Worth putting V-power diesel in my V50?

[VeeTEC]

I used to put V-power petrol in my type R, and i found that it paid for itself in increased fuel economy.

Obviously it's supposedly a cleaner fuel, so potentially better for the engine, but have any V50 (or Volvo 2.0D) owners found that their economy is increased by using V-power, and if so, by how much?

I'm averaging about 52-54mpg on my steady 35 mile A road commute, according to the OBC.

Cheers.

[Iain328]

Try it & see!

I didn't see any perceptible improvement from a 2006 Toyota 2.2 D4D

[VeeTEC]

Iain328 said:

Try it & see!

I probably will, but was just canvassing opinion. If everyone says don't bother, then I won't waste my money.

[Callyuk]

with that sort of mpg do you really need anymore lol

[VeeTEC]

It's not really a case of needing more MPG. It's more that if I can use higher grade fuel and extend the life of the engine, without incurring extra cost, then I will.

In my Civic it worked out that it cost me the same either way, with the added benefit that it ran better on the higher octane petrol.

[ATM]

V-power petrol is better petrol than standard because it is higher octane.

V-power diesel is not better than standard diesel it just has some extra cleaning agents in it. So it will make no differenc eot mpg or power. It MIGHT make the engine last longer and wear better.

[Resin Rocket]

As I understand it V-Power Diesel is a synthetic product and shares very little in common with "standard" diesel. When Shell first started to supply it in the UK it was shipped in ready made from a plant in the far east (at the time the only plant capable of manufacturing it) and not refined in the UK like conventional fuels.

We stock it and I've tried it in 2 VAG diesels (1.9 150bhp & 2.0 140bhp), with the "150" it improved throttle response but at the expense of fuel consumption by approx 2mpg. With the "140" there was no improvement in performance with again worse fuel consumption. Both these engines had previously been run on Shell Diesel Extra and I've gone back to using that. In all fairness Shell don't make any mention of better economy in their advertising of it.

I personally don't think its worth the extra cost - and we sell it on our forecourt !

Edited by Resin Rocket on Wednesday 3rd February 17:40

[VeeTEC]

I think I'll leave it. If it's not gonna pay for itself then the possible extra engine life isn't worth it, given that the engine will probably last 200k plus anyway.

Thanks chaps.

[F i F]

V50 2.0D powershift

I haven't noticed any difference and like above poster mainly just use EN 590 Shell diesel extra, or Sainsbury's Derv. Haven't tested for any trend between the two.

[plfrench]

VeeTEC said:

I think I'll leave it. If it's not gonna pay for itself then the possible extra engine life isn't worth it, given that the engine will probably last 200k plus anyway.

Thanks chaps.

Perhaps a little optimistic with this peugeot engine! Turbo failures at considerably lower mielages are common. One reason I went for the D5 and the considerable increase in co. car tax was to aviod the inconvenience of having a peugeot engined car off the road for a large amount of time.

My previous car a 1.6TDCi Focus with a version of that engine suffered turbo failure at 60k and lunched itself - it took bloomin ages for Ford to sort due to a struggle getting the parts from Peugeot. A colleagues 2.0D V50 did the same at slightly lower mileage ~55k.

I blame the French