V-Power IS bad for a "normal" engine!

[PJayUK]

I got this information from someone that "knows" (apparently!)

"BP Ulitmate, V-Power and other super-premium fuels should not regularly be used on the M112 3.2 liter engine on the W220, as the engine was specifically designed to be run on 95 ron fuel. Whilst like all modern engines it is fitted with a premature ignition sensor the ECU is not mapped to utilise this kind of fuel and it can place additional stress on certain components. There is no evidence that these fuels have any benefit above other good quality fuels, and should only regularly be used in engines that are designed to or have been mapped to use them"

What do we think of this response?

 

[television]

Total rubbish you are just wasting your money by using fuel that the engine cannot use, it is the same 112 engine used on all the range

 

[popuptoaster]

i have to use the high octane stuff in my old coupe, its designed for 98 ron and runs like poo on ordinary fuel, most modern cars though are set up for lower octane stuff and cant make any use of the "advanced" fuels, almost impossible to tell people though, becuase they are told its better its usually percieved as improving the cars performance even if it dont.

 

[Quickbrit]

My C280 runs like a raped ape on the 'super' fuel... especially the Shell version.

I treat myself to a super fill-up every 5 or 6 regular tank fills - LOL

MikeE

 

[rf065]

There has been tests carried out before & cars like turbo charged Impretzas and Lancers with ECU's that can measure the quality of the fuel do show an increase in horsepower as the ECU adapts itself according to the fuel used.

The majority of cars have ECU's which cannot do this and do not show any increase at all, except in the price to fill your tank.

Russ

 

[Martin-Jundiaí]

I've used both Shell V-power and Petrobras Podium (the formula 1 stuff) in my M110-engined W116 to no real benefit. However my 300E likes the Podium and Texaco Techron too. Pity Podium is 50 centavos a litre more than the others.

 

[antijam]

Extracts from the Shell V Power website

Is Shell V-Power high performance fuel suitable for all cars?

All leaded and unleaded vehicles can benefit from using Shell V-Power. Some older vehicles may need to use a valve seat lubricant with Shell V-Power to help protect the valve seats recession. If in any doubt, it’s best to consult your manufacturer’s manual or your local dealer

Do older cars benefit from using Shell V-Power or is this fuel only designed for the latest engines?

Older cars are likely to have accumulated engine deposits during their lifetime. Shell V-Power's powerful treatment is designed to remove existing dirt and grime in the engine, giving your engine a new lease of life, helping you get the most out of every drop.

Not exactly strong on quantative benefits, is it?

 

[Quickbrit]

My Indie tells me that the I-6 will retard the ignition (thus reduced power) for a lower quality fuel and the Shell V-power will allow it to use its full potential.

There is a significant difference for mine between the two - if the occassional higher octane tankfull cleans the ****e off my valve stems, what's not to like?

MikeE

 

[rf065]

Extracts from the Shell V Power website

Is Shell V-Power high performance fuel suitable for all cars?

All leaded and unleaded vehicles can benefit from using Shell V-Power. Some older vehicles may need to use a valve seat lubricant with Shell V-Power to help protect the valve seats recession. If in any doubt, it’s best to consult your manufacturer’s manual or your local dealer

Do older cars benefit from using Shell V-Power or is this fuel only designed for the latest engines?

Older cars are likely to have accumulated engine deposits during their lifetime. Shell V-Power's powerful treatment is designed to remove existing dirt and grime in the engine, giving your engine a new lease of life, helping you get the most out of every drop.

Not exactly strong on quantative benefits, is it?

I'm old enough to remember Shell's first attempt at a super fuel, it was burning the valves out & they had to pay out compensation to people who used it if I remember correctly.

Russ

 

[Greenman]

use to run the civic type R on 100 when i lived in Germany made a big diffrence to the 95 over hear and a lot faster too.

 

[dbanbery]

there is a noticable difference between regular petrol and that Tesco 99 RON when i fill up with it. the flat spots on the rev range are accentuated too. my old 1985 Turbo had a sensor that detected the octane rating on the fuel, and the ECU adjusted itself automatically, that was in 1985! so i would assume that it would be the same throughout now on any car worth its weight in scrap.

never used V-Power.

 

[television]

there is a noticable difference between regular petrol and that Tesco 99 RON when i fill up with it. the flat spots on the rev range are accentuated too. my old 1985 Turbo had a sensor that detected the octane rating on the fuel, and the ECU adjusted itself automatically, that was in 1985! so i would assume that it would be the same throughout now on any car worth its weight in scrap.

never used V-Power.

Yes some 124s have an adjustment plug, though or anyone else could detect any difference where ever you set it, unless it was for the bottom ranges of fuel like 91 ron

 

[stats007]

The reason people get their cars remapped is to make use of the higher octane fuels. V-Power does have detergents that help keep the engine clean, so if you're just using it for that then a 1 in 4 fill seems to be the recommended usage.

As for V-Power damaging M112 engines...

 

[jberks]

I've never seen any change in MPG or power using these 'super' fuels, either petrol in my E240 or diesel in the E270.
The detergent is good allegedly but I just pop a shot of Millers in now and then to keep things nice and shiny.

 

[rayhennig]

Snake oil?

I did some informal brim-to-brim mpg tests with my old 300CE-24 using 95, 98 and Tesco 99.

It was all long journey, 80-90 mph stuff and I got 30 mpg with 95, 29 with 98 (Dordogne/Ashford/Dordogne) and 27 with 99.

I think the 27 with 99 was different to the others as it was all UK motoring with more stop/start.

I really couldn't draw any conclusions so have decided to save the cash and stick with 95.

Just my 2 cents worth.

RayH

 

[television]

I did some informal brim-to-brim mpg tests with my old 300CE-24 using 95, 98 and Tesco 99.

It was all long journey, 80-90 mph stuff and I got 30 mpg with 95, 29 with 98 (Dordogne/Ashford/Dordogne) and 27 with 99.

I think the 27 with 99 was different to the others as it was all UK motoring with more stop/start.

I really couldn't draw any conclusions so have decided to save the cash and stick with 95.

Just my 2 cents worth.

RayH

Wise man

 

[rf065]

my old 1985 Turbo had a sensor that detected the octane rating on the fuel, and the ECU adjusted itself automatically, that was in 1985! so i would assume that it would be the same throughout now on any car worth its weight in scrap.

Not so, turbo charged cars have always had this since way back due to the nature of fuelling a turbo charged car (Colt Lancer Turbo, first production car with ECU), not as common as you would think in naturally aspirated engines unless in a high state of tune as standard. Most owners are simply wasting money or paying for the placebo effect.

Russ

 

[antijam]

'Which?' tested the so-called 'Super Fuels' and came to the general conclusion that they did not make economic sense.

http://www.which.co.uk/news/2008/09/super-fuels-are-a-waste-of-money-says-which-157038.jsp

I first tried them in my old Alfa Romeo 156 2.4JTD - a turbo diesel. Have to say there was a very detectable improvement in performance (although not in consumption, even with light use of the 'loud' pedal) using BP Ultimate diesel, although not with any of the other brands - totally at odds with Which?'s findings on another diesel, the Renault Megane! The cetane rating of BP Ultimate diesel is significantly higher than that of 'standard' fuels.

I guess it's mainly a case of 'if it works for you.........'

 

[dbanbery]

Not so, turbo charged cars have always had this since way back due to the nature of fuelling a turbo charged car (Colt Lancer Turbo, first production car with ECU), not as common as you would think in naturally aspirated engines unless in a high state of tune as standard. Most owners are simply wasting money or paying for the placebo effect.

Russ

hmm.

i know people have said it before but i have always noticed a difference when using the tesco stuff. with the saab it would be more responsive to the 97 ron too. never ran the turbo on 99 ron as i got rid of it before tesco started selling it, but it made my XR3i run cooler and smoother.

i dont think i'm imagining it, but it depends on what sort of driving you do i suppose. i like to think i put the car through its paces every so often, and thats when it feels difference.

i might be imagining it, but i dont think i am.

 

[Seeker_UK]

The reason people get their cars remapped is to make use of the higher octane fuels.

ECUs are programmed to work with a wide variety of qualities of fuel. IIRC, a standard ECU is mapped with lower performance so it will work with 90 RON no problem. Since in the UK, the worst we have is 95 RON, a remap ups the performance w/out problem.