Shell V-Power test

[Freedom_man]

It's very true about some vehicles like certain brands of gasoline more than others.

I have a 68 bug that does very well on our cheap nasty Arco gasoline and my brother had an old ford ranger and that would not run worth a darn on Arco no power running poorly and would backfire all the time.

One fill-up with chevron and that truck took off like it was new again.
Lots of power and no backfiring. So despite what my grandpa says there is a difference between brands of fuel and quality of fuel.

Maybe there should be more fuel to car brand testing.

old fords may like 76 better than shell while dodge trucks may like shell better than 76

[Rick Rae]

Second Shell V-Power segment complete in cycle two; 32.91MPG over 308 miles.

Rick

[Rick Rae]

Third Shell V-Power segment complete in cycle two; 32.56 MPG over 377 miles.

Rick

[Rick Rae]

Fourth Shell V-Power segment complete in cycle two; 33.71 MPG over 379 miles.

Rick

[Telco]

On mine, it was all 87 octane. Just can't bring myself to buy anything over 87 for a vehicle that doesn't require it. I did do some experimentation with the different Shell octanes in the Tahoe though, there was no difference in how it ran or fuel economy with the higher octane.

[Rick Rae]

Originally Posted by Telco

Just can't bring myself to buy anything over 87 for a vehicle that doesn't require it.

Agreed. I'm only running the premium for this test because it's the sole grade with 4x detergent that Shell touts as "gunk-removing" versus "gunk-preventing." I didn't expect a performance improvement (at least, not an immediate one) since my engine shouldn't be knock-limited.

Personally, I'd tweak your statement to say "that doesn't benefit from it." If I could get better-enough gas mileage from higher octane to more than offset the additional cost, it'd effectively be less expensive, and I wouldn't hesitate to use it whether it was required or not. But that's almost semantics, as I doubt any engine that doesn't require high-octane fuel will show any significant improvement when using it.

Nope, if there's really a FE bump here I think it's from something other than the octane rating.

Rick

[n0rt0npr0]

I have tested higher-than-required octane and logged the results off-site with my 1989 Chevy v6 mpfi, and the higher (89) octane was ALWAYS cheaper to run ONLY in the winter. In the summer it always was 4% under baseline.
I'll be performing the same testing in a couple months on my 96' Monte.

IIRC - 3.5% more than 87octane, and I got an average of 5.9% more gas mileage.

Originally Posted by Rick Rae

Agreed. I'm only running the premium for this test because it's the sole grade with 4x detergent that Shell touts as "gunk-removing" versus "gunk-preventing." I didn't expect a performance improvement (at least, not an immediate one) since my engine shouldn't be knock-limited.

Personally, I'd tweak your statement to say "that doesn't benefit from it." If I could get better-enough gas mileage from higher octane to more than offset the additional cost, it'd effectively be less expensive, and I wouldn't hesitate to use it whether it was required or not. But that's almost semantics, as I doubt any engine that doesn't require high-octane fuel will show any significant improvement when using it.

Nope, if there's really a FE bump here I think it's from something other than the octane rating.

Rick

[Spule 4]

http://www.toptiergas.com/index.html

I think the additive is GLC 9424075....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD-G410gplY

[Rick Rae]

Originally Posted by n0rt0npr0

...the higher (89) octane was ALWAYS cheaper to run ONLY in the winter. IIRC - 3.5% more than 87 octane, and I got an average of 5.9% more gas mileage.

Interesting. Did you see this in any brand of gas?

Regardless: Thanks for the info!

Rick

[n0rt0npr0]

RR,

Thanks for doing the testing!
And I did not test every brand...only Shell and Marathon
My Marathon tests were done in a separate colder month but I only did three tanks worth of testing and Shell I went with 5. I also stopped in the middle to re-baseline mileage.
Oh yeah, I emergency filled with mobil one day during testing and that one tank of mid-grade mobil did better than both marathon and shell. Strange.

Also I tested this on a 1993 Geo Prism automatic with negative results. The midgrade did 5 to 9% worse on mostly highway miles (80%) While the Chevy was mainly driven city (60%) with positive results.
But glad you are testing this! I'll be taking part in this later in the year.
~Will