Shell V power

Thought I would ask about Shell V Power. Is it something you should use all the time or do you think you can use it just now and again to get any benefit?

I have a track day (well, track hour!) coming up. Do I carry on as I am or treat the Zed to a belly full of V power for the day?
 
For the car to perform at its best, you should run a few tankfuls through before your track day. This will give the ECU time to make the required changes. It won't happen on a single tank. The moment you put regular back in, is the moment the ECU adapts back into safer ignition settings (knock/detonation detection/pinking) (marginally lower performance) for these types of engines. I use 97+ron exclusively as the car feels strangled at high revs on 95. Its only marginal, but its there.
 
Um. Interesting. I've never considered it before but for a low mileage machine I'd never notice the odd few quid on a tankfull but might well notice the improvements in torque or efficiency or whatever.
 
DumfriesDik said:
Thought I would ask about Shell V Power. Is it something you should use all the time or do you think you can use it just now and again to get any benefit?

I have a track day (well, track hour!) coming up. Do I carry on as I am or treat the Zed to a belly full of V power for the day?

You can simply pour a bottle of Oxyginating additive in the tank for a track day.

http://www.motorsportsracingfuels.com/PowerAdditives.html

(Wouln't bother myself as the Zed is plenty fast enough for me) :D
 
I have tried VPower a few times when it's been on offer. Can't say I really noticed any difference from the standard Shell fuel. Certainly no increase in mpg.

I've been told by tuners that it will allow you to use more aggressive engine timing and more boost but would require exhaust and intake modifications as the current boost level is already fairly high on stock system.

On a standard car or car with a non-customised engine tune I don't think the engine cleaning benefits justify the 6p price gap.

If it were only around 2p more per litre then I would probably use the stuff but it seems to be anywhere between 6p and 8p dearer around me. It makes running an already thirsty car even more expensive!
 
My understanding from reading the Scientific American is that unless engines are specifically designed to use higher octane fuel you won't see any difference. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fact-or-fiction-premium-g/
 
I always go for Shell V Power or BP Ultimate.

I am surprised the Scots care about petrol costs. Now that we have established that they own all of the North Sea I thought that petrol would be tuppence a gallon North of the border :poke:
 
I used a couple of tank full of Shell V-power, in the 23i it seemed to clean the injectors and ran a bit smoother when I went back to normal unleaded.
Tried it in the motorbike and had to strip the carbs as it had loosened some muck and bunged up a couple of jets!
 
Experts at Which? Car tested three of the most popular superfuels - Shell V-Power, Tesco Super Unleaded and BP Ultimate Diesel against standard fuels.
Their report concluded that there was 'little justification for using them'.
It added: 'Superfuels are more expensive at the pumps but advertisers often claim they can optimise a car's economy and increase power.'
The Which? Car report found that a Ford Focus 1.6 running on Shell V-Power had a 'a marginal power increase'.
But filling the car on this petrol for 12,000 miles will cost drivers £1,892 - or £116 more than using Shell's standard petrol (£1,776).
It noted that Tesco Super Unleaded 'actually decreased the power of the Focus' though economy did improve by 0.41mpg (1.2 per cent).
The report concluded: 'Despite the marginal power increase offered by Shell's V-Power petrol, there seems little justification for using superfuels over their regular counterparts.'
A Volkswagen Golf's hi-tech 1.4 TSI engine responded well on Shell V-Power, but there was 'little to choose' between the superfuels and ordinary petrol on gains in economy and emissions, despite costing £89 a year more.
A Renault Megane 1.5 diesel's economy and performance of were 'both slightly worse' using BP Ultimate diesel, the super fuel furthest from the marketing claims in the test - despite costing £84 a year more.
The report concluded: 'Each superfuel had only a marginal effect on the emissions of measured pollutants, seemingly putting paid to environmental claims.
 
We only use Shell fuel unless stuck.
I tried using Shell V Power in our mini for a few tankfuls to see if there were any gains in mpg.
Although there were slight gains doing the same journeys it was not enough to justify paying extra for it.
 
xpar1 said:
Experts at Which? Car tested three of the most popular superfuels - Shell V-Power, Tesco Super Unleaded and BP Ultimate Diesel against standard fuels.
Their report concluded that there was 'little justification for using them'.
It added: 'Superfuels are more expensive at the pumps but advertisers often claim they can optimise a car's economy and increase power.'
The Which? Car report found that a Ford Focus 1.6 running on Shell V-Power had a 'a marginal power increase'.
But filling the car on this petrol for 12,000 miles will cost drivers £1,892 - or £116 more than using Shell's standard petrol (£1,776).
It noted that Tesco Super Unleaded 'actually decreased the power of the Focus' though economy did improve by 0.41mpg (1.2 per cent).
The report concluded: 'Despite the marginal power increase offered by Shell's V-Power petrol, there seems little justification for using superfuels over their regular counterparts.'
A Volkswagen Golf's hi-tech 1.4 TSI engine responded well on Shell V-Power, but there was 'little to choose' between the superfuels and ordinary petrol on gains in economy and emissions, despite costing £89 a year more.
A Renault Megane 1.5 diesel's economy and performance of were 'both slightly worse' using BP Ultimate diesel, the super fuel furthest from the marketing claims in the test - despite costing £84 a year more.
The report concluded: 'Each superfuel had only a marginal effect on the emissions of measured pollutants, seemingly putting paid to environmental claims.

Great, but we are talking about using 'Super Unleaded' in cars which are designed to be run on Super Unleaded and have a knock sensor. The cars tested would have seen a little improvement but Shell V Power is marketed using Ferrari and not Ford, Renault or VW for a reason. Its for performance vehicles really and if Which? wanted to do a proper test then apart from testing the run of the mill family hatch then they should have also got some performance cars in there and compared. As for performance Diesel, well I know BMW sold out on the non 4 cylinder promise but they haven't made and won't make a Diesel Z4.....welll not in the E89 so thats irrelevant.

They also did a test with 10% ethanol fuel and performance cars ran better on this than standard run of the mill vehicles and the fuel was actually detrimental to their mpg and performance.

If Mikes R32 GTR runs on anything else its like its being choked! It does little MPG as it is without putting in normal 95.

I will only use Shell V Power in the 35is and if I am truly stuck then it may have to be a BP but I have to be on fumes and still not able to find a Shell or even a Tesco (as their momentum is the same as V Power) whilst BP is 97 ron.

My sisters Polo had issues with a slight judder and the VW garage blamed this on supermarket fuel and advised that every fourth or fifth tank to put V Power in and this would help keep the engine cleaned from any deposits left from the supermarket fuel and to be fair the car has run pretty well every since following this advice.
 
You can get more power on high % ethanol fuels but the economy will suffer as the engine needs to burn more of it.
Regards
 
Back
Top Bottom