Much web digging on fuel uncoverd a bit of info. Standard diesel 51 cetain, Shell v power 53 cetain and v power+nitro 55 cetain. Tesco use BP addatives. Take from this what you choose.
It's not quite as clear-cut as that. Shell's own material data sheet for its 'ordinary' Fuelsave diesel states that while the fuel is guaranteed to meet the BS EN590 standard of 51 cetane, its typical measured cetane number is 53 - 55.
If the VPN+ stuff is working for you, that's great.
|
Much web digging on fuel uncoverd a bit of info. Standard diesel 51 cetain, Shell v power 53 cetain and v power+nitro 55 cetain. Tesco use BP addatives. Take from this what you choose.
It's not quite as clear-cut as that. Shell's own material data sheet for its 'ordinary' Fuelsave diesel states that while the fuel is guaranteed to meet the BS EN590 standard of 51 cetane, its typical measured cetane number is 53 - 55.
If the VPN+ stuff is working for you, that's great.
Last week I tried 10 litres of this 'superdiesel' for the first time ever, as the tank was getting low, just to see what happened. Didn't expect any better consumption (and couldn't detect it anyway with that amount) but the engine certainly ran more smoothly and quietly, and gear changes seemed to be better synchronised. I've topped up with normal since, but the improvement hasn't worn off yet.
|
|
I've also tried 'super' fuel a couple of times (at different times of the year) for two fill ups each time and noticed no difference in fuel economy or feel of the engine or gear changes.
Whilst the additional detergents of the more expensive fuels from Shell etc probably do the engine some good, if the car (as mine is) does a wide range of driving, including a reasonable amount on fast moving roads, then the effect will not be anywhere near as significant as if I was only doing urban driving and/or short journeys (which I rarely do).
My Mazda3 (1.6 petrol) does not have a knock sensor. As such, I'll probably stick to standard fuels, and use ordinary Shell or equivalent major brand that has the extra detergents once in a while when the price difference isn't so much to supermarket fuel (I keep an eye on PetrolPrices.com), and perhaps when I fill up to go on holiday (given its a long journey to the West Country).
|
and gear changes seemed to be better synchronised.
If its a manual fuel can make no difference at all to gear changes.
If its an auto I cannot honestly see how supposed better fuel can affect the gearbox since you don't put petrol in it.
Spent more so it must be better.
Its all in the mind.
|
|
I was going to reply to Skidpan, but after a moment's thought I won't bother, as he is essentially accusing me of hallucinating. He can't see any reason for a change (perhaps I can't to be honest) but the running of the car was definitely altered for the better. I'll leave it at that. I tried the stuff as an experiment, and I'm not a person who believes that spending more is always a good idea.
On the other hand, he tells us how often he spends on oil and other consumables, which is his way of lashing out, while others here might say it is unnecessary.
|
I was going to reply to Skidpan, but after a moment's thought I won't bother, as he is essentially accusing me of hallucinating. He can't see any reason for a change (perhaps I can't to be honest) but the running of the car was definitely altered for the better. I'll leave it at that. I tried the stuff as an experiment, and I'm not a person who believes that spending more is always a good idea.
On the other hand, he tells us how often he spends on oil and other consumables, which is his way of lashing out, while others here might say it is unnecessary.
Modern engines are so electronically-managed I don't see how it's possible to detect changes in running due just to the fuel.
Petrol cars run better in humid conditions - petrol and diesel cars may run better with a shot of Millers, or similar, in the tank (depends how "dirty" the injectors were) - temperature and air pressure can affect engine running - I don't see how those other variable can be eliminated except in a laboratory.
I just ask myself why those selling products claiming specific improvements never publish independent laboratory results to prove it.
|
|
|
|
Even if the complex electronic engine management system senses the more expensive fuel and alters the feel of the car 'for the better', it is craig-130pd's argument that persuades me that it's not worth it. I have always used supermarket fuel but some time ago I did a brim to brim comparison of 95 ron versus 'super' 98 ron for a petrol, not diesel, engine and found that the percentage saving in fuel consumption was not enough to offset the percentage increase in cost. I noticed no difference in the 'feel' of the engine with the more expensive fuel.
|
|
This post was not about petrol or trying to persuad anyone to use anything. It is about my using V Power + nitro diesel prompted by some horror stories of blocked ERG valves and my attempting to minimise the problem. If the number of active DPF regenerations is anything to go by it has done that with flying colours, any improvement in how the car drives is just an unexpected bonus.. Im not too bothered by fuel consumption, it is what it is and any attempt to try and measure it with any accurasy would be a nightmare and probably beyond the scope of most individuals. Ambiant temperature, wind speed, the number of acceleration / decelorations to name a few are beyond my abilities to factor in.
If the only criteria is miles per £ then cheapest is likely the best
Edited by Stanb Sevento on 20/04/2017 at 13:40
|
|
|
Even if the complex electronic engine management system senses the more expensive fuel and alters the feel of the car 'for the better', it is craig-130pd's argument that persuades me that it's not worth it.
Modern engines are so electronically-managed I don't see how it's possible to detect changes in running due just to the fuel.
If by 'worth it' you mean that the extra cost of the fuel is not recovered as reduced consumption, I'm sure you're right, and others above would agree. If you find that driving the car feels better, that may make it 'worth it' to you personally.
Equally, 'detecting changes' may only be possible through the seat of the pants rather than any scientific measurement. I am satisfied that the familiar behaviour of my diesel engine changed - not greatly, but noticeably - immediately after a 10-litre dose of this particular snake-oil. Perhaps it cleaned the injectors or affected the EGR valve?
It might be interesting to see if the emissions-test results were any different from my recent MoT test. I always add a shot of injector cleaner before that, but maybe this snake-oil is more effective?
|
|
As an afterthought, someone on Pistonheads suggests that standard diesel in the EU has to contain some bio- while premium diesel doesn't. That might have a noticeable effect too ?
|
As an afterthought, someone on Pistonheads suggests that standard diesel in the EU has to contain some bio- while premium diesel doesn't. That might have a noticeable effect too ?
That i didn't know, if that can be confirmed i'll not be supermarketing any more and will make a point of using the good stuff, will still carry on with me good old Millers for that belt and braces approach.
|
As an afterthought, someone on Pistonheads suggests that standard diesel in the EU has to contain some bio- while premium diesel doesn't. That might have a noticeable effect too ?
The EU mandate relates to the overall amount of fuel produced, capped at a maximum of 6%, but doesn't apply to specify fuel supplies.
Like many cars, my diesel VW has a big sticker on the fuel cap stating "No Bio-diesel"
|
As an afterthought, someone on Pistonheads suggests that standard diesel in the EU has to contain some bio- while premium diesel doesn't. That might have a noticeable effect too ?
I thought the EU regs were that ALL diesel and petrol fuels available to the public had to have a certain minimum percentage (5%?) biofuel content? Personally its just as bad as using 100% standard fuel for the environment, not because it necessarily emits more nasty gases, but because it takes up agricultural land to produce that could've been used to produce food.
Better for all the research funding etc to have been spent on helping to improve fuel efficiency in vehicles, and especially aircraft and ships, including more in alternative propulsion methods and fuels (such as fuel cells). All using biofuels it does is line the pockets of companies making them and repair shops because vehicles don't run so well on them as 100% diesel and petrol.
Fair point from the OP about the original preimse - I thought )perhaps wrongly - I've ever driven a diesel car when I was learning to drive and once as a hire car since, so don't pay much attention to the name of the fuel - it looked similar to the Shell Superunleaded equivalent. If modern complex diesel cars find running on such super-grade fuels far better, especially if they are used for shorter/more urban journeys, then I'm all for it, especially if their use reduces emissions (especially of those causing respiratory problems, which I suffer from when I've regularly worked in big towns/cities).
I think all vehicles should have knock sensors or suchlike to take advantage of whatever grade of fuel you put in them - I doubt if they'd cost more than a couple of hundred quid and would probably save quite a bit over the life of the vehicle if set up right. Again, this could be legislated for at little expense (if any) to the average Joe in the street.
|
I think all vehicles should have knock sensors or suchlike to take advantage of whatever grade of fuel you put in them - I doubt if they'd cost more than a couple of hundred quid and would probably save quite a bit over the life of the vehicle if set up right. Again, this could be legislated for at little expense (if any) to the average Joe in the street.
Virtually all petrol cars have had knock sensors for 20 years, some more like 30.
The potential variation in Cetane level doesn't have the same effect in diesels as the Octane level in petrols - technically all diesels knock anyway because they're designed for compression-ignition
|
I think all vehicles should have knock sensors or suchlike to take advantage of whatever grade of fuel you put in them - I doubt if they'd cost more than a couple of hundred quid and would probably save quite a bit over the life of the vehicle if set up right. Again, this could be legislated for at little expense (if any) to the average Joe in the street.
Virtually all petrol cars have had knock sensors for 20 years, some more like 30.
The potential variation in Cetane level doesn't have the same effect in diesels as the Octane level in petrols - technically all diesels knock anyway because they're designed for compression-ignition
Are you sure? I can well understand for higher-performance cars that specifically state they are designed to take 98Ron+ petrol, but I wasn't aware the 'virtually all' petrol-driven cars were, especially as (I believed) Japanese cars (not performance models) were primarily designed to run on 95Ron and sometimes lower, but not higher, like my Mazda3 and my former Micra K11.
Given previous threads where large numbers of members have categorically stated that after using superunleaded they noticed no difference in mpg and/or performance, I'm not sure your statement is entirely correct. Anyway, a discussion perhaps for another day and thread.
|
Are you sure? I can well understand for higher-performance cars that specifically state they are designed to take 98Ron+ petrol, but I wasn't aware the 'virtually all' petrol-driven cars were, especially as (I believed) Japanese cars (not performance models) were primarily designed to run on 95Ron and sometimes lower, but not higher, like my Mazda3 and my former Micra K11.
Given previous threads where large numbers of members have categorically stated that after using superunleaded they noticed no difference in mpg and/or performance, I'm not sure your statement is entirely correct. Anyway, a discussion perhaps for another day and thread.
If you are anything like as old as me Andy you will remember the old distributers with vacuum advance and the centrifugal weights. When these started disappearing the knock sensors became common, they were easy to see, small box roughly 3x2x1 cm, bolted to the block. Part of their purpose was to protect the engine so its perfectly possible that even if a car has a knock sensor its not set up to exploit different fuels it will need the program in the ECU. The first time I remember actually seeing one was on a mk3 Golf whenever that was. That could explain why some get a benefit and some dont. It took ages before I was awair of any effect, could be as much as 200 miles.
|
I think all vehicles should have knock sensors or suchlike to take advantage of whatever grade of fuel you put in them - I doubt if they'd cost more than a couple of hundred quid and would probably save quite a bit over the life of the vehicle if set up right. Again, this could be legislated for at little expense (if any) to the average Joe in the street.
Virtually all petrol cars have had knock sensors for 20 years, some more like 30.
The potential variation in Cetane level doesn't have the same effect in diesels as the Octane level in petrols - technically all diesels knock anyway because they're designed for compression-ignition
Are you sure? I can well understand for higher-performance cars that specifically state they are designed to take 98Ron+ petrol, but I wasn't aware the 'virtually all' petrol-driven cars were, especially as (I believed) Japanese cars (not performance models) were primarily designed to run on 95Ron and sometimes lower, but not higher, like my Mazda3 and my former Micra K11.
Given previous threads where large numbers of members have categorically stated that after using superunleaded they noticed no difference in mpg and/or performance, I'm not sure your statement is entirely correct. Anyway, a discussion perhaps for another day and thread.
Regular unleaded is 95 RON minimum - it may be higher and the MON won't necessarily have the same relationship - fuel blending is highly complex. After blending, distribution and standing in a car's fuel tank in hot weather, the fuel may not even be 98 RON but it's a normal variation so cars are designed to cope.
Petrol cars achieve their best economy when the ignition it timed just before the knock point - that point varies according to the engine load and variations in fuel - the easy way to achieve that is to electronically advance the ignition until the signs of imminent knock are detected and then back off a little, it's a continuous process occuring several times a minute.
Vauxhall fitted their engines with knock sensors in the '90s when cats became mandatory - they weren't market leaders so I assume everyone else did as well.
The use of knock sensors is how cars can be fuelled with 98 RON super unleaded and get more power, the engine adjusts automatically.
Japanes grey imports are a special case - they're designed for 101+ RON and some can't adjust down far enough to suit 98 RON.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Its perfectly possible that fuel can effect how the auto gearbox works., infact I believe Ive experienced first hand, finding it holding on to higher gear down to lower speeds. A DSG gearbox is electronicaly controled and has inputs like engine temperature so a hot engine changes up sooner than a cold one. It also changes down on long downhill sections when the car is gaining speed when foot off the gas to give some engine braking. They are clever things so its not hard to believe that it can take account of better fuel via a knock sensor.
Edited by Stanb Sevento on 20/04/2017 at 20:31
|
One of the major causes of gradual power loss, on modern diesels, is zinc contamination. Modern fuels "leech" zinc from the galvanised pipes and tanks of filling stations. V-power is pretty much impervious to zinc, and will also remove deposits left by previous fuels in the injector nozzles.
This is one of the reasons for perceived better performance, after maybe a quarter tank of it.
I am retired now, and don't know what improvements were made, when v-power became nitro +.
I was involved in the testing of the original v-power, and have seen some impressive results, from test bed engines. This could be running an engine on low quality fuel, until the power dropped off. Then change to v-power and running the same one hour power curve cycle, see full power restored in about three hours.
I have run engines on v-power that has been adulterated with 2% zinc, this caused no power loss.
The other big name premium fuels treated the same, were not quite as good.
This problem goes away with modern facilities, where stainless tanks and pipes are used, but the v-power will always keep the fuel system clean, to maintain performance and minimise dpf regens.
I shall continue to use it.
|
|
|
Its perfectly possible that fuel can effect how the auto gearbox works., infact I believe Ive experienced first hand, finding it holding on to higher gear down to lower speeds. A DSG gearbox is electronicaly controled and has inputs like engine temperature so a hot engine changes up sooner than a cold one. It also changes down on long downhill sections when the car is gaining speed when foot off the gas to give some engine braking. They are clever things so its not hard to believe that it can take account of better fuel via a knock sensor.
Knock sensor is irrelevant to diesels - Cetane doesn't work the same way on diesels as Octane works on petrols.
All modern automatics are electronically controlled - not just DCTs
|
Knock sensor is irrelevant to diesels - Cetane doesn't work the same way on diesels as Octane works on petrols.
All modern automatics are electronically controlled - not just DCTs
No its not, a knock sensor is very relevent to diesel it just works in a different way. In petrol it changes the timing of the spark on diesel it changes the timing and shape of the fuel injection. They dont fit them for fun. In the past diesel tuners would advance the injection to extract more power and just suffer the noise.
Edited by Stanb Sevento on 20/04/2017 at 23:26
|
|
I ran a 2002 BMW E46 320d Sport on 'supermarket' diesel for over 217,000 before I sold it in 2015 without any issue. Never once did it fail the emission test. The car is still on the road.
The Board Computer regularly showed low 60's mpg and I filled neck to neck. When the swirl flaps were taken out at around 95000 miles, they were clean. Nuff said.
|
I ran a 2002 BMW E46 320d Sport on 'supermarket' diesel for over 217,000 before I sold it in 2015 without any issue. Never once did it fail the emission test. The car is still on the road.
The Board Computer regularly showed low 60's mpg and I filled neck to neck. When the swirl flaps were taken out at around 95000 miles, they were clean. Nuff said.
Dont doubt you for a second but that was EURO3 standard that had no DPF, no particulates standard and 100 times the permitted NOx that is allowed now. Different world back then.
|
|
Shell are launching the next incarnation of V-Power on 27.4.17.
|
|
I will admit to using premium unleaded in my work scooter - it does over 100 miles a day into London and back and works hard lugging my tools at *ahem* MPH up the A3, then a mix of stop/start traffic, and short trips to wholesalers.
|
|
|
|
|
