Shell V Power vs Normal Unleaded | Is It Worth It?

[@ConquerDriving]

Over 200,000 miles on the cheapest fuel I can find in the same car from new. Still on original fuel injectors and last time I checked the engine hadn't lost power. Still on the original fuel filter as it's not a service item on my car, the filter is integrated into the low pressure fuel pump. Most engines are direct injection now so the fuel can't clean the back of the intake valves which do get dirty due to the positive crankcase ventilation system.

[@ibs5080]

Oh Hello there Richard! Good to see you here. How's everything in Colchester?

[@Daye04]

Oh! Fancy seeing you here!

[@zitzong]

Hey Richard hope your good!

[@diglet553]

Oh hey Richard! You and Ashley's videos were so helpful for me in passing my test back in November, so big thanks to both of you. Best two driving channels on YT in my opinion.

[@ConquerDriving]

@@ibs5080 I'm well thank you. I hope you are too.

[@MrLense]

Another factor you missed is that you're driving a "Performance" Ford Focus ST there. So performance cars with Higher compression engines will get more out of higher octane fuels compared to a "pedestrian" non performance car. There's a reason why when you open the fuel cap on higher end cars, manufacturers will say "Recommend 97-98 RON" on them because that will be where they factory tuned their cars for and the ECU will adapt accordingly to the quality of fuel you are using. So for 90% of the driving population, you can keep filling up on 95. Unless you drive a performance car.

[@datathunderstorm]

I never had a problem with 95 RON fuels in my 2008 Prius Hybrid…..until they introduced E10 fuel, which might as well have been a diet of “Pig Swill” for my car 🤡. My Prius managed okay on E5 fuel. On E10 however, the vehicle’s acceleration became positively lethargic, the engine notably noisier and vibrated horribly, the MPG dropped drastically and I got far less miles per gallon than I was used to….🙄 Upgraded to a 99 RON fuel (E5) and the aforementioned symptoms literally disappeared within minutes of filling up. Using this fuel, I managed 653 miles from a 45 litre tank (1.25 litres still left in the fuel tank by the way), and managed a personal record of 69.4 mpg on the same tank of fuel. I now use a 99 RON fuel permanently and quite simply refuse to use anything else. 95 RON is not an option for me as it’s E10 in the UK and sadly, my old Prius simply won’t tolerate it.

[@TonyMorel]

Galant VR4 twin turbo really liked VPower. Audi A4 turbo seems happiest on the cheapest E10 fuel. RAV4 MK2 doesn't like VPower and doesn't like E10 but give it Sainsbury's Super Unleaded and it's sings along. They're all bloomin fussy drinkers.

[@gravemind6536]

@@datathunderstorm My 2016 Toyota Auris with the 1.2T ran worse on E10 when that was introduced and it lost about 5% of its fuel economy too I figured all things considered by using premium I'm only actually paying 2p a litre more which is hardly anything. Premium only now.

[@jacobfoster6773]

The engine in ash's st is a 2.3 eco boost it has lower compression than the smaller eco boost engines in the standard economy focus models.

[@clivewilliams3661]

Most modern basic cars have high compression and often turbocharged engines that in former years would have merited a higher octane rating, for that reason base level cars use the same fuel as high performance cars. The higher the compression and thus the compression pressures the better the burn and thus the cleaner the exhaust, hence why the manufacturers have upped the compression.

[@DavidLee-qe3rd]

I tried the same experiment seven years ago. I drive a 2L Diesel Ford Kuga and compared the fuel economy using Morrisons normal Diesel against Shell V-Power Nitro. Each fill was up to the top and trip mileage was recorded between fills. Results: 1) 5 fills of normal diesel - Totals: 1918.7 miles & 43.3 gallons, average: 44.3 mpg 2) 2 fills of V-Power4 - Totals: 949.3 miles & 21.8 gallons, average: 43.6 mpg 2) 5 fills of normal diesel - Totals: 2185.5 miles & 49.7 gallons, average: 44.0 mpg Conclusion - absolutely no observable difference in fuel economy within experimental uncertainty. Obviously this data refers to Diesel rather than petrol - but Shell was making the same claims for both fuels.

[@tin2001]

Premium diesel is more about keeping your engine and exhaust system clean. It has less non-fuel crud in it, which keeps the injectors and valves cleaner. It won't make much difference to fuel consumption at all, but in larger diesels that run many hours per day, it can reduce maintenance costs dramatically by not having to disassemble the engine as often.

[@WolfmanWoody]

That's a lot better way of judging the economy, but even then the filling nozzles may stop at different fill levels. A minor point, but as you say "within eperimental uncertainty." Quite right. My 1,5 Kuga gets 48 on average and sometimes 55 on longer runs.

[@DIYwithEd]

on Diesels won't give you more mpg or power, but shell v power diesel has most adjectives(cleaners), which helps with your valves, egr dpf etc

[@J10CKO]

I use V Power all the time as I do very few miles and a tank of petrol lasts me months. I won't use E10 as I don't like it lying in my tank for a long time. I also feel, rightly or wrongly, that the car runs better and feels smoother on V Power.

[@johnkeepin7527]

Thats a good point. The shelf life of E10 is a lot less than those with less ethanol (if they really are about 10% - it’s the limit, not necessarily the target for the mixture). It could be worse if its in contact with moist air as well, as the ethanol and water would gradually mix and settle at the bottom of the tank. Whether that comes to light or not may depend on where the fuel pipe is in the tank.

[@frogsplorer]

This is my logic. Low mileage driver a lot of the time and I don’t want it sitting there absorbing moisture. Maybe using the car more these days so I could consider flipping

[@qasimmir7117]

No, rightly. It will run a little smoother on premium fuel.

[@neiloflongbeck5705]

Knocking 5 to 10 mph off your top speed depending on the road type and outside of 40mph speed limited areas and lifting off early to slow down rather than using your brakes will also give you more miles per litre of fuel irrespective of fuel type. I did this for a couple of years about 25 years ago, due to being an impoverished graduate, and almost doubled my range. OK, journeys took a little longer, but I had the time and needed to save some money.

[@heavybrambles]

Even without reducing top speed, just a smoother driving technique will make a significant difference to mpg in urban areas. The way some people drive in cities, half the energy from their fuel is used to heat their brake pads...

[@_______-]

Can confirm. Was shocked how quickly a tank of fuel disappeared when chewing through France at a steady 85mph.

[@supersuede91]

Engine braking is the big one - it gives you an unfathomable fuel economy advantage over foot braking

[@gravemind6536]

@@supersuede91 Yes during engine braking you will use no fuel at all, use of the footbrake is 100% wasted energy that was used to build the initial speed. In most cars if doing distance 55mph or so is the best speed for fuel economy hence why Lorries are limited to that speed.

[@chunkyfecalbreakfast]

I don’t understand why people don’t do this as a matter of course.

[@Leo99929]

I'm an efficiency engineer, here's how you can do a super accurate comparison with little effort: Take a note of your odometer when you fill up the tank. When you need to fill up next, take another odometer reading to get the distance travelled between refuelling. You have the Litres from the pump. This should give you miles per litre/MPG if you can be bothered doing the maths. 👍 You can use this to validate your in car mpg gauge accuracy.

[@Leo99929]

My mate has done this with all the different fuels from the different stations. He found that ASDA's cheapest was the best cost per mile. However, this doesn't mean it's necessarily the best for the long term health of your engine, or the cheapest over the vehicle life when you factor in any early repairs you might need to do due to lower quality fuel, if the cheaper fuel is actually lower quality.

[@interpolpirate]

Big assumption that you are doing the same driving in the same conditions with each tank tho.

[@donvanvliet9477]

@@interpolpirate Yes, so the best thing is to do it over quite a number of refuels.

[@donvanvliet9477]

Yes, to make it super, super accurate you should reset the long term trip computer and brim fill on day 1, then fill as often as is needed over a period of time, (weeks or months) recording the litres added each time, then brim fill on the last day and then read the odometer.

[@gordon861]

The first thing I did when I replaced the car is set up a Google Docs sheet where I can just key the numbers in at every fill up. It's on the phone which is stuck on the dash so easy and quick to do.

[@alanchase7329]

Octane level is purely to prevent knocking. Higher compression engines require higher octane fuel. It has no benefit regarding better fuel economy. Ethanol has a higher octane rating than petrol but you get less miles per gallon. I have been putting E10 in my 1.8, 2016 Civic and have never bothered resetting the mileage computer, over those eight years I am averaging 48 miles to the gallon.

[@tomcruyfft3262]

Doesn't pay for itself on mpg alone but overall better value when we consider fuel system condition - the additives can stave off costly injector fixes and the like. I find it best to average 50% posh fuel

[@idonotwantahandle2]

The fuel mixture as controlled by O2 sensors means twice as much by volume of ethanol is burned. Half of 5% is 2.5%. Physics says your Honda is 1.2mpg lower when running E10. Barely noticeable.

[@mcgherkinstudios]

This is incorrect. If a car is using the increased octane of the fuel to generate the same power (with increased ignition timing) with less fuel, then the fuel consumption will be improved. Most cars are not mapped to need more than 95RON though.

[@captkidd]

I got over 17% higher mpg in a Honda Jazz by using V-Power. Works well for me but might not for others. I do not agree with @alanchase7329 and I recommend people try it for themselves. Evidently results may vary.

[@davestopforth]

There absolutely is a benefit to fuel consumption. The better knock resistance allows an engine to run leaner and with more advanced ignition. E5 also has a higher calorific value

[@EightPawsProductionsHD]

Have always used V-Power since I had my 2003 Mini Cooper (the manual for that car stated using higher octane fuel may increase MPG, which proved to be the case), the engine generally ran better too, and now that I've got a 2012 Audi A1 1.4 Turbo, have continued to use V-Power after experimenting, and again found increased MPG and the engine runs so much better with improved driveability (especially when cold).

[@AnthonyTeasdale]

I have exclusively used the premium fuels since getting my car 8 years ago. It does specify it on the filling door also. Given the age of my car too and the new switch to E10. My car is a lot happier on the expensive fuel. On other vehicles. One of my past bikes would have major issues on cheaper fuel. Often just cutting out completely. Using the premium fuels fixed that also. But this was 1989 Yamaha.

[@AdamBuckley1964]

Same experience for me, my ancient (1986) Honda VFR750 loved the decent fuel - this was a carb model (pre injector).

[@datathunderstorm]

My 2008 Prius runs sweetly on the expensive Premium fuels. With E10, the Atkinson cycle engine sounds like it’s about to fall apart and the noise under acceleration is horrendous. I now permanently use Premium E5 fuels (99 RON), and the engine runs smoothly, reaches optimal thermal operational efficiency much quicker and correspondingly sips fuel economically, giving me a much longer range and higher mpg. Curious, is the Atkinson cycle engine high compression? The vehicle was perfectly okay on E5 95 RON fuel, till E10 (a.k.a. Pig Swill) was cynically forced upon 95 RON users. Worst. Scam. Ever. Why does our government always subject the masses to the worst possible deals available, purely driven by profit through greed?

[@terrystratford1235]

Ethanol in e10 will kill an old bike! I have a 1987 gsxr1100h, always shell e5! Shell and esso use no ethanol in e5!!!!! Remember, e10 is 90%flammable, the 10% being non flammable ethanol! So your only getting 90% power!!! ❤

[@amann3922]

Similar experience with my 2003 Audi tt mk1 3.2 Drives smoother and idles better from a cold start. Previously would judder, erratic idle and misfire if driven only a short distance, stopped then started again before up to running temperature.

[@baldyslapnut.]

​@@terrystratford1235What?! 🫣 Why do people pour brandy on Xmas pudding, Terry? Please, get informed, the science of combustion is one of the most studied ever.

[@Denali1600]

A benefit of the premium fuels - especially relevant to motorcycles - is they typically have a lower ethanol content: if your bike is older and/or spends long periods stored and/or has a plastic tank, ethanol can cause issues.

[@MrQuakeroat]

Agreed. I also find my bike is much more perky when I treat it to a tank of E5.

[@loftyintentions1985]

Agreed, agreed and agreed. My 07 gsxr 600 hates e10. Had to use once. Never again.

[@J10CKO]

@@r.h.8754 I use E5 in my Briggs and Stratton 4-stroke mower. I buy a gallon every spring and that lasts me the full season.

[@MrTuts4life]

It's not even typically, its law, premium fuel must have no more than 5% Ethanol, cheaper fuel can have up to 10%, I tend to stick with Esso premium, I've tested their fuel and it had less than 1% ethanol in it. Ethanol is what decreases fuel economy, and is why Ashley got less distance, it is less energy dense than petrol, so each injection cycle will require slightly more fuel.

[@Tailspin80]

I switched over to the expensive stuff for my lawnmower, blower and chainsaw. The cheap E10 started dissolving the diaphragm in my 2-stroke chainsaw carb which I fixed with a rebuild kit. Eventually I went over to Aspen-2 which is a special formulation and burns incredibly cleanly and no shelf life restrictions. It’s also about 4x the price of pump fuel but I only use 5l in a season so it doesn’t matter.

[@WilliamHacknov]

I’ve never put E10 fuel in my new car. I only use E5. That’s because there’s clear evidence to show rubber seals break down under E10 a lot quicker

[@xTerminatorAndy]

can I see this clear evidence please

[@michaeljohnson-li5nn]

Same here with my classic Japanese motorcycles. I always use the E5 petrol as it contains less ethanol, in fact it may not contained any at all, as the E5 means that it contains up to 5% ethanol.

[@tehmorbias]

@@xTerminatorAndy look up SAE J30 specifications. Rubber fuel hoses need to be internally lined to protect them from the ethanol in the fuel.

[@dcarbs2979]

@@xTerminatorAndy Can't link to it, but I have seen reports quoted in classic car magazines/papers. It's out there if you search. It's an important issue for pre-1990 cars and probably for some more recent than that. Although those us with cars of that era for any length of time have already gone through it once before when leaded petrol was phased out.

[@loftyintentions1985]

​@@michaeljohnson-li5nn my 07 gsxr 600 hates e10. Makes the engine feel rough and sluggish. I'd hate to think what it does to the fuel lines. e5 all the time.

[@dgphi]

High octane doesn't mean it burns better. If anything it burns worse. The point of higher octane fuels is that they better resist pre-ignition or knocking. That is, when the air-fuel mixture is compressed in the cylinders, it can spontaneously explode by itself at the wrong time, which will be bad for the running of the engine. If you have a high compression engine, then you need a high octane fuel. If you don't, then you are wasting your money. You should just use what the manual says to use.

[@mcgherkinstudios]

Incorrect. Well, correct in that octane determines the point in terms of compression (be it static compression ratio determined by stroke/bore/chamber size etc or dynamic, including boost pressure) at which the fuel generates knock, it also determines how much ignition timing can be run. Since the ECU is trying to maximise this all the time, running a high octane fuel can be beneficial, but only if the ECU can utilise that extra headroom.

[@dgphi]

@@mcgherkinstudios Like I said, if you have a high compression engine, then you should use high octane fuel as recommended by your manual. If your manual doesn't recommend it, then in general you won't get any benefit.

[@johncarnie3726]

I'm like you - I full up with V-Power (or it's equivalent) every so often, more often if I'm driving only local short journeys!

[@whitemarmite]

the only benefit from using v-power (over other premium fuels) is that it contains more cleaning agents, prolonged running of v-power will help clean and maintain the engine. but thats it, getting better MPG is too variable to actually give better MPG. some people are under the impression that it "boosts power" but it doesnt, it will help maintain the current power. unless your car/bike specifically states to run on e5 or 99 octane, you do not need premium fuel. the only reason i run it in my bike, is purely to avoid preignision and detonating the engine. i run tank or two through the car every now and then to help it clean injectors and such.

[@rrp6405]

one thing to remember that i bet most will not know or forget, most lawnmowers are not set up for e10 so you should put the more expensive fuel in those

[@tin2001]

Or find a source of lower octane pure petrol. We can still get 91 here without ethanol, thank goodness... And for those wondering, your mower WILL run hot with ethanol. If you're in a cold climate, you may get away with it, but here in Australia, when it's 35+ outside, you definitely notice the engine getting much hotter than normal with E10 in there.

[@jemwoo2001]

Bought my daughter an i10 to learn on. It was almost 5years old when we purchased it and had a noticeable stutter in the mid range. 6 I thought that its something sticky (valves, injectors, or something else) hence we've been running it on the premium stuff. The engine is now running freely and without hesitation and we've gone to 2 tanks regular/1 tank premium to keep it all sweet. MPG aside, this must be the cheapest maintenance on an engine going! She's passed BTW!! 🎉

[@roberthuntley1090]

Depends on the type of engine, and how you use it. A high compression engine might be able to take advantage of the higher octane, but only on a long distance speed run where you get to take advantage of that. Idling in city traffic jams its not going to help at all. On a standard low compression engine, it will probably reduce mpg because it burns more slowly.

[@Slaeowulf]

It's not just about range, as I'm sure you know. The additives and detergents in the fuel are worth the extra cost if you plan on owning long term and/or if you bought from new. Great content as always, though!

[@spikyone79]

There's a lot of misunderstanding about fuels and I don't think this video is enough to answer the question. For most engines, there is no direct benefit in terms of performance, economy, etc. when comparing premium fuels to an equivalent standard fuel. V Power and similar fuels (Tesco Momentum, BP Ultimate, etc.) have a higher RON (Research Octane Number, or just octane). This improves their resistance to detonation or knock - which is caused when high pressure in the combustion chamber causes high temperatures, in turn leading to uncontrolled ignition of the fuel/air mix away from the spark plug. The benefit of 98/99 RON fuels is in engines with a high compression ratio (typically above 12:1) as these generate higher cylinder pressures. In those cars, if you use standard (95 in the UK) fuel, the cars will adjust their ignition timing to prevent detonation, which will reduce their performance. All new cars have to work on 95 so it won't harm a car with a high compression ratio engine, but they generally tend to be high performance cars and using 95 will reduce their performance. IMO the more interesting comparison here would've been regular Shell to regular Asda fuel. I wouldn't be surprised to find that regular Shell also gives you better performance compared to supermarket fuel. It's also worth remembering that more expensive fuels will often contain other constituents intended to keep your engine 'clean' (free from deposits) so some of the benefits could take much longer to be noticeable.

[@mcgherkinstudios]

Mostly correct, but forgets that turbocharging increases the compression ratio of the engine dynamically meaning even small commuter engines these days are often knock limited.

[@matt_acton-varian]

I think that 5th Gear did some form of experiment using different standard unleaded from 5 different brands a few years back - I think we'll before the E10 regulations though. I believe that found all 95s were quite close (they dyno'd a golf GTI and ran it to empty from a 5l Jerry can on each fuel) and the only major improvements came from using a super unleaded fuel. Brand snobbery isn't worth it. But using the right octane fuel for your vehicle (and occasionally running higher for its cleaning effect) is the best practice.

[@PedroConejo1939]

I keep a spreadsheet of my fuel use verus mileage and have done since - checks dates 8th April 2004. My previous car, Citroën C5 (Mk I facelift) 1.6 litre diesel estate, showed no significant difference with BP Ultimate, so I have just stuck with regular Tesco's diesel and Cataclean once a year about a month before the MOT. My best mileage out of my current Citroën C5 (X7) 2.0 litre diesel estate just tipped 70 mpg on a long run with aircon off (this was when it was over £2/litre for regular, so I was in full economy driving mode), but it averages between 40 and 50 mpg depending on usage, which is very mixed. I will try Ultimate again to see if it makes any difference with this car. I brim the car once a month just after payday. The most significant difference in fuel I've ever discovered was with French LPG versus British. They use a different mix (Butane/Propane, I think) and it easily gave a 25% improvement over the British stuff. And it was cheaper.

[@kenbrown2808]

I used to keep a spreadsheet. my fun car used to get 10 miles per dollar worth of fuel, back in the 90s. now my daily gets 5 or less depending on how big a discount my grocery loyalty discount is. of course, there are the price factors - there was a while I was driving my fun car as much as I could manage, because my daily takes diesel, and the fun car only needed premium gasoline.

[@PedroConejo1939]

@@kenbrown2808 I work my price the other way, in pence per mile - currently averaging 15.69 p / mile because I'm not doing many long runs. I don't pay a lot of attention to that value though, mpg is the one I keep an eye on. I average it out over the year (from purchase) each year - that's August to August. For reference, I also have it show litres / 100 km, but again, I don't pay a lot of attention.

[@itsallgood8347]

Funny you mention this. I always get better mpg in France, but I never fill up whilst in France. I always had it down to other factors.

[@dopiaza2006]

Try using millers ecomax additive. It's way cheaper than premium fuels and i've noticed a real world mpg increase.

[@PedroConejo1939]

@@dopiaza2006 I'll have a look.

[@nowiplay2]

I use V power every fill up. I’ve monitor my engine (B58 3L straight 6). A lot more timing corrections happen within the cylinder on regular fuel, whereas timing corrections are minimal when using higher octane fuel. Also cleaning additives are helpful for the injectors

[@TheTechGiantYouTube]

I have a Mercedes AMG A45s which is the factory standard 421bhp. And on the inside of the filler cap it states that you should use 98 ron or above. So for many performance cars, you don’t really have a choice but to use premium fuels. For what it’s worth the average consumption of the lifetime of my car has been 27.2mpg, and on a motorway run i can see around 43mpg. But with a heavy right foot, i may as well be throwing £10 notes out the window 😅

[@MervynPartin]

I drive a 2001 Honda Stepwgn. There used to be no fault indications whilst running, but after the increase to 10% Ethanol, I started getting O2 sensor problems. This persisted until my local garage investigated and their advice was to use 5% Ethanol petrol, i.e. Super grade. I don't regularly drive long distances, so I am unable to comment on the effect of the increased octane rating, but I am forced to buy expensive petrol to avoid fault indications due to the poor performance of ethanol.

[@JJR52]

I’ve noticed when using the more expensive BP stuff in comparison to other high octane fuels my tank lasts much much longer, especially on the motorways. With stuff from other stations the difference is negligible. By no means a BP ad lol, maybe it’s just my kind of engine etc

[@wesleycardinal8869]

I get from 18 mpg to 26 mpg in the big Holden wagon depending on fuel and type of travel. The car takes E85, which Ive tried and does indeed give about 25% worse economy, but mostly I use 95 RON. The biggest factor is whether its city driving - short trips and lots of stops, or highway driving.

[@ezoomer7952]

I always fill up with tesco premium fuel, its 99 octane but only normally 8-10p more expensive per litre, so with the extra range and MPG it works out as the cheapest fuel per mile for me.

[@14LuvMusic]

I went back to E5 fuel for my little 1 litre 3 cylinder naturally aspirated VW Up after I read some articles saying the E10 was a con and people were starting to have some issues with their engines. This is when I noticed an improvement in some issues I didn't realise I was having with the new fuel until I switched back. My car sounded laboured when I started it up which after switching back to E5 it starts up much smoother; I have far better acceleration and general engine performance (little engine and no turbo it needs all the help it can get); my car now lowers it's idling revs after being stationary a short while; and I've found I can get about 30 more miles before light on which is 2 more days of commuting for me. The price per litre difference seems like a lot but added up only comes to £2 - £3 more, it isn't a bad price to pay for the benefits it brings, I think.

[@ptaylor5014]

I have to use either Sainsbury's or Esso higher octane petrol in my car, i have tried using the cheaper fuels but it has caused problems with my engine, it's now a know fact that the cheaper crap will cause damage to some cars 😡, so i have no choice put to use the more expensive fuels.

[@JohnR31415]

When I used to commute 700 miles a week I added an expensive tank every so often, and it did help. Made the difference between doing the full week on a tank and not quite making it - and the benefit continued over the next several tanks of “normal” fuel. Electrons are much more consistent

[@EpicThe112]

Spot on there Mr. Neal and for my father's minivan Toyota Sienna which you'll see around US military bases in the UK he goes for US 93 octane uk 97 RON Shell V Power because it's engine is designed for Shell V Power premium. the one time it was filled to US 87 octane regular UK 91 RON it's performance dropped and struggled on the Motorway. Here in the US regular gas is E10 in most places others have it at E0 or E15 ethanol mixes.

[@BillyBanter100]

Ford recommend Super Unleaded for my 2015 Eco Boost 1.0 Fiesta. I do get better mileage on long drives and more power than E10 fuel. Also 2 separate garages have recommended I use E5 for my model. This isn't a scientific test just my personal experience.

[@ricequackers]

The long and short of it is put 98-99 RON in if your car's manual tells you to, or you've remapped or otherwise tuned your car's engine to use advanced timings for that fuel (in which case you probably know what you're doing). If not, stick to the regular stuff and save money.

[@hoagy_ytfc]

I always use High Octane in my GR Yaris, unless I can't get any. It might be psychological but it seems to give it marginal more power as well as marginal better mileage.

[@Captain-Cardboard]

All the advice seems to be if you've got a bog-standard car there's no point in getting premium fuel. But what the heck; this video has inspired me to stick a tank in at my next fill up and see what happens!

[@smilerbob]

When I did many motorway miles I used to put some advanced fuel in the car once a month and accelerate hard onto the motorway. Cleared the heart of the diesel engine that I had and used to keep the 54 plate 200,000+ mile engine going at 55+ mpg

[@ibs5080]

Re "Accelerate hard onto the motorway". You devil you! (Said in the voice of Frank Spencer). 😊

[@TheRip72]

Accelerating hard (briefly) when joining a motorway is usually good anyway. It allows you to match your speed with traffic on the main carriageway much more quickly, which makes it much easier to merge.

[@ibs5080]

@@TheRip72 Ah yes of course I realise the importance of matching speed to traffic on the main carriageway and not being a "dawdler". My comment was more in jest for @smilerbob though I do wonder exactly how hard he was accelerating!

[@smilerbob]

@@ibs5080 🤣🤣 As long as it wasn't "Oooh Betty!" When I say accelerate hard, I really mean opening the valves by getting the revs up beyond 3,000 for a short period. Plus the unusual gear change of 3rd to 6th at the end of it

[@smilerbob]

@ibs5080 Wonder no more how hard it was. It wasn't quite pedal to the floor but enough to get the valves and vacuum working outside of "normal driving" range and clear a few deposits from the pots. Not that the car smoked at all, in fact it was the cleanest diesel I have known. But still, they do like to get a workout occasionally to stay in shape and nothing I did was any worse than the MOT "hard accelerator press" before the emissions were tested

[@rickconstant6106]

I use supermarket fuel in my car and bikes, diesel in the car and super E5 in the bikes, since they increased the standard unleaded to E10. Both are over 40 years old (a 1978 Triumph 750 Bonneville and a 1980 Suzuki GS550), and have fuel systems which were not made to cope with high levels of ethanol. The Triumph does benefit from the higher octane rating of the E5, because it was made to run on 4 star leaded at 98/99 octane, and it seems to have a bit more grunt than when I put 95 RON in it, but I can't see any advantage to using expensive brand name fuels.

[@jondavies8870]

In my car, a Volvo XC40, I find that 99RON fuel doesn’t do much useful for day to day driving. But when I’m towing a caravan I get around 20-25% better fuel efficiency. My take is that if your driving style needs lots of power, the extra punch in the fuel is worthwhile, otherwise just don’t bother.

[@roxdude]

Some cars need the super unleaded and higher octane fuel 97/99 ron Most cars don't and run fine on 95 ron and you don't get really anymore mpg. But now that you can no longer get E5 at 95 Ron only E10 it really makes a difference to mpg using cheapest fuel. Also to the smooth running of the engine. Even on my car designed to run on E10 I noticed the difference. Between the 2. It's the biggest con so what I do a lot is put half a tank of E5 and half a tank of E10 giving me E7.5 and a octane in between. That's the sweet spot for me. Better mpg and performance and lower costs than a tank of super unleaded.

[@maxkendal5152]

I seem to remember a few "studies" from Fifth Gear and other motoring sources coming to the conclusion that any improvement in efficiency was cancelled out by the cost. That was, however before E10. The real question is, will increased ethanol damage fuel systems in the long term?

[@simonwass6315]

Everyone seems obsessed with mpg when it's mp£ that matters

[@tin2001]

Almost all modern cars use parts that are compatible with even 100% ethanol. Damage will mainly come from reduced power causing drivers to push the engine harder... Sort of like the difference between a car driven by a boy racer vs one driven by an old lady.

[@BenjaminEmm]

I wonder if part of this is that the cheaper stuff is now E10, and the V-Power is still E5 (or it was last time I checked) if we had a time machine it'd be interesting to know what the results would've been like before the change over - especially for older cars like mine!

[@frogandspanner]

My understanding is that modern engines advance ignition to the point that the knock sensor detects no knocking ("pinging" to 'Merkins). Advancing ignition increases power output. The premium fuel has a higher octane rating so permits greater ignition advance, hence greater power output (not fuel efficiency). The advance is varied, and may take some time to adapt to a new fuel (this adaptation time being a choice of the ECU designer). Years ago (early '70s) I fitted high compression pistons to my Norton 650SS. In those days 5* petrol was common, but when it disappeared I first used a barrel base plate (my uncle was an engraver of plates for bank notes, and had easy access to old disused copper and brass. His trainer had been put inside for forging the old, large white fivers). When I rebuilt the bike (1996-1998) I returned to standard compression, and can now use basic unleaded. The high performance fuel _can_ improve power, but when I tried it I found no noticeable differences off the Nürburgring.

[@dcarbs2979]

From practical experience, it makes old engines more efficient too. May be a power boost. My 1986 2.8i Capri managed 157 of her quoted 160bhp on 160,000 miles when she was 25. The efficiency is also WELL over 30mpg. On some roads 35. For 20 years, that was my most modern (and smallest) engine of anything I've ever owned.

[@grahamwalker6395]

I have a 24 year old Jaguar with a 4L supercharged V8 engine and there is a noticeable difference in both performance and MPG. Hardly the most economic vehicle (I have others) but I always prefer to use the higher octane and lowest ethanol fuel.

[@margaretnicol3423]

When you went back for a refill I loved that woman in front of you who indicated that she was moving off from the pump! 😀

[@grahamlong6870]

In my Skoda Octavia 2003 (diesel) I used to get good mileage, but before setting off to see friends in Scotland (c500 miles) I would run the fuel down to minimum, and then fill up with V power. After about sixty miles I definitely felt the engine was quieter, and more responsive than normal. I do think that the MPG climbed as well. In my current car (Audi A4 2,0 S line, year 2007) I am not so sure that it makes so much difference, although even on normal fuel I can get up to 77 MPG. I will have to try a long run again to see if there is an improvement.

[@leeh4722]

If you drive something that needs it and is high compression then yes. Other than that your loads better of chucking an additive in the tank once a year I had a Peugeot 106 Rallye back in the 90’s that’d only run on Super

[@mishalchotai4721]

I always fill up Vpower. Every car, they burn cleaner and have more responsive power band. I my opinion, worth it 👌

[@theolddog5129]

A few years ago I used to travel a lot at night and found that in brim-brim fill-up tests my Omega V6 Auto Estate always gave about 7% more MPG when using Shell V-Power. These days I always use V-Power in our XF-S 3.0D and as a minimum normal Shell Unleaded in my petrol powered cars with the odd fill-up with V-Power.;

[@HALLish-jl5mo]

I don't care about octane rating, but I've had problems with E10 petrol before. I use VPower entirely because its low ethanol.

[@512SRT10Viper]

Usually modern turbo or supercharged engines recommend the higher octane to run the correct boost and ignition timings but can (at reduced power and efficiency) run 95 Older cars are less able to adjust and may suffer pre-ignition (you don't want this) I have had cars that will start to ping on 95 (my current car being tuned for higher octane is terrible for this) Same issue with e10 vs e5 if the car is programmed to adapt to either its fine, if not it may run into issues with air fuel ratios and pinging Running higher octane wont harm anything though so if unsure and can't find the info giving it 99ron e5 will be the safer option

[@luddite6239]

I always use Esso Synergy+ not for any potential improvements in performance or economy but because, in my area at least, it is completely ethanol-free. My vehicles are relatively old (27 and 13 years), don't cover many miles and are idle a lot if the time. I'm happy to pay a bit extra for the peace of mind.

[@idonotwantahandle2]

Your older bike will have no O2 sensors. The other one? Anyway, twice as much ethanol by volume is needed. Compare Esso Synergy with E10. With carburettors (no O2 sensors) running E10 means it is running 5% lean. If engine has 02 sensors, it uses 5% more. Simple.

[@luddite6239]

@@idonotwantahandle2 I'm not sure what your point is. As I said in my comment, I use Esso Synergy+ because it contains no ethanol so there is no danger of it damaging the rubber components in the older fuel systems.

[@dcarbs2979]

Ah, bless. They're just babies. Wait til they're tax-free!

[@luddite6239]

@@dcarbs2979 nice thought - but I'm not sure either the vehicles or me will last that long!

[@qasimmir7117]

A lot of premium petrol doesn’t have any ethanol. I’ve tested Shell V-Power, Esso Synergy Supreme+ 99, BP Ultimate, and Costco Premium. All no ethanol. My area is Lancashire.

[@andyg1957]

2013 Focus 1.6 Zetec. Filled up with Sainsburys hi-octane fuel. No difference whatsoever in mpg - still 40mpg. Bigger hole in the pocket, though.

[@dominicsheridan3173]

I use higher octane fuel on long road trips and on a full tank the range is roughly 70 miles more than if I used standard E10.

[@jusb1066]

In my Toyota Aygo it's worth around 5 miles per gallon which makes up for the price difference, and you can still feel the smoother running

[@tforlee2955]

I’ll have to give it a go!

[@bordersw1239]

That’s less than a 10% improvement in an Aygo.

[@ianmason.]

The Aygo engine only has a compression ratio of 10.5:1, I doubt that you'd see any actual improvement using fuel with a higher octane ratio as that's below the compression ratio where pre-ignition is likely to become a problem and therefore outside the region where you'd have engine efficiency loses from the ECU tweaking the ignition timing.

[@jusb1066]

@@ianmason. 12.5 to one actually, yes I repeatedly get 5 MPG extra

[@jusb1066]

@@bordersw1239 but it's worth it and it drives better

[@Upperfoot]

Running premium petrol for fuel efficiency = ✋️ Running premium to stop knock on your turbo banger = 👌

[@thegryd]

For the discerning petrol head 😂

[@Whoisnt]

should probably get that checked out

[@TheRip72]

Some older cars also contain components in their fuel system which can be damaged over time by the extra ethanol in E10. This is sort of related to 95/98RON because 95 are now E10 & 98 are E5. If there are exceptions to this, I have yet to find them.

[@tin2001]

​@@TheRip72 I'm glad we can still get 91 octane pure fuel here in Australia... I absolutely hate feeding expensive premium fuel to the mower. I personally think throwing away engines prematurely is probably far more damaging to the environment than letting us have pure cheap fuels.

[@andycapp3867]

I found when running motorcycles on E10 fuel they tend to be sluggish. Change to E5 and the performance is noticeably different. The same applies to chain saws and other small engines especially when firing up with a pull cord system. Not interested in mpg savings, efficiency is more important.

[@Figureight]

On my Evo I have no choice but to run V Power or Tesco Momentum as that's what it's mapped for. If I run normal fuel the engine would die. I think your results make sense given you're driving an ST too. I would like to see how it compares if you're doing this test with a more average commuter car. On my old car that had a Carburettor I tried running premium and it made the car run absolutely terribly.

[@norbertmayer7005]

It’s more important for V6 and larger engines. What would be more interesting is the ethanol mixture as it has less energy. Sometimes it’s 10%, 5% or none.

[@bart2903]

Thats why! V-power = 0% look at there website

[@DH-vh8el]

yep, it's ethanol, that's big, and answer is already known, you end up buying, more fuel to do the same distance, as you do before the added ethanol ?

[@rhone81]

I don't think there's any supplier in the UK now that has zero Ethanol. Either Shell or Esso were the last offering with their premium petrol but I think that's E5 now.

[@bart2903]

@@rhone81 If you look at the pump at the gas station, it will ALWAYS say e5 even if it contains 0%. e5 means Maximum 5% so it could also be 1%. here in the Netherlands, Belgium, and Germany: Shell, BP, Esso, Premium E5 fuels = 0% ethanol. ask the customer service of the parent company, not the employee behind the counter

[@rhone81]

​@@bart2903I'm referring to info on their websites such as "V Power contains up to 5% ethanol". Unless you can point to a supplier that guarantees 0% I'm not sure you're making the point you think you're making.

[@billyskoda6839]

My car is tuned, so I have no choice but to use E5. I wouldn't think of putting E10 in my worst enemy's vehicle. E5 prevents engine knock and damage due to poor combustion when using poor E10. When driving in Germany, I was lucky enough to fill up with 102 octane, which was noticeably better than 98 octane.

[@leeholden8658]

My go to garage on my older car (2003 Honda CRV) said it was better to use E5. By using E10 you’re not getting any of the extras that is included with E5 for protecting your engine. Not sure it’s a myth or not as I’ve not looked into it,with me only driving just over two years now. But I do find the MPG is better with E5 in my current Mitsubishi Eclipse Cross. I get over 34MPG with the 1.5 turbo petrol

[@sgraham15]

Use it all the time in my bikes.and car works for me ,i used E10 in one of my bikes and felt way down on power and lost 10mpg ,throttle was flat too. On my cars the exhaust using shell high octane always looked very clean compared to using Asda fuel for 2 fill ups this was over 200.000 miles over 5 years

[@MarkLeabon]

I used to race a bmw. Everyone used VPower for racing. We did it for the slight increase in power which I believe was proven on a rolling road. You could advance the ignition too. You probably wouldn't notice the power increase on the road though.

[@bart2903]

Hi Ashley, the fuel savings are because V-Power contains 0% Ethenol. only a higher octane than recommended by the manufacturer is a waste of money. BP / Aral offers 102 Ultimate 0% Ethenol here in Germany

[@richardlloyd2589]

I did some MPG monitoring pre & post E10 and it did cost me about 10% distance per tank. So IMO it was like an instant 10% price rise versus the previous E5.

[@ianholloway3778]

That was what people said would happen

[@plxton]

Tell me if I'm wrong but shouldn't you be using higher ron fuel for your vehicle anyway? Doesn't the model requrie higher ron for the ECU and engine. I don't think in this country any vehicles would be at risk of damage because the 95ron is still very good stuff, but with it being more of a performance model.

[@rolandstravels]

Shell V Power I use in my 2010 1.6 automatic Ford Focus. Occasionally I use other higher octane brands and these days rarely E10. V Power is makes the engine noticeably smoother and quieter. I can feel the difference between it and basic petrol.

[@solentbum]

When I had a petrol car I found that the biggest item that affected MPG was which garage I went to. As I recorded all of my fuel usage I found that using a Shell petrol was actually cheaper than using the same rated fuel from Jet. When I checked with trading standards I discovered that garages had a large 'leeway' in the accuracy of their pumps, something like 5%. ALso the additives in Shell did seem to make a difference in the longer run. Now my cost per mile is down to 1.75p per mile, but of course not using petrol. (cost based on todays 156 mile trip for lunch)

[@Musician-Lee]

I’m driving a petrol car and use V Power on every 2-3 tankfuls. I definitely get more miles from a tank. I do regular runs of 200-250 miles and get around 30 more miles from a fill up. But also, the car runs better for the next couple of fill ups too, so there’s a positive knock-on effect. It’s costing more in net terms though, so for pure cost reasons ignoring MPG the cheapest fuel will save money.

[@Duncan94]

For those who want to take extra care of their car the higher RON helps reduce the chances of knock due to the more efficient combustion. For those with turbocharged cars it's even more worth it. Combine those benefits with the increased MPG (due to V Power being E5) and it's a no-brainer.

[@smilerbob]

The old debate about which is best. If you have a "performance" engine then I believe it is recommended by the manufacturer to use the higher octane fuel to prevent engine damage. Listen to the manufacturer and also the engine, if a lesser octane fuel is used the engine will sound in pain (or knocking). In terms of cleaning the engine, I think it has the same effect as a can (or half a can) of Redex. For those that are on a tight budget, this could be the better option considering a you could get 4 uses of Redex (2 cans) for a similar price to the difference between standard and advanced fuel from the pump for a full tank. One thing I find that does make a difference is how the engine is used and maintained. Regular oil changes and keep the air filter clear and renew regular will definitely help the MPG as does warmer weather with less electrical load. For keeping the engine healthy, remember that if you do lots of short journeys that can affect the internals. Take you car on a long run occasionally to give it a clear out, charge the battery and also refine some of those lesser used driving abilities 👍

[@voivod6871]

No pretty sure all newish cars will work fine with lower octane fuel because they have knock sensors that adjust the ignition timing. This does have the disadvantage of reducing performance however.

[@smilerbob]

@@voivod6871 True, but the older performance engines wont 👍

[@JohnnyMQB]

@@voivod6871 will work fine but your not getting the full power rating engine will be pulling timing,people will still use 95 anyway even if it says 99 cant fix dafties

[@ibs5080]

One way I save when back in Vancouver Canada and it's something many of my fellow Canadians do. That is, I fill up when I'm south of the border, since "gas" as it's known over there is considerably cheaper in the USA versus Canada. Of course, this is only worthwhile if I am making trips into the US to begin with but I know of many Canadians who live very near the US border that fill up in the US as a matter of routine because it's cheaper. Of course, all this wasn't possible during the two years the border was closed due to COVID and for the first time in years, these folks had no choice but to fill up in Canada. Most of the gas stations just across the border in the USA rely very heavily on Canadians for their business and because of this phenomenon, they raise their prices, much to the annoyance of local Americans. The further you drive south from the border, generally the cheaper the fuel, until you hit the bigger cities. Comparing the fuel price in Canada to USA involves a fair bit of calculation, including converting Canadian cents per litre to the advertised price in US $ and US gallons south of the border, factoring in also the exchange rate between Canadian and US $. Incidentally, you don't have to declare the new fuel in your tank when crossing the border. Unfortunately though, some of my fellow Canadians are a bit excessive with all this and fill up many jerry cans to take back, a practice that's frowned upon, especially on safety grounds.

[@kenbrown2808]

when I worked in a petrol station, Canada was still using UK gallons, which made the conversion easy, since the difference in the US dollar and the Canadian dollar was roughly the same as the difference between the US gallon and the UK gallon. our big difference was that Washington had no fuel tax at the time, and we had a 24 cent per gallon tax, so Washington residents were sure our 5-10 cent increase in price was because of our full service law. (btw, for those UK residents who don't already know, we call it "gas" because it is short for gasoline.)

[@ibs5080]

@@kenbrown2808 That's interesting to hear Ken and I learned a few new things. One thing I recall at US gas stations though I believe it's being phased out: Some US gas stations were prompting you at the pump to enter the US Zip Code of the address registered to the credit card you are using to pay at the pump. This would cause a bit of a challenge to us Canadians since we don't have Zip Codes (i.e. a 5 digit all numeric string) but rather a 6 character alphanumeric Post Code, similar to the UK. You'd have to go inside and prepay, which was awkward when trying to estimate the $ value of a fill-up. However, I quickly found a workaround. Namely, to enter the numeric portion of my Canadian post code, which consists of three digits. Then "pad" the remaining two digits with zeros. This worked.a treat. Lately though (as in my previous two US visits) I haven't encountered this prompt, so am wondering if this got phased out?

[@kenbrown2808]

@@ibs5080 it got phased out with the adoption of chip & PIN.

[@ColinCarFan]

The expensive stuff is sometimes worth it when going on a longer journey - you can go that little bit further between fuel stops or have a bit more confidence you'll reach the next service station if you just missed the one you planned. Becomes more relevant when towing.

[@AmbroseB1900]

Fuel economy is not the only advantage of premium fuels. My experience started with a Citroën C5 Mk1 2.2 HDi (great engine) which I initially ran on Tesco diesel. I then tried BP Ultimate and within a few miles noticed how much quieter and smoother the engine was and pickup was much crisper. When the BP got dearer, I found that Asda diesel with Millers Ecomax added gave the same result for less. The Millers adds 2 cetane numbers to the fuel and gives better acceleration. You can also double dose it for even more performance. If you don't exploit the acceleration too much you get more mpg. I decided then to try similar with our petrol cars, one turbo the other non turbo. We finished up using Tesco Momentum fuel, sometimes with Millers Ecomax petrol added. Both cars are quieter, smoother and have improved acceleration. The non turbo is also incredibly more flexible and pulls well at low revs; 20 mph in 4th is easily doable with no sign of strain. Both petrol cars give better economy against standard fuel and the quieter and smoother performance convinces me that it is better for the engines so there is no way I would run on standard fuel whether petrol or diesel.

[@ravensthorne4631]

I've never used E10 in either of my cars. One of them is over 20 years old and the other is a V6. I'm sure E10 is fine in smaller engine cars under 10 years old.

[@steveblack728]

Hi Ashley, I drive a 3ltr TDI and have tested both The Higher Octane Fuels and the ‘Additives’ over the past few years, I found approx 8% better MPG with the Higher Octane , and similar adding Octane Booster additive, I generally use Costco who provide only the Higher Octane Diesel but up to 15p ltr cheaper, I also tow a caravan and found a slight improvement over the Supermarket Fuels, strangely I find that I get better MPG whilst in Scotland , which always makes me smile 😂 good channel many thanks

[@rickconstant6106]

As far as I'm aware, diesel fuel doesn't have an octane rating, but has a cetane rating instead. I don't think using an octane booster in diesel fuel would have any benefits.

[@steveblack728]

@@rickconstant6106 sorry I meant cetane it’s from Amazon and certainly quietens the diesel knock

[@malcolm6951]

Was advised by the VW dealer when I bought my Mk7GTi to use Tesco premium which I did as they were local to me, for around 15 months. The had to fill up elsewhere and used Shell V power I noticed immediately the engine ran smoother, picked up quicker. Never went away from V Power. VW recommend premium fuel, yes some will say I'm wasting money but the additional cost to, maybe, look after the engine is worth it. Like using good quality oil on regular changes. Few £'s now v potentially many, many £'s should the engine go 'south'!

[@kenbrown2808]

the instant mileage readout gives you an easy cheat, since it tells you how your MPG changes. and it is MPG that is the relevant number. when I was younger and less task-saturated, I actually kept a log of all my fuel use, and it provided a nice warning if there was something that needed attention, of course, back then, your calculated mileage could fluctuate based on how well you filled the tank. now with fuel injection, cars count the amount burned in real time. of course, cars also monitor to make sure they are using the fuel as efficiently as possible, allowing for noticeable differences in efficiency on better fuel. the next test would be to compare cheap brands of fuel to more expensive brands in the same grade. for the viewers, be aware that there are two recommendations to pay attention to: there may be a requirement for a minimum octane, in which case, using lower octane may result in engine trouble, or there may be a recommendation for a minimum octane, which means your car will perform better on higher octane fuel. if there is no recommendation, it will probably make little difference. also, under 25 MPG on regular isn't living up to the hype of fuel sipping UK cars - my daily driver gets 25.1 per US gallon which is only 4/5 of a UK gallon.

[@ChaimU1]

the question is, is the v-power more efficient because it's a higher octane level or is it because it is E5 versus the regular unleaded which is E10?

[@hicky62]

I worked for an Audi dealer many years ago, so surely I'm forgiven! But we did this experiment with an S3 over a month. We found consumption roughly the same, but performance improvement. It was the managers vehicle, so whilst not exactly the same usage, it was pretty close. Using Vpower or equivalent is worth it in a performance oriented vehicle, but not the majority of vehicles. I certainly don't use it in my Yaris.

[@truth.speaker]

It would be interesting to do it as a blind test where the driver doesn't know which fuel the car has inside. Would he think performance is different?

[@ibs5080]

Good strategy with the choice of pump at the beginning there Ash. I do the same if I see the driver of the vehicle at the pump ahead of me likely about to move off, I reckon it's my worth the brief wait for them to move off and for me to then move up and use the "forward" pump, which then frees up a space for someone else to use the rear pump. It really all depends on how long my anticipated wait is assessed.

[@anth4002]

I do the exact same thing too :) nice to know others think alike

[@davem9204]

You've got to assess whether the person looks like the sort that'll faff around for 5 minutes when they get back in their car, or will just put on their belt and go immediately. If they've got some odds and ends from the shop then there's a higher chance of faffery.

[@ibs5080]

​@@davem9204Yes, exactly that! It is a bit of a roll of the dice admittedly and there's a "cut off" point where I decide to use the rear pump after all...at which time the other driver invariably moves off, making me look like a fool for not using the forward pump! "Aay up, look at that plonker. Why didn't they drive up to the furthest pump!"😊

[@vivalesvegas]

Many many years ago, I had a 4.0 Jeep Cherokee. I found that using V-Power I could get 27mpg, which was more than on regular Shell. At the time, it was “only” £1/l, and the difference in fuel economy was greater than the difference in price. I now drive a 5.3 Chevrolet Suburban, in Cornwall, and have been using Texaco’s normal petrol for over a decade. Because my engine isn’t tuned for 97, I seem to get less mpg, but using 95, I’m able to get 24mpg on the run, where the book said I should get only 14-18. Currently, the price difference is too great for the difference in economy. I think that the ethanol content may have a big factor in your results, as regular is up to 10% ethanol content, and super is up to 5% ethanol.

[@warren6815]

A number of years ago when fuel was cheaper I used to always fill up with 'premium' fuels. Back then it used to only cost an extra few quid for a full tank. I only had a mid-range petrol Astra, so there were no performance gains, but it used to always feel like it ran smoother. When it came to the MoT the emissions would barely register. That car managed almost 200k before I got rid of it, whether or not the fuel helped I'm not sure! With the price difference between standard and premium fuels increasing I used to fill every other tank with premium fuel in my current van. Same again, no performance gains, but it did appear to run better. I can't justify using premium diesel now, and haven't for about 18 months but I have noticed the engine is noticeably rougher and not as smooth and my MPG dropped slightly. It'd only be a couple of MPG, but enough to lower the long term average. I've started to use RedEx additive now and it seems to be improving MPG towards what I got with the premium diesel.

[@javiTests]

It all depends on the engine. If the engine is designed to be more efficient with 98, then filling with 95 will reduce the power of the engine (it'll detect knock before and retard the ignition to be safe) and normally, it'll consume a bit more since it's not able to achieve the efficiency it's designed for. But if the engine is designed to use 95, it's rare if anything improves. There is the discussion about the additives, and that could make more sense when the engines had port injection. But since almost all (if not all) modern engines are direct injection, the fuel doesn't touch the intake ports or valves at all, so the carbon from the EGR with the oil fumes that is trying to burn, will result in carbon deposits on the valves and intake in general and I don't think the expensive fuel is going to do anything there. I'd use whatever the manufacturer recommends for the engine.

[@trick700]

I’m not sure you’d notice much difference on city driving. However, I’ve noticed my car returns significantly better mpg on long journeys. If I’m planning long I fill up with V-power and enjoy the drive. I use cruise control at exactly the speed limit on motorways and the engine sounds more relaxed

[@dcarbs2979]

I found it to be worth it. I used it exclusively for my 1986 2.8i Capri when she was over 30 years old and 150,000 miles in. More MPG without a doubt. It went up from 25 to over 30 (on some roads even 35mpg+), calculated manually from tank to tank compared to when she was newer and using LRP. I also found the increase in price per litre was negated by the higher efficiancy, making the price per mile cheaper than on the cheaper fuel. What does surprise me, is that something as modern as yours with a smaller engine is no more efficient than a 40-year old V6! Even my carburetted V6 limousine from 1985 regularly did over 20 and frequently 25mpg using VPower. No computers in either car.

[@Chigleybus]

That's all very well but how did you know your Capri was female? 🤔

[@pedalinpete]

The higher octane number should allow the engine management system to run the engine more efficiently at higher turbo boost pressures. When it detects knocking, it will normally inject more fuel to cool the combustion chamber, which of course increases fuel consumption.

[@StuyMac1]

The important part is the higher octane rating and what rating is suggested for your vehicle. If you car requires higher octane fuel, then putting in the cheap stuff makes the ECU pull timing and will reduce power, more so on turbo charged engines. The higher octane fuel, like premium diesel isnt really potent enough to "clean" the engine, but will reduce any potential buildup of carbon, and will help maintain performance and efficiency if used consistently. Higher octane fuel does burn better though, regardless of engine requirements, and should improve MPG regardless of if the engine requires this type of fuel or not. Both my cars suggest 98 Octane (or higher), on the fuel filler cap, so they only get premium fuel.

[@javiTests]

Where did you see that higher octane fuel burns better? If the car is designed to use 95 to achieve it's rated power, using 98 is not going to do anything, like improving MPG. Where you can notice a change in the consumption is on the amount of ethanol the fuel contains (ethanol is less energy dense than petrol), but it's not related directly to the octane on the petrol pump. I think any changes on fuel consumption on a car that is designed to use 95 are due to placebo effect or changing the driving, even subconsciously. I haven't seen any scientific evidence that tells me otherwise, hence my question.

[@StuyMac1]

When I worked at JLR developing hybrid solutions we tested various fuels in house. Fundamentally premium fuel is E5, regular is E10 - higher ethanol content reduces calorific content and reduced mpg over premium. The higher calorific value also gave a longer burn increasing ERGs slightly, and reducing emissions by increasing catalytic converter efficiency. The fuel is more efficient, though you need an ECU that advanced enough, and is able to monitor and adjust to make use of the fuel.

[@javiTests]

@@StuyMac1 Yes, I was looking at the ethanol content of 98RON but I couldn't find anything. It's true that ethanol is less energy dense than petrol, so you need more E10 to get the same energy than with E5, but then it depends on the ethanol content, not the octane rating, right?

[@StuyMac1]

Yes and no. If you go back to E5 95RON, the molecular chemistry is different between regular and premium. While the higher octane is good for performance, it’s recommended by manufacturers to use it to increase mpg and emission tests for VED classification.

[@RichardMaguire110]

I use regular fuels. I have tried the premium stuff and found only a smalll difference. 114,000 miles on my engine and it runs fine. I do the occasional Italian tune up on a local uphill dual carriageway witth the car loaded in third gear at 70, this produces a noticable inprovement after lots of local driving.

[@clivewilliams3661]

I proved to myself the value of using Shell V Power and the competitors alternatives years ago. Generally speaking, V Power gives me more than 10% better fuel consumption for around 7-8% cost premium locally for same supplier ordinary unleaded, so the maths shows a distinct advantage in using V Power. The same applies to other brands and even the supermarket fuels, where 'Super' is available (Tesco and Sainsbury only). Then we come to the most important factor for me and that is fuel quality. At one time I used supermarket fuel exclusively and found that although performance didn't appear to drop off, over a large number of miles on one car the engine warning light came on for no obvious reason and changing to a branded fuel resolved the issue. It turned out that the Lamda sensor was noting a reduction in the quality of the exhaust emissions that was probably due to the reduced additives that is one of the reasons that supermarkets can offer a price incentive on their fuel. In my experience Morrisons basic unleaded is the worst with Sainsbury's the best of the big 4. The branded 'Super' grades have all stated higher additive content in their fuels. With the introduction of E10 the Govt has announced that E10 will give less fuel consumption than E5 and thus you could expect that 'Super' will show even greater advantages as its E5 over the common E10 only basic unleaded. That is notwithstanding that 'Super' has been shown to have less than the 5% Ethanol, typically 3-4%, than stated on the pump, with some companies, particularly Shell and Esso confirming that in some areas E5 'Super' i.e. V=Power and Momentum contain no Ethanol at all. Ethanol is generally no good for the engine or its components so that the least or no Ethanol content is preferred (environmental concerns excepted). I now have to use 'Super' for all my horticultural engines as well as my classic cars and motorcycle to prevent damage, notwithstanding that Ethanol does not store well so that it only lasts weeks as E10, a couple of months for E5 and 6 months for Ethanol free fuel. with all the foregoing I now won't use anything other than 'Super'. i note that Ashley is comparing a supermarket E10 fuel with a branded 'Super' fuel that is hardly a fair comparison both in terms of the base quality and cost point.

[@macaalf8219]

As said before high octane has to do with knock resistance and nothing else. If yor engine is designed for 96 RON there is NO NEED whatsoever to go higher. A few years back a study has been carried out at a german university confirming exactly that. OTHER additives in V Power or other high octane fuels may have a cleaning effect it but these can be bought in any supermarket. Now IF your engine is a direct injection type it is more important to get the inlet valves and stems cleaned (as only air flows past them, no gas in there other than that returned by the EGR) every now and then.

[@BurpTheKitten]

I do the same - one tank of V-Power for 3 or 4 of the cheap stuff. Like you, the extra mpg is not warranted by the price. BUT - I also find I'm getting a couple more mpg out of the cheap stuff, presumably because it keeps the injectors clean and functioning properly. V-Power is all I use on my 97 carburated motorbike - I only do a couple of thousand miles a year and E10 clogs the carbs up if the bike isn't used regularly. The advantages are more than just the extra mpg.

[@markjackson8035]

I remember Evo magazine tested a few premium fuels several years ago in a variety of cars and found they generally gave about 5% extra power (theoretically a similar increase in fuel efficiency). Shell V Power is around 10% more expensive than its standard unleaded - so do the maths on the efficiency argument.

[@mog0]

I used to use Shell Optimax when I had a Primera GT back when it was only 6p/l more than regular (and still only 99p/l) and it worked out the same cost due to increased mpg. It also felt like it had more power but that might have been my imagination (but still good, if it was). I then upgraded to an 03 Lotus Elise 111S (with Rover k-series VVC) and it returned the exact same mpg regardless of which fuel used! It's very dependent on whether your engine is optimised to take advantage of higher octane fuels.

[@richierich9761]

I find as a rule if the car is a performance version and especially if it’s turbo charged then premium 99 fuel gives better mpg and more performance .

[@williammcintosh4787]

I've had a diesel work van since 2008. Initially was getting around 42mpg. Over the years this dropped off to around 38mpg and I assumed this was due to wear and tear. Over the last few years I've noticed a return to the 42 mpg era. Maybe as we're not getting fuel from Russian sources?

[@tombarnes2049]

I had Mazda6 diesel for 10 years and had constant DPF issues even though I did long runs. That was until I switched to High Octane fuel after which no issues with DPF even when I changed job and didn’t have the long daily commute.

[@gpibarr1]

I think the thing is people expect miracles from VPower in performance and economy, where in effect it is mostly about cleaning, i'm about to move from a diesel but in my city found Diesel V Power would double the mileage before a DPF clean compared to supermarket diesel.

[@leedsgeek2681]

It’s recommend for for every 4 tanks of supermarket use 1 expensive fuel, I have noticed my engine seems to like it and eliminates the need for products like redex, fyi I’m a Ford diesel

[@MrSonicAdvance]

I use super unleaded as I think it's better value for money. You get a better additive pack, a little more power/mpg and reduce the risk of pinking. I think there's more low down torque too, but it's hard to be sure unless you put the car on a rolling road.

[@Leo99929]

There are some cars that would be damaged with lower octane fuels due to pre-ignition and so can only be ran on higher octane. Putting higher octane fuel in an engine with a lower compression ratio safe for a lower octane fuel use would not necessarily result in increased power, efficiency, or clean burning. If you are putting your engine under abnormally high load like towing, then you might see a small benefit from the higher octane.

[@BangaBuseslad]

Interesting this Ashley! Thanks for showing this on here! 😊