Archive for AudiSRS.com The place for Performance Audi
 


       AudiSRS.com Forum Index -> General Car Chat
RubanS4

V-power vs tesco 99 ron

Got another question both of these fuels are 99 ron but which is the more potent one for power. I think it could be v-power as it's developed with ferrari although some audi's have had some issues with their fuel lines but there has not been any positive conclusions about that. Tesco petrol is also available in 99 ron but is it as good or better than v-power has there been any tests done between the two for power and mileage, after all tesco 99 ron is a supermaket fuel but i am not saying it's not any good as i use both of them
dubwhizz

tescos dont make fuel so the old "its a supermarket fuel" shouldnt really apply. its made by BP.

im not worried about the power, 1 RON in a hundred i don't think many of us will be talented enough to notice, but I am worried about the fuel lines issue. would like to know more about that.

Matt
loomx

Tescos supposedly makes more power in tests I have seen.
RubanS4

Its made by BP i never knew that's something new i've learned today, thanks matt
MazSherwood

I will only use Shell V Power in my toy. I also know of quite a few other S/RS owners who only use the V Power. They have all said there is a notable difference in performance both on power and economy (when they have used the supermarket fuel), with Shell being far better. I can't comment on that as i have never used the supermarket fuels on mine, but i've had no issues to date with Shell. I have used both supermarket fuels and shell on my everyday run about and I can get over the 30 - 50 miles to the tank more using the shell. I think the main difference is that supermarket fuel doesn't have the additives (hence why it could be cheaper).
Jules

Tesco 99 is made by Greenergy. Thorney Motorsports did some tests and T99 came out slightly on top over V-power.
carpy

I've never noticed any difference between using V-Power or Tesco 99RON.

All Shell V-Power is now 99RON anyway
loomx

I highly doubt up 50 miles more out of your tank using tescos ("supermarket") vs shell, I would go as far to say that I pretty much garrentee its down to how you were driving. Its possible if your comparing basic supermarket vs v-power, but thats not fair.

At the end of the day they are both good fuels, and they are both not "cheap supermarket" fuels.

Tescos makes more power than v-power in all tests I have, only by tiny bit, but it does.

The biggest problem here is people sticking thier nose up at the name, and tbh I highly doubt Ferrari developed shells fuel, more like shell paid ferrari some money to use their name. If you refuse to use Tesco 99 because of the name and are willing to pay more for V-Power, then fair enough, but IMO its a stupid thing to do.

To summerise - both 99ron fuels, both are good.

The only assumtion I come to with tescos making more power is they probably shift more, so it doesnt sit in the tanks going off.
MazSherwood

Loomx - I used both fuels on the 95ron doing the same trip over the last 18 months (so making it a fair comparison). The results suprised me.

I use both supermarket and garage fuels on my every day run about - i fill up as and when and not particularly fussy on which garage (usually tesco's especially when they give a 5p off per litre deal).

Probably right about the Ferrari developed shell fuel comment.
carpy

I'm pretty sure V-Power hasn't always been 99RON, so some of the test results which conclude that you get more power from Tesco99 might well be outdated?
loomx

V-power has always been 99, it was shell optimax that wasnt.
carpy

Ahh right. Makes me feel a bit silly that I have been driving 15 miles to fill up with Tesco99 for the past 6 months, when there is a Shell garage 200 metres up the road from me!!  
ZeroK66

Did not know that - anything made by BP I would not touch.  Speak to the scooby boys that have knock sensors on their cars.  BP Ultimate is one of the worst fuels.

Tests I have seen show other fuels performing better than v-power, but v-power does seem to be the fuel that is the safest because of all of the extra additives they have to prevent det
DavidT

I'm not sure Greenergy have any connection to BP? http://www.greenergy.com/
loomx

ZeroK66 wrote:
Did not know that - anything made by BP I would not touch.  Speak to the scooby boys that have knock sensors on their cars.  BP Ultimate is one of the worst fuels.

Tests I have seen show other fuels performing better than v-power, but v-power does seem to be the fuel that is the safest because of all of the extra additives they have to prevent det


That would put me off if there are "additives" to prevent detenation.

The higher quality the fuel, the more resistant to detenation it is. If they use additives to increase its resistance rather than having a better fuel in the first place, I think I would steer clear. I know one of them used to increase the (i think) ethonal content to increase the ron rating, but this actually lowers the calorific value. So yes its more resistant, but there is less engery in the fuel itself.
ScottR

It seems that everyone has different experiences/recollections of the different fuels.  

I had always used V-power because i'd read 'Supermarket fuels' were crap.  Switched to Tesco 99 about a year ago due to price and I found that I consistently get 10 miles/tank more than I would when i've used V-power.  

Wasn't V-power 98RON?  I'm sure it was when I was a regular buyer.
loomx

As I said Shell Optimax was 98 V-Power came out after Tesco 99.

There were a few V-powers at 98 when the rebranded optimax to V-power, I assume untill they got the 99 fuel? I remember when it first was released one V-power being 98 in Manchester and then got back to oxford and it was 99 ron in oxford.
ScottR

Ah, so us poor Northerners only had the 98RON V-Power?  

It was rebranded from Optimax about 2-3 years ago I think.
jonnyx

They all changed when the rules changed. I think by law they
have to put at least some bio-ethanol in fuels now. This is great
for the octane rating but not so good for the calorific value. This
subject rears it's head every now an again. Essentially, if you
are not a petrochemist working in the industry you don't have
enough information to make a decision.
MoRS6+

Surely there is some link somewhere for HPLC on these fuels? Then we could see what is in them once and for all. Has this not been done lately? If not, why? I mean, we know what's in our food, drinks, domestic cleaning products etc. these days - why not the fuel that we pay for?
loomx

Yup, from april 2008, all fuels must include at least 2.5% renewable fuels (or biofuels) in them, I seem to remember this is supposed to be increased to a minimum of 5% next year, which I pretty much what is already in the fuels anyway.

All in the interest of saving the planet... ironicly depending on which "biofuel" is put in, the CO2 emissions could go up.
James

http://www.thorneymotorsport.co.u...ng/Fuel_Test_Results_Update.shtml
scoobydood

James wrote:
http://www.thorneymotorsport.co.u...ng/Fuel_Test_Results_Update.shtml


Thanks.... nice link. Unfortunately it is on a N/A car and I suspect that the results may not be consistent with a high pressure turbo car (such as our remapped (r)s4's that should be mapped to each individual fuel and may be able to run different boost or ignition advance on each???
loomx

If a fuel can run more power on N/A it will be the same on turbo cars, having a turbo doesnt change how the fuel reacts to detonation.
carpy

So its Tesco 99 most of the time, then V-Power if you're caught short, and BP Ultimate is for those with money to burn or who have got a dyno session booked.
Doug

Vpower and tesco99 cars run more timing in this country. Go abroad and it is not the same though.

I think Tesco99 is better than vpower - for some reason 1.8Ts you can notice a big difference.
ZeroK66

Turbocharged cars are more susceptible to det... especially the more boost we run.  I expect to see higher differing rates of performance with different fuels.  Also the car should be re-mapped with each different fuel, certainly the 102... the difference should be very noticeable then.
loomx

Only thing that would worry me about BP 102, is its so damn expensive that it probably does get used much and sits in the tank going off.
Which I guess is why it ended up getting about the same power a tescos in the thorneymotorsport tests.
MoRS6+

loomx wrote:
Only thing that would worry me about BP 102, is its so damn expensive that it probably does get used much and sits in the tank going off.
Which I guess is why it ended up getting about the same power a tescos in the thorneymotorsport tests.


hehe, damn good point there sir!

ZeroK66 wrote:
...the car should be re-mapped with each different fuel, certainly the 102... the difference should be very noticeable then.


And that is very interesting indeed.. Surely, if one was to map their car using a certain fuel then surely wouldn't it always be quicker on that particular fuel? Could it really be that simple? And, using that same logic could it be possible that the Tesco99 wins-out in the tests because the it more suited the maps on whatever cars felt quicker with it?

What about doing a map on say, a turbo car using a particular fuel - then doing the grouptest with the other fuels - and then repeat that remap with each fuel and then grouptest again? Or am I being silly here?
ZeroK66

Turbo & map be the best thing.

Better fuels need the ignition timing to advance to take advantage of their potential.  If you do not remap you will not see the full potential.  I had my car mapped on V-Power which is 99, so I assume I can run any 99 with similar results.  Putting 102 in may prove to be a little bit better, but I am sure with a remap it will do even better.

The Beemer in the test was probably mapped to run 97 super & would not make best use of each fuel.

This is all based on my limited understanding, I could be talking utter non-sense
loomx

Beemers come out of the factory ready to run 99, if you read the hand book they say on the blurb car makes x ammount of power on 99, if you use less ron the car will be less power.
scoobydood

loomx wrote:
If a fuel can run more power on N/A it will be the same on turbo cars, having a turbo doesnt change how the fuel reacts to detonation.


Usual disclaimer applys.... i.e. I know nothing but read lots
Some fuels are better at preventing det - so you can map to run more ignition or more boost.... so the difference would be more on a turbo car than an NA.

I dont think it's reasonable to say that a 300hp N/A car will show the same pattern as a 700hp turbo car on different fuels.
loomx

True, the extra pressure = more heat = more detonation.

What I was saying that the fuel thats most resistant to det is still going to be the most resistant to det, if its turboed or not.
       AudiSRS.com Forum Index -> General Car Chat
Page 1 of 1