Ferrari and Shell: F1 fuel vs. V-Power

Interesting as V-Power has been insinulated with a lot of engine problems over here in Australia. I consider Shell fuel to be close to the lowest quality fuel we can buy.

My GN250 motorcycle (now sold) used to run terrible on Shell Optimax (V-Power?) and I've never put it in my current bike.

I use Caltex or Mobil.
Pete

 

Around these parts all the gas is pretty much identical, comes from the same refineries, just each brand has its own additives.

Pretty cool video

 

I suppose that's the same all over the world.

As to the V-Power: If your engine isn't designed for 100 octane fuel, it won't have any use. The octane number is not a measure of quality, but indicates the resistance to self-ignition of the fuel. You need fuel that doesn't self-ignite to soon if the engine is built with a high compression ratio. Engines designed for 95 octane fuel won't benefit from 100 octane. Actually, it's worse, as higher octane fuel has a lower heating value (but that is nearly negligible).

 

I always try to fill all my cars with shell. I even noticed on the last tank in my hyundai it got worse mpg when i filled up at one of those no name gas stations. I was feeling excessively cheap that day.

 

+1

Previous discussions on this topic generally conclude that *fresh* gas, of whatever label, is the way to go....

Indeed - Dunno about Germany, but V-Power is available here in all octane ratings (from crap to less crap!) - Their big claim is their additives are better (at keeping the engine clean) than the others. Chevron claim the same.....

Cheers,
Ian

 

Oh okay. Here, V-Power is their highly expensive 100+ octane brand. IIRC some stations also offer "V-Power racing" with 107 (?) octane

 

Very interesting. I'm surprised.

 

This is interesting, because at the race the smell of ethanol is almost overpowering. We usually are right above the pits and believe me, the smell of ethanol is powerful and unmistakable. There is no way it's even close to pump gas.

 

Shell tends to burn off faster, and goes less kilometers, compared to Petronas. I use Petronas.

 

What races are you talking about?

Many series do indeed use a lot of ethanol, but not F1. IIRC, it *must* be something like "99% the same as (good quality) pump gas."

From the regs;

Cheers,
Ian
http://www.formula1.com/inside_f1/rules_and_regulations/technical_regulations/8700/fia.html

 

I'm no expert (where's Florian?....) but have to respectfully throw the BS flag on that (and someone else's earlier claim of the same).

I may be wrong, but believe one unit of a specific RON gas has the same energy content as any other.

The so called "premium" brands try and differentiate themselves by claiming superior cleaning power, better detergents etc, but not even they claim better mileage......

Cheers,
Ian

 

Same octane? Isn't all same-octane gas the same except for the additives - delivered to local distribution via pipeline and then made up with brand additives for station delivery? -

Or, is that different in Australia?

 

Interesting - Thanks.

As for "race gas" I know with 100% certainty that my 360 ran cooler with it - No difference on the street, but on the track or the hillclimb the water temp stayed noticeably lower.

Cheers,
Ian

 

I'm using RON 95, i dunno Ian, maybe it's a 'mental' thing to think that Petronas gives me better mileage. But i prefer Petronas. No idea...

 

I honestly don't know.

Pete

 

I would almost swear by shell. Used to get safeway cheapo gas, and then I switched, and I SWEAR I get just that much better gas mileage out of the shell gas. I've heard other people agree that the shell gives better mileage as well.

 

And here in the central USA my Honda runs much better on Shell 91 than Amoco 91.
I get a little better mileage with the higher octane, but that increase is negated by the higher cost over the 87 or 89 octanes.
PS - here, the Shell V-Power 91 has 10% Ethanol in it.

And here, I think all of it travels up the same pipeline from Texas or Oklahoma, and as you said, then each company adds their additives. I THINK Amoco has their own pipleline, and all the rest use the same one.
We have a small handful of Shells, but we have Amoco, Phillips 66 everywhere, a few Conocos, Sinclair is gone, Mobil is gone (of course), I think most folks fill up at Kwikie-Mart type-places.

 

If your engine is mapped for 100 octane and you fill it with 95 (I'm talking performance engines now, without some self sorting thing that retards ignition if knocking is detected), you're going to F your engine. Good news ladies and gentlemen; almost none of the cars on the market today don't self retard the ignition if knocking is detected.

IIRC the most you can normally get in the States is around 91-93 octane (depending on state), thus all USA cars (yes, even European and Asian) are mapped for Bud Light. Same goes for all continents.

IIRC F1 fuel is 99% of what we could get in Europe at the pump, so around 99-100octane. The other 1% is their own mix. I haven't read the link but it was like that in about mid 2000. I think right now it's part eco mentalist fuel, but I'm not sure.

 

Fair enough, I believe it's "mental". Having said that, there's folks who swear they'll never darken their tanks with anything other than "Brand XXX" [With Shell probably being the most highly touted.] If you're happier with it, your car will detect that and also be happier.

I'll go with "runs better", not "gets better mileage".....

Knock sensors have been around a long time. Coupled with modern ECU's etc, knocking shouldn't be an issue. Also worth noting that the opposite applies - This is why my motor (at least!) runs cooler with "race gas" - It'll keep advancing the ignition.

Cheers,
Ian

 

Again, I could be wrong (!), but believe this is all "mental"..... [Almost an urban myth!]

As we know, gas mileage varies enormously depending on use - Mine does between mid 20's on a gentle run down to ~5 at the track [*That* wasn't mentioned before my first track day - Fortunately the on track pumps were open - I'd never have made it to a station ]

Further, and without wishing to argue, if you've switched, how do you know what the cheap stuff will deliver? - *Maybe* it would surprise you

The final (honest!) reason I can't go with better mileage for the same RON is if it were even a semi-reasonable claim, the manufacturers would be all over it in their ad's......

OTOH, Shell do have Dr Lisa on board, and that's nice

Cheers,
Ian

 

You're right here (and thanks for the reminder!). As said before, if I remember my internal combustion lectures correctly, higher octane fuel has a slightly (!) smallyer heat value (=energy/mass).

Shell has a "Fuel Save" fuel here, but it's the usual 95 stuff with additives that Shell claims lower the friction etc. They could prove that it does save a bit and thus market it quite aggressively, but the savings are neglibible. Changing your driving style has a MUCH higher impact.

 

From the thread in silver, I think it's significant here too:

Found a source for octane number vs. heating value:

(List, Helmut (Editor): "Thermodynamik der Verbrennungskraftmaschine", Springer Wien New York, 3rd Edition, 2009, Translation by me)

 

"The usual 95 stuff"! - I *dream* of having 95 available! Here in CA at least the standard stuff is 87, 89 or 91 - That's it!.....

Florian - As a CA car, it says to use 91! [No surprise there....] It doesn't mention any benefits or drawbacks to using higher octane - It was Rifledriver who told me to use higher octane on the track to keep the motor a little cooler - And I *always* listen to him!......

Cheers,
Ian