bit of a mouthful that. So what ltres per 100kilometres do you get then?
Whats the difference between 0ct95 / Shell v-power ?
- Thread starter Alfa The Awesome
- Start date
-
- Tags
- confused
Currently reading:
Whats the difference between 0ct95 / Shell v-power ?
All modern cars have knock sensors linked to ECU. The ECU no matter what fuel is used will advance the ignition until just before knock to get the most from the engine. So using a higher Octane fuel means knock is detected higher, so more power is produced. The reason cars do this is to compensate for lower grades of fuels that may be found in some markets the cars is sold in to ensure the car always runs correctly and to the best of the fuel used, and do not detonate when inferior fuel is used.
Most modern cars from about the last 10 years forward use this system, especially European cars running Bosch management systems which is pretty much everything now. Other markets like Japan with Denso and Ford with there own systems are now as well.
Generally in a N/A car the differance are smaller, but on turbo charged cars which are getting much more common place now, the benefits can be easily felt as forced induction cars run closer to detonation much longer in the rev cycle.
It should be noted most Japanese cars are meant to run on a minimum of 98ron fuel, even my Ignis Sport is, there's a sticker inside fuel cap reminding you of this, even though its a small capacity 1490cc car 16V VVT there is a noticeable decrease in power if using 95ron. The reason for this is there grades of fuel are higher than UK with 100ron being normal.
Why they are marketed as being more efficient is because the car is running more efficiently then the reasoning is that you do not need to use as much throttle to make the same progress, hence better economy.
On older cars, you would need to remap to the higher grade of fuels to get true benefit of them.
Most modern cars from about the last 10 years forward use this system, especially European cars running Bosch management systems which is pretty much everything now. Other markets like Japan with Denso and Ford with there own systems are now as well.
Generally in a N/A car the differance are smaller, but on turbo charged cars which are getting much more common place now, the benefits can be easily felt as forced induction cars run closer to detonation much longer in the rev cycle.
It should be noted most Japanese cars are meant to run on a minimum of 98ron fuel, even my Ignis Sport is, there's a sticker inside fuel cap reminding you of this, even though its a small capacity 1490cc car 16V VVT there is a noticeable decrease in power if using 95ron. The reason for this is there grades of fuel are higher than UK with 100ron being normal.
Why they are marketed as being more efficient is because the car is running more efficiently then the reasoning is that you do not need to use as much throttle to make the same progress, hence better economy.
On older cars, you would need to remap to the higher grade of fuels to get true benefit of them.
OP
OP
5 litres per 100km.....thats about 56.8 miles to the gallen...
Sweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet:slayer:
OP
OP
So if you had a 2004 stilo, and you had a chioce of Shell v-power or shell standard 98, what is better and what would you choose ?? 98 is more expensive.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2004
- Messages
- 25,219
- Points
- 3,671
95 Unleaded. Unless you drive a Mitsubishi Lancer FQ350+, Nissan Skyline Twin Tub or any other highly tuned turbo car or a N/A car that has been tuned to run on it properly.
Some people say its good to run 1tank in 4 due to the better cleaning properties but aint convinced IMO. High quality injector cleaner is better.
I think there was a scientific study somewere that tested a bunch of high octane fuels against there regular unleaded and in some cases actually lost power!. IIRC Tesco 100ron Super Unleaded was the best one
followed closely by BP ultimate.
Some people say its good to run 1tank in 4 due to the better cleaning properties but aint convinced IMO. High quality injector cleaner is better.
I think there was a scientific study somewere that tested a bunch of high octane fuels against there regular unleaded and in some cases actually lost power!. IIRC Tesco 100ron Super Unleaded was the best one
followed closely by BP ultimate.
Last edited:
95 Unleaded. Unless you drive a Mitsubishi Lancer FQ350+, Nissan Skyline Twin Tub or any other highly tuned turbo car or a N/A car that has been tuned to run on it properly.
Some people say its good to run 1tank in 4 due to the better cleaning properties but aint convinced IMO. High quality injector cleaner is better.
I think there was a scientific study somewere that tested a bunch of high octane fuels against there regular unleaded and in some cases actually lost power!. IIRC Tesco 100ron Super Unleaded was the best one
I know Fifth Gear (TV) tested aload of fuel adatives and none of these work, and as you said one knocked about 5MPG off the total! Not good when it cost £25 a bottle!
RON indicates how effective a petrol blend is against knock......and nothing else. It has nothing to do with efficieny, power or economy. You may see slight improvements using the "Advanced petrols" but this is due to their chemical make-up and certain additives, NOT the RON grade. If your car was designed to run on 95, putting 98 in is a total waste of cash (unless you are prone to the Placebo effect).
Shell got dragged in front of the ASA a few years ago over the claims it made about Optimax if any else remembers........Next time you read all the makers hype about advanced petrols look closely at the wording. When the claims made change from "CAN improve performance and economy" to....."WILL improve performance and economy" I will consider using it.
Shell got dragged in front of the ASA a few years ago over the claims it made about Optimax if any else remembers........Next time you read all the makers hype about advanced petrols look closely at the wording. When the claims made change from "CAN improve performance and economy" to....."WILL improve performance and economy" I will consider using it.
LOL. Its like going to a shop to buy something and it says prices From.
ignition is only advanced up to the default timing, never more, and since the default timing calculations are based on an certain octane, using a higher octane fuel can not result in a further ignition advance. that is the reason you cant get more power using a higher octane than your ignition map is designed to use. for most cars this is 95, on some it is 98. if you run a 95 car on 98 fuel the ignition advance will be exactly the same as when using 95 fuel, that is proven.
if your ecu could continually advance ignition up to the point of knock no matter what octane fuel you used then there would be a power increase when using a higher octane, but that doesnt happen. this is the main (only) reason power increase claims have been proven to be completely false.
why dont all cars use 200 as the theoretical default octane? then we could all take advantage of a higher octane fuel. there is one good reason, it would kill your engine. running at a lower than expected octane is possible thanks to your knock sensor, but it isnt good for the engine in the long run because you have almost constant pinking as the ignition timing is constantly trying to adjust back to the default level. that pinking isnt good for the engine, as seen by the untimely death of engines in countries where the fuel is worse than it should be.
all default ignition timing is designed to be slightly more retarded than the fuel could theoreticaly allow so that there is no knock occuring at all during the vast majority of the time. that is why each car is set up to be run on a certain octane of fuel, 95 or 98 in the vast majority of cases. check your knock sensor with an oscilloscope if you have any doubts, you'll see no knock reading at all the vast majority of the time, but you will see a knock signal almost constantly if you use 95 fuel in a 98 car. that is why you should not use 95 fuel in a jap import, the constant pinking kills the engine eventually.
Last edited:
I know someone who works in the field of engine development, with credits including VAG 1.8 20VT, 2L FSi turbo, RS4 V8, RS6 V10, new Nissan GTR engine, Mini/Pug 1.6 turbo, 1.6L Suzuki Swift Sport engine, all modern cars will advance the ignition to when knock is induced, not to a theoretical maximum.
Here's an article by Thorney Motorsport who advise before even asking them to do any work for you, run your car on best fuel you can find, there dyno results on a variety of cars shows that in every case the cars with no other modifications made more power.
http://www.thorneymotorsport.co.uk/tuning/Fuel_Test_Results.shtml
EVO mag also got the same conclusions using WRC Technologies at Silverstone for there datum collection using again Shell standard & V Power, BP standard & Ultimate, Tesco's standard and 99RON.
Here's an article by Thorney Motorsport who advise before even asking them to do any work for you, run your car on best fuel you can find, there dyno results on a variety of cars shows that in every case the cars with no other modifications made more power.
http://www.thorneymotorsport.co.uk/tuning/Fuel_Test_Results.shtml
EVO mag also got the same conclusions using WRC Technologies at Silverstone for there datum collection using again Shell standard & V Power, BP standard & Ultimate, Tesco's standard and 99RON.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2004
- Messages
- 25,219
- Points
- 3,671
OP
OP
That is very interesting, so it does prove that you get what you pay for....
A quick question......what ron is shell V-power? is it 95 / 98/ 99 ???? as it doesent say on the pump in Norway??
A quick question......what ron is shell V-power? is it 95 / 98/ 99 ???? as it doesent say on the pump in Norway??
"Shell V-Power is a high octane fuel (99 RON) designed to help maximize the performance of many modern engines with adaptive spark timing capacity."
From Shell's site
From Shell's site
neither of the cars they tested are designed to run on 95 ron fuel, they are both 98ron cars, so of course they will be able to take avantage of higher octane fuel.
"The Vehicles Tested
As a consequence of our area of expertise it made sense to test cars we knew well so we chose a 2003 BMW E46 M3 CSL, and as a control car a standard Toyota MR2. We are also testing with a 2006 Vauxhall Astra VXR and will release this data when it is finalized.
BMW E46 M3 CSL
The BMW was chosen primarily due to our view that it represents the finest engineered 6 cylinder engine ever developed. The S54 engine in CSL form generates 350-360bhp at the flywheel which in itself is an enhancement over the standard M3’s 340bhp. We have modified this further with our ‘Stage 2’ tuning package where we add a Milltek Sport performance exhaust and race catalytic converter and remap the car’s ECU with advanced engine code to give a flywheel power figure of 380bhp.
Toyota MR2
The Toyota was chosen specifically because the car represents an older vehicle but with a recognized advanced design of engine. Run in purely standard form the vehicle should generate 175 bhp at the flywheel."
testing an M3 and an MR2 isnt a fair test. all it does is prove the already accepted idea that a car designed for higher octane will benefit from it. whoopy do, thats common knowledge and common sense.
the Evo mag test showed that only cars designed to run on higher octane benefitted from it (Golf Mk 5 GTI, Porsche Boxster). auto express did a similar test and got the same results. all tests i have seen show the same thing, cars designed for 95ron show no power gain from higher octane fuel.
can anyone show a single example where a car designed for 95ron actually showed a power gain when using 98ron or higher? i have never seen one.
Last edited:
OP
OP
This is getting very interesting,
I would also be very gratfull if sombody had some hard facts on the gain, if any, by using higher octane on a 95oct car....
My first thread asked the difference between 95 and v-power, well this is becoming clear...Nothing...it seams to be no more than a sales pitch...unless your car is preset to run 98 from the off....
I dont remember Shell saying anywhere that this fuel is no benefit to a 95oct car, maybe this should be displayed at the garages....
I would also be very gratfull if sombody had some hard facts on the gain, if any, by using higher octane on a 95oct car....
My first thread asked the difference between 95 and v-power, well this is becoming clear...Nothing...it seams to be no more than a sales pitch...unless your car is preset to run 98 from the off....
I dont remember Shell saying anywhere that this fuel is no benefit to a 95oct car, maybe this should be displayed at the garages....
they do tell you the truth, but few people understand what it means.
""Shell V-Power is a high octane fuel (99 RON) designed to help maximize the performance of many modern engines with adaptive spark timing capacity."
adaptive spark timing means your ignition can advance to suit the fuel's octane no matter what that octane is (rather than the traditional method of only advancing up to a certain amount to suit a certain fuel). few cars on british roads have adaptive spark timing. in the future more will, but until you own one there is no benefit to higher octane.
similarly jap imports that are designed to run on 98ron will not benefit from the 102ron fuels because they cant adapt to a higher octane.
shell arent telling any lies, they are simply taking advantage of the fact that consumers dont have enough knowledge to make an informed decision.
so the question isnt "does a higher octane fuel have any benefit?"
the real question should be "can my car benefit from a higher octane fuel?" the answer depends on which car you drive and which fuel you intend to use.
Last edited:
OP
OP
Well that makes sence, you say not many on british roads, by any chance as my Stilo 1.2 is bought in Norway (where i live) would it be of different spec and actually be able to take advantage of the v-power, or is fiat a fiat whatever country its in??? i am not looking for a power gain just the fuel consumption, and cleaner engine outlook, as i a m a 45.000km (26.500miles)
OP
OP
sorry dident finish
45.000km yearly driver, and ALL on the motorway to and from work.
Thanks.
45.000km yearly driver, and ALL on the motorway to and from work.
Thanks.
a stilo 1.2 cant take advantage of anything over 95ron, but using a fuel with added detergents cant hurt (apart from the extra cost)
Last edited:
SeicentoS
Established member
but if you use 98/99 ron/oct on a 2004 stilo 1.2 16v, will it do damage to the cat etc
no point unless you get it mapped to use the higher quality fuel
