Shell V-Power unleaded price premium over standard

[SonicShadow]

SV_WDC said:

Hoping someone can help me set the record straight.

I have read online before that Shell & Tesco use 10% ethanol in their premium fuels; the legal maximum, to boost octane rating.

BP, by contrast do not use it and their Ultimate RON is only 97.

A quick search online a few nights ago struggled to confirm this. I found a press statement on BP's site about Ultimate manufacturing process but it was from BP Australia, and over 10yrs old.

Has anyone found something credible online, which is not just hearsay. Wikipedia has a page on international RON, but again, the info related to this claim is sparse

Up to 5%:

https://support.shell.com/hc/en-gb/articles/115005...

[Puddenchucker]

SV_WDC said:

Hoping someone can help me set the record straight.

I have read online before that Shell & Tesco use 10% ethanol in their premium fuels; the legal maximum, to boost octane rating.

BP, by contrast do not use it and their Ultimate RON is only 97.

A quick search online a few nights ago struggled to confirm this. I found a press statement on BP's site about Ultimate manufacturing process but it was from BP Australia, and over 10yrs old.

Has anyone found something credible online, which is not just hearsay. Wikipedia has a page on international RON, but again, the info related to this claim is sparse

Can only comment on V-Power:

https://support.shell.com/hc/en-gb/articles/115005...

Shell said:

This means that, in the UK, Shell regular unleaded and Shell V-Power unleaded are likely to contain some ethanol, but it will not be present at more than 5% (in accordance with current UK specification requirements).

And just to add regarding the benefits of using 98/99 RON, for my 350Z Nissan's documentation states that the engine will lose around 5% power by running on 95RON instead of the recommended 98+RON.

[gizlaroc]

SV_WDC said:

Hoping someone can help me set the record straight.

I have read online before that Shell & Tesco use 10% ethanol in their premium fuels; the legal maximum, to boost octane rating.

BP, by contrast do not use it and their Ultimate RON is only 97.

A quick search online a few nights ago struggled to confirm this. I found a press statement on BP's site about Ultimate manufacturing process but it was from BP Australia, and over 10yrs old.

Has anyone found something credible online, which is not just hearsay. Wikipedia has a page on international RON, but again, the info related to this claim is sparse

Shell has promised a maximum of 5% on their fuel.


Tesco is the same, maximum of 5% on their 99ron.

[Grayedout]

janesmith1950 said:

Life is just too short to spend it worrying about minimal differences in fuel and making special journeys for particular fuels.

As long as it meets the British standard, I'm happy to chuck anything in my cars.

There is NO standard for fuel quality or performance. The EN228 standards and such only define what can be included in the fuel and the octane / cetane levels.

[SOL111]

gizlaroc said:

SOL111 said:

Except it's not always a benefit. It may have been for you but not everyone.

It's something that people will have to try and work out for themselves.

There's no definitive answer.

I disagree with that, the simple fact the timing is retarded on 95 ron, means there will always be a benefit, maybe only 5% on some but could be 15%.
There is absolutely a definitive answer.

Obviously I'm only talking about cars set up for 98/99 ron.

I'm not arguing that the RON makes a technical difference with the ignition.

It's whether the benefit to the end user is worth the money.

For me it wasn't. Is that difficult to comprehend?

So no, the answer is not definitive.

[gizlaroc]

SOL111 said:

gizlaroc said:

SOL111 said:

Except it's not always a benefit. It may have been for you but not everyone.

It's something that people will have to try and work out for themselves.

There's no definitive answer.

I disagree with that, the simple fact the timing is retarded on 95 ron, means there will always be a benefit, maybe only 5% on some but could be 15%.
There is absolutely a definitive answer.

Obviously I'm only talking about cars set up for 98/99 ron.

I'm not arguing that the RON makes a technical difference with the ignition.

It's whether the benefit to the end user is worth the money.

For me it wasn't. Is that difficult to comprehend?

So no, the answer is not definitive.

Yeah, that is far easier to comprehend because you are now explaining that you didn't find the gains worth the extra price.

I thought you were saying that 98 in a car that is set up for 98 is not always bring a technical benefit, that is might have been in my 335i but not in your 140i.
That is why I said I didn't agree.

[SOL111]

gizlaroc said:

Yeah, that is far easier to comprehend because you are now explaining that you didn't find the gains worth the extra price.

I thought you were saying that 98 in a car that is set up for 98 is not always bring a technical benefit, that is might have been in my 335i but not in your 140i.
That is why I said I didn't agree.

I think for the right car, it's well worth the extra and is probably worth a tank once in a while to clean things up.

I probably drive like Ms Daisy too much to get the benefits

[Grrbang]

I have an old school NA indirect injected petrol that doesn't adapt its ignition timing or recommend premium fuel, so I've always been advised that premium is not really relevant.

However, I recently decided to try a few tanks of 98/99 for cleaning carbon buildup. My understanding from much research on PH and other forums is that 98/99 has a cleaning dose of detergents, while 95 has a maintenance dose of detergents.

I'm happy with this idea because I have been forgetting to buy (cheaper) Redex with the groceries for years. Using premium is easy to remember.

I was also pleased to notice my range creep up to 400 miles. I never used to be able to get a range past 330-370 for the same driving. I can't say the exact difference but may be 20-40 miles further. I will try a few more times and then do the maths..

The performance is not really different except in one area. My engine has a real tendency to lug under 2k rpm. I've always suspected it has low level knock or mod-related low-speed issues (intake and exhaust changes). I would feel it struggling, and would hear ticking noises on top of the usual low-speed grumbling at anything above very light throttle, before it comes to life from 2k. With the higher RON fuel, the low speed pickup feels a lot more in keeping with other similar cars I've had, i.e. now responds to light-mid throttle.

[gizlaroc]

SOL111 said:

I think for the right car, it's well worth the extra and is probably worth a tank once in a while to clean things up.

But that doesn't work, that is the mistake people make.
It often takes 3 tanks to make sure you are at 98 ron, as soon as it is diluted benefits are lost.

My 335i was terrible for this, my missus would go and stick 1/2 a tank of 95 in, and it would then take me 3 tanks or more for it to suddenly start getting the MPG increase. The throttle response suddenly coming back let you know when it was enjoying 98 again properly!

[gizlaroc]

Grrbang said:

I have an old school NA indirect injected petrol that doesn't adapt its ignition timing or recommend premium fuel, so I've always been advised that premium is not really relevant.

What car is it?

[Grrbang]

gizlaroc said:

What car is it?

Hyundai coupe with the 2L engine. Been using 95 for most of its life, as they are said to not benefit from 98.

[xjay1337]

Grrbang said:

Hyundai coupe with the 2L engine. Been using 95 for most of its life, as they are said to not benefit from 98.

I suspect it would make no difference as you surmise.
It may have a knock sensor but is very unlikely to be tuned from factory to take advantage of higher octane fuel.

[captain_cynic]

Grrbang said:

gizlaroc said:

What car is it?

Hyundai coupe with the 2L engine. Been using 95 for most of its life, as they are said to not benefit from 98.

Unsurprising as the Hyundai engines of that era were designed to run on RON 91, which is common in the US, Asia and Australia. I doubt it'd benefit from RON 95, a lot of older Korean base model petrol engines were never mapped for anything beyond RON 91.

I wouldn't be surprised if you could run a early 2000's Hyundai Getz on Ouzo (about 80% ABV).

Not sure about Hyundai/Kia's crop of modern turbo engines though. They have come a long way since them.

[SonicShadow]

captain_cynic said:

Unsurprising as the Hyundai engines of that era were designed to run on RON 91, which is common in the US, Asia and Australia. I doubt it'd benefit from RON 95, a lot of older Korean base model petrol engines were never mapped for anything beyond RON 91.

Engines might be the same mechanically, but I would think that Europe spec cars will have a different part number and therefore different map for the ECU that will make full use of 95. Its free performance / economy.

[Dave Hedgehog]

captain_cynic said:

Unsurprising as the Hyundai engines of that era were designed to run on RON 91, which is common in the US, Asia and Australia. I doubt it'd benefit from RON 95, a lot of older Korean base model petrol engines were never mapped for anything beyond RON 91.

I wouldn't be surprised if you could run a early 2000's Hyundai Getz on Ouzo (about 80% ABV).

Not sure about Hyundai/Kia's crop of modern turbo engines though. They have come a long way since them.

us and uk fuel ratings are not comparable

[SonicShadow]

Dave Hedgehog said:

us and uk fuel ratings are not comparable

Just a different measurement system. For petrol, you can add 4-5 to the US AKI number and it'll be about right for RON. Their regular is 87AKI so around 91-92 here. Their mid grade is 89/90AKI so about the same as our 95RON, and their premium is 91 or higher. 93AKI in the US is about the same as 98RON here.

[Pica-Pica]

As I have said before, my 1998 built U.K. spec E36 2.5 straight six (Nat Asp) would run on 91 to 98 according to the handbook, and it also said the economy and power figures were given for 95 RON, and would alter for the other RONs. I kept the car for 149k miles, and would usually run it on V power, because the knock sensor could adjust for that. V-power improved power and torque, making it even smoother to drive. The fuel consumption improved by about 2 mpg. The extra cost made that only financially beneficial if local price differences were favourable, but the benefits of torque, power and smoothness made it worth it. I kept many records, and tried from many different speeds in several gears to understand there was a real difference.

Essentially you need to know if the knock sensor can adjust for the fuel grade to accommodate the RON.

[captain_cynic]

Dave Hedgehog said:

captain_cynic said:

Unsurprising as the Hyundai engines of that era were designed to run on RON 91, which is common in the US, Asia and Australia. I doubt it'd benefit from RON 95, a lot of older Korean base model petrol engines were never mapped for anything beyond RON 91.

I wouldn't be surprised if you could run a early 2000's Hyundai Getz on Ouzo (about 80% ABV).

Not sure about Hyundai/Kia's crop of modern turbo engines though. They have come a long way since them.

us and uk fuel ratings are not comparable

FFS we've been over this 100,000 times already.

They are just different measurement systems for the same thing. They are compatible and convertible, like transferring between US customary pints and SI millilitres. AKI even uses RON as it's calculations (it's an attempt to combine RON and MON).

[captain_cynic]

.

Edited by captain_cynic on Thursday 18th July 13:04

[C70R]

SOL111 said:

gizlaroc said:

SOL111 said:

Except it's not always a benefit. It may have been for you but not everyone.

It's something that people will have to try and work out for themselves.

There's no definitive answer.

I disagree with that, the simple fact the timing is retarded on 95 ron, means there will always be a benefit, maybe only 5% on some but could be 15%.
There is absolutely a definitive answer.

Obviously I'm only talking about cars set up for 98/99 ron.

I'm not arguing that the RON makes a technical difference with the ignition.

It's whether the benefit to the end user is worth the money.

For me it wasn't. Is that difficult to comprehend?

So no, the answer is not definitive.

This. So much this.

The mental gymnastics that some people go through to justify spending 10p a litre more on petrol are hilarious.

It will make no difference unless your car is set up to benefit from it, which most cars aren't.

If you want to do it because it makes you feel special/better, that's cool - but let's all be real.