Shell gearing up for UK launch of V Power
19 August 2006, 10:16 PM
#91
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 15,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Andy.F
Just for reference. A std UK 99/00 car running on 98 octane Optimax will have maxed out the factory advance on AE800/801 and 802 ECU's and will not benefit from increased octane.
If anyone doubts this then you are welcome to bring your car along and I'll show you the data stored in your ECU.
Andy
If anyone doubts this then you are welcome to bring your car along and I'll show you the data stored in your ECU.
Andy
this is what I also thought - without the data to back it up. Given this is the case can you explain this earlier poster?
Originally Posted by wurzel
You will not see any benefit in a standard car, what you will see is inconsistant boost, when you nail it the boost will rocket up then back off shoot up and back off causing the car to judder and shake, it will continue to do this until you get the car remapped to take advantage of the new fuel, the ignition can not advance enough and gets confused so backs off, I know this from first hand experience as it is what happened to my MY00 when I started using V-Power 100ron.
Interested in your views.
PS Bob may have been referring to my STi V running on the standard JECS? I could be wrong. So going from 98 to 100 RON would see the JECS ECU be abel to stop retarding as it would be using fuel that it was originally designed for in Japan. Hence my pragmatic view that the MY99 JECS ECU was not autoadvancing but autoretarding, if that makes sense
Last edited by Trout; 19 August 2006 at 10:19 PM.
19 August 2006, 10:41 PM
#92
Subaru Tuning Specialist
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 7.74 @179 mph 1/4 mile - road legal
Posts: 6,654
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Your OE Sti V ECU would indeed benefit from increased octane above the 98 of Optimax. As you mention, your (old) car was designed to run on 100 Octane fuel in its native Japan.
As for
I've no idea what he is on about, increasing octane above 98 will do absolutely nothing to the boost control on std UK 99/00 cars.
It's not clear from the text but perhaps the car had already been remapped and it was the remap that was unsuitable ?
Andy
As for
Originally Posted by wurzel
You will not see any benefit in a standard car, what you will see is inconsistant boost, when you nail it the boost will rocket up then back off shoot up and back off causing the car to judder and shake, it will continue to do this until you get the car remapped to take advantage of the new fuel, the ignition can not advance enough and gets confused so backs off, I know this from first hand experience as it is what happened to my MY00 when I started using V-Power 100ron.
It's not clear from the text but perhaps the car had already been remapped and it was the remap that was unsuitable ?
Andy
20 August 2006, 10:20 AM
#95
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 1,081
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok, another question since the tuner community is here...
Two scenarios - assume latest cars:
1. Map to something readily available, which has until now been 97 generally or 98/99 depending on location. Does the ECU take any advantage of a higher RON fuel beyond what was in there when it was mapped ? Leaving aside other changes to the formulation, would the increased RON give any benefit at all in the case of a ECUTEK map based on the earlier Optimax (say) ?
2. Map with the new V-Power in there. On those occasions where no V-Power is available the ECU will pull timing and boost, but is that perfectly ok, or to avoided if possible ? If that adjustment is done seamlessly and will not incur knock (apart from the onset of knock that is causing it to retard in the first place) then should we make sure all future mapping is done on V-Power even if V-Power is not always the fuel that is used ?
I guess what I'm getting at is how flexible are the latest ECUs, and how much can they take advantage of the higher RON...
Two scenarios - assume latest cars:
1. Map to something readily available, which has until now been 97 generally or 98/99 depending on location. Does the ECU take any advantage of a higher RON fuel beyond what was in there when it was mapped ? Leaving aside other changes to the formulation, would the increased RON give any benefit at all in the case of a ECUTEK map based on the earlier Optimax (say) ?
2. Map with the new V-Power in there. On those occasions where no V-Power is available the ECU will pull timing and boost, but is that perfectly ok, or to avoided if possible ? If that adjustment is done seamlessly and will not incur knock (apart from the onset of knock that is causing it to retard in the first place) then should we make sure all future mapping is done on V-Power even if V-Power is not always the fuel that is used ?
I guess what I'm getting at is how flexible are the latest ECUs, and how much can they take advantage of the higher RON...
20 August 2006, 10:33 AM
#96
Exactly my thoughts - can the newage ECUs can 'learn' and take advantage of higher RON fuels by advancing ignition? So if the car's been mapped for Optimax and you stick V-Power in at higher RON, will you end up with a bit more power? If so, this would seem the best option as the base map is for a lower grade fuel, which gives you a better safety margin should you have to use normal SUL. A base map for V-Power however would surely be more risky if you had to resort to SUL?
PS - just had this email from a friend who work for Shell marketing:
"Optimax is being replaced by V-Power. I am going to the launch in Norwich next Weds. VIP pass, driving around a track in a ferrari etc, - working for Shell does have it's benefits I must say!!"
PS - just had this email from a friend who work for Shell marketing:
"Optimax is being replaced by V-Power. I am going to the launch in Norwich next Weds. VIP pass, driving around a track in a ferrari etc, - working for Shell does have it's benefits I must say!!"
20 August 2006, 12:25 PM
#97
Subaru Tuning Specialist
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 7.74 @179 mph 1/4 mile - road legal
Posts: 6,654
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by ricardo
Ok, another question since the tuner community is here...
Two scenarios - assume latest cars:
1. Map to something readily available, which has until now been 97 generally or 98/99 depending on location. Does the ECU take any advantage of a higher RON fuel beyond what was in there when it was mapped ? Leaving aside other changes to the formulation, would the increased RON give any benefit at all in the case of a ECUTEK map based on the earlier Optimax (say) ?
2. Map with the new V-Power in there. On those occasions where no V-Power is available the ECU will pull timing and boost, but is that perfectly ok, or to avoided if possible ? If that adjustment is done seamlessly and will not incur knock (apart from the onset of knock that is causing it to retard in the first place) then should we make sure all future mapping is done on V-Power even if V-Power is not always the fuel that is used ?
I guess what I'm getting at is how flexible are the latest ECUs, and how much can they take advantage of the higher RON...
Two scenarios - assume latest cars:
1. Map to something readily available, which has until now been 97 generally or 98/99 depending on location. Does the ECU take any advantage of a higher RON fuel beyond what was in there when it was mapped ? Leaving aside other changes to the formulation, would the increased RON give any benefit at all in the case of a ECUTEK map based on the earlier Optimax (say) ?
2. Map with the new V-Power in there. On those occasions where no V-Power is available the ECU will pull timing and boost, but is that perfectly ok, or to avoided if possible ? If that adjustment is done seamlessly and will not incur knock (apart from the onset of knock that is causing it to retard in the first place) then should we make sure all future mapping is done on V-Power even if V-Power is not always the fuel that is used ?
I guess what I'm getting at is how flexible are the latest ECUs, and how much can they take advantage of the higher RON...
I for one consider that allowing a remapped ECU to have scope for further advance on a tuned car to be a high risk strategy. I would normally tune to the grade of fuel in the tank and any further increase in octane would only improve the safety factor I have already set up.
Any decrease in octane would initially use up the safety margin, then rely on the ECU's knock control strategy to retard the ignition timing.
You can leave the ECU in full control of the ignition based on observed knock but the engine will continually cycle into knock (mild) /retard/advance/knock/retard/advance and so on.
This is how a std car will run on 95 ron for example and at the std boost/rpm profile the engine will cope with this.
At increased power outputs however it is not my preferred option. This is one of the (many) reasons a remapped car can actually be safer than a std one !
Andy
20 August 2006, 01:46 PM
#98
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Manchester
Posts: 336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by scoobysmiff
V power is 100 ron in Germany
BTW. Everyone seems to be focussing on the RON number as to the reason their car performs better. There are may other factors involved such as the density of the fuel (which is very important and has no bearing on RON).
Regards,
20 August 2006, 03:48 PM
#99
Andy read my post again, its quite clear. David's car may have been remapped ... not according to his post though, if so my post covers it, if not my post covers it.
Your's was misleading which was the only reason I bothered to post after it.
As for boost, indeed the ecu will not change its boost control as a reaction, however BOOST will/can change as a result of using enhanced fuel.
Come on, you know better. You earned another Grunge point with this, takes you even further into the lead.
cheers
bob
Your's was misleading which was the only reason I bothered to post after it.
As for boost, indeed the ecu will not change its boost control as a reaction, however BOOST will/can change as a result of using enhanced fuel.
Come on, you know better. You earned another Grunge point with this, takes you even further into the lead.
cheers
bob
20 August 2006, 05:23 PM
#100
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Dorset
Posts: 1,616
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by marmski
Update to Fleetsbridge Poole by the way - seems like they got the new stuff and its now 98.9p 
If that's the case I will be making a trip down there later.
20 August 2006, 07:07 PM
#101
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 874
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Davey P
Are they advertising the new stuff then? Just wondered how you know
If that's the case I will be making a trip down there later.
If that's the case I will be making a trip down there later.
20 August 2006, 08:26 PM
#102
Subaru Tuning Specialist
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 7.74 @179 mph 1/4 mile - road legal
Posts: 6,654
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Bob
Sorry, I assumed you were aware that Litchfield have their JDM imported cars remapped (by powerstation) to suit UK fuel.
This particular car has been mentioned in numerous threads on 22b where you are a frequent poster.
I suppose I can excuse your lack of awareness this time
Andy
edited for andy
Sorry, I assumed you were aware that Litchfield have their JDM imported cars remapped (by powerstation) to suit UK fuel.
This particular car has been mentioned in numerous threads on 22b where you are a frequent poster.
I suppose I can excuse your lack of awareness this time
Andy
edited for andy
Last edited by Andy.F; 20 August 2006 at 08:41 PM.
20 August 2006, 08:37 PM
#103
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Under your bonnet
Posts: 9,173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to be a pedant if I may. 
It's Powerstation that remap Litchfields JDM cars, although we are usually classed as one entity as we work so closely with each other.
Andy
It's Powerstation that remap Litchfields JDM cars, although we are usually classed as one entity as we work so closely with each other.
Andy
23 August 2006, 10:37 AM
#104
Scooby Regular
Right guys.
Just been to my 'friendly' Shell garage and the girls have just shown me the Internal V-POWER staff booklet.
Inside it states in BIG bold letters that V-POWER is 99 RON.
Just been to my 'friendly' Shell garage and the girls have just shown me the Internal V-POWER staff booklet.
Inside it states in BIG bold letters that V-POWER is 99 RON.
23 August 2006, 11:11 AM
#106
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (22)
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Doncaster, S. Yorks.
Posts: 21,415
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by C2forWRX
buzz. hope its the same price then.
26 August 2006, 11:21 AM
#109
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 15,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by silent running
LOL all this bull**** as if Shell are out to do us - an absolutely miniscule group of their customers - a favour and give us better fuel. I notice also not ONE single person who has gone on anything but hearsay and pub talk. All believing that if Shell DON'T make an announcement, it must be good news...
Here's something I DID hear from a SHELL EMPLOYEE last week and furthermore, one who might actually know something about it, not just the Saturday boy in the shop - an OPTIMAX TANKER DRIVER delivering the Optimax. How accurate his words are, I can't say personally because I'm not a sucker that believes you get something for nothing. But it's a plausible explanation for all your excitement, and from a credible source. To paraphrase:
"The new replacement for Optimax is called V-Max or V-Power but it is the exact same octane as the old Optimax. The new name is used to bring it into line with European Shell premium fuel, but the main reason for the change is because of a legal issue with a contact lens solution manufacturer who also use the name Optimax."
Now please give it a rest! If Shell ever make a fuel that will trump everything else out there for less money, I can be damn sure that they will make a song and dance about it. The reason they haven't is because they are changing the name but the fuel is the same. I remember that when Optimax first came out, Shell made all sorts of false claims about how it would improve your overtaking and all sorts of bollocks, completely ignoring that a significant number of cars at that time did not have adaptive ECUs that would use - or need -the extra octane, and therefore their claims were full of crap. They managed to hang onto the claim that their 'detergents' were better for all cars, but the claim that all cars would effectively go faster because of the extra octane were quietly dropped. And I'm not going by hearsay, because I was one of the very people who complained about their bull**** in the first place. Octane is octane, not magic.
Once V-Power or V-Max is introduced and Shell advertise the octane rating and it is some incredible 102 race fuel, then if I am wrong I will say so. But in the meantime I won't gullibly believe that huge firms like Shell give a **** about the tiny minority of drivers who need Optimax in their Jap imports or tuned turbos. It's a 'halo' product to make the rest of Shell's operation look slicker and more motorist-orientated - the exact opposite of say Tesco who treat petrol simply as a commodity. Which is exactly as it should be and the reason why we can now choose to get 99 octane fuel from Tescis for virtually the same as Shell charge for normal 95 RON unleaded.
Sorry for the rant, but it just amazes me that people get taken in time after time.
Here's something I DID hear from a SHELL EMPLOYEE last week and furthermore, one who might actually know something about it, not just the Saturday boy in the shop - an OPTIMAX TANKER DRIVER delivering the Optimax. How accurate his words are, I can't say personally because I'm not a sucker that believes you get something for nothing. But it's a plausible explanation for all your excitement, and from a credible source. To paraphrase:
"The new replacement for Optimax is called V-Max or V-Power but it is the exact same octane as the old Optimax. The new name is used to bring it into line with European Shell premium fuel, but the main reason for the change is because of a legal issue with a contact lens solution manufacturer who also use the name Optimax."
Now please give it a rest! If Shell ever make a fuel that will trump everything else out there for less money, I can be damn sure that they will make a song and dance about it. The reason they haven't is because they are changing the name but the fuel is the same. I remember that when Optimax first came out, Shell made all sorts of false claims about how it would improve your overtaking and all sorts of bollocks, completely ignoring that a significant number of cars at that time did not have adaptive ECUs that would use - or need -the extra octane, and therefore their claims were full of crap. They managed to hang onto the claim that their 'detergents' were better for all cars, but the claim that all cars would effectively go faster because of the extra octane were quietly dropped. And I'm not going by hearsay, because I was one of the very people who complained about their bull**** in the first place. Octane is octane, not magic.
Once V-Power or V-Max is introduced and Shell advertise the octane rating and it is some incredible 102 race fuel, then if I am wrong I will say so. But in the meantime I won't gullibly believe that huge firms like Shell give a **** about the tiny minority of drivers who need Optimax in their Jap imports or tuned turbos. It's a 'halo' product to make the rest of Shell's operation look slicker and more motorist-orientated - the exact opposite of say Tesco who treat petrol simply as a commodity. Which is exactly as it should be and the reason why we can now choose to get 99 octane fuel from Tescis for virtually the same as Shell charge for normal 95 RON unleaded.
Sorry for the rant, but it just amazes me that people get taken in time after time.
So how would you like your hat cooked - fried or boiled sir?!
Rannoch
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Mattybr5@MB Developments
Full Cars Breaking For Spares
28
28 December 2015 11:07 PM
Mattybr5@MB Developments
Full Cars Breaking For Spares
12
18 November 2015 07:03 AM
