95.

Premium fuel would be optimax which gives better performance anyway.

Care to quantify that? My car (1.9 205 gti) doesn't perform noticeably better/worse on optimax than running on normal premium unleaded...

 

[miknik]

higher octane rating 98 not 95.

You are obviously under the misguided impression that the octane rating has something to do with performance.

It's actually a measure of the fuels resistance to detonation when compressed. A fuel with a higher octane rating can be compressed more than lower octane fuel before it spontaneously combusts. So it is more resistant to "pinking" or pre-ignition.

Often high performance engines require fuel with a greater resistance to pre-ignition due to high compression ratios etc so these will require a 97 or 98 octane fuel, but only to prevent "pinking", nothing to do with higher performance.

If your car doesn't "pink" using 95 octane fuel then changing to Optimax will have no effect on anything apart from your wallet.

 

[Chris Barnard]

You are obviously under the misguided impression that the octane rating has something to do with performance.

It's actually a measure of the fuels resistance to detonation when compressed. A fuel with a higher octane rating can be compressed more than lower octane fuel before it spontaneously combusts. So it is more resistant to "pinking" or pre-ignition.

This is true, but a 1.9 litre 205 has a high-compression engine - it should run better on higher octane petrol if your ignition timing is set correctly.

Chris.

 

[miknik]

This is true, but a 1.9 litre 205 has a high-compression engine - it should run better on higher octane petrol if your ignition timing is set correctly.

If by run "better" you mean won't pink then yes, but that's it. There is nothing in 98 octane petrol to make your car go faster/acelerate more quickly etc than when using 95 octane.

If your engine is designed for 95 octane fuel, then running it on 98 octane will be of no benefit.

It's true they recommend 97 octane for the 1.9 gti (but not the 1.6, which actually has a higher compression ratio), but mine doesn't pink on 95 so I'm certainly not gonna shell out an extra 7p/litre on something I don't need.... Especially when 6p of that probably pays for all the flash optimax adverts which try and convince people its a high performance fuel, rather than one with a higher octane rating.

 

[SimonDS]

so shell are guilty of false advertising when the say Optimax with improve performance then?

This is true, but a 1.9 litre 205 has a high-compression engine - it should run better on higher octane petrol if your ignition timing is set

correctly.

If by run "better" you mean won't pink then yes, but that's it. There is nothing in 98 octane petrol to make your car go faster/acelerate more quickly etc than when using 95 octane.

If your engine is designed for 95 octane fuel, then running it on 98 octane will be of no benefit.

It's true they recommend 97 octane for the 1.9 gti (but not the 1.6, which actually has a higher compression ratio), but mine doesn't pink on 95 so I'm certainly not gonna shell out an extra 7p/litre on something I don't need.... Especially when 6p of that probably pays for all the flash optimax adverts which try and convince people its a high performance fuel, rather than one with a higher octane rating.

 

[SimonDS]

Below is from the website:

Shell Optimax - a totally new petrol for the ultimate drive

Shell Optimax is a unique unleaded fuel developed specifically for UK drivers. In fact it is the most significant fuel we've launched for more than a decade and we're confident that it will give you optimum performance and maximum engine protection. Here's why we're sure you'll notice the
Optimax Edge:

a.. Its unique formulation will help your car or motorbike respond quickly and safely, just when you need it to, in all driving conditions b.. It will protect your engine like no other petrol c.. Tests show it's the UK's best performance petrol d.. It was created by the Shell scientists who develop fuels for the Ferrari F1 car So it is a premium fuel like recommended by the seller of the ECU add on gizmo this thread was about as opposed to a standard unleaded from the local supermarket.

so shell are guilty of false advertising when the say Optimax with improve performance then?

This is true, but a 1.9 litre 205 has a high-compression engine - it should run better on higher octane petrol if your ignition timing is set

correctly.

If by run "better" you mean won't pink then yes, but that's it. There is nothing in 98 octane petrol to make your car go faster/acelerate more quickly etc than when using 95 octane.

If your engine is designed for 95 octane fuel, then running it on 98 octane will be of no benefit.

It's true they recommend 97 octane for the 1.9 gti (but not the 1.6, which actually has a higher compression ratio), but mine doesn't pink on 95 so I'm certainly not gonna shell out an extra 7p/litre on something I don't need.... Especially when 6p of that probably pays for all the flash optimax adverts which try and convince people its a high performance fuel, rather than one with a higher octane rating.

 

[SimonDS]

http://www.shell.com/home/Framework...ls/how_optimax_works_3011_1342.html&FC4=&FC5=

so shell are guilty of false advertising when the say Optimax with improve performance then?

This is true, but a 1.9 litre 205 has a high-compression engine - it should run better on higher octane petrol if your ignition timing is set

correctly.

If by run "better" you mean won't pink then yes, but that's it. There is nothing in 98 octane petrol to make your car go faster/acelerate more quickly etc than when using 95 octane.

If your engine is designed for 95 octane fuel, then running it on 98 octane will be of no benefit.

It's true they recommend 97 octane for the 1.9 gti (but not the 1.6, which actually has a higher compression ratio), but mine doesn't pink on 95 so I'm certainly not gonna shell out an extra 7p/litre on something I don't need.... Especially when 6p of that probably pays for all the flash optimax adverts which try and convince people its a high performance fuel, rather than one with a higher octane rating.

 

[SimonDS]

http://www2.shell.com/home/uk-en/html/iwgen/app_profile/combustion_comp.html

is the best link.

"SimonDS" wrote:

http://www.shell.com/home/Framework?siteId=uk-en&FC1=&FC2=&FC3=%2Fuk-en%2Fhtml%2Fiwgen%2Fshell_for_motorists%2Ffuels%2Fhow_optimax_works_3011_1342.html&FC4=&FC5=

"SimonDS" wrote:

> so shell are guilty of false advertising when the say Optimax with

improve

> performance then?
>
> "miknik" wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 02:40:03 GMT, "Chris Barnard"
> > wrote:
> >
> > >This is true, but a 1.9 litre 205 has a high-compression engine - it
> should
> > >run better on higher octane petrol if your ignition timing is set
> correctly.
> >
...

 

[Chris Barnard]

"miknik" wrote:

If by run "better" you mean won't pink then yes, but that's it. There is nothing in 98 octane petrol to make your car go faster/acelerate more quickly etc than when using 95 octane.

If your engine is designed for 95 octane fuel, then running it on 98 octane will be of no benefit.

Agreed. The basic problem (as I see it) is that a higher compression engine has hotter temperatures during the combustion process - so therefore it should be run on a higher octane petrol; to lessen the chances of detonation occuring... Which is why higher octane petrol such as super unleaded is recommended for the 1.9 GTi. I'm not entirely sure why 95 RON petrol is recommended for the 1.6 - perhaps the smaller combustion chamber doesn't run as hot. Of course, there is usually more than one reason why a car manufacturer recommends certain things - normally peak performance isn't top of the agenda.

It's true they recommend 97 octane for the 1.9 gti (but not the 1.6, which actually has a higher compression ratio), but mine doesn't pink on 95 so I'm certainly not gonna shell out an extra 7p/litre on something I don't need.... Especially when 6p of that probably pays for all the flash optimax adverts which try and convince people its a high performance fuel, rather than one with a higher octane rating.

If you're having no problems with 95 octane then maybe your ignition is retarded by a few degrees. That helps stop pinking. If you put in 98 octane petrol, you should be able to advance the ignition nearer to the best possible timing and this may bring with it a *minimal* increase in performance. It's very unlikely you'd notice it on the road even under frantic driving conditions. I do know a guy who ran 1.9 on 100 octane petrol and claimed that it was noticably faster. I guess that could actually indicate a badly-tuned motor. I have to say, I often think there is the psychological feeling that things are going quicker - people are often more likely to test the limits of their car if they've just tried something to up the performance and this can lead to a false impression of extra power.

Chris.

 

[miknik]

Below is from the website:

Shell Optimax - a totally new petrol for the ultimate drive

Shell Optimax is a unique unleaded fuel developed specifically for UK drivers. In fact it is the most significant fuel we've launched for more than a decade and we're confident that it will give you optimum performance and maximum engine protection. Here's why we're sure you'll notice the
Optimax Edge:

Remember, oil companies are held in high regard for being very fair and honest. They would never lie to you, the consumer.

a.. Its unique formulation will help your car or motorbike respond quickly and safely, just when you need it to, in all driving conditions

How vague, how is it going to do that I wonder? 98 octane fuel will burn like any other 98 octane fuel, if it had different burning properties it would have a different octane rating.

b.. It will protect your engine like no other petrol

Protect it from what? Petrol doesn't damage your engine...

c.. Tests show it's the UK's best performance petrol

Hmmm, yeah right. Shell's tests I bet.

d.. It was created by the Shell scientists who develop fuels for the Ferrari F1 car

Wow, I'm impressed. If they develop fuel for Ferrari then my car is bound to go like one when I fill up with optimax.

So it is a premium fuel like recommended by the seller of the ECU add on gizmo this thread was about as opposed to a standard unleaded from the local supermarket.

I've never seen standard unleaded anywhere, just "premium" 95 octane

Just google octane rating and read a few of the pages, then if you decide to buy the shell advertising bullshit about better performance and fill up with optimax when your car runs fine on premium then you deserve to be parted with your money