From: hippo on 15 Mar 2010 17:55
The Raven wrote:
> "hippo" <am9obmhAc2hvYWwubmV0LmF1(a)REGISTERED_USER_usenet.com.au> wrote in
> message news:hnjqn3$agb$1(a)news.eternal-september.org...
> > Albm&ctd wrote:
> >> One for the self proclaimed egg spurts in aus.cars to ponder :-)
> >> http://fat.ly/2x2y5
> >> ll_vpower/tech_spec/transcript_modeo.html
> >> Al
> > Interesting, but absolutely no details: basically, V Power cleans your
> > engine out after unspecified rubbishy fuel has gunked it up. All well &
> > good, but if, for example, they ran it on a fuel producing a specific
> > residue that some additive in V Power happens to dissolve, what would it
> > prove? Just trying to be objective.
> > I also wondered about the final sentence of their last paragraph....
> > "Shell V-Power is also a higher octane fuel (98 RON). This enhanced octane
> > rating is designed to help provide improvements in power delivery and to
> > help drivers achieve enhanced performance from octane responsive engines.
> > And even vehicles designed for standard octane levels may benefit".
> The last paragraph is reasonably accurate but, the last sentence is making
> some rather ambitious assumptions as it implies non-octane responsive
> engines will somehow benefit. Just how?
> FWIW I use V-Power exclusively. One car is a company car, I'm not paying...
> The other car is supercharged and loves high octane fuels.
> The supercharged vehicle run significant smoother and stronger at WOT from
> 100kph when running V-Power Racing, which is no longer available from what I
> can tell.
Yes, I keep replaying that last sentence in my head and marvelling at how
useful a word *may* is when you're basically making things up, but you
need to not be actually accountable for it :)
206 GTi specs 95-98. No discernible differece in performance between
United 95 ethanol - which is 2c/L less than everyone else's E10 round here
and V-Power (which is not!) Consumption difference has only twice even
*approached* 1L/100Km in over a year, so it doesn't work out economically
BP Ultimate seems to be a slightly different story, but it's not available
within 80Km and the consumption improvement on the three only tanks that
we've used it amy just represent favourable conditions that particular
1400Kms or so. Cheers
Posted at www.usenet.com.au
From: OzOne on 15 Mar 2010 18:50
On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 11:45:59 +1000, John_H <john4721(a)inbox.com> wrote:
>>One for the self proclaimed egg spurts in aus.cars to ponder :-)
>What, no mention of it cleaning injectors! Obviously way too
>contentious to claim in print... best left to the company reps to
>spread that one about.
So you speak to bad reps.....
>Those who spend the extra 15� will no doubt sleep a lot better knowing
>their valves are cleaner though! :)
Indeed...and that their vehicle is producing more power and staying
OzOne of the three twins
I welcome you to Crackerbox Palace.
From: The Raven on 16 Mar 2010 04:58
"Kev" <kevcat(a)optunet.com.au> wrote in message
> The Raven wrote:
>> The supercharged vehicle run significant smoother and stronger at WOT
>> from 100kph when running V-Power Racing, which is no longer available
>> from what I can tell.
> Not in QLD anyway
> they dropped the Vpower Racing loading arm at Pinkenba early 2008 and
> replaced it with an normal PULP arm(because they picked up the 7-11 supply
> contract and needed a PULP arm)
I believe the V-Power Racing was more of a marketing exercise to tie into
the V8 touring cars using the fuel. Only certain outlets had it (in Melb)
and I frequented a few while doing some business travel in my personal car.
Despite the cost, I'd have to say it was worth it if you wanted the best
performing pump fuel on the market. It definitely made a difference.
From: Lars Chance on 17 Mar 2010 10:59
> 206 GTi specs 95-98. No discernible differece in performance between
> United 95 ethanol - which is 2c/L less than everyone else's E10 round here
> and V-Power (which is not!) Consumption difference has only twice even
> *approached* 1L/100Km in over a year, so it doesn't work out economically
But hang on; 1L/100Km is a big difference if you're only running 7 or 8
At $1.30 per litre for the E10 that'd be equivalent to $1.55-$1.80 for
the V-Power to be ahead.
From: hippo on 17 Mar 2010 17:26
Lars Chance wrote:
> hippo wrote:
> > 206 GTi specs 95-98. No discernible differece in performance between
> > United 95 ethanol - which is 2c/L less than everyone else's E10 round here
> > and V-Power (which is not!) Consumption difference has only twice even
> > *approached* 1L/100Km in over a year, so it doesn't work out economically
> > either.
> But hang on; 1L/100Km is a big difference if you're only running 7 or 8
> anyway. (12-14%)
> At $1.30 per litre for the E10 that'd be equivalent to $1.55-$1.80 for
> the V-Power to be ahead.
ATM, our 95 E10 is 124c & V-Power is at least 142c, so that's $9.92 v
$9.94 or higher. Sometimes the disparity is greater than that. IIRC, it
was 119 v 146 at one stage, Basically the best we'd *ever* have saved is
under a dollar for 1000Km or so (or $3 with a discount docket),
remembering that 1L/100Km was a rare best cae difference. In addition, the
United station is not far down the road, but the Shell is in town.
Up in Sydney? Different story & I can usually get BP Ultimate for a
relatively competitive price.
LPG best price of 65.7 for my car is still a bit much though, especially
when people interstate keep posting figures 10c or more lower! Cheers
Posted at www.usenet.com.au