How much is the alternative.

The difference in USA is 25cents at the most. Worth every penny, even to a penny-pincher.

 

Then I'll start recommending that people not use Shell in vehicles designed for regular (87AKI) fuel. There's no reason that low compression engines need less additives than high compression engines.

In reading the link provided there were at least three or four snake oil statements that jumped off the page.

 

They are not putting less additive than required in the lower octanes, they are putting more than the bare minimum in their top octane.

And its a very good additive, some say better than Techron, which itself is fantastic and most effective.

 

Shell isn't saying what, if anything, is added in that new snake oil nor are there any independent analysis to confirm any of their claims however I find it rather amuzing that someone from GM, of all places, said this:

"Shell is taking their premium fuel and moving it up," GM fuel specialist Bill Studzinski said. "Reducing wear can help maintain optimal performance through the vehicle's life," which will be increasingly important as tougher fuel economy and emissions standards come into play.

We have no idea what Shell is doing, or not doing, until they prove it. The rest of his statement should earn him the "Captain obvious" award. So far Shell has done nothing but made a claim... I have yet to see this supposed new fuel on the market nor would I have any inclination to purchase it until it is substantiated to do what they claim. Anyone remember "Slick 50" additive?

 

If you own a Jaguar 5.0, close your eyes, open your tight fist and use shell nitro v-power. You will gain hp in the long run due to cleaner engine. And some test have shown hp gain just by using it. Potentially 10hp gain.

 

Leeper, techron the additive that Chevron developed is legendary. Not to be confused with additives from non-chemical companies like slick50. Chevron and Shell are serious chemical labs, dont forget they make Billions. It works so well that I use it for cleaning parts.

Its basically a micro-fine oil that does not combust, thus it gets under the carbon and dislodges it. Shell is doing the same but they have found a way to allow it 'mist' even better, so it coats more parts.

 

So the Shell fuel in that test was 98 R.O.N whereas others were 97 and produced less than a 1% increase in HP. I'll stick with getting my gas at Costco - why? I care a lot about how quickly they cycle through their fuel, if it sits in their tanks that is baaaad. Not willing to pay .10 more per gallon for a possible 1% in performance (again they were not comparing 98 R.O.N to 98 R.O.N so that kind of negates the test right there).

Q& C - not knocking Techron, that does have a good reputation... familiar with that... just making the point that until Shell actually produces their new fuel and has it tested that it is nothing but rumor... and for GM to make a statement based upon no research at all just makes them look foolish.. as I'd expect from that company any way.

Slick 50 was sold for years, made preposterous claims, and all were later found to be completely bogus. Techron has been found to be very good, how good in actual use who really knows.

 

Leeper,
Techron is proven in Actual use- there is nothing like it. In fact Costco which sold the worst gas in the world, started advising their customers to use techron (which they sell) to make up for the lack of it in their gasoline. They have since started using top-tier gasoline (but I would not trust them, since they have once been proven not to care)

Shell has a billion dollar reason for making sure their additive is better than Techron, since they are looking to take market share from Chevron, who has a cult following amongst those who want the best gasoline.

BTW, the difference in hp was not 1% it was 2%, but the real point is that it is superior indeed and no scam. Furthermore a bargain.

 

Here is a number that will blow your mind. Chevron has 1600 chemical researchers!

 

Oh no- here we go again.........


The octane rating of a fuel has nothing to do with the amount of additives in it nor does it directly reflect how much power an engine can produce. If an engine does not detonate at a given RON/AKI, there is no additional power to be had by using even higher octane. Jaguar engine achieve full rated performance on 95RON.

The results of the test in video did mention octane rating- but left out all sorts of other essential data. If any of the fuels contained ethanol (as an common example) then the variation in engine output would be easily explained. There is (rightly or wrongly) no standardized method of advising consumers how much energy a given fuel contains.

People might prefer brand X over brand Y and hate brand Z, but there's a very great chance that they're precisely the same fuel from the very same refinery, with only a different set of additives blended in while the transport truck is being loaded.

Modern engines (direct injected aside) don't accumulate sufficient carbon to affect performance, so even the most standard of fuels with their so-so additives are adequate.

 

Understanding the method from refiner to you in the US is both simple and complex. Refiners send their base gas products to common repositories, which is sold to whomever wishes to purchase at their rack. The price paid at the rack is negotiated by contracts with major outlet retailers. (the name you see on the sign outside)

Less than 2% of all stations are corporate owned. The 98% are private owners who contract the brand. However, that does not mean that at Shell's station, the gas isn't the very same fuel from the very same rack that the BP or the 7/11 station down the street has. It has to do with the rack that has the cheapest price. Fuel haulers are contracted to move product from a rack to a retailer, and their transportation costs are simply added to the rack price. In our area for example, it's about 15 cents a gallon. So the Murphy rack down the street, has Love's, CONOCO, Shell, Murphy and everyone else's truck hanging out waiting to get into the rack for product. If the Murphy rack is full, or down for whatever reason, they (the fuel hauler) contacts another rack provider like Phillips for their fuel, still destined for the same retailer who needs 6000 gallons before 4pm.

Additives, like Top Tier cleansers, are added in the fill process at the rack into the fuel hauler, and are basically the very same for whatever retailer specifies product with Top Tier additive. Very seldom, if at all do you ever find a retailer adding anything at the buried tank at their location.

Now, concerning Slick 50, you're confusing apples with oranges.

 

No Mickey, the reason direct injections end up with more carbon is because there is no techron/detergent to clean the valves. So yes it makes a huge difference if you dont use detergent in any kind of engine, as long as it has pistons and valves. Precisely why they sell techron independently to clean what the so-so detergents did not.

 

Shell V-Power - 240.9 HP
Esso Supreme 240.5 (that would be less than 1%)
BP Ultimate - 236.7
ASDA - 235.8

However these are also European gasolines not US AND again they are not comparing apples to apples when they compare differing R.O.N ratings that pretty much throws off the test right there. Not saying that Shell is or isn't good or better just that this test is not accurately comparing alike gasolines and that even given the different R.O.N ratings the final findings show a very minimal performance difference ranging from .4 hp with the top two dropping down to only 2.2% from the top to the bottom gas.

The talk about what Shell might be up to is irrelevant until they actually DO it and have it verified, at this point it is only hearsay. It makes for excellent marketing though. To date no independent tests have verified that Shell fuel makes good on any of it's claims - Shell starts selling super-premium gasoline

Couldn't find any tests/reviews done on it. If in fact it does run .24-.42 higher than their normal premium fuel I'll stick with an occasional can of Techron no interest in paying $5 per fill up for maybe increased performance and possibly cleaner engine.

 

And yes carbon build up makes a huge difference, clean a throttle body on a car with 60,000 that has never done it before, its like adding 10hp. If you could clean out the carbon from intake and various other places you would get a lot of power. I will never understand why people dont get this. Just the carbon on a piston head makes a huge difference.

 

So how would the new Shell product help on direct injection engines?

 

Injectors and combustion chambers benefit from rack supplies specified with TT or use of Techron. Intake valves has to be addressed by low sulfur ash oils, and top engine cleaners on a pre-determined maintenance schedule.

 

The only problem with that logic is that you will get more deposits running cheap gas and then try to clean that with less than optimal mixture of techron. Plus techron is more expensive when you buy it separate from the gas. Much better to use it consistently and gradually. That's actually how it works best.

 

Carbon deposits from the fuel itself (which is where it all comes from anyway)
Fantastic white paper on the matter.
http://web.anl.gov/PCS/acsfuel/prepr...10-04_1143.pdf

 

So how would the new Shell product help on direct injection engines?

The easy answer is nobody has any clue. Until it tested and verified we can only go on Shell's marketing claims, no outside testing or verification has yet been done to prove or dispel anything

 

Actually, for US retailers and stock providers, there are testing and approved ASTM guidelines. Not all orders made from retailers in any given area, when placing their orders will specify TT in their order, even though the station may display the TT logo. It is dependent on the retailer to specify at the time of order.

Top Tier Gas