Shell V-Power Nitro+

[realnumber 1]

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.

I think there is enough 1*2 owners on here who have run their cars on nothing other than 95 RON for 10's of thousands of miles to confirm NO ill effects from using it tbh...
As for Fred, you've clearly not been on here long enough to know much about him...

And just FLOL at people claiming an 8mpg improvement with this stuff, I mean really just FLOL...

 

[scarble]

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?

When a knock sensor picks up knock it will typically r****d the spark which will reduce torque (and by association power) and/or inject more fuel because a richer mixture will burn cooler which will likely also reduce torque output (and by association power) and of course reduce your EMPEEGEES. Lower octane fuels are more prone to knock (octane is a measurement of knock resistance) and so they will tend to produce less torque. But octane is octane and has nothing to do with Nitro+ Xtreme Mach3 XXX RS Quadruple Blade Titanium Carbon Turbo and other marketing nonsense about magical detergents.
As for the F1 thing, Shell and Ferrari claim that the fuel put in the Ferrari F1 cars is the same as that you get on the forecourt, or at least they said that about non Nitro+ Vpower. They are actually different but not by much and they did a test on a Ferrari F1 car (I forget which) and the time over a lap of some circuit was small*

I'm not sure how any of this relates to Vanos particularly. Most high specific output engines (e.g. the ones you mention and also the F4R used in the 1*2s) will do things like running high compression ratio and/or running ignition close to MBT (i.e. not retarded slightly to reduce the risk of knock as in lower specific output engines) and so they're at higher risk of knocking and that is why they recommend the use of high octane fuel however if they ever mention a particular brand of fuel this is down to having a commercial relationship with the fuel supplier or even just that they only ever tested their engines on that fuel or possibly even for patriotic or other emotive reasons.

In conclusion;
hush now you.

*http://www.formula1blog.com/2011/08/03/shell-v-power-race-fuel-vs-shell-v-power-road-fuel/

 

[Adamm.]

Well I put 30 quid in today not notice any improvement in fuel or performance whatsoever. I'm sure its better but nothing noticeable.

 

[dave438]

I think there is enough 1*2 owners on here who have run their cars on nothing other than 95 RON for 10's of thousands of miles to confirm NO ill effects from using it tbh...As for Fred, you've clearly not been on here long enough to know much about him...And just FLOL at people claiming an 8mpg improvement with this stuff, I mean really just FLOL...

95 has less knock resistance than 98, so if you are marginal in other areas that can push you over the edge. Its such a small difference in petrol price it seems daft to deliberately put in less RON than the manufactures recomended wether some others have gotten away with it or not. Couple of percent cost saving even over 10,000 miles is still very little actual cash saved for the extra risk taken.If the statement said "jenson button" or whatever I would still say the same that just cause one car seems ok doesnt mean another will be, and even a car seeming to be ok doesnt actually mean it definately is. If it made those sort of claimed 8mpg gains shell would certainly be mentioning it.

 

[Michaelfoz]

When the "official" release date was announced it was the day before a track day for me.
When i filled up i asked the guy if the new petrol was in.

Turns out that the petrol has actually been in the pumps since february!

 

[Knuckles]

When the "official" release date was announced it was the day before a track day for me.
When i filled up i asked the guy if the new petrol was in.

Turns out that the petrol has actually been in the pumps since february!

Lol!

Last night I put some v power in and asked when the new stuff is getting put in, the woman told me they've already replaced all the old v power with the new stuff.

​i must say, the placebo is great

 

[Amos91]

http://www.cliosport.net/forum/showthread.php?697596-5p-off-per-litre-at-Shell

5p off per litre of fuel

 

[Chip-mk1]

When a knock sensor picks up knock it will typically r****d the spark which will reduce torque (and by association power) and/or inject more fuel because a richer mixture will burn cooler which will likely also reduce torque output (and by association power) and of course reduce your EMPEEGEES. Lower octane fuels are more prone to knock (octane is a measurement of knock resistance) and so they will tend to produce less torque. But octane is octane and has nothing to do with Nitro+ Xtreme Mach3 XXX RS Quadruple Blade Titanium Carbon Turbo and other marketing nonsense about magical detergents.
As for the F1 thing, Shell and Ferrari claim that the fuel put in the Ferrari F1 cars is the same as that you get on the forecourt, or at least they said that about non Nitro+ Vpower. They are actually different but not by much and they did a test on a Ferrari F1 car (I forget which) and the time over a lap of some circuit was small*

I'm not sure how any of this relates to Vanos particularly. Most high specific output engines (e.g. the ones you mention and also the F4R used in the 1*2s) will do things like running high compression ratio and/or running ignition close to MBT (i.e. not retarded slightly to reduce the risk of knock as in lower specific output engines) and so they're at higher risk of knocking and that is why they recommend the use of high octane fuel however if they ever mention a particular brand of fuel this is down to having a commercial relationship with the fuel supplier or even just that they only ever tested their engines on that fuel or possibly even for patriotic or other emotive reasons.

In conclusion;
hush now you.

*http://www.formula1blog.com/2011/08/03/shell-v-power-race-fuel-vs-shell-v-power-road-fuel/

Nice to see some good replies in this thread

Thanks for taking the time to type that.

 

[Fred@BTM]

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.

Aye, EVERYTHING apart from the scoobs are ran on 95RON without issue

F355
F360
F430
F458
MP4-12C
Gallardo (various)
Murcielago (various)
Aventador
TVR (various, some in bits)
Astons (AMV8, DBS, DB9)
Bentley (various)
Atoms (various)
X-bow (various)

over 140 cars, no failures due to fuel problems, and these cars run 6-7days per week, 150laps per day on aveage, 2 mile lap, plus road miles to/from event

oh and shock horror, the GTR's all run on 95 too

 

[Chip-mk1]

Aye, EVERYTHING apart from the scoobs are ran on 95RON without issue

Why dont the scoobys run on 95 then Fred with all those cars proving that its ok?

Or are they like the clio with pistons that can fail if they see 95 RON induced knock as well?

 

[Advikaz]

Why dont the scoobys run on 95 then Fred with all those cars proving that its ok?

Or are they like the clio with pistons that can fail if they see 95 RON induced knock as well?

I've found Evo's to be the same mate. A lot of the highly strung jap stuff etc.

 

[dave438]

I've found Evo's to be the same mate. A lot of the highly strung jap stuff etc.

Surprised at that as the knock control is so good on the Evo ecu, but bottom line is relying on knock control to make up for lack of fuel quality is always a bad idea really.

 

[scarble]

Aye, EVERYTHING apart from the scoobs are ran on 95RON without issue
over 140 cars, no failures due to fuel problems, and these cars run 6-7days per week, 150laps per day on aveage, 2 mile lap, plus road miles to/from event
oh and shock horror, the GTR's all run on 95 too

Probably because they all have good anti-knock strategies which r****d spark angle and increase fueling to prevent detonation damage and have the side effect of reducing torque output. I'm not sure I can make this any simpler or more obvious :rasp:

Nice to see some good replies in this thread
Thanks for taking the time to type that.

My pleasure

I expect the Scoob is just a bit more marginal than the others. They're actually slightly higher specific output (hp per litre) than the latest R35.
As Dave up there said, using anti-knock strategy is a bad idea, it basically means you run with the intention of experiencing some knock. I expect a Fezza with unobtanium pistons can deal with that better than a cheap French or Japanese car.

 

[Chip-mk1]

Yeah as you say its partly about how hard they are trying (ie the specific output) and partly about how good the ECU is at noticing there is a lower RON fuel and correcting for it, which in the case of the scooby or clio the answer is not very well at all, and even on the others fred mentions I wouldnt personally do it still, you never know when you are going to go from thinking all is well to finding a ring land fall apart and changing your mind, lol.

 

[Jordanb29]

I cant try any of the shell stuff as the nearest shell garage is 35miles away and im never near it anyways. Tesco is 20miles away but it never has the good stuff! Its only got 95 ron stuff :| ahwell only a 1.2 at the end of the day anyways!

 

[Knuckles]

Well, my placebo from today included;

smoother feeling drive
slightly sharper throttle
kangarooing greatly reduced
easier to heel and toe/match revs
mpg seems the same, may have gone up from low 20s to ~29 a bit quicker

​i wonder how long before it wears off

 

[S2H]

If I had a Ferrari or an Aston i'd be running it on 99ron. Whether it's safe to run 95 or not. You've got to be pretty stupid to do otherwise in my opinion. If you have those sorts of cars paying 8p more a litre is hardly going to bother you!

Our Clio RS 200's might not require 99ron but it certainly improves cold starts and if you disagree come and try it for yourself

 

[Fred@BTM]

Why dont the scoobys run on 95 then Fred with all those cars proving that its ok?

Or are they like the clio with pistons that can fail if they see 95 RON induced knock as well?

rules of the warranty back then, we had 2 NEW 08 2.5 sti hatchbacks, 7 engines in 16months even though they were ran on 98RON

all the "normal" scoobs run 95 no issue (they have about 20 of them!)

 

[Munson]

Should have used coal IMO.

 

[Fred@BTM]

If I had a Ferrari or an Aston i'd be running it on 99ron. Whether it's safe to run 95 or not. You've got to be pretty stupid to do otherwise in my opinion. If you have those sorts of cars paying 8p more a litre is hardly going to bother you!

Our Clio RS 200's might not require 99ron but it certainly improves cold starts and if you disagree come and try it for yourself

140 cars doing say 70L EACH per day = 9800L (guesstimate)
6days per week = 58800L

times by "only £0.08" = £4700

but thats a slightly unusal scenario

 

[Munson]

So it was in fact a financial decision?

 

[Fred@BTM]

when a gallardo engine is £40K, doubt it

 

[Munson]

Are they mapped to run on high octane though?

 

[Fred@BTM]

factory standard cars (apart from the pads)

 

[Munson]

Probably not then.

 

[Poopensharten]

And thread.

 

[scarble]

Should have used coal IMO.

>Implying reciprocating piston internal combustion engines can't run on coal.
>Giving up on trying to explain the concept of anti-knock strategy.

 

[Jaff.]

>Implying reciprocating piston internal combustion engines can't run on coal.
>Giving up on trying to explain the concept of anti-knock strategy.

​Succesfully trolled!

 

[Chip-mk1]

Should have used coal IMO.

Maggoe thatcher ruined it or something apparently.

 

[Dan@SJM]

I know my DC2 ran like a complete bag of s**t when I put a tank of 95 in it. Certainly wasn't placebo either.

 

[...]

People with money don't waste it ... why run 98 when its designed to cope fine on 95 ....