Shell V-Power

[cplnoonoo]

I know that Shell's V-Power higher octane fuel can have a slight advantage to some engines such as Evos and Subarus but can the C180 sportcoupe take advantage of the fuels plus points?

I know that my old rover 25 didnt have any advantage of using it but i know that it can have a few cleaning qualities for the engine.

I dont have high hopes for there to be any advantage but thought i would stick the question out there anyways. Is it worth sticking it in?

 

[christopherwk]

I occassionally use Shell V-Power Diesel in my car, and according to Spritmonitor today (click on my signature), using V-Power uses 8.27l/100km, while using normal Diesel (either from Shell/BP) uses 8.39l/100km - or 34.2mpg/33.7mpg respectively.

 

[louisv6]

Been wondering the same for my petrol C320. It's just a 'normal' engine (i.e. not hand-built by AMG, or a 'high performance' variant particularly), so is there any point?

L

 

[robjmurdoch]

I used to put the odd tank in an old Saab turbo i had, and only used to get about 10-20miles more per 65L tank! But it always used to hope that the odd tank was a nice clean treat for the old girl!

 

[seymansey]

Shell V power didnt make any noticable difference in my C240, but Texaco Techron fuel definitely did, the car felt much more sprightly

 

[BenzedUP]

Shell V power didnt make any noticable difference in my C240, but Texaco Techron fuel definitely did, the car felt much more sprightly

My brother has a W203 C320 and he says exactly the same, shell v-power is ok but when he used Texaco Techron fuel he did notice a good difference!

On my W211 E320 CDi I notice a huge differnce on shell V-Power, perfomance wise as for the MPG it's the same as BP Ultimate and that's the only two brands i've used since i've had the car.

What I do to keep my engine clean is just change the oil every 6K that's the best thing to do!

 

[steve333]

I always fuel up every 4th tank with v-power if only for it's cleaning qualities.Haven't noticed any increase in power or mpg on my current clk320 but on my previous c180k definately got a few extra mpg & did feel a little pokier

 

[Stratman]

Fifth Gear tried to answer this very question a while back (good old Dave).

They took an Evo (or Subaru, I can't remember which) and a Golf, and performed some tests using bog standard petrol, V-Power and BP Ultimate.

For the Golf there was no measurable difference in performance or economy. Money wasted.

The Turbo Nuttermobile was a different story. Because they have about a squillion sensors on the engine they can adjust things like ignition timing, injection timing and possibly even turbo boost to take advantage of the higher octane rating. The premium price fuels did then contribute to a power increase (BP Ultimate was slightly better). I suspect this is due not to any 'magic potions' in the fuel, rather the higher octane rating allows the engine management systems to run the engine harder without detonation.

 

[Adam230K]

Kompressor engines can make use of shell v-power, as its designed to step up the timing when it receives it.

When i had the C230K i experiemented alot, and at best it was slightly quicker (did a 0-200km/h check, there was like .4 secs in it) and it returned 3 mpg more. Its not worth it imo.

 

[wemorgan]

Are there any cars where MB recommend/insist using this higher octane fuel?

Mate with Saab 95 Aero says his manual says he has to use it. That plus the 23mpg is making it a rather more than expected expensive ride.

 

[BTB 500]

Fifth Gear tried to answer this very question a while back (good old Dave).

They took an Evo (or Subaru, I can't remember which) and a Golf, and performed some tests using bog standard petrol, V-Power and BP Ultimate.

For the Golf there was no measurable difference in performance or economy. Money wasted.

The Turbo Nuttermobile was a different story. Because they have about a squillion sensors on the engine they can adjust things like ignition timing, injection timing and possibly even turbo boost to take advantage of the higher octane rating. The premium price fuels did then contribute to a power increase (BP Ultimate was slightly better). I suspect this is due not to any 'magic potions' in the fuel, rather the higher octane rating allows the engine management systems to run the engine harder without detonation.

Close, but not quite!

They tested 3 cars - a small-engined hatchback (Clio, I think), the Golf, and an Impreza. It was the Clio that showed no difference on the dyno., but of course the cleaning additives etc. may have had a long-term benefit so not necessarily money wasted?

The Golf did get more bhp, but there was a bigger increase with the Subaru.

Shell and the other "premium" fuel (it was BP Ultimate I think) gave virtually the same bhp increase on the Subaru, but the Shell fuel gave a significantly better boost in torque so that was declared the winner.

This was a few years back, so it was Optimax rather than V-Power. V-Power has a higher octane rating.

 

[cplnoonoo]

Im not really too fussed about power gains more the mpg and cleaning of the engine. I dont think a couple of mpg digits difference is actually a saving over the 6 or 7p extra a litre that you end up paying at the pump but what about longer term?

If it keeps the engine squeeky clean between an oil change then surely the mpg would technically increase but in practice remain at the same level. As the engine nears its next oil change it will gradually loose minimal performance as it gets a bit cruddy so maybe the v-power would just give it that little midway clean to keep it at its best until you put fresh oil in it. I was just thinking there maybe squeeky isnt the right word i want to be aiming for inside an engine lol.

The other side of that is i only really use the car for about 6-7k a year so its oil change would only be once a year at its service so would i realistically have any gain to using v-power?

 

[moonloops]

Are there any cars where MB recommend/insist using this higher octane fuel?

Mate with Saab 95 Aero says his manual says he has to use it. That plus the 23mpg is making it a rather more than expected expensive ride.

My SAAB 9-5 Aero (2.3 turbo) did 35mpg on the motorway at warp speed

Did he leave the handbrake on ?

25 around town IIRC

 

[wemorgan]

My SAAB 9-5 Aero (2.3 turbo) did 35mpg on the motorway at warp speed

Did he leave the handbrake on ?

25 around town IIRC

He used to have 2.3 LPT (manual) which like yours gave ~35mpg on a run.
Hearing that the Aero gave similar mpg he bought one, but an auto, since manuals were too hard to find.

But his daily commute is driving around coventry in rush hours traffic, so the auto never locks out and gives only ~23mpg.

He still likes the car, but just visits the petrol station more times that he would like.

 

[davidjpowell]

He used to have 2.3 LPT (manual) which like yours gave ~35mpg on a run.
Hearing that the Aero gave similar mpg he bought one, but an auto, since manuals were too hard to find.

But his daily commute is driving around coventry in rush hours traffic, so the auto never locks out and gives only ~23mpg.

He still likes the car, but just visits the petrol station more times that he would like.

It still does give 35 MPG on a run if it is who I think it is

 

[Stratman]

BTB500, I claim a 'senior moment'. As you say, it was a few years back.


Now, I think I last saw my slippers in the fridge...............

 

[Bobby Dazzler]

This must be one of the most popular topics on MBClub!!

Are there any cars where MB recommend/insist using this higher octane fuel?

IIRC the 63 engined AMG cars require it.

My C32 requires only 95 RON but I use V-Power 99 RON. I also use V-Power diesel in the ML.

I can't say that I've noticed an improvement in either consumption or performance, I suspect that outside of a lab it would be difficult to quantify.

I do it because the cost premium is pretty much offset by getting it from the lowest cost station in the area, Shell points and credit card cash back, and so it's cost neutral compared to regular fuel from nearest fuel station.

 

[wemorgan]

IIRC the 63 engined AMG cars require it.

Do you know what the implications of not using it are?
A loss of performance I’d expect, but what about increased engine wear?
Does this have any implications for the warranty, if the customer used 95RON?

 

[Bobby Dazzler]

Do you know what the implications of not using it are?
A loss of performance I’d expect, but what about increased engine wear?
Does this have any implications for the warranty, if the customer used 95RON?

Not sure - as you say performance would suffer, and I guess it could give wriggle room in the event of a warranty claim if it could be proven that the right grade of fuel was not used.

I suspect the knock sensor would retard ignition sufficiently to avoid any long term problems.

 

[matt17081]

yes all car will have some benefit with the higher octane fuel this is due to the fuel being slightly more combustable, that is the engine needs slight less of the higher octane fuel to achieve the same performance as such you will be using a reduced ammount of throttle - end result = better fuel ecconomy on the other hand if you choose to drive quickly then you may also notice a VERY slight increase in performance using the higher octane fuel.
a number of years ago i used to race a motorcycle and we were able to use any commercially available fuel, including avgas which is about 110 octane instead of either 95 or 98 thats commonly available, i was once almost out of fuel in an old land rover and used some of the avgas (110octane) mixed 50/50 with petrol, where i used to live was at the top of a very long steep hill and the landrover would strugle in 3rd and have to use 2nd gear using the avgas the vehicle accelorated up in 3rd and 4th gear without any hesitation - just wouldnt recomend using avgas in your mercedes though !!! as it can burn large holes in the pistons