flango
Hardcore MB Enthusiast
Different technology all together, V Power is a GTL fuel (Gas to Liquid) Fuelsave is an additive package which it looks like they haven't got quite right yet.
new shell unleaded
- Thread starter crankiejohn
- Start date
Different technology all together, V Power is a GTL fuel (Gas to Liquid) Fuelsave is an additive package which it looks like they haven't got quite right yet.
Cabe
Active Member
Interesting, the rough engine note was what caused me to check my oil the other day, I'll give it a whirl on V-Power as that's the same as regular diesel in the local BP 
flango
Hardcore MB Enthusiast
Just heard from my Nephew who runs a BMW 5 series diesel exactly the same problem rough running, noisy engine. A switch back to V power and all was well again.
StavFC
Active Member
Tried FuelSave and V-Power and not really noticed a difference TBH, and thats using the car hard too. They are all mapped for 95 octane so higher don't affect things, and not noticed a 'poor fuel' problem from the FuelSave either to be honest.
V-Power in the UK is 99 octane.
In other countries they have different grades e.g. in Germany they sell "V-Power 95" (95 octane) and "V-Power Racing" (100 Octane).
In other countries they have different grades e.g. in Germany they sell "V-Power 95" (95 octane) and "V-Power Racing" (100 Octane).
StavFC
Active Member
Its 99, but either way, as I said, all Mercs are mapped for 95 from the factory and pretty certain they dont have octane sensors of any kind, so would be surprised if running V-Power makes any difference to be honest.
G.O'Rilla
Active Member
I like the way that they say "save up to one litre per 50 litre tank". That is up to a whopping 2%.
My "marketing weasel speak" detector is working overtime here. Statistically it don't make much (claimed) difference. I do fill up with Shell every now and again but have not noticed any difference between this and my normal fill of Tesco's cheapest. The car is great with both; my only regret is not getting a Mercedes earlier. Now considering a reasonable 5yr old SL as a "boys toy" car, which will no doubt be a wallet emptying experience
My "marketing weasel speak" detector is working overtime here. Statistically it don't make much (claimed) difference. I do fill up with Shell every now and again but have not noticed any difference between this and my normal fill of Tesco's cheapest. The car is great with both; my only regret is not getting a Mercedes earlier. Now considering a reasonable 5yr old SL as a "boys toy" car, which will no doubt be a wallet emptying experience
chan268
Member
Never knew vpower was gtl. I remember reading about friction reduction in the cylinders on the vpower blurb, then saw friction reduction on the fuel save which led me to believe they were transfering some of the tech from vpower to standard 95.
Ive not had any prob with the fuel save so far and since shell is the cheapest fuelling stations where I live which is why I go there.
Ive not had any prob with the fuel save so far and since shell is the cheapest fuelling stations where I live which is why I go there.
OP
OP
crankiejohn
Active Member
since changing from shell the hunting stopped,and the car seems a lot quieter and smoother,im sure it was the fuel.i dident expect so many posts on the subject,thanks everybody.
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2005
- Messages
- 30,942
- Location
- Mittel England
- Car
- Smart ForFour AMG Black Series Night Edition Premium Plus 125 Powered by Brabus
It's the the knock sensor which allows the engine to make best use of high octane fuel: when it senses the onset of detonation the timing is backed off.
StavFC
Active Member
Yes, the cars have knock sensors, but they only reduce timing from whatever octane they were mapped to as standard, not advance it beyond there.
And correct me if im wrong, but I would have thought 99% of the Mercedes models (possibly AMG models, I dont know) will have been mapped for 95 octane.
If anyone has some independent dyno proof that on a car mapped for 95 you get improvments from running 97+ I'd love to see it, but all I have seen is hersay and non-independent results really.
OneCarefulOwner
Active Member
Even as long ago as 1994, when I was working in a petrol station we had customers with Mercs that had to use Super Unleaded, which was 98RON then I believe. AFAIK if a fuel is better quality and burns more efficiently, some improvements can usually be observed without retuning; a proper retune would yield better results of course.
StavFC
Active Member
Placebo or reality though?
I heard from one respected tuner, but FAR from independent as he was paid to do the 'testing' (but he claims he wouldnt unless it was fact), that on average, despite SUL costing 10% more he was seeing 15% more fuel economy.
Fact and reality I dont know, but I do 110miles a day in my Merc and tried both SUL and normal and not noticed a thing.
I heard from one respected tuner, but FAR from independent as he was paid to do the 'testing' (but he claims he wouldnt unless it was fact), that on average, despite SUL costing 10% more he was seeing 15% more fuel economy.
Fact and reality I dont know, but I do 110miles a day in my Merc and tried both SUL and normal and not noticed a thing.
Filled up yesterday with B P unleaded instead of usual Shell Fuel Save unleaded,
Feels like a different car , a lot smoother, much quieter, even smelled more like petrol when filling up?
Seems like there is a problem with Shell?
Won't be useing Shell again any time soon!
Feels like a different car , a lot smoother, much quieter, even smelled more like petrol when filling up?
Seems like there is a problem with Shell?
Won't be useing Shell again any time soon!
flango
Hardcore MB Enthusiast
I have e mailed then too but no response, been trying to find out what the additive package is and who supplies it (as it does not come from the company I work for) but it would appear to be very closely guarded at the moment.
