Shell V-Power vs BP 98 oct

[tarmac-]

Gull FTW... Had my r33 tuned on 98 from BP, and started running gull with no knocking side effects + its abit cheaper, so why not.. I personally think anyone running 98 in a stock honda engine, other than a high comp type R, is throwing their cash away.

[MyH22A]

Hmmmm, cool some good point n comments ill sit on the fence at this point till ive used it all and reserve judgement for then.

I found these pic's when going through my sema pic's from 2007, ( Mid last yr show's ) I guess it's been round for alot longer than i realised.





Lol check out the gauges, Mad overkill but looks the part

[Macros]

its 95 so its shit

that car is eww.

[Loudsoundz]

Found this link HERE. Ignore the other shit that is being talked about in the link apart from a user called "johnsma22" in the eight post down. Interesting reading.

[TypeAhhh]

Originally Posted by MyH22A

I guess it's been round for alot longer than i realised.

I think it started launching around the world in 2004. Whether it has been further developed since then I don't know.

[Moclov]

Originally Posted by Loudsoundz

Found this link HERE. Ignore the other shit that is being talked about in the link apart from a user called "johnsma22" in the eight post down. Interesting reading.

I don't think it's as simple as he makes out... There are different rating systems for fuel, so it's not a simple "91 = 91% octane". It also doesn't explain racing fuels and the like which are above 100 octane.

The part about leaded fuels causing the earth to be covered in a thin layer of lead was funny too

[BUMP]

I still dont know why you compared 95 octane and 98 octane....

gull gets thumbs up from me.

[Macros]

IEighty-seven-octane gasoline is gasoline that contains 87-percent octane and 13-percent heptane

/facepalm
It's a rating not a percentage.


get him to explain how methane has an effective octane rating of 130.

[Coupe-R]

V power has been around for ages, look at the F1 advertising

Ethanol will resist detonation more than petrol

also ethanol stoich is 9:1
gasoline is 14.7:1

so you can see you need more ethanol to burn in the correct conditions.

Also thats not the ratios you would run at full throttle, they make it richer on full throttle to cool the mixture and stop detonation and other nasties.

[FORDSKIN]

Originally Posted by americ_ian

but ferrari made it so it must be good!

Guy at my local Shell was tryna put the hard sell on me. ''its the same stuff they use in the ferrari F1 cars''

[Coupe-R]

ahah, no but its advertised at the F1

[Sleepy]

Originally Posted by tarmac-

I personally think anyone running 98 in a stock honda engine, other than a high comp type R, is throwing their cash away.

What no wai, you get mad vtax power, + baller jdm points.

Yeah I pretty much agree thats its pissing money away

[K_ma23]

Car tuned on BP98, and now running Gull Force 10, car runs just as fine if not better apart from the fact Force 10 don't last as long, you need to burn a little more to make the same energy.

Fuels from shall last the longest, too bad my car won't take 95 and thats as high octane as they have.

[NZRacerX]

Originally Posted by Macros

/facepalm
It's a rating not a percentage.


get him to explain how methane has an effective octane rating of 130.

He's kind of on the right path though. Octane Rating in it's original definition is a percentage, being the the volume of iso-octane in a mixture of iso-octane and normal-heptane that would have the same auto-ignition resistance as whatever fuel you're rating. So a 91 octane fuel (whatever it may be made up of) has the same anti-knocking capacity as a mix of 91% iso-octane and 9% n-heptane.

The thing is, iso-octane is not the most knock-resistant substance around. So the RON (Research Octane Number) rating system involves testing the substance in a special variable-compression engine, and comparing the results with an iso-octane/n-heptane mixture. Hence being a comparitive number rather than a percentage, things like AvGas and Ethanol have RON ratings of over 100.


Anyway... my work uses Shell fuel cards company-wide, but I have an exception to use BP Ultimate instead. I don't see this V-Power marketing hype changing me back to Shell at all.

[Lycanthrope]

I used to fill up at Gull because their 95 seemed to run well in my engine. When my local station changed it to Force10 my fuel economy dropped noticeably with no noticeable change in performance.

I decided to try Shell's new V-Power offering and my fuel economy is a lot better, and the performance is pretty good too. I drove to Taupo and back this weekend on 1 full tank, including the occasional mad Vtec passing manoeuvre. '96 EK b16a btw.

So V-power gets the thumbs-up from me. Different gas suits different engines, everyone's preference/results will vary.

[BUMP]

Originally Posted by Lycanthrope

I used to fill up at Gull because their 95 seemed to run well in my engine. When my local station changed it to Force10 my fuel economy dropped noticeably with no noticeable change in performance.

You do realise you need atleast 3 tank fulls to start noticing the differences, also you need to change your fuel filters as the ethonol will have cleaned all the crap out of your fuel tank/lines etc.

[canman]

Put a tank in the GTR last week.......... its crap as far as I'm concerned compared to BP ultimate.

Just put a tank of Mobil Ethanol mix tonight though and I've gotta say on first impressions seems better than ultimate !

Vpowers a crock as far as I'm concerned.

[Sleepy]

Originally Posted by Lycanthrope

So V-power gets the thumbs-up from me. Different gas suits different engines, everyone's preference/results will vary.

Yeah, I find that Shell works well in my car, BP's good but fookin ages away

[Lycanthrope]

Originally Posted by BUMP

You do realise you need atleast 3 tank fulls to start noticing the differences, also you need to change your fuel filters as the ethonol will have cleaned all the crap out of your fuel tank/lines etc.

Yeah. I actually ran it for about 2 months, and changed the filter halfway through. Waste of money that was, absolutely no difference before/after (the original filter was only about 20,000k old but I changed it anyway as per recommendation).

Worth noting also that 98 octane in general doesn't seem to yield any noticeable benefits in my car, so I'll stick with 95. Win/win for me, cos it's cheaper and available everywhere.

[canman]

Originally Posted by BUMP

You do realise you need atleast 3 tank fulls to start noticing the differences

What a crock of bollocks !!!!

[duncanb]

Not sure if I've posted this here before, but here goes.

The density of petrol normally decreases with increasing octane rating, so 91 should be more economical than 95 if the car is designed for it. But modern high octane fuels like Ultimate are actually more dense than 95, so as well as the increase in octane, economy should also improve.

My last company car (Falcon XR6) ran better on Ultimate, and gave about 5% better economy than 95.

IMO, NZ refined petrol is pretty dodgy stuff. They make it so that it just meets the NZ standards, i.e. the 91 is 91. When they used to publish the test results on the Internet, Gull 91 stood out like the proverbial as it was often more like 93-94 RON. My XR6 would run OK on Gull 91, but you could hear it pinking going up the Bombay Hills in top gear on BP 91.

[Nicknamed_13]

OK. I only put 24 litres of V-Power few days ago while running on dreamswith empty near empty tank. Usually I get 10L/100km and now it seems I will get a few km more. Got 220km and is still good for at least 50 more. And before this I only used 95 octane from Shell. Didn't notice any difference in terms of performance.

Family frind had a non turbo Impreza and every time he used Caltex on 95 his car was not running as smooth and seemed to have less performance. On Shell 95 he had more grunt and it was smoother. With my integra I ran 91, 95, 98 and 98 + 5point octane. Ran very smooth on 98 + booster but no difference between rest. Like somone else said, if you're not running ITR, STI, EVO etc 98 is a waste of money. You're better off getting 95 and use octane booster/injector cleaner every now and then.

[brenth]

Originally Posted by Nicknamed_13

Like somone else said, if you're not running ITR, STI, EVO etc 98 is a waste of money. You're better off getting 95 and use octane booster/injector cleaner every now and then.

yea but in saying that i have a non r integra b18c and i notice better fuel economy between 95 and 98. IMO its worth the few $$'s extra each tank

[tarmac-]

Has anyone got any dyno sheets showing the difference in 91 to 95 to 98 petrol in a car, on a stock ecu, showing any "power" increases?? I know i've never been able to feel any change in power just by using different gas on a stock ecu, regardless on what the car.

[Nicknamed_13]

Originally Posted by brenth49

yea but in saying that i have a non r integra b18c and i notice better fuel economy between 95 and 98. IMO its worth the few $$'s extra each tank

Sometimes all opinions by feel in terms of performance are subject to placebo effect. Without dynosheets like tarmac said its useless.
Heard of a guy who put some aditives in his engine ..... injector cleaning or something. My mate was there with him and when the guy turned on the car, 20 seconds later he swore it was running better. The new stuff probably didn't even clear the fuel filter let alone reach the injectors.