Shell V-Power Nitro+

[DB.]

17 years old maybe, but the design specified the use of higher octane fuel nonetheless.

Please point out a few Clio's on 95 that perform worse than Clio's on 98, would be an interesting one.

​Age old debate, theres no real proof it's worth it for a road car.

 

[Munson]

Personal choice. Simple as that.

 

[The Chubby Pirate]

Ultimately that is exactly it - personal choice. From what i have read, turbo/supercharged cars have more to gain from it.

 

[James23]

This x 1,000,000.

Won't impact on a normal road car, even if it did, what benefit are you really going to notice, shaving 1/1000th off your traffic light grand prix starting time.

Winning is winning.

 

[ben81]

Mine was 132.9p/litre @ Shell Stirling corner (A1M) was definitely the right pump as well!

 

[gbwarrior]

Thought I'd give Nitro+ a try. I don't drive the Clio as my daily driver as I do too many miles so my missus drives it as she has a round trip of about 20 miles for work.

I've brimmed the tank and not told her that anythings changed. I do keep a log of the MPG on Fuelly so I'll also see if it makes any difference to the MPG.

One thing to note, without her knowing that I used this V-Power Nitro+ she rang me up this morning to tell me the engine management light had come on, now this isn't unusual for my 182, every now and again it comes on (last time was about 3 months ago) but usually goes off after a few days, coincidence?

 

[SC03OTT]

Yes.

 

[Filippo]

I filled up with this stuff on Friday.

I usually average around 33MPG. On this tank I have driven around 400 miles so far and averaged 43MPG. I don't know what is going on...but I like it. Granted, I have not been doing my little stop/start cold engine journeys to work for a few days - but that 43MPG has still involved some very spirited driving. See how we get on I guess.

 

[Advikaz]

I filled up with this stuff on Friday.

I usually average around 33MPG. On this tank I have driven around 400 miles so far and averaged 43MPG. I don't know what is going on...but I like it. Granted, I have not been doing my little stop/start cold engine journeys to work for a few days - but that 43MPG has still involved some very spirited driving. See how we get on I guess.

My 200 never really gets above 28mpg on the old Vpower. Been running this stuff ever since & I'm now getting high 29's & 30's. Driving has been the same. although not scientific.

 

[S2H]

I personally think the difference between vpower and vpower nitro+ is noticeable, 1-2mpg more over a tank and makes the car louder. But it's not as noticeable as the difference between 95 and vpower. Some of these posts saying there is no difference are stupid. When I first got the 200 I ran it on shell fuelsaver and it was horrible cold and terrible mpg. Then I swapped to VPower and the car is generally much smoother and I get around 50miles more to a tank. Thats the facts.

 

[DanielJames]

Maybe in the days of old Roy, but surely these days the 95 octane rated fuels are ample for a 17 year old design (F4R)? Marketing and placebo come rushing to mind i think.

To me it's simple - does your car have a "Super Unleaded 97+" style sticker on the fuel filler cap?

Mine does, so it only gets super. Same for the RS Clio that I had.

I'm an enthusiast, and I respect the engineering....

Made me wince the other day seeing a woman pull into Morrisons Petrol station in her CTR.

I wonder what damage, if any, can be done..

 

[mikeh]

You're not going to do any damage to a factory mapped car by putting 95 RON in.

My Clio gets 95 Ron 90% of the time, because there are very few places to get super (Two expensive Indys and a Tesco store 10 miles away).

Sure there are gains to be had, and they will be more prominent on a turbo car than an NA car but I wouldn't call putting 98 Ron fuel in a car designed for 98 Ron useless.

 

[riz]

Ultimately that is exactly it - personal choice. From what i have read, turbo/supercharged cars have more to gain from it.

My Mk5 Gti was definately better with higher Ron, higher mpg and definately smoother.

Ctr/E36/182 etc was no different.

 

[The Chubby Pirate]

To me it's simple - does your car have a "Super Unleaded 97+" style sticker on the fuel filler cap? Mine does, so it only gets super. Same for the RS Clio that I had. I'm an enthusiast, and I respect the engineering.... Made me wince the other day seeing a woman pull into Morrisons Petrol station in her CTR. I wonder what damage, if any, can be done..

I've driven thousands of miles on each fuel, there is no difference to performance/reliability/RR figures. I appreciate what you're saying but IME there is no advantage to using 98 over 95 in the F4R.

 

[scarble]

CSs are set up for 98RON, on 95 you run the risk of increased knock or reduced power if the ecu retards timing to reduce knock. Of course if you drive like a pensioner you won't see a difference.
But is Nitro+ any better than previous VPower or for that matter Tesco 100? As far as I can tell Nitro+ is just a marketing gimmick, it may do some magical injector cleansing in a GDI engine but I doubt it makes a difference in a PFI.
I have noticed that premium fuels these days don't actually list their RON, even asked in Sainsbury's if they knew what it was (they didn't).

eta: Hi DanielJames

 

[DanielJames]

I've driven thousands of miles on each fuel, there is no difference to performance/reliability/RR figures. I appreciate what you're saying but IME there is no advantage to using 98 over 95 in the F4R.

If you're happy to do that then fair enough pal

All I'm saying is the manufacturer spends a lot of money designing these engines. So I'll go with them rather than someone on a car forum who hasn't noticed any difference lol.

Out of interest, you've had your car RR'd with 95 ron and then 98 ron and the power was the same? Interesting! Care to go into more detail?

Hey scarble, there are a few of us PHers on here too..

 

[Carbon-Rain]

I have run the new Shell Nitro+ and didn't notice any difference in the car compaired to the Tesco 99 Ron fuel. If I have to put 95 Ron in there for the get me home bit then I do notice the difference when putting the right foot down hard.
End of the day use what you have always used and be happy with it.

 

[HickiN]

Shell have said that 99% of nitro+ is the same as vPower - only the smarter cleaning for the injectors etc

No mention of RON or anything in the internal website, nor do any of my colleagues seem to say there is a change in RON - just the smarter cleaning technology. (I can't access all of the website unfortunately)

It mentions 'improved performance' but i guess this can be percieved in many different ways.. They have this stuff advertised ALL over the building :|

 

[The Chubby Pirate]

If you're happy to do that then fair enough pal

All I'm saying is the manufacturer spends a lot of money designing these engines. So I'll go with them rather than someone on a car forum who hasn't noticed any difference lol.

Out of interest, you've had your car RR'd with 95 ron and then 98 ron and the power was the same? Interesting! Care to go into more detail?

Hey scarble, there are a few of us PHers on here too..

The power runs i done with my 182 were 175 and 176 respectivley. The first with 95 and the second with v-power. Like i say, negligible.

 

[Guvna!]

Had my 172 decatted about a week ago and it was running on Nitro.

Put some standard Asda rats piss in yesterday and the car feels horrible.

It just doesn't feel 'up for it'. No where near as lively.

It does have the 98ron RS Tuner map though.

 

[john182rs]

Right then, so who owns a rolling road? Lets get 2 box standard rs clio's, run one on vpower and the other on vpower+ then do a rolling road and see if there is any actual power changes?

IF... If there is a big change in MPG for the same price it may be worth buying it, I did a test some months ago by having a £40 fill and seeing how far it goes till fill up time, there was a 1-2mpg difference with a maximum £ to litre to distance difference of around 5p. This said that even though vpower was better for mpg and more cost at the pump, your local tesco's would give you more fuel but less mpg.

SO, if VP+ give more than 8mpg diff, it could actually be more beneficial.

Im willing to do the one week tests again to find out with average driving for me and give all results for your lot to see.

 

[Lal B3N]

You are aware they are replacing Vpower with this Vpower Nitro+, you can't go to the pumps and buy either.

 

[S2H]

exactly! And to add to that you won't notice a peak power increase. It just feels smoother and sounds a bit different and i've noticed 1-2mpg more than standard vpower.

Seems petrol prices have gone down a bit too, I got vpower nitro+ for 138 a litre last night

 

[James23]

8mpg... Are you mad?! And as said nitro+ is the new v power... Can't buy both.

 

[Harbinger]

I think people need to do a bit more research before saying these fuels have no effect on performance, life span and economy, put regular in a Ferrari and see what happens or an RX-8 even? They will not have it at all, the engines are meant to run on these fuels for a reason, fuel to air mixtures are one of them, lesser fuel requires more air to burn as well as higher grade fuel, being NA you cannot force more air in to burn it, it's all in the mix as they say.
a more realistic test....... get 1 litre of each in a container and set fire to them, you will literally see the difference ( Myth Busters did it )
So N/A haters out there look at the science behind it first before you say negative things about stuff you havent looked into properly.

 

[scarble]

This is not an N/A vs. F/I discussion and "lesser" fuel does not require more air to burn, stochi is stochi. If anything "lesser" fuels "require" less air.
:slap:
I think you need a coffee.

 

[dave438]

I think people need to do a bit more research before saying these fuels have no effect on performance, life span and economy, put regular in a Ferrari and see what happens or an RX-8 even? They will not have it at all, the engines are meant to run on these fuels for a reason, fuel to air mixtures are one of them, lesser fuel requires more air to burn as well as higher grade fuel, being NA you cannot force more air in to burn it, it's all in the mix as they say.a more realistic test....... get 1 litre of each in a container and set fire to them, you will literally see the difference ( Myth Busters did it )So N/A haters out there look at the science behind it first before you say negative things about stuff you havent looked into properly.

Different fuels have different stoich air to fuel ratio values, and also different RON values, but there is no implied link between the two. The alcohol fuel that our speedway bikes run on has a RON of about 110, and yet it requires LESS air, as its stoich value is 9 versus 14.7 for petrol. You seem to have watched a telly program and misunderstood it rather than actually looking into the science of it yourself, so you'd probably be quite well placed to follow the advice you are trying to give others, many of whom seem to me like they actually understand the subject quite well. The risk from running lower octane petrol than your car is mapped for is about knock not about running richer or leaner.

 

[Munson]

At the end of the day, if the people who designed and built your car recommend high octane fuel, and you think you know better, then you're a bit of a jew.

IMO.

 

[Advikaz]

At the end of the day, if the people who designed and built your car recommend high octane fuel, and you think you know better, then you're a bit of a jew.

IMO.

Seems reasonable to me.

 

[Harbinger]

People could also look at why they recommended it? and for Quoting f1 instead of Ferrari? didnt realise F1 ran on regular fuels unless i've missed something as of late?
so what about the Rx-8, BMW M series with Vanos, Honda S2000 they use this all for a reason dont they, and when you use lesser fuel and knock sensor picks something up, what happens??? the car sends less fuel? which means less power? You simply cannot better what the manufacturer created.
or simply put, to quote on the Jew reference here...... is it a money thing?

 

[mr bognor]

At the end of the day, if the people who designed and built your car recommend high octane fuel, and you think you know better, then you're a bit of a jew.

IMO.

Seems reasonable to me.

And me apart from the Jew bit

 

[The Chubby Pirate]

Fred used to be an instructor in Ferrari's and Astons and he said that they filled them all with 95, he said it made no odds IIRC.

​Good enough for me.

 

[Budgie]

Fred used to be an instructor in Ferrari's and Astons and he said that they filled them all with 95, he said it made no odds IIRC.

​Good enough for me.

Lol. Makes no odds in a car that every idiot is let loose in.

 

[The Chubby Pirate]

Yawn! I'm oot.

 

[banther]

V power is 10p off a litre at the moment if you spend over £40.

​Only at attended stations though, I believe. May help someone out

 

[dave438]

Fred used to be an instructor in Ferrari's and Astons and he said that they filled them all with 95, he said it made no odds IIRC.​Good enough for me.

So cause some mate of yours said it seemed ok in a ferrari he was driving, you draw the conclusion from that a 172 with a completely different ecu, completely different knock control strategies and completely different mapping will have no ill effects either, despite the people who wrote the map for renault feeling strongly enough about it to insist on adding a label to the petrol filler cap.

 

[Advikaz]

Fred used to be an instructor in Ferrari's and Astons and he said that they filled them all with 95, he said it made no odds IIRC.

​Good enough for me.

In fairness that doesn't surprise me at all... The companys that run these days are notorious for cutting corners.

 

[Cookson]

At the end of the day, if the people who designed and built your car recommend high octane fuel, and you think you know better, then you're a bit of a jew.

IMO.

Don't jewish you could run your focus on 95? I bet you're fuhrerious at the money you could save.

 

[Munson]

Lol.

 

[Jaff.]

Don't jewish you could run your focus on 95? I bet you're fuhrerious at the money you could save.

​Brilliant!