Thought I'd try V power.

[Dead Eye]

I run V-Power in both my car and thou as they benefit slightly from it. The car gets up to +10% efficiency on motorway runs (but it drinks fuel like no tomorrow anyway) and the thou just feels a little better on it - no increased power that I can tell. I mostly run it in the thou because of the enhanced cleaning properties and it helps be to earn points with their loyalty scheme :P

The 600 however seemed to run a bit worse with the 99 RON stuff. I reckon nick might be on to something with suggesting that the cleaning properties had loosened some crap and blocked the jets as my 600 has never been in good condition - something I plan on rectifying... eventually...

[Hedgetrimmer]

One thing that does alter the feel of my bike is the weather, it can feel slightly grumpy in cold weather, but I simply put that down to the bike not up to full operating temperature because of the low mileage I do.
No problems at all in summer though.

Saying that, the Fazer is the first bike I've had in years that prefers warm conditions, my last 2 bikes functioned better in cooler weather?

It's all a conundrum. 

That's odd. Most bikes run better in cold (dry) conditions because you have a greater density to the air that it takes in, giving better efficiency - er, or something like that 

[Mark YPVS]

Tried my R1 (1st inj model) on super (esso) last week and it ran really bad, kept getting error code 20 (map sensor) fault ,  just filled it up with normal today, error code went in about 5 mins and the bike runs much better.


Note: full hindle super sport system/ pc3/ k&n.


Mark

[VNA - BMW Wank]

I wonder if any of the perceived power / response increase is all in the mind or a sort of placebo effect.

Absolutely, you got it.  Firstly the names, ultimate, super, v-power etc, premium products that you pay more for - they must be better - right?

Wrong.  92RON petrol contains the same amount of energy or bang as 99RON.  What 99 RON offers is better 'knock' protection or a slower burn.

It's all about ignition, timing and a controlled burn.  ie - at what point in the cycle the fuel is lit.  The fuel is ignited before Top Dead Centre (TDC) as the fuel is being compressed.  If it is ignited too soon it will start to explode before TDC, which will give you knock, and if you keep getting that you'll get a heat build up and burn't oot valves.

High compression engines, or many of those running turbos need a higher octane fuel (often 98RON), if you run them on a lower octane fuel like 95 or 92 RON you risk 'knock' or 'pinking'.  Note that most if not all cars that require 98RON today have knock detection that will adjust the timing to prevent engine damage.

As for my bike a GEN1 Fazer Thou.  It's timing is set for 92RON.  In the UK our standard fuel is 95RON.  If you use 98RON, it's like igniting the fuel too late, you are getting the big push just slightly further down the stroke.

So in  summery if you use a higher octane than recommended, then the engine will run absolutely fine but will make very slightly less power.

And never use an octane less than recommended.

[darrsi]

I'm sticking with the 97.
It certainly works better than 95 for my bike no matter how much i read into it, it's just a simple fact.

[Aegis Bearing Mel]

Pay day treat for 'Bee was a tank of the guid stuff, usually BP Ultimate, although Shell if I couldn't make it to a BP.
Rest of the time it was BP or Asda cooking petrol, but always liked to think that the additives in the premium one once a month helped keep the gubbins clean.

[NorthWestern]

I'm with Darrsi on this,


For a month or so I ran alternate tanks of shell v-power and normal shell every 2 days (my commute uses a full tank every 2 days), you can definitely feel a difference and doing it over a long period like that negates any "placebo effect".  When switching it does take a few miles to kick in, presumably the old fuel is still in the fuel lines/carbs but when it does it runs crisper and has slightly more zip.


As far as I know my bike is stock (apart from the silencer that is), I checked the needles not long after I got it to see if it had been "ivanised" but they are stock although I didn't check the jets (maybe it has a different kit in it I don't know), std air filter etc.  It did have race supersport tyres on though (Pirelli SC1 K2's), either they were bought second hand or the bike had been on a track because they were bobbled off the edges on both front and rear so it could be that the previous owner fettled it for track days, who knows.


It is odd that people find their bikes run poorer with it though, I have always tried v-power in my bikes and never had any detrimental performance.  In fact, my lawn mower even runs better if I syphon v-power from my bike when it needs filling, it sputters less and doesn't have a slight stutter when going from tick over to full throttle and that surely isn't setup for high octane fuel

[Hedgetrimmer]

Thing is with the V Power, I don't think it's just the higher octane that's responsible for improvements. Shell have banged on about how they've put a lot of R&D into this fuel, working with Ferrari among others to achieve what they have, and that doesn't sound to me like just banging up the octane level. I have not found similar improvements with higher octane fuel from other producers.

VNA, whilst much of what you say seems to make sense, I think you are wrong about the placebo effect with this particular fuel. We all dislike certain things about the politics behind fossil fuel production, and maybe the fuel companies do not operate in an entirely ethical manner, but this doesn't mean that they don't know a bit about how to produce a decent fuel, or indeed, how to make advances in the field. I remain convinced that V Power gives me the improvements I claim. And for me it's not about producing more power. I honestly couldn't say if this is the case. But it improves pick up, and makes for smoother running lower down the rev range. That is why I like it. And if the higher octane causes a loss of power for the timing reasons you suggest, well the bike is no slouch, and that's a fact! Also, I've been using it in Fazers long enough now to know that there are no long term ill effects. Good enough for me 

[noggythenog]

For what it's worth i filled up my tank with super unleaded before storing for the winter as i think being a higher quality fuel it will take longer to go off or when it does go off will take longer to get to the stage where it wont run.


At the end of the day it cost a few pence extra and its only tank of fuel on a bike so worth a try i reckon

[sadlonelygit]

Result: My bike runs like shit on Shell V power, spluttering & stalling. Tank drained, Texaco 95 ron in, runs good. 

are you sure you didn't put diesel in by mistake!

[Simon.Pieman]

For what it's worth i filled up my tank with super unleaded before storing for the winter as i think being a higher quality fuel it will take longer to go off or when it does go off will take longer to get to the stage where it wont run.

At the end of the day it cost a few pence extra and its only tank of fuel on a bike so worth a try i reckon

It's not 'higher quality' it's a higher RON value that's all. Read VNA's post, he very nicely puts to rest the cobblers being said on this thread about fuels with zippy names.
 If you are storing your bike over winter add fuel preservative to the tank to prevent it going off, then you can be certain it will be fine come springtime rather than taking a risk.

[Hedgetrimmer]

It's not 'higher quality' it's a higher RON value that's all. Read VNA's post, he very nicely puts to rest the cobblers being said on this thread about fuels with zippy names.

Ok, what Shell say is cobblers, and I am to believe you over them, and my personal experience with this fuel. Well, I'd be willing to do that perhaps if you give us some background on your experience of developing and producing fuels for ICEs. It's good to have such experts on this forum 

[Simon.Pieman]

Ok, what Shell say is cobblers, and I am to believe you over them, and my personal experience with this fuel. Well, I'd be willing to do that perhaps if you give us some background on your experience of developing and producing fuels for ICEs. It's good to have such experts on this forum 

 I'll ignore the straw man arguement, of course I don't develop fuels. But, I used to race 24hr endurance in the eighties and our team were sponsored by Rock Oil who doctored our fuel with octane boosters -for a conventional engine that's really the only mod you can make to petrol to improve running (when you have increased the compression and/or squish) Believe me, if we could have added other chemicals to improve running we would known about them and had access to them.
 Since you are trying to get me on a technical point regarding fuel and you believe what Shell tell you, how about telling me the technical information Shell have supplied to you about these 'advanced' fuels?
 I don't mean marketing nonsense such as  'longer engine life, cleaner engine' blah blah. What chemicals are Shell adding to these fuels that are proven to improve running?
 

[Hedgetrimmer]

It looks like the two key components in modern performance fuels are cleaning agents, and friction modifiers. The former to prevent carbon deposit build up which can reduce performance, and the latter to reduce (obviously) friction, especially between the piston rings and the walls of the cylinder. Of course whilst with wet clutch engines you wouldn't want friction modifiers in engine oil as they would reduce clutch bite, in the cylinder there are no such problems, as long as a good seal between cylinder wall and piston rings is maintained.

And of course, if you examine what Shell are prepared to tell Joe Public, you won't get much in depth technical information about the work they have put into fuel development (do you really need me to explain why this would be?!  ). Which of course is nothing, because as you imply, obviously quite rightly, Shell just came up with an advertising campaign that tells a pack of lies as in fact they sat on their arses and did nothing. Just re-labelled the same kinds of fuel that you used in the 80s. Of course when you raced in the 80s, you found out all the science that will ever be possible to know about engine performance and fuels, because you had the full, huge budget of a multi-national company at your disposal, who could see into the future and decide there would never be any further improvement, no matter what anyone did. In a way, it's a shame that by the 80s, everyone knew everything there would ever be to know in the field of science. This is why, presumably, you went on to win in GP racing at circuits around the world, and I would assume, you are still doing. I am suitably and humbly impressed 

Here's something for you to ignore, or skim without really having any interest. Of course the bits you will carefully pick out are the marketing hype (shock, horror, there is some of that?!  ) that prove what you say about "marketing nonsense such as 'longer life, cleaner engine' blah blah."

http://www.shell.co.uk/gbr/products-services/on-the-road/shell-fuels/shell-vpower-experience/shell-vpower-nitro-plus-unleaded.html?gclid=Cj0KEQiAhvujBRDUpomG5cq_mI0BEiQA7TYq-tie-PSnmywHTiR1-xAtnkFfcjFz62pLJ8b6X3xc72YaAprN8P8HAQ

So here's an idea. Why don't you, or anyone else for that matter, take Shell to court for false advertising? You are guaranteed a win 

If you choose to reply to this, don't forget to continually bang on about octane boosting whilst ignoring any other possible components that can be added to fuel 
Be warned, I may also choose to ignore your arguments too. Fair's fair, right? 


P.S. Whilst I would normally not write in this style, I am trying to adopt the tone that you set, because I think it is one that you will understand more readily.    Oh, and I just made up everything I said before you joined the discussion because I'm a compulsive liar. But if you wish to (obviously fruitlessly) attempt to verify any of it, contact Brett at Woodford Motorcycles and Del at Del's Motorcycles and Tyres, Cirencester. Of course all the tuning the latter does for road and track is a complete waste of time because you quite clearly know better, so there's no more to be said. What would be the point in having more than one person (yourself) with experience in this field?


 

[Mark YPVS]

I had never heard the term "straw man argument" and had to google it


so i still not sure on the petrol but i learned something new 


Mark

[ChristoT]

So the weapon of choice is handbags at dawn, Nick and Simon, where's the venue? 

[Hedgetrimmer]

Coming soon to a forum near you....

[VNA - BMW Wank]

Yeah, I've looked at all the stuff on the Shell site, as I have done in the past, and yes we've had these discussions before, and yup they got heated.

A wee thought first.  You might want to ask folks who repair engines, or check them for wear, what they usually find when they take one apart, that is an engine that has had it's basic servicing.

What I think they will tell you is that they find nice clean engines usually with minimal wear.

I mean lets face it when did you last think of buying a de-coke kit, popping the cylinder head off and cleaning out all that gunge - that's err umm not there.

Yup the days of the de-coke are long over.  So in terms of keeping my engine cleaner than clean, well I dunno what V-power is supposed to do for me.

As for the friction reduction claims, well your bike already has some pretty fancy coatings on it's bores to keep friction down and much more importantly reduce and prevent wear. 

We also know our bikes are prone to bore polishing.  Some bikes that have been too gently run in and/or run on fully synthetic oil have ended up with polished bores, which prevents the rings from bedding in and they then become oil burners for the rest of their lives. 

So in short I think all the talk of friction reduction is probably bull.  But if it is true, then it might actually be a good idea to avoid this fuel. 

Finally, everything on the Shell site is marketing spin, it's all intentionally vague,  there are no hard engineering  facts, there are no comparisons or demonstrations of this wonder fuel and what it can achieve in real terms.

Anyway my trusty old VW Bora which I've been driving for the last 9 years runs on 95RON Premium Unleaded.  I'm dreaming of maybe replacing it with a Skoda VRS petrol estate.  As the Skoda is turbo charged and set up for 98RON, well it will get 98RON cos it needs it, and whilst it will run on 95RON (cos it's got 'knock' detection) it won't run as well on it.

So I'll run my car and my bike on 95RON as they are both set up for 92RON.  There is no benefit from using a higher octane, and the only thing you can achieve, as I have explained, is a very slightly lowered power output.

Simon is correct, there are no facts and no demonstration of it's superior performance. 

[darrsi]

Still think people are missing the point all because of given information.


The FACT is, after YEARS of deliberately trying different fuels time and time again, my bike, as an example, without a doubt runs better on 97, and during summer when I occasionally use the V Power 99 it feels even better!


I'm not on about top speed or extra BHP, I'm on about the general feeling and well being of the bike.
And although it doesn't feel "bad" at all using 95, the other 2 definitely do feel noticeably better in comparison.

[Hedgetrimmer]

Still think people are missing the point all because of given information.


The FACT is, after YEARS of deliberately trying different fuels time and time again, my bike, as an example, without a doubt runs better on 97, and during summer when I occasionally use the V Power 99 it feels even better!


I'm not on about top speed or extra BHP, I'm on about the general feeling and well being of the bike.
And although it doesn't feel "bad" at all using 95, the other 2 definitely do feel noticeably better in comparison.

Which is all I really care about too - well said.

But technology does interest me, soooo...You may have a point about the running in process VNA, sounds logical, as does your explanation of the timing considerations for high octane fuel, which I don't dispute. But I just get a bit confused when it comes to this flat denial that companies like Shell can ever achieve any advances or improvements. Where is this attitude coming from? Surely they would have examined such things if developing a fuel that will be sold to one and all for road use?

[Hedgetrimmer]

And talking of technology and fuel additives, this discussion got me to wondering about whether we will get to a point where totally synthetic fuels replace fossil based fuels. The Germans had a large scale production of synthetics during WW2, and of course we have varying degrees of synthetic oils for use in our engines today. But check this out:

http://www.gizmag.com/breakthrough-promises-150-per-gallon-synthetic-gasoline-with-no-carbon-emissions/17687/

Maybe we won't need electrically powered vehicles after all?

[noggythenog]

Im not a refiner but i do work alongside refineries in getting their fuels in and out.


As far as i can tell then you can have as good quality petrol as you like......at an extra cost.....because the cleaner or purer or whatever you want it will take an extra process with the refinery......eventually it will be too good for a normal engine or too volatile.


I often hear of jet aviation fuel being traded as kero because it hasnt met the spec, even though they are broadly the same thing.


Theres the general acceptance that one refinery produces a better quality diesel than the other.


All sorts of crazy cargoes are made such as Naptha and reformate and many other Gasoline blend stocks.


Stuff is distilled into different stuff and then stuff can be further broken down into other stuff yet the more stuff you want outta stuff then the harder it gets and the more costly and labour intensive it gets to make that stuff


Cargoes are mixed and blended like a witches potion.


Even ships off southwold can do ship to ship transfers in a basic mixing and blending process.....i went on a couple of these and i was speaking to a surveyor who told me that half the cargoes were travelling around all these anchored ships and often ending back on their original ship in slightly different form.


I dont know for sure......but my "feeling" is that it all has less to do with how many additives are introduced and more to do with what crap is taken out and whilst i dont know owt about v power or whatever i can quite believe that it's quality is much better and that it has been mixed and blended better.......whilst additives must be added.....the only thing ive routinely heard of being added is dyes......apart from that then cargoes are either on spec or off spec.

[darrsi]

Change the liquid to whiskey instead and I'm sure the attitude would soon change!

They'll all get you pissed eventually, but some just taste that little bit nicer in the process. 

[Simon.Pieman]

It looks like the two key components in modern performance fuels are cleaning agents, and friction modifiers. The former to prevent carbon deposit build up which can reduce performance, and the latter to reduce (obviously) friction, especially between the piston rings and the walls of the cylinder. Of course whilst with wet clutch engines you wouldn't want friction modifiers in engine oil as they would reduce clutch bite, in the cylinder there are no such problems, as long as a good seal between cylinder wall and piston rings is maintained.

And of course, if you examine what Shell are prepared to tell Joe Public, you won't get much in depth technical information about the work they have put into fuel development (do you really need me to explain why this would be?!  ). Which of course is nothing, because as you imply, obviously quite rightly, Shell just came up with an advertising campaign that tells a pack of lies as in fact they sat on their arses and did nothing. Just re-labelled the same kinds of fuel that you used in the 80s. Of course when you raced in the 80s, you found out all the science that will ever be possible to know about engine performance and fuels, because you had the full, huge budget of a multi-national company at your disposal, who could see into the future and decide there would never be any further improvement, no matter what anyone did. In a way, it's a shame that by the 80s, everyone knew everything there would ever be to know in the field of science. This is why, presumably, you went on to win in GP racing at circuits around the world, and I would assume, you are still doing. I am suitably and humbly impressed 

Here's something for you to ignore, or skim without really having any interest. Of course the bits you will carefully pick out are the marketing hype (shock, horror, there is some of that?!  ) that prove what you say about "marketing nonsense such as 'longer life, cleaner engine' blah blah."

http://www.shell.co.uk/gbr/products-services/on-the-road/shell-fuels/shell-vpower-experience/shell-vpower-nitro-plus-unleaded.html?gclid=Cj0KEQiAhvujBRDUpomG5cq_mI0BEiQA7TYq-tie-PSnmywHTiR1-xAtnkFfcjFz62pLJ8b6X3xc72YaAprN8P8HAQ

So here's an idea. Why don't you, or anyone else for that matter, take Shell to court for false advertising? You are guaranteed a win 

If you choose to reply to this, don't forget to continually bang on about octane boosting whilst ignoring any other possible components that can be added to fuel 
Be warned, I may also choose to ignore your arguments too. Fair's fair, right? 


P.S. Whilst I would normally not write in this style, I am trying to adopt the tone that you set, because I think it is one that you will understand more readily.    Oh, and I just made up everything I said before you joined the discussion because I'm a compulsive liar. But if you wish to (obviously fruitlessly) attempt to verify any of it, contact Brett at Woodford Motorcycles and Del at Del's Motorcycles and Tyres, Cirencester. Of course all the tuning the latter does for road and track is a complete waste of time because you quite clearly know better, so there's no more to be said. What would be the point in having more than one person (yourself) with experience in this field?


 

 I suggest you also Google the phrase 'Straw man argument' because that sums up everything you've said above. I'm not replying to misrepresentations of what I've said, no one would.  What has all that mumbo jumbo about science and me 'winning motogp' etc got to do with anything? It just sounds like petty insult and again it's pure straw man arguement, I never made any grandiose comments about the achievements of the endurance team. I don't know if fuel technology has come on since the eighties (and neither do you), I didn't claim to know the future either.
 As for 'false advertising' ask yourself this, if the 'superfuels' really made a great difference why would Shell and the others heavily advertise something that would mean you buy less of their product?
Answer:- because the benefits are not significant enough to mean you buy significantly less fuel from them, but they get more profit anyway because these fuels cost more. Shell are running a business, they are not your friend and are not trying to save you money.
 

[Hedgetrimmer]

If my post sounds a little insulting, it was a response to this comment that you made:

puts to rest the cobblers being said on this thread about fuels with zippy names.
 

Not exactly diplomatic, was it?

I may not have great technical expertise in the field of fuel development to back me up, but neither do you. But sometimes people come across on the internet as arrogant in these things, intentionally or not, and I'm really interested in the facts too, so if I challenged you on your technical background, it's because if of course you had turned out to have much expertise in this subject, I would have paid much more attention. I didn't claim to have any expertise, just personal experience of what I felt/found, and thought it was relevant to the OP. Just to make a bald statement saying what everyone else had said is cobblers, without giving any reasons even for that statement, well, not surprising you'll put someone's back up a bit, is it?

Look, I come to this discussion from the same point of view as darrsi. I notice the difference in smoother running and better pick up when using V Power. I don't think it is all in my mind, and having it recommended by two separate, experienced mechanics does tend to reinforce the idea, rightly or wrongly.
Obviously Shell are not trying to save me money, this is a relatively expensive product after all.