V-power Etc

[hosstheboss]

Read this in the Press and Journal today???

So-called “super-fuels” do little to help motorists, according to tests carried out by Which? Car magazine.

They do not save drivers money, do not improve a car’s performance and do not help the environment, Which? Car said.

For many drivers it was a waste of money paying over the odds for these types of fuel, its editor, Richard Headland, said.

Which? Car tested three super-fuels (Shell V-Power, Tesco Super Unleaded and BP Ultimate Diesel) against standard fuels.

It found:

Shell V-Power gave a Ford Focus 1.6 a marginal power increase. However, filling the car on this petrol for 12,000 miles will cost £115 more than using Shell’s standard petrol. Tesco Super Unleaded actually decreased the power of the Focus.

The Volkswagen Golf’s hi-tech 1.4 TSI engine responded well to Shell V-Power, but there was little to choose between super-fuels and ordinary petrol on economy and emissions.

The economy and performance of the Renault Megane 1.5 diesel were both slightly worse using BP Ultimate diesel, the super-fuel furthest from the marketing claims in the test.

Each super-fuel had only a marginal effect on the emissions of measured pollutants, seemingly putting paid to environmental claims.

There could be benefits to using super-fuels in the long term as they include detergents to improve engine longevity. However, Which? thinks any break-even point in terms of reduced repair bills could be years away.

Mr Headland said: “For many cars it’s a waste of money paying over the odds for so-called super-fuels. The standard fuels we tested were all up to the job, whether from a major fuel brand or a supermarket.

“There’s no conclusive evidence to show that super-fuels are better for your car in the long run. So in a time of high oil prices, why would you choose to pay more?”

Meanwhile, the high cost of fuel is causing more motorists to run out of petrol, the AA said today.

In recent weeks, as many as 20% of drivers have gone past, or very close to, the empty mark, with miscalculations mainly caused by drivers failing to realise how little petrol their money was now buying.

Younger drivers were most likely to run on empty, an AA/Populus poll of 12,000 AA members showed.

[colzo]

Not really tested on performance models though. EVO mag done a fuel test and V Power was proven to give more performance on the Scoobs.

[hosstheboss]

Not really tested on performance models though. EVO mag done a fuel test and V Power was proven to give more performance on the Scoobs.

Thats what i thought, it's all i use on the RB320.

[emoe]

That test will not work on the models they have tested. The cars used were built and their ECU fueling is set to standard 95 ron, (meaning less advance and regulated fuel via the lambda readings) so putting higher octane in will NOT IMPROVE performance or mileage.

The whole reason we need high octane fuel is because with most turbo cars, the fuel has a tendancy to burn late, causing Detonation, therefore high octane fuel burns more complete, therefore (again) the fuel does not ignite again and create a detonation in the cylinder.

Secondly we run mapped vehicles and that means the fuel is optimised to be as close to 14.1:1 as possible giving the best burn you can get, and also the advaced timing means more power. HOWEVER with lower RON fuel it will simply not burn correctly, causing DET, (meaning the engine management will back off!) and less power,

so all in all, Thanks WHICH magazine for a totally useless test for PERFORMANCE cars!!!

[C_WRX]

....and Shell were a little shy in telling people during their v-power days that although it was cleaner/better for their cars engine life it was normally a lot more expensive for such little benefit !

All I put in mine obviously but very ocassionally put it in the wifes.

[speech]

Fifth Gear ran a similar experiment a few years back with three motors - a mkV Golf GTi, Impreza STi and can't remember the third, maybe a Mini, and 3 different fuels - standard 95RON, BP Ultimate (97RON) and Optimax.

Each car was run on a rolling road with usual BHP & torque measurements being taken and between each different fuel run the tanks and fuel lines were emptied and the ecu's reset to give decent results.

Bottom line was on the lower powered car (mini??) the different fuels made naff all difference, in the Golf BP Ultimate seemed to give better torque results but the Impreza showed significant gains in both power and torque (up 8BHP I think) whilst using Optimax.

Just found out that the third car was a Clio!

Edited September 25, 2008 by Speech

[DR Motosport]

Fifth Gear ran a similar experiment a few years back with three motors - a mkV Golf GTi, Impreza STi and can't remember the third, maybe a Mini, and 3 different fuels - standard 95RON, BP Ultimate (97RON) and Optimax.

Each car was run on a rolling road with usual BHP & torque measurements being taken and between each different fuel run the tanks and fuel lines were emptied and the ecu's reset to give decent results.

Bottom line was on the lower powered car (mini??) the different fuels made naff all difference, in the Golf BP Ultimate seemed to give better torque results but the Impreza showed significant gains in both power and torque (up 8BHP I think) whilst using Optimax.

Just found out that the third car was a Clio!

I remember that test a couple of years ago, and normal everyday Golfs and Astra's won't show any improvement. But on a performance Turbo car there are gains to be had.

But I use V-power on both my Impreza's for peace of mind that it's 99.4 ron.

Audi state in their car technical brochures that their performance models will run better on 98ron and will produce ???bhp. It can also run on 95ron but will produce ???bhp (less bhp) and can also be run on 91ron with even less bhp.

And the losses can be up to 20bhp

David

[scouk]

Here's a report on the 5th gear review:

http://fifthgear.five.tv/jsp/5gmain.jsp?ln...3&pageid=-1

Shame the video clips have been pulled from youtube

Edited September 25, 2008 by ScoUK

[gus the bus]

........and V Power works amazingly well on the old ZZR1100 transformed the bike after one tank full

[thefastone]

Hmmm I'm SURE that it was up not that long ago, but it wasn't anything obvious in the title... and you had to use odd keywords to get to it...

[thewelsho]

That test will not work on the models they have tested. The cars used were built and their ECU fueling is set to standard 95 ron, (meaning less advance and regulated fuel via the lambda readings) so putting higher octane in will NOT IMPROVE performance or mileage.

The whole reason we need high octane fuel is because with most turbo cars, the fuel has a tendancy to burn late, causing Detonation, therefore high octane fuel burns more complete, therefore (again) the fuel does not ignite again and create a detonation in the cylinder.

Secondly we run mapped vehicles and that means the fuel is optimised to be as close to 14.1:1 as possible giving the best burn you can get, and also the advaced timing means more power. HOWEVER with lower RON fuel it will simply not burn correctly, causing DET, (meaning the engine management will back off!) and less power,

so all in all, Thanks WHICH magazine for a totally useless test for PERFORMANCE cars!!!

Splendidly put

[mystery machine]

I'll give you my own experience...

The first time I used V-Power was with my previous car (also Turbocharged, albeit less powerful than the Scooby). I was running very low on fuel and filled up with V-Power purely by accident - I wasn't even aware I'd used the V-Power pump. However, about five minutes after driving away from the pumps I noticed my car was definitely feeling perkier and smoother. It was only when I got home and checked the till receipt from the garage that I realised where the performance boost had come from! I've used V-Power almost exclusively since then.

If there are economic benefits to using this fuel, my feeling is that they aren't quite enough to offset the extra cost. It will, however, make some engines run more smoothly and, well... more quickly. It's up to you to decide whether it's worth paying the premium for (no pun intended).

As an aside, I noticed only the slightest difference running my last non-turbocharged car on Optimax vs regular 95.

[mystery machine]

One thing to be VERY wary of, however...

If you do try V-Power and find that you like the results - it's damn near impossible to revert to regular!

[scouk]

If there are economic benefits to using this fuel, my feeling is that they aren't quite enough to offset the extra cost. It will, however, make some engines run more smoothly and, well... more quickly. It's up to you to decide whether it's worth paying the premium for (no pun intended).

There's always the argument that it is more economical because it does less long term harm to the engine compared to standard fueld.. Admitedly this could be cancelled out by the overwhelming urge to squeeze the throttle and let the revs rise higher that little bit more than normal..

[mystery machine]

Admitedly this could be cancelled out by the overwhelming urge to squeeze the throttle and let the revs rise higher that little bit more than normal..

This is the very paradox!