Shell V-power nitro plus

[Pop_Rivit]

Originally Posted By: jk_636
Ramble jam, yes 87 or that awful corn gas is what is "recommended" but that doesn't mean it can't run anything else. Using 93 instead of 87 won't hurt anything. No worries.

Jsfalls: It is not a waste of money in my mind. It is a Higher octane fuel that has improved fuel economy, burns more efficiently and as such helps keep fuel system cleaner.


You're a marketing company's best friend. You believe that in paying more for something that returns no added value whatsoever, and by doing so you actually believe that you're taking better care of your vehicle.

In college I had a marketing professor who discussed that very phenomenon. There is a segment of the population who believe that, because a product costs more and is marketed as superior, they're willing to pay more even though the reality is that there's no cost benefit between the higher priced product and lower priced product, especially in your case with a vehicle that does not require higher octane fuel.

As long as it feeds your ego and gives you that feeling of superiority, then by all means continue overpaying. The rest of us will just continue to use that "cheap" gas, and laughing all the way to the bank.

 

[webfors]

Originally Posted By: Pop_Rivit
Originally Posted By: jk_636
Ramble jam, yes 87 or that awful corn gas is what is "recommended" but that doesn't mean it can't run anything else. Using 93 instead of 87 won't hurt anything. No worries.

Jsfalls: It is not a waste of money in my mind. It is a Higher octane fuel that has improved fuel economy, burns more efficiently and as such helps keep fuel system cleaner.


You're a marketing company's best friend. You believe that in paying more for something that returns no added value whatsoever, and by doing so you actually believe that you're taking better care of your vehicle.

In college I had a marketing professor who discussed that very phenomenon. There is a segment of the population who believe that, because a product costs more and is marketed as superior, they're willing to pay more even though the reality is that there's no cost benefit between the higher priced product and lower priced product, especially in your case with a vehicle that does not require higher octane fuel.

As long as it feeds your ego and gives you that feeling of superiority, then by all means continue overpaying. The rest of us will just continue to use that "cheap" gas, and laughing all the way to the bank.


I was like this before. Premium gas, premium oil, additives, magic elixr! By looking around at friends/family that have kept cars much much longer than I have, and how well they continue to run with minimal/regular maintenance, I have become convinced. There are statistically very few applications that require these products. For the rest it makes no difference whatsoever.

OPE's... now that's a different story

 

[jk_636]

Originally Posted By: Pop_Rivit
Originally Posted By: jk_636
Ramble jam, yes 87 or that awful corn gas is what is "recommended" but that doesn't mean it can't run anything else. Using 93 instead of 87 won't hurt anything. No worries.

Jsfalls: It is not a waste of money in my mind. It is a Higher octane fuel that has improved fuel economy, burns more efficiently and as such helps keep fuel system cleaner.


You're a marketing company's best friend. You believe that in paying more for something that returns no added value whatsoever, and by doing so you actually believe that you're taking better care of your vehicle.

In college I had a marketing professor who discussed that very phenomenon. There is a segment of the population who believe that, because a product costs more and is marketed as superior, they're willing to pay more even though the reality is that there's no cost benefit between the higher priced product and lower priced product, especially in your case with a vehicle that does not require higher octane fuel.

As long as it feeds your ego and gives you that feeling of superiority, then by all means continue overpaying. The rest of us will just continue to use that "cheap" gas, and laughing all the way to the bank.


You are absolutely right. Just because a Ferrari is more expensive than a Yugo doesn't make it a better car right? It's just ego! A Rolex is just an expensive timex right? It just makes you feel good to wear one. Everyone knows that behind all the smoke and mirrors, Grey Goose Vodka is just Taaka in a frosted glass bottle right?

I assume we must have a psychiatry major in our midst! Thank you Dr. Phil , if you hadn't diagnosed my disorder in time, I'm not sure what would have happened after even one more tank of this over priced gas that only feeds my ego.

Or.....

It is worth the 30c a gallon because it actually does contain more fuel additives than other manufacturers, it does burn more efficiently and as such it actually does increase fuel mileage and engine life. I have seen and recorded fuel mileage gains of up to 20%. That isn't ego or feel good science, that is real science!

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted By: jk_636
It is worth the 30c a gallon because it actually does contain more fuel additives than other manufacturers, it does burn more efficiently and as such it actually does increase fuel mileage and engine life. I have seen and recorded fuel mileage gains of up to 20%. That isn't ego or feel good science, that is real science!


Where did you learn that? Do you have any references or even marketing information from the petroleum producers to show that? I've never seen a claim of decreased fuel consumption, especially nothing remotely close to 20%.

I can't help to think that if it were the case, ExxonMobil, BP and Shell would be all over that angle.

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted By: jk_636
It is worth the 30c a gallon because it actually does contain more fuel additives than other manufacturers, it does burn more efficiently and as such it actually does increase fuel mileage and engine life. I have seen and recorded fuel mileage gains of up to 20%. That isn't ego or feel good science, that is real science!


No, it does not. High-compression engines (which benefit from higher octane fuel) are more efficient, but an engine that is designed for lower octane fuel will not be more efficient. Higher octane will resist pre-ignition better but once the spark plug initiates combustion it is as complete as it will ever get. If not, your engine management system (via the O2 sensors at the catalyst) will compensate or trigger a CEL due to high unburned hydrocarbons.

I'd love to see any documentation that supports your claim.

 

[badtlc]

Originally Posted By: kschachn
Originally Posted By: jk_636
It is worth the 30c a gallon because it actually does contain more fuel additives than other manufacturers, it does burn more efficiently and as such it actually does increase fuel mileage and engine life. I have seen and recorded fuel mileage gains of up to 20%. That isn't ego or feel good science, that is real science!


No, it does not. High-compression engines (which benefit from higher octane fuel) are more efficient, but an engine that is designed for lower octane fuel will not be more efficient. Higher octane will resist pre-ignition better but once the spark plug initiates combustion it is as complete as it will ever get. If not, your engine management system (via the O2 sensors at the catalyst) will compensate or trigger a CEL due to high unburned hydrocarbons.

I'd love to see any documentation that supports your claim.


This is a bit relative. My mazda skyactiv is "designed" for 87 octane. By that, i mean they program the ECU to enrich the F:A to keep combustion temps down. This lowers fuel economy. When you run premium in a skyactiv, it leans out the F:A and gives measurably better fuel economy.

I think if the engine is lower compression and designed for 87 octane, you are right. If the engine is patched for 87 and is higher compression, you are going to get better performance with higher octane.

 

[Vikas]

How does that work? Do you tell the Skyactive engine that you just filled in with 93 octane? Does it analyze the gas in the tank? Is there a logic inside where after you open the gas filler cap and close it again, the computer runs its algorithm to determine the octane of the gas coming from the tank? I am not saying it is impossible, I just don't recall any manufacturer making these claims in a reputable journal. Marking glossies are different though.

Either the engine is designed to run on high octane but has fail safe way to prevent detonation if standard octane is used or the engine is designed to run on standard octane and there are no hooks to increase the timing dynamically.

You also have to define what is meant by "design". Does Mazda publishes its ratings aka power, torque, mpg with 87 or with 91? The gas used in those rating is what the engine is "designed" to run.

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted By: badtlc
This is a bit relative. My mazda skyactiv is "designed" for 87 octane. By that, i mean they program the ECU to enrich the F:A to keep combustion temps down. This lowers fuel economy. When you run premium in a skyactiv, it leans out the F:A and gives measurably better fuel economy.

I think if the engine is lower compression and designed for 87 octane, you are right. If the engine is patched for 87 and is higher compression, you are going to get better performance with higher octane.


I agree that as in my Sienna's 1MZ-FE which states a minimum of 87 (but 91 or higher recommended) there is a benefit. However, jk_636 stating that it burns more "efficiently" is incorrect as a general statement. He's trying to make the claim that that the combustion process is more complete with a higher octane fuel which is not correct. A stoichiometrically correct mixture of 87 octane and 93 octane fuel will burn just as completely. The fallacy comes in because an engine that is designed for higher octane fuel (because of the compression ratio) will be more efficient. But it is the engine that is more efficient, not the combustion. You get more mechanical output due to less fuel being used to garner the same heat. It does not have to do with the completeness of the combustion. Lower compression engines do not have higher levels of unburned hydrocarbons.

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted By: Vikas
Either the engine is designed to run on high octane but has fail safe way to prevent detonation if standard octane is used or the engine is designed to run on standard octane and there are no hooks to increase the timing dynamically.


That is a good way of putting it that the knock sensor/s are a fail-safe device. Even then all you can do is retard or advance timing, not change the compression ratio of the engine.

 

[Virtus_Probi]

Originally Posted By: Vikas
How does that work? Do you tell the Skyactive engine that you just filled in with 93 octane? Does it analyze the gas in the tank? Is there a logic inside where after you open the gas filler cap and close it again, the computer runs its algorithm to determine the octane of the gas coming from the tank? I am not saying it is impossible, I just don't recall any manufacturer making these claims in a reputable journal. Marking glossies are different though.

Either the engine is designed to run on high octane but has fail safe way to prevent detonation if standard octane is used or the engine is designed to run on standard octane and there are no hooks to increase the timing dynamically.

You also have to define what is meant by "design". Does Mazda publishes its ratings aka power, torque, mpg with 87 or with 91? The gas used in those rating is what the engine is "designed" to run.


I worked on part of the electronics chain of a knock detection system for a major US OEM over 20 years ago, basically any modern car will have such a system. We were not privy to everything the customer was doing, but the gist of it was that they could detect knock signatures that were far below what a driver could feel and timing was adjusted to keep the engine on the verge of knocking to knocking very lightly whenever possible. The engine controller ran this as sort of a background process, but could still adjust on timescales that were far below human perception. In a nutshell, this system would automatically adjust to gasoline octane through the knock sensors to allow the engine to best extract what power it could from the grade it was fed (within limits, of course).
So, most any car made these days should be able to run with a bit more power on premium, even if it can run fine on 87.

 

[Vikas]

Are you telling us that manufacturer will go through all the certification, publish all the specifications for standard octane and then deliver better performance, better fuel economy if you just happened to put premium octane in that vehicle?

I do not believe that. Some models are designed for premium and would run (some even happily!) on regular. But the car designed to run on regular, what is the incentive for the manufacturer to forgo the ability to specify extra power and fuel efficiency?

I understand and agree with what you had worked on. But this is still the algorithm to retard the timing and that only comes in to picture when knock is detected.

The so called "default" timing advance would be different for an engine designed to run on 87 vs 91 octane.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: jk_636
I have seen and recorded fuel mileage gains of up to 20%. That isn't ego or feel good science, that is real science!

But up to 20% means < 20%, which can mean 0.01%, right? This isn't science, this is marketing, I thought.

Now, we've had around 70% increase in consumption claimed for not using Shell V-Power, and up to 20% fuel mileage gains. You might, just might, see 20% gains if you have something needing 93 octane and you run a bad load of 87 octane and the thing is able to adjust timing. Other than that, it's not going to happen.

If it did, it will be repeatable by everyone, and you can demonstrate it in a mathematically rigorous fashion. In respect to detergent levels, not all premiums have significantly more than the regulars. You are correct, however, in that Shell's premium does.

But, no one's going to get a free ride claiming 20% better fuel economy in a car designed for 87 octane by switching from Shell regular to V-power. And, if it's under 10%, you're going to have trouble separating your results from the error bars.

 

[webfors]

Mazda's skyactive is a perfect example of realizing benefits from higher octane gas. However that's exactly because of the high compression ratio of these engines. Most engines don't have anything near the compression ratio of the skyactive engines. There's nothing magical about this example. We've seen UOA's that show higher levels of fuel when using 87 octane over premium, which is a direct result of running rich to prevent detonation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engine_knocking

 

[Virtus_Probi]

Originally Posted By: Vikas
Are you telling us that manufacturer will go through all the certification, publish all the specifications for standard octane and then deliver better performance, better fuel economy if you just happened to put premium octane in that vehicle?

I do not believe that. Some models are designed for premium and would run (some even happily!) on regular. But the car designed to run on regular, what is the incentive for the manufacturer to forgo the ability to specify extra power and fuel efficiency?

I understand and agree with what you had worked on. But this is still the algorithm to retard the timing and that only comes in to picture when knock is detected.

The so called "default" timing advance would be different for an engine designed to run on 87 vs 91 octane.


I know that you could find comments from Toyota about the V6 in my old RAV4 having slightly better performance using higher octane fuel...but, the ability to use 87 was a BIG selling point for that car. I don't think they wanted people to start thinking their engine is going to run poorly if they didn't use premium, plus the performance gain was not huge, so they didn't broadcast it too loudly. Obviously, the potential gain in an engine with a low compression ratio is not going to be anything major, anyway.
Again, I didn't work at that very big US OEM and they were very secretive, but we were told that the intent was that the knock detection system was going to be the main factor setting the timing...obviously they were going to put limits on it, but the "default timing" was going to be what knock detection system said it should be. We saw the prototype systems running on a dyno and it was pretty cool to watch the timing shift around as they changed parameters and simulated knock.

 

[edhackett]

Originally Posted By: Vikas
Are you telling us that manufacturer will go through all the certification, publish all the specifications for standard octane and then deliver better performance, better fuel economy if you just happened to put premium octane in that vehicle?


Absolutely. The engineers designed a high compression engine either NA or turbo around premium. The marketing department told them to make it run on regular because customers don't want to buy a car that they have to pay extra for premium fuel. The engineers tweak the fuel and timing parameters so that it runs fine on regular. Using premium gets you the performance and milage the engine was designed for.

Ed

 

[Garak]

I would assume that is usually in what we'd call non-luxury or non-sport cars, though, right Ed? Infiniti and Audi and Ford SVT, for instance, certainly aren't shy about specifying premium. I don't know how Lincoln is these days, but back in the day of a 302 in a Town Car, it didn't need premium or benefit from premium in any event.

 

[Capa]

Originally Posted By: edhackett
Originally Posted By: Vikas
Are you telling us that manufacturer will go through all the certification, publish all the specifications for standard octane and then deliver better performance, better fuel economy if you just happened to put premium octane in that vehicle?


Absolutely. The engineers designed a high compression engine either NA or turbo around premium. The marketing department told them to make it run on regular because customers don't want to buy a car that they have to pay extra for premium fuel. The engineers tweak the fuel and timing parameters so that it runs fine on regular. Using premium gets you the performance and milage the engine was designed for.

Ed


X2,

and as has been said many times on Bitog, you can run regular on most vehicles that call for premium, with a slight penalty in the horsepower and mpg department.

 

[robertcope]

Originally Posted By: Capa

and as has been said many times on Bitog, you can run regular on most vehicles that call for premium, with a slight penalty in the horsepower and mpg department.


General statements like this are dangerous. While I would tend to agree that many modern vehicles will compensate for lower octane fuel, I wouldn't bet my motor on it. Put 87 octane into my old Tacoma's supercharged motor and you're going to hurt it! Yeah, it has a knock sensor, but it isn't designed for that much compensation.

robert

 

[edhackett]

Originally Posted By: Garak
I would assume that is usually in what we'd call non-luxury or non-sport cars, though, right Ed? Infiniti and Audi and Ford SVT, for instance, certainly aren't shy about specifying premium. I don't know how Lincoln is these days, but back in the day of a 302 in a Town Car, it didn't need premium or benefit from premium in any event.


That has been my observation. It seems most common in the optional engines in mid priced "family" cars. The mentioned V6 Toyota and Mazda Skyactive engines, along with the previous generation flat 6 in the Subaru Outback. The turbo Hyundai's are another example.

The target market has a lot to do with it as you mention too. Economy car buyers expect regular. Performance car buyers aren't put off by having to buy premium. It's the mid line cars where the buyer may want to opt for a more powerful engine but not want to commit to the extra operating expense of premium fuel where you see the option.

Ed

 

[Garak]

Interesting information. Of course, things like Impalas and the old Crown Vics occasionally even had the disclaimer that premium wasn't necessary or helpful. Obviously, when I had my Audi Turbo or my Lightning or, now, the G37, the target market and performance goals are significantly different.

If you would have asked me to guess, I would have thought that something like the Skyactive would call for premium for certain. And for sure, I think the target market is important. Look at the Town Cars. They hung onto a lot of old style thinking, not that there's anything wrong with that, but it was a big contrast against lots of other Luxury brands. While an Infiniti or BMW or Benz would call for premium, it would call for regular (and justifiably, given the engines) and hang onto cassettes until long past their dying day.