Which Super Unleaded do you use and why...

[FlatSixOrNothin]

Hi all,

This is an age old post/debate but this is more for a view on people's preferences on which Super Unleaded they use, and if course why.

I currently run Shell V-Power Nitro+ as apparently it's the "best" available on the forecourt for it's cleaning properties and it's also one of two 99 RON fuels available in the UK. I've run Tesco Momentum 99 but it is a concern with the 5% ethanol added, plus it's cleaning properties aren't as advanced as the Nitro+. I used to use the Sainsbury's Super Unleaded, it sufficed but didn't give that full power feeling that the 99RON fuels give.

I currently get approx 430 miles a tank combined - I have a 986 2.5 - plus it's had a decarbonising service. At 170k miles it's like a new car again following on from that service.

What is everyone else's views as I'm interested to know, I know the ECU adjusts when running on lower octane rated fuels via the knock sensor, does 95 RON fuel really make that much of a difference on BHP output? I've read it could affect it by up to 10%?!

This is a fully independent and personal discussion, not for any market research etc in anyway whatsoever, I am a PCGB member.

Kind Regards,

Shaun

 

[Dylan1]

have only ever used shell except when cant get hold of it-as in italy and caused engine light which led to porshce centre rixheim fixing it under warranty-they reckoned contaminated fuel.
unavoidable sadly but when home she only gets super shell nitro power

 

[MrDemon]

Shell V-Power Nitro+

no question 100% all the time

 

[rob.kellock]

Yep. Me too.

 

[Mark Elder]

Yes, agree with Shell 99 (whatever they call it this week), but unfortunately some of us live in the wilds that Shell can't be bothered to populate and I have to sometimes buy BP 97 or even "Gleaner 95"[] as just one peg better than running out of fuel[]

 

[polar964]

Shell here too.
Although I stuck it in our Westfield (2lt pinto) with lead replacement additive and ooo no likey!

 

[Tracy_Wilkins]

Only ever used Shell

Tracy

 

[FlatSixOrNothin]

So the V-Power Nitro+ is the best for the 964 too as that is the model I'm buying (Boxster is being kept too! My daily and she is so reliable!) in the coming months when the right one is found...

 

[FlatSixOrNothin]

So the overall consensus is that Shell V-Power Nitro+ is the best no contest?

That's a relief as it's the only fuel I run in my 2.5 986 - had to put half a tank of Momentum 99 in it yesterday as an emergency measure! Doesn't run as well.

I highly recommend the de-carbonising service, I had mine done after an oil change and new spark plugs and she's literally running like new now. Noticeably faster, more responsive etc. Idles a lot smoother and revs are freer. It's 170k miles and still going strong [] spent some scary amounts on her since owning but worth it. Did 27k miles in my first year problem free. Last MOT was advisory free, you look after the Porsche, the Porsche looks after you!

My ethos is that a Porsche is not just a car; it's a way of life. Couldn't be without one!

 

[Motorhead]

This subject seems to rear its head from time to time on the forum.

As far as I'm aware, Shell don't have any UK refineries so presumably their tankers are filled at one of the refineries throughout the UK along with those of their competitors, including the supermakets.

I seem to recall a forum post from a tanker driver who said that - in his experience - the only difference between a supermarket and a Shell fuel load was that the latter include their own additives as the tanker takes on fuel. V-Power is supposedly 99-octane and Tesco's Momentum99 is the only other 99-octane fuel available in the UK, so you may wish to draw your own conclusions..! (Just an observation, not a statement).

For what its worth, I also tend to use V-Power but Shell stations do seem to be very common in my area. Personally, I'd prefer to use fuel from one of the major suppliers rather than the supermarket stuff but I'm not paranoid about the supplier provided I can get a minimum of 97-octane.

And unless you're using all the performance all of the time, I doubt you'll notice a huge difference between 95-octane and "super unleaded" (97/98/99-octane?) fuel.

Jeff

 

[chrisH]

I couldn't agree more Jeff, well said.[]

Let those continue in their belief to use only the best in their beloved Porsches, all I can think is they must drive flat-out every trip.
I find mine runs fine and has plenty of power using 97 just like the OPC uses in all their petrol cars.

 

[tscaptain]

Presumably "Mr Porsche" puts 98 octane minimum on the inside of the filler cap for a reason - and not because they have shares in the petrol companies! Shell V power always for mine if at all possible, although I think the turbo benefits more than an N/A car?

 

[oliver]

Shell use very clever marketing - like Mobil 1 some years ago.

 

[daro911]

ORIGINAL: oliver

Shell use very clever marketing

Don't they just []

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=1_kwxzU4wL4&vq=medium

 

[tscaptain]

Good ad though! Sadly, I remember this one....[&:]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4O1nsc_z8s

Apologies to the OP.[]

 

[VvrooomM]

Just normal shell for me, don't see the point TBH!

 

[Glyn]

Well it seems the advertising gurus have convinced you all of the benefits of shell, the reality however is that its no different in any substantial way to any other petrol, The higher the octane rating the higher the resistance to pre ignition, the higher the resistance allows the ignition timing to be a fraction more advanced than using the lowest grade of fuel, but, the difference in actual power generated from the most retarded ignition to the most advanced would not be significant - perhaps 3 to 5 BHP - and that's being generous.

The reality is that 95 and 99 have exactly the same calorific value - calories are measured as the usable energy that can be extracted from a product.

The reason most people with high performance vehicles use the higher octane rated fuels is because they are convinced its a better product, that the fuel protects their investment, that they are more caring in the way they look after their vehicle and brand snobbery - and paying more per litre reinforces that.
Yes there are differences in the fuel composition between different retailers and some do have a higher concentration of cleaning agents - but cleaning agents don't produce a higher calorific value - its just clever marketing

However, if you are sucked into the marketing you will be happy with the product and psychologically the car feels better, more responsive, smoother, more MPG, The same applies to driving the car after you've cleaned and polished it, hovered the interior, lavished all of the expensive products on making the car look like new - it drives so much better.

986 Lover, what is a decarbonising service?, the only way to decarbonise an engine is to remove the cylinder heads, remove the valves, and clean/polish all the metal and piston heads, there is no effective method to remove carbon by injecting a fluid or wonder treatment into the combustion chambers or a bottle of fluid into the fuel tank.
Anyone that has decarbonised an engine knows that removing carbon is hard work, decoke brushes on a air drill or similar is needed with lots of pressure which slowly breaks through the carbon and polishes the metalwork once it has cut through - To decarbonise one head with three cylinders the 12 valves and the 6 intake/exhaust ports, the piston crowns and recut the valve seats would take at least 2 hours and that's a conservative figure which doesn't include the time taken to take the head off or refit.

Its all hype - and do you get a higher trade in value when you move the car on?

 

[s999sws]

so there...........

SWS

 

[MrDemon]

many tests have been done and a higher ron = more BHP in car which can adapt with knock sensor that's just a proven fact.

Porsche tuned the cars and gave the BHP results to work with higher ron. (well 98 ron, v power is 99 ron)

so if you want to pay £60k on a car and only get 95% of the bhp that's 3k you have lost in performance, buying vpower cost less than 3k over 3 years over normal fuel well only about £100 a year extra.

If you want less bhp then yes buy normal petrol. but if you want what the car is advertised with you will have to fork out and pay.

I had a turbo car with live knock sensor program, I could tune the car some 30bhp more with 99 ron before the knock sensor cut timing
if you car starts cutting timing you will lose quite big ammounts of BHP.

So tuned turbo cars can see up to 40BHP gain when tuned with 99 ron over 95 ron.

that's not marketing is it, that's real performance for you £ when tuning turbo cars.

As for cleaning, well it's is a well known fact that these new direct fuel engines coke up over time , be it Audi Porsche or who ever, so any thing which can help keep the engine cleaner is all good.

So over all as the cost to use V power is only £113 PA based on 8k miles a year to use on my £60k car it's a no brainer to use v-power 100% of the time.

if it's all bullshit which it's clearly not even the feel good factor is worth £100 PA to me.

 

[Dylan1]

Having had the recent faff on holiday almost certainly due to naff fuel I shall be sticking to shell .
The opc does say its ok to use 95 Ron bp/ shell etc but also that they wouldn't advise it as it doesn't clean and Will cause ignition retardation.

Wonderful to see such experts declaring their version of the truth here - always makes me smile []