jeffmoses

iTrader: (3)

Hi,

Actually filled tank with V Power for the first time earlier today (used to use BP Ultimate) and there is a very noticeable difference.

The suspicious me thinks BP Ultimate (97 octane) are getting tight and not putting the correct about of additives etc in so the car is not liking recently.

Other thoughts are the car is really made to be running on higher than 97 anyway.

Anyway just thought I would say that my Scooby likes its new drink

All the best,

Jeff

winston69

iTrader: (30)

BP Ultimate is the worst!!! That is why

Masswithclass

iTrader: (1)

Jeff

I have always been told to stop away from BP Ultimate. I'm sure Bob Rawle states on this website that it is not suited to the Subaru engine. Stick with the v power !

Regards

New_scooby_04

iTrader: (4)

After what I've heard from mappers about cars pretty much chucking out all of their ignition advance when run on BP Ultimate, I'd rather use coal in my scooby

Stick with V Power!

Terminator X

iTrader: (7)

Aye, Bob Rawle warned me not to use it at least 5yrs ago!

TX.

topman2180

Tesco 99 or V Power for an STI.

jeffmoses

iTrader: (3)

Cheers All

Running 318.5bhp so it deserves the best

ALi-B

iTrader: (1)

Two things all "super fuels" have to comply with BS7800:2006. If its below 97 Ron its illegal.

Secondly Vpower is different again...It now contains ethanol, like Tesco 99.

https://www.scoobynet.com/scoobynet-...er-petrol.html

This not such a good thing if your car was bespoke-mapped to pre-ethanol vpower. Not any major danger, but as it does burn slightly different you won't get the best from it.

yabbadoo4

iTrader: (8)

i got my car mapped 4 weeks ago and met a guy from sidc who was a tanker driver and he told us that tesco momentum and v power come from the same gantry at the refinery and is the same fuel,

MattyB1983

iTrader: (51)

It may well come from the same refinery but it's not the same fuel mate. Tesco and shell add different chemicals to their fuels, shell average Ron is 99.6 for instance whereas tesco is 99.
Ask any mapper which fuel they would suggest, V-Power every time but tesco if it's all that's available.

yabbadoo4

iTrader: (8)

just passing on what he said matty, i always have put in v power anyway but its handy to be able to use momentum if stuck.

chopperman

Tesco is made by Greenergy and i thought Shell made there own fuel ?

Just been looking at Tesco momentum spec and it has 3% methanol and 5% ethanol. I wonder how much Methanol v-power has?

Shaun

So much bollocks spouted.... He said this. They said that.

Shaun

Who the **** told you that?

Maz

iTrader: (34)

If you're going to dismiss comments with such vigour Shaun then at least enlighten us with your version.

chopperman

Thought i'd post up the Momentum spec. Cant find one for V-power to compare.

http://www.tesco.com/Momentum99/prod...fits-specs.asp

ALi-B

iTrader: (1)

OK you have old Vpower based on a selected base stock fuel (as original Vpower only came from selected refineries, I forget which - can find out if need be) with a blend of Toluene, Xylene and Trimethylbenzene as additives to enhance it.

Vs modern V-power which comes from the same sources as Tesco with a ethanol blend plus some other bits and bobs.

Both old and current have different levels of oxygenates which do have small effects on closed-loop fueling. The overall calorific value (bang per millilitre injected) and last but not least the manner in which the flame front propagates.

Of course if its just a off the shelf generic map, it doesn't matter. But the fuels ARE different. Modern Vpower is more like Tesco99. Now if the car is happy on Tesco, fine. The main difference between old Vpower and new will slightly less MPG and less tolerance to standing when not used. Its probably only 1mpg or so though.....And I did say there was no danger.

Anubis

I allways try to use vpower, but if i cant get hold of any i use tescos, did try bp a few times with one of my classics but it didnt feel as good as with vpower

New_scooby_04

iTrader: (4)

Depends who says it!

When Bob Rawle told me to use V power, and explained why. I listened and used it!

When a unknown of SN says "use something" and gives no explanation, I'm more sceptical!

It's all about evaluating the reliability of the source of the information! Perhaps we should all be a bit more careful about citing the source of our info......but then I suspect that SN would dry up overnight!

type-rob

Well said!

Kirstiestar

iTrader: (2)

My car hates Ultimate, it runs really lumpy, but loves V power! My other half's cossie is the opposite though!?

maydew

iTrader: (9)

taken from the shell v-zine mag .as written by shell chief scientist mobility
question asked
i run a couple of vintage cars from the 1936-1937 era.I am aware of a problem using fuel with alcohol additives as this can effect certain seals and causes corrision in steel fuel tanks,i understand that shell v-power does not contain any ethanol.Can you confirm this the case?


answer
since 2010,all petrol sold in the uk ,including shell v-power contains upto 5% BIOETHANOL to meet renewable transport fuel regulations.Many other countries use higher percentage blends and 10% by volume bioethanol blend is quite common.There is quite alot of research into the effects of bioethanol on older cars and most of it concludes that a classic car engine should run with no problems,but certain ,more sensitive items,such as the carburettor and fuel pump seals,may need more regular attention.A STANDARD STEEL petrol tank can also suffer corrosion,but there are products available to permanently seal the tank.
Alternatively,you can fit a stainless-steel replacement.Bioethanol blends tend to form varnish on fuel system components,but the cleaning agents in shell v-power are designed to combat this.Some owners have reported that pre-ww2 engines seem to run a little hotter to modern petrol;this is almost certainly because of the different chemistry of modern petrol,which means it requires a slightly richer air-fuel ratio for efficient combustion .If this is a problem ,carburettors can be adjusted or re-jetted to compensate,depending on type.The high octane rating of shell v-power should not have any negative effect on cars made in the 1930s,and for classic high performance cars of the 50s and 60s it should benefit engines intended for 100 octane or higher

ALi-B

iTrader: (1)

^ ^

This is one of the problems I've had with my 1983 Jag. You wouldn't belive how hard it is to get ethanol graded rubber hoses rated for fuel injection pressure that is tolerant to the heat in a engine bay...that is also the correct outer AND inner diameters to fit the ferrules and barbs on the fuel rail and injectors!

In my case it means I have to use SAE J30R9 or DIN 73379-3D rated hose....and that is difficult to get hold of in the correct sizes.

Sure many companies will sell you "fuel injection hose" but the majority don't have any rating, many don't even conform to DIN73379-2B (SAE 30R7).

Edit...this is what I'm trying to avoid: http://forum.wscc.co.uk/forum/index....s/page__st__45

maydew

iTrader: (9)

for a free shell issue quite interesting read.


also maybe this is the issue of so many reported walbro pumps looking so corroded after 2 years ?

Shaun

You "appear" to know what you're on about.... or is this a "copy and paste" special?

So.... what are the actual "tested" differences in the real world to MPG, AFR's and Deg. over time? Of course your previous statement of "not such a good thing" and "you won't get the best from it" - the REAL WORLD context will be interesting to back that statement up!

Shaun

My comment was "in general" as I was in a bad mood at the time.

ALi-B

iTrader: (1)

Temporarily ignoring differing octane ratings, temps and ignition timing etc; Is it not a given fact you need to burn more ethanol blend fuel to get the same ouput from a equal octane non-ethanol fuel. Ergo; the more ethanol content, the more that is needed because of the reduced calorific value hence the MPG comment.

Now as for the AFR: Assuming 0% Ethanol fuel is 14.7:1 and Ethanol is 9:1. 5% blend will be 14.4:1 Which for economy, backs that up.

For power, with target AFR for max power is say 12.5 to 13.23:1 for 0% 'pure petrol' (I know theres no such thing) and 6.43 to 7.8 for 100% ethanol. So the ideals for 5% blend will be 12.2 to 12.96:1 Clearly a slight shift richer for the target AFR range for peak power.

On the lambda scale (god I hope I get this right ) thats a target 0.85 to 0.9 versus 0.82 to 0.88 for the 5% blend.

Does the engine care? Go on, you tell me All I will say it depends on what the desired AFR targets are.

My statement of "not such a good thing" relates to a car running bespoke indvidual tuning parameters. If it was found to get peak BHP at xx:1 AFR and peak economy at xx:1 AFR then those targets have shifted slightly.

The real world is complicated because batch variations, humidity, temps and ignition timing as well as engine wear/condition. Both old and new Vpower "should" have the same octane in RON, but the way it reaches that is unclear. I don't have the MON or PON values to back that up.

Shaun

Unfortunately a load of physics and chemist talk don't mean that there are actually any useful differences, that imo, account for your previous statements.

Bull**** over substance springs to mind.

jeffmoses

iTrader: (3)

My Scooby runs better on V Power than BP Ultimate, fact

ALi-B

iTrader: (1)

Shaun with the greatest respect you've provided nothing of value in this thread, yet I have put the time and effort to put my side across.

So who's really Bull****ing? If I am wrong...show I am wrong (apart from you can't because you can't get 0% ethanol Vpower anymore)