Shell V-power nitro plus

[badtlc]

Originally Posted By: 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.


You can also enrich and lean out A:F ratios to prevent detonation or increase power/efficiency which is controlled by the ECU. Rich A:F ratios provide cooler combustion chamber temperatures and prevent knocking. Advancing/retarding timing isn't the only method in modern engines.

 

[Luisraul924]

well my car calls for 87 but use premium. Shell Nitro to be exact. I don't really notice a difference in fuel economy. I'll fill up the tank with 30 bucks and my low fuel light comes on without fail anywhere between 330-340 miles into the tank. On my last fill up however my low fuel light didn't come on until 360 miles into the tank. A whopping extra 20-30 miles. Not sure how that happened but it was nice to get a few extra miles.

 

[Olas]

Originally Posted By: 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.


You can't change the SCR but the DCR is easily adjusted with a degree wheel. Sme cars even change it automatically with vvt.

 

[jk_636]

Originally Posted By: 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.


Haha. Mr funny man. Unlike Fram, I can quantify these figures. When I say up to 20%, it means just that. Believe it or not folks, most vehicles will get noticeably better mileage with different brands of gasoline. Impossible? Let me explain. Real world example: I fill my truck up with Valero brand gasoline. It is cheap. It is close to the house, and they have a nice convience store. With said fuel, I get 300 miles to the tank. Now I fill up with shell. Same octane rating, just slightly more expensive and not as close to the house. I now get 360 miles to the tank. Same driving habits, same tire pressure, same ambient temperature, same idling time, same everything. The fuel is the only variable that has changed, and in this example, the Shell gasoline has given me a 20% increase in fuel economy.

Now that example was performed with 87 octane. If you apply that same logic to the premium fuels, there is a reasonable chance that Nitro Plus is going to give you a cleaner, more efficient burn and increase your average MPG over other name brand manufacturers. Basically, perform as it is advertised by Shell. Hence why this discussion has been started. Dont take my word for it, be objective. Take the Shell challenge and see for yourself!

Now if Royal Purple only made Gasoline...

 

[webfors]

No way there's a 20% difference with the same octane unless you're getting bad/substandard gas.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: jk_636
The fuel is the only variable that has changed, and in this example, the Shell gasoline has given me a 20% increase in fuel economy.

Let's see that done in a mathematically rigorous fashion, as I've stated. You haven't eliminated all variables at all. I've demonstrated before here, in a mathematically rigorous fashion, that fuel economy changes between brands of fuel, E0 to E10, and different oil viscosities, are just about impossible to determine outside of a lab. And without error analysis, calculations are meaningless. Going by miles per tank is also extremely problematic and introduces a monumental error bar. It's difficult enough to accomplish anything with miles per gallon, given the error bars. A tank is not even remotely a standard or repeatable measure of volume.

As for the Shell challenge, I've been using Shell V-Power, and its current iteration, almost exclusively for many, many months in the G37. I've also switched around enough, here and there, to introduce variation, including E10 and other brands. And, for business purposes, I record all mileage. There is no discernible difference between Shell V-Power and any other E0 premium out there. There seems to be an improvement using Shell V-Power (or Esso premium or Petro-Canada premium) versus Husky premium, since the latter has ethanol. However, the difference is swallowed by the error bars.

Basically, I cannot repeat your results. No one else here can, except for one other dubious claimant. Shell certainly can't. The automakers cannot.

The same thing I said about the ridiculous fuel consumption claim with Shell versus the competition applies here. If an automaker could get 20% better fuel economy using Shell's latest premium, they'd have a lot of CAFE issues solved for the next while. Additionally, Shell would be jumping on that immediately and would own the fuel market in North America.

That's not to say you couldn't have run into poor gasoline. I certainly have. But, that's not saying Shell's premium gives 20% better fuel economy than everyone else out there. Compare Shell V-Power to other Top Tier premiums with the same or similar ethanol levels and see how things compare.

 

[robertcope]

He obviously has found a Shell "test pump", where Shell is testing their real technology. Of course they won't sell it to all of us, they stand to loose 20% of their sales! Instead they've made a deal with the auto manufacturers to phase it in over time in to help them with CAFE numbers.

robert

 

[Garak]

There apparently is another test pump in BC, too.

 

[Virtus_Probi]

Generally I agree with the skepticism about the claims for big differences in mileage with different brands...but, I will share a story about a local no-name station.

This place was near an office where I worked for a few years, but it was pretty sketchy looking and I stayed away at first. Noticed that their prices were really low one day and decided to give them a shot. The card readers on the pumps didn't work and I had to go in the store to turn the pump on...the cashier acted like I was an undercover cop about to bust him, or maybe I was going to hold him up. Pumped my gas and decided to not come back.
The place was on a busy rotary and it took some time for any gaps in traffic to open up. Finally saw a small one and went for it, I was driving a V6 RAV4 and it moved well enough to jump into fast moving traffic without much trouble. Hit the gas and the thing jumped like I had never felt before...I was amazed! As I made my way to work, the feeling of new power remained and I wondered what the mystery ingredient in that gas was.
I drove that car with a heavy foot at all times and enjoyed this new feeling, but the time to fill up again came much earlier than usual, got at least 50 fewer miles out of that tank than was typical. I did not like that and went back to a familiar Exxon station, the car behaved like usual. A few months later, I decided to go back to the sketchy place as an experiment...same result, more powerful feeling and poor mileage out of the tank. The place went out of business not long after that.

This whole thing was very mysterious to me and I posted this story on another online forum...one of the posters who seemed to know his stuff suggested that maybe that place was using way more than 10% ethanol. Seems like the only possible answer to me, as I know that WRX/FXT tuners are getting big increases in power going to E85, as well as getting terrible mileage. I know that the 3.5l Toyota V6 made a little more power on 91 than 87, no idea what the compression ratio was...

 

[jk_636]

Originally Posted By: webfors
No way there's a 20% difference with the same octane unless you're getting bad/substandard gas.


Yes there is definitely a possibility because it happens to me every fill up.

And after having these experiences, it is my opinion that everything but shell is substandard gas.

I'm not sure about test pumps or any of that nonsense, but I will tell you that numbers don't lie. These calculations were all done on a miles per gallon math equation, with no need for error bars or anything else. I would like some more explanation on why or how there could be errors in my math...

And yes, all variables that could have influenced the outcome were eliminated.

All tanks were used with the same:
-ethanol content (10%)
-driving habits
-weather
-humidity
-tire pressure
-fuel additives
-tire conditions

Are there any other variables that I missed that could have influenced the outcome? At this point I don't think so.

All these pieces come together to show that shell is the best fuel out there. Of course they won't advertise claims of up to 20% gains in fuel mileage, because every vehicles experience may vary.

 

[Surestick]

Originally Posted By: jk_636
Originally Posted By: webfors
No way there's a 20% difference with the same octane unless you're getting bad/substandard gas.


Yes there is definitely a possibility because it happens to me every fill up.

And after having these experiences, it is my opinion that everything but shell is substandard gas.

I'm not sure about test pumps or any of that nonsense, but I will tell you that numbers don't lie. These calculations were all done on a miles per gallon math equation, with no need for error bars or anything else. I would like some more explanation on why or how there could be errors in my math...

And yes, all variables that could have influenced the outcome were eliminated.

All tanks were used with the same:
-ethanol content (10%)
-driving habits
-weather
-humidity
-tire pressure
-fuel additives
-tire conditions

Are there any other variables that I missed that could have influenced the outcome? At this point I don't think so.

All these pieces come together to show that shell is the best fuel out there. Of course they won't advertise claims of up to 20% gains in fuel mileage, because every vehicles experience may vary.


If you're going by miles per fill-up instead of miles per gallon be aware that filling until the pump clicks off is not an accurate way to measure fuel and could well be the reason for you %20 difference.

 

[jk_636]

My tank holds 27 gallons. That figure doesn't change. If I put in half a tank, that pump will always dispense 13.5 gallons. How is this not accurate?

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: jk_636
I would like some more explanation on why or how there could be errors in my math...

It's not about errors in your math. It's about errors in measurement, which I assure you are there. Gas station pumps do not measure fuel to five significant figures, no matter what they say. Additionally, there is an error bar beyond that. Pump click off is another variable. The introduces errors go on and on. Unless you're replacing your tank with a fuel cell and measuring it in a much more accurate way than a fuel pump, then you're not even getting rid of measurement error on volume, much less anything else.

And the variables are never eliminated, no matter how hard you try. You cannot guarantee almost any of those variables you list.

You say 13.5 gallons at half a tank. 13.5 gallons plus or minus what? I've demonstrated it before that you cannot accurately measure fuel economy on a road vehicle with an error bar smaller than 10%, and that is doing everything in a mathematically rigorous fashion.

I'm not sold, and I use Shell gas.

 

[Surestick]

Originally Posted By: jk_636
My tank holds 27 gallons. That figure doesn't change. If I put in half a tank, that pump will always dispense 13.5 gallons. How is this not accurate?


I could have been more clear. Different pumps don't all click off at the same point so you can't reliably use the reading on a pump to calculate fuel mileage unless you are always filling at the same pump. Since we're talking about two different gas stations we're talking about at least two different pumps.

 

[raytseng]

hey who knows. Maybe he has the 1 car that reacts 20% differently.

However, 20% improvement is way too far out of spec to be believable because that would be industry changing news and Engineers and car makers and politicians would be scrambling over this. Engineers wrack their brains to get tenths of 1% of fuel economy improvements. Any full digit or double digit changes would be earthshattering.

The most logical explanation to interpret this result is what is happening is not that the new gas is generally better, but it's that jk_636's car is probably malfunctioning on the Valero cheap gas.

As a result, while he sees the improvements, other people's results with properly working vehicles will not be the same; cause what's happening is due to a Problem specific with his car that is getting resolved or worked around by the gas, not a 20% improvement with the gas.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: Surestick
Different pumps don't all click off at the same point so you can't reliably use the reading on a pump to calculate fuel mileage unless you are always filling at the same pump.

Even then, I wouldn't trust it in the least, unless the volume at click off could be verified by another means.

Raysteng, yep, like I suggested, testing against other Top Tier fuels would be a good start.

 

[FutureDoc]

I do agree that some vehicles do see enough of a jump (the GM 1.6 Turbo for example) in MPG with premium that it can off-set the higher cost depending on the price different of Premium and Regular. Marketing mostly determines the recommended fuel, not the engineer as you can't sell mass-market but premium fuels vehicles. Folks are right about the engine being able to adjust so that there are upsides with either a small power increase or increased economy. The question becomes increase for cost.

I have years of fuel economy data on my personal vehicles. My MR2 does not see any bump in economy to account for error (and this is the best case as I am the only driver). My oldbaru ('99) with the EJ does see a small increase in MPG (more power though) but it is significant (stat term here). Still, it was 1mpg or 4% increase. Heck, it might be the best case scenario as it was designed to be premium only but they changed that after one year. The newbaru shows a bit of evidence but again, even with a year of watching, I can't get past issues with summer/winter blends and different drivers to really have an ah-ha moment. My problem includes the terrain as a big hill-climb can alter the averages fairly easily.

I run Shell Premium in my MR2 mostly for the detergents. Shell is really one of the only top-tier places in my area (will not buy from BP, dont care for exxon) I am "spirited" driving it with mostly short trips. It has a 12.7g tank, I fill up at 1/4 so I rarely need more than 10g, so even a $0.40 only costs me $4 with only about one fill-up per month. The oldbaru gets any-ol grocery-store gas since that is where I burn those fuel points. A bit of techron when it is on sale helps there. The newbaru gets shell regular, sometimes premium for the detergents. Since it is only about $4-6 more for premium, I buy that rather than the $5-10 fuel system cleaner.

At the end of the day, my trips, different drivers, and terrain make the fuel difference difficult for my sample of three vehicles to show me any real difference that allows me to run premium for the same cost-per-mile.

I doubt jk claims, 20% is high without factoring in any other item. Still 20% for a vehicle that gets 13-17mpg or average 16mpg (ram) would be +3.2mpg.... which would be more realistically attainable but for the escape, it would be about 5mpg... or realistically they would have to take that old V6 and get at least 30mpg. My fleet Escape hybrid only get 28 with 90% highway miles. Premium/Regular is not going to see that bump. Best case, and for engines seeing it, 10% would be the absolute best and that factors out to be a break-even for cost at a $0.30 difference at $3 per gallon for 87. The fuel density just is not there to really do all that much more so it is all in mechanical/electrical differences and 10% is gigantic.

 

[turboseize]

My Saabs tend to like V-Power 100oct best, both in terms of performance and efficancy. Both cars have significantly more boost than with no-name 98 oct (Total and Esso 98 come close, though.) However, only the 9000 (b202xl) sees an increase in mileage, as this is the only one to be able to play with ignition timing (the 900's B202L only reduces boost when knock is detected - timing is "dumb" and is not linked to the knock sensor).
The 9000 sees a similar improvement in fuel consumption with one of the other 100oct fuels out there: ÖMV100. Aral (belongs to BP) ultimate 102 gives plenty of boost, too, but seems to have reduced mileage. Aral claim 0% ethanol, but actually have 12% ETBE (which boosts octane rating and counts towards the EU biofuel quota despite not being ethanol), which also has a poor energy density.
But even though V-power seems to get better mileage than most other fuels (in the 9000), the savings are not enough to make up for the higher price.
One thing I like about these 100oct fuels, and especially the Shell, is that the engine runs noticeably quieter. But then, this is highly subjective and not really quantifiable (although other people also seem to notice it). A similar phenomenon was the 9000 v6, which on e85 (octane way above 100) became so quiet that the only thing you could hear were the poly-v-belt running and the injectors ticking...

An aquaintance works for a Hyundai dealership, and he told me they regularly tell customers (usually cheapskates buying the cheapest fuel possible and avoid the big brands at all costs*) to run a tank or two of V-Power when their cars fail emission testings, and then suddenly their cars will pass...


My 2cts regarding V-power: it's fun, but it's not cost effective. Do I like it? Yes, I do. Do I buy it? Well, sometimes... But then, I do own some shares of A0D94M, so I may be slightly biased. On the other hand, I own some DE000BASF111 as well...

*DIN norms specify a certain additive level, which is way below what you get at most gas stations. Most brands just use BASF keropur, which has much more detergents and friction modifiers than required, so most fuel actually will be the same, regardless of the brand. No-name gas stations will sell whatever fuel they can get cheap at the time of purchase, so it may be the very same stuff they sell at the big brands for a heavy premium, or it may be very poor stuff that is barely legal... You just don't know, nor does anybody and it might change with every shipment they receive.
Shell and Aral use their own additive cocktails on their >100octane fuels, but these are the only "proven" exceptions to he rule. Don't know what Total does to it's excilium line, though.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: turboseize
My 2cts regarding V-power: it's fun, but it's not cost effective.

Here, we're lucky, as it were. Premium from most places costs the same. So, getting a Top Tier fuel like Shell's doesn't cost any more than a premium from an independent. There might be a couple discount stations offering premium for cheaper, but they are just as likely to be charging the same price.

 

[Virtus_Probi]

There is a Shell station right next to the gym I frequent...I almost never get gas there because the pumps are horribly cramped, it is usually packed, and the place looks very old, but I do grab lunches there when I've forgotten to bring something from home since it is a 30 second walk from the gym after a workout. I picked up a Shell FRN card and build up discounts for gas with my food purchases, and those help cut into or reverse the price adder for Vpower...got $0.14/gallon off with the last tank. Wouldn't make sense to buy stuff just to get the discount, of course, but I had already been buying lunches there for years because it's convenient. If I don't have a discount built up when I need gas, I might just go to Irving for a cheap tank.