V-Power (etc) mpg improvement?

[ronk]

The 320i was the closest vehicle to a 2.0l z4 i thought.

Yes, that seems reasonable, doesn't it?

That said, 18.47% is a very large increase in mpg, don't you think?

Personally, I’ve not noticed any huge differences in performance or economy when using the 99 Tesco Momentum that I use most of the time - versus the 95 ron I use when on holiday in Germany. I use the Momentum because it’s said to be a cleaner burn and less Deposition fuel.

I think we have to make our own minds re the reported results.

 

[Busterboo]

I'm tempted to give Shell V-Power* a go in the 35iS and see if the game's worth the candle.

(*I used it in the 911 for 5 years, because I had to, but it was a nuisance sometimes looking for stations that stocked 98/99, which is one reasons I was happy to go to 95 in the E89.)

 

[Smartbear]

I'm tempted to give Shell V-Power* a go in the 35iS and see if the game's worth the candle.

(*I used it in the 911 for 5 years, because I had to, but it was a nuisance sometimes looking for stations that stocked 98/99, which is one reasons I was happy to go to 95 in the E89.)

You could spread your refuelling between V-power and momentum to make it less of a chore, the car shouldn’t feel much different between the two
Rob

 

[ronk]

Interesting read. What were the figures for the Audi TT 2.0T?

Specialist Sports Audi TT 2.0 Turbo
Registration Year: 2008

• Miles covered on 95 Octane fuel: 1126
• Miles per Gallon achieved on 95 Octane: 35.55
• Miles covered on Momentum 99: 1320
• Miles per Gallon achieved on Momentum 99: 41.67
• Average of 17.23% Increase in Fuel Economy
• Average of 64.67 Miles Extra per Tank
• Maximum Power Gain of 16.8 BHP (7.7%)
• Maximum Torque Gain of 27 ft/lbs (12.2%)

 

[warmasice]

Thanks! Always felt like I got more performance and mpg in the Zed on V Power.

Would be good to read the whole article if you're able to host it somewhere.

 

[ronk]

Thanks! Always felt like I got more performance and mpg in the Zed on V Power.

Would be good to read the whole article if you're able to host it somewhere.

If you know how to do that I would be happy to email it to you!
I can’t remember where I found the report otherwise I would post that.

 

[warmasice]

Thanks! Always felt like I got more performance and mpg in the Zed on V Power.

Would be good to read the whole article if you're able to host it somewhere.

If you know how to do that I would be happy to email it to you!
I can’t remember where I found the report otherwise I would post that.

Thanks Ron - email received. I've uploaded the 2009 Q3 fuel test pdf document here:
https://pdfhost.io/v/IAV3p304a_TescoMomentum99FuelReportpdf.pdf

I've done a little digging and it seems like Thorney Motorsport were sponsored by Tesco around the time this document was produced - so take the above with a pinch of salt (note the Momentum logo plastered on every page!)

In 20012 Tesco decided not to renew their sponsorship and Thorney Motorsport spat the dummy out:

"Thorney Motorsport no longer endorses Tesco Momentum 99 fuel nor recommends its use by its customers."
https://www.thorneymotorsport.co.uk/thorney_motorsport_withdraws_recommendation_for_tesco_momentum_fuel/

Reading around on other forums, it seems like Thorney Motorsport don't have a very good reputation. :?

 

[ronk]

The results seemed very optimistic - (positively skewed) - good that youve done some digging

 

[bob4333]

Sour grapes by Thorney or fessing up they faked it? Either way they damn themselves.

And just when there appeared to be a definitive answer. :?

In the end I think we'll all just fill our cars with whatever we think is best or maybe whatever suits our pocket. Has anyone on this thread been persuaded to change either way as a result of what's been discussed?

 

[Chris_D]

....a properly conducted test....

It would be interesting to learn how this description is actually defined.

Imo, a test of the fuels in laboratory conditions to measure the specific variables needed to set a baseline for determining potential energy values in either kWh or joules, before field testing in cars would be appropriate and useful. Testing for heat of combustion as a volumetric caloric value as well as latent heat of vaporization would be good markers to differentiate the 2 fuel types.

A SINGLE engine type should then be used to derive energy potential values and consumption. This would mitigate the skewed values that would be yielded in field testing in different cars in different conditions with a host of varied dynamics at play.

The analogy I would draw with the ‘properly conducted test’ as cited would be; if you feed 4 different horses - a racehorse, a shire, a Shetland pony and a donkey the same amount of feed which one could run longer and faster. Oh, and we’ll do the tests on different days. A nice sunny day with no wind. A rainy day. A snowy day - we’ll be evil and do the Shetland that day. :evil:
It’s totally false. You’re corrupting the baseline values from the start!

When we had the Atom de-registered for the road, our mechanic Dave in a fit of deranged wisdom decided he would tune the engine to run only on 100 octane racing fuel, at almost double the cost of 95!

I was outvoted on this decision by 2:1 even after intricately explaining that we would NOT gain any advantage whatsoever in terms of performance. They believed in the age-old edict that ‘higher is better’.
And this is EXACTLY what the oil companies, in conjunction with clever marketeers would have you believe in higher octane fuel. It’s pure fallacy.

But I don’t care really, it always make me laugh when I’m at the petrol station the snot-hatch boys roll in and fill up with 98. So for personal amusement value alone, I approve!

:lol:

 

[ronk]

I accept it’s hardly an academic / scientific test but it’s as close to a proper test as I’ve ever seen on the forum. Mostly there has been Tank to tank mpg figures or it feels more lively observations.
I just hope the dyno figures are genuine!

 

[Smartbear]

....a properly conducted test....

It would be interesting to learn how this description is actually defined.

Imo, a test of the fuels in laboratory conditions to measure the specific variables needed to set a baseline for determining potential energy values in either kWh or joules, before field testing in cars would be appropriate and useful. Testing for heat of combustion as a volumetric caloric value as well as latent heat of vaporization would be good markers to differentiate the 2 fuel types.

A SINGLE engine type should then be used to derive energy potential values and consumption. This would mitigate the skewed values that would be yielded in field testing in different cars in different conditions with a host of varied dynamics at play.

The analogy I would draw with the ‘properly conducted test’ as cited would be; if you feed 4 different horses - a racehorse, a shire, a Shetland pony and a donkey the same amount of feed which one could run longer and faster. Oh, and we’ll do the tests on different days. A nice sunny day with no wind. A rainy day. A snowy day - we’ll be evil and do the Shetland that day. :evil:
It’s totally false. You’re corrupting the baseline values from the start!

When we had the Atom de-registered for the road, our mechanic Dave in a fit of deranged wisdom decided he would tune the engine to run only on 100 octane racing fuel, at almost double the cost of 95!

I was outvoted on this decision by 2:1 even after intricately explaining that we would NOT gain any advantage whatsoever in terms of performance. They believed in the age-old edict that ‘higher is better’.
And this is EXACTLY what the oil companies, in conjunction with clever marketeers would have you believe in higher octane fuel. It’s pure fallacy.

But I don’t care really, it always make me laugh when I’m at the petrol station the snot-hatch boys roll in and fill up with 98. So for personal amusement value alone, I approve!

:lol:

Hmm, then why do tuners/remappers say to use V-power/momentum then? After all, they have no vested interest in higher sales of these fuels. Maybe it’s because the Dyno testing they carry out reveals higher performance (especially in forced induction engines) :?
Rob

 

[Chris_D]

....a properly conducted test....

It would be interesting to learn how this description is actually defined.

Imo, a test of the fuels in laboratory conditions to measure the specific variables needed to set a baseline for determining potential energy values in either kWh or joules, before field testing in cars would be appropriate and useful. Testing for heat of combustion as a volumetric caloric value as well as latent heat of vaporization would be good markers to differentiate the 2 fuel types.

A SINGLE engine type should then be used to derive energy potential values and consumption. This would mitigate the skewed values that would be yielded in field testing in different cars in different conditions with a host of varied dynamics at play.

The analogy I would draw with the ‘properly conducted test’ as cited would be; if you feed 4 different horses - a racehorse, a shire, a Shetland pony and a donkey the same amount of feed which one could run longer and faster. Oh, and we’ll do the tests on different days. A nice sunny day with no wind. A rainy day. A snowy day - we’ll be evil and do the Shetland that day. :evil:
It’s totally false. You’re corrupting the baseline values from the start!

When we had the Atom de-registered for the road, our mechanic Dave in a fit of deranged wisdom decided he would tune the engine to run only on 100 octane racing fuel, at almost double the cost of 95!

I was outvoted on this decision by 2:1 even after intricately explaining that we would NOT gain any advantage whatsoever in terms of performance. They believed in the age-old edict that ‘higher is better’.
And this is EXACTLY what the oil companies, in conjunction with clever marketeers would have you believe in higher octane fuel. It’s pure fallacy.

But I don’t care really, it always make me laugh when I’m at the petrol station the snot-hatch boys roll in and fill up with 98. So for personal amusement value alone, I approve!

:lol:

Hmm, then why do tuners/remappers say to use V-power/momentum then? After all, they have no vested interest in higher sales of these fuels. Maybe it’s because the Dyno testing they carry out reveals higher performance (especially in forced induction engines) :?
Rob

I'm not saying there isn't a potential performance gain. On the contrary, I believe there IS a difference in potential energy for higher octane fuel.
However, everytime the subject is 'explored or investigated' it's usually at some abstract non-scientific bs consumer-level test and probably indirectly linked to the oil industry somehow.

The problem I have with high octane fuel being touted as more economical or more powerful that lower octane fuels is that it's only in a minute percentage of user scenarios - performance tweakers, Formula racing etc. where the marginal gains can be exploited to any degree. Not your average Joe commuting through the week in stop-start traffic and maybe a blast around at the weekend. But of course, that's where the money is. That's why high-octane racing fuel was so expensive 15 years ago and now it can be had (in Gemany at least) for not much more than 95 octane. It's been marketed and targeted to the shmucks who buy into the vague belief that it will give them a perceivable increase in performance and economy when in fact it's probably pure placebo.

Our Atom had a top speed limited predominantly by it's aerodynamics, not by engine output. Acceleration was limited by traction and not by engine output. Changing the mapping had no effect on those performance figures.

 

[R.E92]

Hmm, then why do tuners/remappers say to use V-power/momentum then? After all, they have no vested interest in higher sales of these fuels. Maybe it’s because the Dyno testing they carry out reveals higher performance (especially in forced induction engines) :?
Rob

The simple version is that higher octane fuels allow the ignition timing to be advanced. Advanced ignition means you get more power for the same fuel input during the stroke. Tuners will advance the ignition timing of the engine if they know the car is going to be run on premium fuel.

The reason that engines don't always run at the optimal ignition point is to prevent knock. The higher the load on the engine, the more chance of pre-ignition so the more they retard the timing. Turbo cars tend to run very conservative ignition advance as cylinder temps and pressures are a lot higher than naturally aspirated engines.

Cars that aren't tuned won't really benefit from higher octane fuel unless the standard fuel causes engine knock and the car's ECU has to retard ignition timing to prevent engine damage.

Most tales of increased performance and economy from people driving bone stock cars designed for 95 RON fuel are just purely a placebo.

 

[Smartbear]

Hmm, then why do tuners/remappers say to use V-power/momentum then? After all, they have no vested interest in higher sales of these fuels. Maybe it’s because the Dyno testing they carry out reveals higher performance (especially in forced induction engines) :?
Rob

The simple version is that higher octane fuels allow the ignition timing to be advanced. Advanced ignition means you get more power for the same fuel input during the stroke. Tuners will advance the ignition timing of the engine if they know the car is going to be run on premium fuel.

The reason that engines don't always run at the optimal ignition point is to prevent knock. The higher the load on the engine, the more chance of pre-ignition so the more they retard the timing. Turbo cars tend to run very conservative ignition advance as cylinder temps and pressures are a lot higher than naturally aspirated engines.

Cars that aren't tuned won't really benefit from higher octane fuel unless the standard fuel causes engine knock and the car's ECU has to retard ignition timing to prevent engine damage.

Most tales of increased performance and economy from people driving bone stock cars designed for 95 RON fuel are just purely a placebo.

I know this, that’s why I specifically mentioned mapped forced induction cars. The tuners don’t recommend super unleaded for fun
Rob

 

[ronk]

I reckon there will be peace in the Middle East before there is a definitive answer to this!

 

[enuff_zed]

I reckon there will be peace in the Middle East before there is a definitive answer to this!

By which time, they'll have burned up all the oilfields so it will be an irrelevant issue

 

[ronk]

I reckon there will be peace in the Middle East before there is a definitive answer to this!

By which time, they'll have burned up all the oilfields so it will be an irrelevant issue

I bet the argument will morph into how many miles / charge and which charge point gives the fastest service!

 

[enuff_zed]

I reckon there will be peace in the Middle East before there is a definitive answer to this!

By which time, they'll have burned up all the oilfields so it will be an irrelevant issue

I bet the argument will morph into how many miles / charge and which charge point gives the fastest service!

Am I the only one who did the maths regarding the phasing out of internal combustion engines in the UK and was actually happy to realise it would probably never affect me.
At last! A benefit to growing old.