Shell Nitro thoughts
- Thread starter Dave928
- Start date
CarreraRSR
New member
Because the marketing people say it is!!?? Lots of BS and no facts http://www.shell.co.uk/gbr/products-services/on-the-road/fuels/vpower/what-is-v-power-nitro-plus.html
I've used Vpower Nitro and Momentum99 in the last few weeks and can't tell the difference. The wallet can as there's been 10p/l difference at my local Shell v's Tesco.
As with oil and tyre threads, I'm sure there's lots of divided opinion from the yay and nay camps on fuels. But for now the 99 octane gets my cash versus the 98 octane (assumed as I can't find confirmation on this on Shell.co.uk)
I've used Vpower Nitro and Momentum99 in the last few weeks and can't tell the difference. The wallet can as there's been 10p/l difference at my local Shell v's Tesco.
As with oil and tyre threads, I'm sure there's lots of divided opinion from the yay and nay camps on fuels. But for now the 99 octane gets my cash versus the 98 octane (assumed as I can't find confirmation on this on Shell.co.uk)
I wouldn't bother with it on a normally aspirated 944, because it has no way of exploiting the extra octane rating of a VPower type fuel. I'd just use the standard Shell unleaded. I use VPower, now VPower N+ on my Turbo, because it's running a map which assumes at least 97RON, and higher than standard boost. I'm on my fourth tank of N+ and can't honestly detect any difference between than and the old VPower. maybe a very marginal fuel consumption improvement but it's too small, and too soon, to be sure. Ask me in a year.
There has been a long thread on Pistonheads somewhere which has a lot of input.
Incidentally, on my BMW diesel the standard Shell Fuelsave diesel is significantly better than the VPower diesel, by about 4 mpg.
Ah, found the PH thread.
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&t=1275275
There has been a long thread on Pistonheads somewhere which has a lot of input.
Incidentally, on my BMW diesel the standard Shell Fuelsave diesel is significantly better than the VPower diesel, by about 4 mpg.
Ah, found the PH thread.
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&t=1275275
In the mini-fuel shortage we had a while ago I couldn't get unleaded, so ended up putting the super in. The thing which was immediately noticeable was that I got 425miles from a tankful rather than the usual 400. I couldn't "feel" any difference in power, but rarely have the foot flat to the floor anyway, so not likely to notice it. I used it for a few tankful, but when I put the figures in the spreadsheet (so averaged over a couple of thousand miles), whilst yes I was getting improved mpg, it didn't outweigh the increased cost.
CarreraRSR
New member
Ah, not the thread I was reading earlier. I turned off when someone quoted they noticed the difference in running Optimax diesel in their Rover 25!!
Tref, as for better mileage on premium fuels, I don't believe it. I have historically done 35k in my daily diesel. Some tanks do 500 miles, some 600 miles regardless of fuel source. In a previous job the fleet manager banned us from using premium fuels as in his 'educated' opinion the added mpg v's cost was negligable, even on high milers.
I prefer to use 99ron fuels in the 924T just for added safety margin versus a 95-97ron version. In the daily diesel I now buy the cheapest
andy watson
Moderator
Hmmmm interesting, my S has found that Shell Nitro is great, lot smoother and a feeling of pulling stronger, before always used Momentum as V power made no difference.
Now with the "M" everyone rates Shell,, my car runs on Momentum far better than the Shell
I don't think there is any set rule, each engine and driver feel is different, what suits best is what goes in the tank!
Now with the "M" everyone rates Shell,, my car runs on Momentum far better than the Shell
I don't think there is any set rule, each engine and driver feel is different, what suits best is what goes in the tank!
ChasR
New member
This is a funny one TBH.
On my dailies with normal NA engines I cannot tell much of a difference. Maybe it is smoother etc. but I cannot say for sure. Even on my Stag I cannot tell a blind bit of difference. My 944 S2 seemed similar as well.
A number of NA engines I could tell a slight difference, but they have their own caveats. My 106 GTi was not really any better on V-Power but my 306 GTi-6 was (it would pink ever so slightly at the very top end with 95RON and not on V-Power (that car was meant to run 97RON though). On a friend's Lupo it picked up better at the top end and it also extinguished his intermittent EML light which he had always had. Again, that engine was predominantly meant to be run on 98RON (something none of us knew until we checked the inside of the petrol filler flap in addition to the handbook! FWIW it was the 1.4 16v Sport (although strangely enough, the GTi is designed to run on 95!).
The Turbo of mine seems to respond better on V-Power (pulls better at the top) and I understand that with a Turbo car it is wise to run with a bit of knock protection in mind. I know a friend of mine with a 2006 Octavia vRS said his car was alot nicer to drive on V-Power over 95 (more torque, more MPG and superior top end performance). But they also have adaptive knock sensors to counteract pinking and advance the ignition timing a little further where possible).
Carrera RSR, I guess you are still on a distributor system and K-Jetronic (assuming this is what Turbo cars come with?)?
Lowtimer, I found the same thing with my 2006 VW Passat 1.9 PD TDi despite it being the lower power version (105BHP) It's ok on normal diesel, but it really does seem to have more go with VP-N especially with the torque (if I am honest the spread of torque in this car could teach most TD cars a thing or two about getting usable power from a diesel despite the lack of BHP!)! It smokes less too! A friend's Alfa 147 JTD smokes less on VP (you can guess what he does come MOT time) but to me and him (I previously owned the car) it did not seem to make much difference at all in terms of performance.
On my dailies with normal NA engines I cannot tell much of a difference. Maybe it is smoother etc. but I cannot say for sure. Even on my Stag I cannot tell a blind bit of difference. My 944 S2 seemed similar as well.
A number of NA engines I could tell a slight difference, but they have their own caveats. My 106 GTi was not really any better on V-Power but my 306 GTi-6 was (it would pink ever so slightly at the very top end with 95RON and not on V-Power (that car was meant to run 97RON though). On a friend's Lupo it picked up better at the top end and it also extinguished his intermittent EML light which he had always had. Again, that engine was predominantly meant to be run on 98RON (something none of us knew until we checked the inside of the petrol filler flap in addition to the handbook! FWIW it was the 1.4 16v Sport (although strangely enough, the GTi is designed to run on 95!).
The Turbo of mine seems to respond better on V-Power (pulls better at the top) and I understand that with a Turbo car it is wise to run with a bit of knock protection in mind. I know a friend of mine with a 2006 Octavia vRS said his car was alot nicer to drive on V-Power over 95 (more torque, more MPG and superior top end performance). But they also have adaptive knock sensors to counteract pinking and advance the ignition timing a little further where possible).
Carrera RSR, I guess you are still on a distributor system and K-Jetronic (assuming this is what Turbo cars come with?)?
Lowtimer, I found the same thing with my 2006 VW Passat 1.9 PD TDi despite it being the lower power version (105BHP) It's ok on normal diesel, but it really does seem to have more go with VP-N especially with the torque (if I am honest the spread of torque in this car could teach most TD cars a thing or two about getting usable power from a diesel despite the lack of BHP!)! It smokes less too! A friend's Alfa 147 JTD smokes less on VP (you can guess what he does come MOT time) but to me and him (I previously owned the car) it did not seem to make much difference at all in terms of performance.
Interesting indeed. Fuels have been discussed on here before, and I stand by the assertion that my S2 runs better on higher-octane fuels; it pulls better, runs more smoothly and returns better MPG. (The MPG improvement is enough to make the cost per mile lower than with regular fuel.) Other people have come up with different points of view.
The N/A 944's have a knock sensor I understand, which means there may be an explanation for the fact that they benefit from higher-octane fuel, although that depends upon how the knock system is set up and how advanced the timing is set by the system. If it advances it as much as possible until it knocks and then backs off a little, this will mean it will benefit from higher-octane fuel. If it just runs at a fixed setting and only backs off if knock is detected then the benefit from higher-octane fuel will depend upon what this fixed setting is.
Oli.
The N/A 944's have a knock sensor I understand, which means there may be an explanation for the fact that they benefit from higher-octane fuel, although that depends upon how the knock system is set up and how advanced the timing is set by the system. If it advances it as much as possible until it knocks and then backs off a little, this will mean it will benefit from higher-octane fuel. If it just runs at a fixed setting and only backs off if knock is detected then the benefit from higher-octane fuel will depend upon what this fixed setting is.
Oli.
Actually, I'm saying the exact opposite. For my late 2008 320D, the "ordinary" Shell fuel is clearly superior to the "premium" one. I get consistently better fuel consumption (and no discernible difference in performance) on Fuelsave diesel (the cheaper fuel) than on VPower diesel.
OK, I'm an anorak! I have four years of data, over 120k miles on the same car. I run the car empty and fill up typically, and have found the figures pretty consistent over that time... If I graph it now I can see a sinusoidal looking wave summer to winter - it is subtle, but there, so I think I have pretty good data that it shows up such things. Likewise, what I get from a tankful is pretty consistent, as are the mpg figures.
Driving economically - yes, I can do that - but that makes significantly more difference than this - no, I wasn't interested in saving a bit of fuel in a fuel crisis, I'd not be driving the S2 if I were, the only time I usually drive like that is if I am out of fuel late at night trying to get to the next petrol station (or on the space-saver - which offers the most significant fuel saving!) In truth, the fuel crisis was the opposite - a chance to make progress as the roads were empty[
] However, I continued using the fuel for a while after that had past, so even if my increased mpg were as a result of the lack of other traffic, that was factored out over time. Unfortunately I don't update my spreadsheet as often as I would like, so it took a while before I realised it wasn't actually making the savings I thought it was.
There are some other amusing anomalies, but again reproducible... with me driving it is typically more economical towing my little box trailer, and despite a blat up to an indicated 155 and cruising around 90-100, I got something like an extra 5mpg on the German Autobahn. Both are explainable.
I really must get the LPG system connected up...
Driving economically - yes, I can do that - but that makes significantly more difference than this - no, I wasn't interested in saving a bit of fuel in a fuel crisis, I'd not be driving the S2 if I were, the only time I usually drive like that is if I am out of fuel late at night trying to get to the next petrol station (or on the space-saver - which offers the most significant fuel saving!) In truth, the fuel crisis was the opposite - a chance to make progress as the roads were empty[
] However, I continued using the fuel for a while after that had past, so even if my increased mpg were as a result of the lack of other traffic, that was factored out over time. Unfortunately I don't update my spreadsheet as often as I would like, so it took a while before I realised it wasn't actually making the savings I thought it was.There are some other amusing anomalies, but again reproducible... with me driving it is typically more economical towing my little box trailer, and despite a blat up to an indicated 155 and cruising around 90-100, I got something like an extra 5mpg on the German Autobahn. Both are explainable.
I really must get the LPG system connected up...
That'll be the day Tref!!! Anti-terrorist squad have your card well marked.[
]
Copperman05
New member
The new nitro seems to have made some difference according to some. I usually only use the 99ron fuels from tesco or shell, mainly due to having the Promax chip which prefers higher octane fuels. I cant say the dyno butt notices anything better from the nitro fuel, although as others have said it does seem smoother. Quite how they would have made any perceivable difference by adding 25% more friction modifiers I dont know. Fitting iridium plugs has a much more noticeable effect imo.
Edd
Edd
Veerzigzag
New member
My car runs much smoother when it's clean. Same effect when I use 99 octane.
the nitro diesel makes no difference in my audi, I use shell or tesco 'super' in the Porsche, can't tell between them but better than the standard unleaded. Cars with chips will probably gain more than standard. Earlier cars probably expected leaded fuel with higher octane ratings so may also benefit. Shell generally match Tesco prices in the area though, unlike BP who seem quite happy to charge more.
Tony
Tony
CarreraRSR
New member
With all the forum chat, some buying a tank or three who may not have done so and web traffic created by the use of Shell V Power Nitro+ then quite possibly the marketing monkeys may well have done a job on us all and created some much needed income for them and the pumps
Marketing Monkeys 1 - Petrolheads 0 []
Marketing Monkeys 1 - Petrolheads 0 [
]
I have used Vpower for about 3 years, the old 2.5 square dash needed 98 and the Vpower felt better than the Sainsbury's stuff, so I continued to use it with the 2.7.
I couldn't believe the difference with the nitro stuff!
I didn't notice it had changed to nitro when I filled up, just went to my normal pump, drove home 1 1/2 miles, went out the following day and wondered what had happened, it was that night I saw the adverts, and then checked out Pistonheads.
Made a definite improvement to the smoothness, not sure about MPG as I probably drive it harder as its smoother
I couldn't believe the difference with the nitro stuff!
I didn't notice it had changed to nitro when I filled up, just went to my normal pump, drove home 1 1/2 miles, went out the following day and wondered what had happened, it was that night I saw the adverts, and then checked out Pistonheads.
Made a definite improvement to the smoothness, not sure about MPG as I probably drive it harder as its smoother
Posts made and opinions expressed are those of the individual forum members
Use of the Forum is subject to the Terms and Conditions
