ClioSport.net

Register a free account today to become a member!
Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Read more here.

shell v-power 99



Status
Not open for further replies.
  2 girls, 172 cup
went to the local shell last night to find it full of scoobies,:dapprove: hmm thats weird, theres hardly ant local meets round my way.

anyway got to thye pump, grabed the super pump and filled up, hmmm they've changed the v-power logo............so it's got a big 99octane on it :D

whoop whoop no more trips to tesco which is about a 20 mile round trip from mine and back

didn't take much notice if it was more expensive, but it was there instead of the normal 97 (?) not a seperate pump.
 
Here we go. I predict a few experts telling you how your Clio runs.

Mine runs like s**t on 95. The CS car gods say it doesn't.
 

SC03OTT

ClioSport Club Member
  Golf GTI
I'm going to try V-Power derv and see if it makes any difference, as I'm a sceptic and think it's all crap/in the mind.
 
  Black 197
My 182 ran a bit rough on 95 ron but did run better on 97 and above

My 197 however runs exactly the same on 95 or 99 so it gets whats at the pumps

Dont care what brand either... Petrol is petrol imo
 
  PH1 172 Sport
Here we go. I predict a few experts telling you how your Clio runs.

Mine runs like s**t on 95. The CS car gods say it doesn't.

Mine runs like a pile of poo on anything other than super as well.

I asked my professor at uni about using higher octane fuel as he consults on engine designs for BMW, VW etc and he said that its not just about getting extra power from the engine but ensuring that it runs correctly at higher rpm under all conditions if it has a high compression ratio etc.

I ended up talking to him about it for over half an hour but the jist of it was that he said to use whatever the manufacturer recommend as they wouldn't do it for the hell of it and spend allot of money on research.

Not doubt i'm crusing for a bruising by saying the above but im ready for it!!!
 
  53 Clio's & counting
^^^^ agreed

Its funny how some seem more effected by it, i tested mine a few times over the 30,000 miles iv done in it, and everytime iv ran it on 95 its gone weird, idles like a bag of crap, and the mpg lowers, on Tesco 99 it gets on average 30 miles more to a tank

Like i always say, we buy the best exhaust, air filter, tyres, seats etc etc, but then skimp on the best petrol, and thats the cheapest mod

So il be sticking to the 99 ;)
 
No no. The CS experts are right. The filler cap says 98 for a laugh, and even if it didn't, mine would run the same on 95 because Lambos do. The fact that it doesn't has no impact at all. They say it does. So it does.
 
  MCS R56
Performance aside, is the V-power fuel not cleaner, therefore better for the engine in the long-run?
 
  PH1 172 Sport
No no. The CS experts are right. The filler cap says 98 for a laugh, and even if it didn't, mine would run the same on 95 because Lambos do. The fact that it doesn't has no impact at all. They say it does. So it does.

lol. Everytime ive played the 'See how long a can go without filling my car up' game and inadvertently end up at a station that doesn't do higher octane fuel ive regretted it!

Lower MPG, a rough as nails idle and is rough to drive at lower rpms. V-power is only 5p more at my local station and I get 2p of that back on every litre plus more miles to a tank so I don't see it costing me allot more a year to run the car on it.
 

realnumber 1

ClioSport Club Member
No no. The CS experts are right. The filler cap says 98 for a laugh, and even if it didn't, mine would run the same on 95 because Lambos do. The fact that it doesn't has no impact at all. They say it does. So it does.

The filler cap say's "98 recommended" If it they thought 95 ron would do any harm to the engine it would say "You Must Use 98 ron". And also whats to say using 99 ron couldn't do as much damage as 95 ron seen as 99 ron isn't recommended on the cap?:rolleyes:
 
  53 Clio's & counting
the point that makes me giggle, people think it saves them thousands per year by using this fuel, even though you loose mpg on 95 lol

Dont get me wrong, if you wanna use 95 then fair play, it just doesn't save that much to the average driver
 
  53 Clio's & counting
The filler cap say's "98 recommended" If it they thought 95 ron would do any harm to the engine it would say "You Must Use 98 ron". And also whats to say using 99 ron couldn't do as much damage as 95 ron seen as 99 ron isn't recommended on the cap?:rolleyes:


They say to use 98 as the car goes, runs better, is better for the engine and gets you more mpg, thats why its recommended, 95 is ok to use, but not recommended
 
The filler cap say's "98 recommended" If it they thought 95 ron would do any harm to the engine it would say "You Must Use 98 ron". And also whats to say using 99 ron couldn't do as much damage as 95 ron seen as 99 ron isn't recommended on the cap?:rolleyes:

Mine runs poorly on 95. Your opinion will not change this cast iron fact. You, Fred, or any other Lambo driving genius can say otherwise. It will not change the facts.
 

realnumber 1

ClioSport Club Member
They say to use 98 as the car goes, runs better, is better for the engine and gets you more mpg, thats why its recommended, 95 is ok to use, but not recommended

Half the point is that 99 ron isn't recommended therefore might not be any better for your engine than 95 ron.

Mine runs poorly on 95. Your opinion will not change this cast iron fact. You, Fred, or any other Lambo driving genius can say otherwise. It will not change the facts.

I wouldn't want to change your opinion or care for it much in this case. Maybe you have some underlying fault with yours then because plenty of people including my self don't really notice any difference in the way it runs or the mpg they get.
 

Christopher

ClioSport Club Member
  Z4M
What octane rating are orphan's tears?

I noticed a definite improvement in cold running, even if it did take me a while to fill up. Worth it.
 
  White clique
The filler cap say's "98 recommended" If it they thought 95 ron would do any harm to the engine it would say "You Must Use 98 ron". And also whats to say using 99 ron couldn't do as much damage as 95 ron seen as 99 ron isn't recommended on the cap?:rolleyes:

yep, in fact my 197 has the logo of both 95 and 98 recommended!
 
  PH1 172 Sport
Half the point is that 99 ron isn't recommended therefore might not be any better for your engine than 95 ron.

The RON number in basic terms measures the fuels tendency to self combust whilst under pressure. The higher the octane rating the less willing it is to burn and therefore self ignite and burn at an uncontrollable rate whilst being compressed.

Running anything lower than 98ron will mean that the engine has to potentially r****d its timing to stop knock occurring. As it can't tell what fuel its running it only knows to r****d the timing when knock occurs via the knock sensor. Knock isn't great for the engine as its caused by a high increase in cylinder pressure from where the fuel has self ignited and not burned in a controlled way.

Retarding the timing reduces the engine's efficiency (hence why most people on here who use higher octane fuels get better consumption figures). On a an N/A engine power increases will be minimal between the octane ratings but there WILL be a difference as retarded timing reduces engine efficiency.

For these engines to run as they were designed they require at least 98RON and hence why its recommended. Using higher RON such as 99 will give no additional benefits over 98 but it wont do any harm either.

Whilst i'm on the subject running a car that was designed to run 95ron on higher octane will yield no additional benefits as generally non performance engines are unable to advance there timing to benefit from it. The only reason you may see an increase in MPG on such cars is because the higher octane fuel had cleaning additives in it which has cleaned out the engine making it more efficient.

I know some people have there reasons for running regular fuel but in my opinion its not costing me much more money to use the fuel the car was designed for and as I only have one car I want to look after it as much as possible the increase in cost does not matter to me.

Running it on the fuel it was designed to use IMO is looking after the engine better than having to rely on a peizo electric microphone to pick up on the engine knocking and r****d the timing accordingly.

So yes you may not notice a difference but you will also have no idea as to what using lower RON fuel is doing to the inside of the engine especially at higher RPM. It may be nothing but I don't want to risk it.
 
  White clique
regarding the loosing MPG debate by using 95 instead of 98, it costs me about 12p per mile on a full tank of 95 RON (about £46 per tank, 370 miles per tank).

On 98 RON a full tank is about £3 more, so about 13.5p per mile to run.

I'd have to get 29.6 miles more from a tank of 98 to make it cheaper and more cost effective to run than 95 if you are focusing on MPG, so is anyone seeing this sort of increase in mileage per tank from 98?
 
  2 girls, 172 cup
i wounder what will happen if i throw this cat into that group of pigeons?


ha ha ha

sorry guys, i just thought it would save the 99 guys going past a shell to go to tesco's
 

realnumber 1

ClioSport Club Member
The RON number in basic terms measures the fuels tendency to self combust whilst under pressure. The higher the octane rating the less willing it is to burn and therefore self ignite and burn at an uncontrollable rate whilst being compressed.

Running anything lower than 98ron will mean that the engine has to potentially r****d its timing to stop knock occurring. As it can't tell what fuel its running it only knows to r****d the timing when knock occurs via the knock sensor. Knock isn't great for the engine as its caused by a high increase in cylinder pressure from where the fuel has self ignited and not burned in a controlled way.

Retarding the timing reduces the engine's efficiency (hence why most people on here who use higher octane fuels get better consumption figures). On a an N/A engine power increases will be minimal between the octane ratings but there WILL be a difference as retarded timing reduces engine efficiency.

For these engines to run as they were designed they require at least 98RON and hence why its recommended. Using higher RON such as 99 will give no additional benefits over 98 but it wont do any harm either.

Whilst i'm on the subject running a car that was designed to run 95ron on higher octane will yield no additional benefits as generally non performance engines are unable to advance there timing to benefit from it. The only reason you may see an increase in MPG on such cars is because the higher octane fuel had cleaning additives in it which has cleaned out the engine making it more efficient.

I know some people have there reasons for running regular fuel but in my opinion its not costing me much more money to use the fuel the car was designed for and as I only have one car I want to look after it as much as possible the increase in cost does not matter to me.

Running it on the fuel it was designed to use IMO is looking after the engine better than having to rely on a peizo electric microphone to pick up on the engine knocking and r****d the timing accordingly.

So yes you may not notice a difference but you will also have no idea as to what using lower RON fuel is doing to the inside of the engine especially at higher RPM. It may be nothing but I don't want to risk it.

The fact remains if Renault thought there was the slightest risk of reliability/engine life problems then they would've put "You Must Use 98 Ron" would they not?
As for the extra cleaning products they tell us they put in well, marketing at it's finest if you ask me. I've never heard of anyone being told their car would've lasted an extra 100k miles had they used 98 ron....
 
  R27, Deep Black
yep, in fact my 197 has the logo of both 95 and 98 recommended!

Same with my R27, but yet again i find that my R27 runs like a bag of w@nk using Morrisons petrol (closest petrol station that sells 98+ is 15 miles away.)

But then if i put in normal 95 unleaded from Shell it runs fine :S. But i always fill up with BP Ultimate (closest place) then V-Power.
 

Scott S

ClioSport Club Member
  172 Flamer & ER-6F
Do these cars have a knock sensor??? I could search and I will if nobody answers, but at the min, I can't be arsed.

I have an Apexi SAFC II currently doing nothing (well, it's sitting in the pooton but that's going nowhere) and could wire it up to see if any knock is recorded.
 
  PH1 172 Sport
The fact remains if Renault thought there was the slightest risk of reliability/engine life problems then they would've put "You Must Use 98 Ron" would they not?
As for the extra cleaning products they tell us they put in well, marketing at it's finest if you ask me. I've never heard of anyone being told their car would've lasted an extra 100k miles had they used 98 ron....

The engines been designed to run optimal with 98ron+ but will run with lower octane due to the knock sensor. Reducing the risk of knock will reduce the risk of longterm engine damage but it may be a minimal effect anyway.

I'm sure your right in what you say but as I drive my car in its higher rev limits everyday I want to ensure that it being fueled as it should do. The knock sensors our cars use are also very simple devices prone to being inaccurate which is another reason to use higher octane IMO.

Shell fuel does contain cleaning additives which prevent any buildup inside the engine. I know this as one of my closest mates did a years placement for them whilst he was a student. I cannot speak for the other fuels but I suspect they also have cleaning additives otherwise stating they improve fuel ecconomy would be false advertising on a large number of cars that would not benefit from the increase in octane.

I'm not looking to change anybodys mind here or say your all wrong for using lower octane fuels. I'm just merely including proven science into the thread for those who are interested in it.
 
http://www.carbibles.com/fuel_engine_bible_pg2.html

Its turned into another "My car runs s**t on anything other than 999999999ron" thread.

Have a read of the above.

Its been covered millions of times.

It's a common misconception amongst car enthusiasts that higher octane = more power. This is simply not true. The myth arose because of sportier vehicles requiring higher octane fuels. Without understanding why, a certain section of the car subculture decided that this was because higher octane petrol meant higher power.
The reality of the situation is a little different. Power is limited by the maximum amount of fuel-air mixture that can be jammed into the combustion chamber. Because high performance engines operate with high compression ratios they are more likely to suffer from detonation and so to compensate, they need a higher octane fuel to control the burn. So yes, sports cars do need high octane fuel, but it's not because the octane rating is somehow giving more power. It's because it's required because the engine develops more power because of its design.
There is a direct correlation between the compression ratio of an engine and its fuel octane requirements. The following table is a rough guide to octane values per engine compression ratio for a carburettor engine without engine management. For modern fuel-injected cars with advanced engine management systems, these values are lowered by about 5 to 7 points.

Here's a good question : can octane affect gas mileage. The short answer is absolutely, yes it can, but not for the reasons you might think. The octane value of a fuel itself has nothing to do with how much potential energy the fuel has, or how cleanly or efficiently it burns. All it does is control the burn. However, if you're running with a petrol that isn't the octane rating recommended for your car, you could lose gas mileage. Why? Lets say your manufacturers handbook recommends that you run 87 octane fuel in your car but you fill it with 85 instead, trying to save some money on filling up. Your car will still work just fine because the engine management system will be detecting knock and retarding the ignition timing to compensate. And that's the key. By changing the ignition timing, you could be losing efficiency in the engine, which could translate into worse gas mileage. Again as a practical example, my little tale above about our trip to Vegas on low octane gas. (Whether you want to believe some bloke on the internet or not is up to you). On the low octane gas on the trip down, we could barely get 23.5mpg out of the Subaru. Once I was able to fill it up again with premium at the recommended octane rating, we got 27.9mpg on the way back. A difference of 4.4mpg over 450 miles of driving.
Doing the maths, you can figure out that by skimping on the price during fill-up, you may save a little money right there and then, but it costs in the long term because you're going to be filling up more often to do the same mileage. My advice? Do what the handbook tells you. After all it's in the manufacturers better interests that you get the most performance out of your car as you can - they don't want you badmouthing them, and in this day and age of instant internet gratification, you can bad-mouth a large company very quickly and get a lot of publicity.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


Top