2 registered members (FABIAN, 1 invisible),
204
guests, and 1
spider. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
Forums69
Topics113,948
Posts1,344,213
Members1,629
|
Most Online1,570 Dec 2nd, 2024
|
|
|
Re: Shell 'V' Power = Better Fuel Economy ?
[Re: pinin_prestatyn]
#828287
08/05/2009 21:14
08/05/2009 21:14
|
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,985 In an Audi
Taffy20vt
My life on the forum
|
My life on the forum
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,985
In an Audi
|
The most I've had out of a tank of V-power is 405 miles
Ex 432bhp '00 Sprinty 20vt6 '17 S3 Sportback '69 Amazon 131
|
|
|
Re: Shell 'V' Power = Better Fuel Economy ?
[Re: Taffy20vt]
#828294
08/05/2009 21:27
08/05/2009 21:27
|
coupedave
Unregistered
|
coupedave
Unregistered
|
i used to get better fuel economy from it in the old coupe
|
|
|
Re: Shell 'V' Power = Better Fuel Economy ?
[Re: bockers]
#828344
08/05/2009 22:39
08/05/2009 22:39
|
doody
Unregistered
|
doody
Unregistered
|
i was saying this to Dawn (the mrs) that my car seems to do more mpg with v power than the regular unleaded.
|
|
|
Re: Shell 'V' Power = Better Fuel Economy ?
[Re: ]
#828348
08/05/2009 22:49
08/05/2009 22:49
|
samsite999
Unregistered
|
samsite999
Unregistered
|
makes no odds at all with my coupe, and has never made any odds at all in any of my cars
reg unleaded = 500+ miles on a tank, i did the lakes meet and all the driving around up there, some driving around the lakes on my own on the second day, and back home (not hanging about...) easily in under a tank
|
|
|
Re: Shell 'V' Power = Better Fuel Economy ?
[Re: Boosted7]
#828349
08/05/2009 22:50
08/05/2009 22:50
|
bazza_c
Unregistered
|
bazza_c
Unregistered
|
It doesn't seem to make any difference whether I use V-power or standard unleaded, I can't seem to get more than 300 miles per tank, even if I drive really conservatively and do lots of motorway cruising. Replaced my thermostat thinking this might improve things, but it hasn't. Can't imagine how some of you guys are getting 350-400 miles per tank Drive it like a diesel, exploiting all the low down smoothness of the five pot and its inherent torque - changing up a gear at around 2000rpm when accelerating, light throttle at all times, 60-65mph max on motorways, taking foot off throttle and coasting towards adverse traffic lights/ roundabouts / lower speed restrictions. . I probably would get 500 miles to a tank, even without a six speeder, but after a few days of easy driving, I just can't resist the urge to exploit the power. Hence - only 350 miles. Saying that - 360 miles to the last tank worked out around 30mpg, which is pretty good for this sort of performance car. Never expected more than 20-25mpg average TBH.
|
|
|
Re: Shell 'V' Power = Better Fuel Economy ?
[Re: ]
#828351
08/05/2009 22:53
08/05/2009 22:53
|
bazza_c
Unregistered
|
bazza_c
Unregistered
|
makes no odds at all with my coupe, and has never made any odds at all in any of my cars
reg unleaded = 500+ miles on a tank, i did the lakes meet and all the driving around up there, some driving around the lakes on my own on the second day, and back home (not hanging about...) easily in under a tank Is yours a six-speeder? I've heard a six-speeder can easily achieve 450 miles to a tank. How many MPH to 1000rpm in sixth gear? Sure the five speeder's fifth gear is around 25.1mph to 1000rpm, so just under 3000rpm at 70mph.
|
|
|
Re: Shell 'V' Power = Better Fuel Economy ?
[Re: ]
#828355
08/05/2009 22:54
08/05/2009 22:54
|
doody
Unregistered
|
doody
Unregistered
|
at 70 mph mine is at 2,500 in sixth
|
|
|
Re: Shell 'V' Power = Better Fuel Economy ?
[Re: ]
#828359
08/05/2009 22:58
08/05/2009 22:58
|
bazza_c
Unregistered
|
bazza_c
Unregistered
|
Can a 6-speed easily be fitted in place of 5-speeder?
|
|
|
Re: Shell 'V' Power = Better Fuel Economy ?
[Re: ]
#828361
08/05/2009 23:03
08/05/2009 23:03
|
DanDan
Unregistered
|
DanDan
Unregistered
|
i cant imagine how hard i would have to drive mine just to get 300 miles on a tank. i will always come in with well over 350 miles no matter what fuel i use, though i have to stick to V power now as its been remapped to that. Mabye its other factors involved like a tired thermostat Unless you all drive like crazy fools
|
|
|
Re: Shell 'V' Power = Better Fuel Economy ?
[Re: ]
#828391
09/05/2009 05:23
09/05/2009 05:23
|
Bosco
Unregistered
|
Bosco
Unregistered
|
6 speeder ,v power a must (still 98.4 in my area) on motorway fantastic mpg as you only feather the throttle to stay at 70 / 2600 ish revs... but ,use the coupe on a few short shopping runs and you can litteraly watch you gauge drop which kills your average on a tank full as does peak district hilly country lanes....( no differant than my daily car )
|
|
|
Re: Shell 'V' Power = Better Fuel Economy ?
[Re: ]
#828496
09/05/2009 12:15
09/05/2009 12:15
|
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 6,793 In the coupe.
magooagain
Club Member 259
|
Club Member 259
Forum is my life
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 6,793
In the coupe.
|
I got 450miles to tankfull.Running down to france using 98 octaine.
|
|
|
Re: Shell 'V' Power = Better Fuel Economy ?
[Re: magooagain]
#829230
11/05/2009 07:37
11/05/2009 07:37
|
Wolfman
Unregistered
|
Wolfman
Unregistered
|
I know im probably teaching granny to suck eggs but I'd like to point out that tyre pressure makes an important difference to fuel economy as well. Making sure you tyres are all at the correct pressure is a must!
I just managed 230 miles on half a tank (of V-Power) and I believe that I've got the thermostat problem so that ain't half bad ....
-wolfman
|
|
|
Re: Shell 'V' Power = Better Fuel Economy ?
[Re: ]
#829534
11/05/2009 15:29
11/05/2009 15:29
|
FreakinFreak
Unregistered
|
FreakinFreak
Unregistered
|
^^^trouble is, half a tank on the gauge is not half a tank. I reckon you'll get about seventy-five/eighty from that remaining 'half'.
|
|
|
Re: Shell 'V' Power = Better Fuel Economy ?
[Re: ]
#829543
11/05/2009 15:37
11/05/2009 15:37
|
Wolfman
Unregistered
|
Wolfman
Unregistered
|
I'll let you know how I get on! -wolfman
|
|
|
Re: Shell 'V' Power = Better Fuel Economy ?
[Re: ]
#915328
10/10/2009 08:54
10/10/2009 08:54
|
mona
Unregistered
|
mona
Unregistered
|
Just been reading a letter to Honest John (The Telegraph's Motoring Expert) from last year Re: V-Power. It's as follows: I am a psychiatric nurse with a very reliable Toyota Avensis 1.8. I do not buy supermarket petrol. When I have bought ordinary unleaded petrol, the range, according to my computer, was 360 miles. When I filled with either Excelium, (BP) Ultimate or (old Shell) Optimax, the range increased to 402 miles. On Shell V-Power, the computer indicates a range of 529 miles. Does this not prove that the advice of buying the cheapest petrol is a myth and one should be looking for value for money? It costs more, but is better for the engine and works out more economical (my Avensis returns 42mpg). What are your thoughts?HJ responded thus: "I am a firm believer in V-Power and of the economy benefit because it allows even my Fiat 500 to pull better from lower revs. It's averaging 51.2mpg, mostly on short runs, compared with official figures of 44.1 Urban and 55.4 Combined."I handed over a crisp £50 note in exchange for a tankful of the "Ferrari F1 fuel for the road" in my Passat 1.8T 20v yesterday .....
|
|
|
Re: Shell 'V' Power = Better Fuel Economy ?
[Re: ]
#915507
10/10/2009 18:09
10/10/2009 18:09
|
Gilly20vt
Unregistered
|
Gilly20vt
Unregistered
|
i drove mine trying to keep off boost the other day and i think i was getting about 33 mpg on normal shell fuel which is awesome although in a hurry to get home spoilt all my hard work lol
Last edited by Gilly20vt; 10/10/2009 18:10.
|
|
|
Re: Shell 'V' Power = Better Fuel Economy ?
[Re: Tommy_Coop23]
#915625
10/10/2009 21:07
10/10/2009 21:07
|
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,336 Selby
Mansilla
My job on the forum
|
My job on the forum
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,336
Selby
|
Never done the maths with the Fiat, but on my old Saab non-supermarket fuels were worth 2-3 mpg extra. V-Power or whatever was a little more again, but I didn't feel it was worth the extra money - particularly while I was doing 2k a month.
Having said that, the coupe drinks V-Power.
1. Think of something witty and urbane 2. Imagine it written here
|
|
|
Re: Shell 'V' Power = Better Fuel Economy ?
[Re: Mansilla]
#915920
11/10/2009 16:10
11/10/2009 16:10
|
Morat
Unregistered
|
Morat
Unregistered
|
Do Coupes have knock sensors? If so, then great news: they can take advantage of the extra octane rating and alter the spark timing a few degrees to get more power. If they don't, then you're not going to see any difference from the octane rating, just a marginal difference from the alleged cleaning effects of the detergents.
|
|
|
Re: Shell 'V' Power = Better Fuel Economy ?
[Re: ]
#915923
11/10/2009 16:15
11/10/2009 16:15
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 32,122 Cumbria
stan
Dr. Frankenstan
|
Dr. Frankenstan
Forum Demigod
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 32,122
Cumbria
|
Do Coupes have knock sensors? 20v engines, both turbo and normally aspirated, have two knock sensors.
|
|
|
Re: Shell 'V' Power = Better Fuel Economy ?
[Re: stan]
#915933
11/10/2009 16:24
11/10/2009 16:24
|
Morat
Unregistered
|
Morat
Unregistered
|
Good news then, you'll definitely benefit from the good stuff. I take it 16V engines don't? Please tell me I've been putting the right fuel in all these years!!!
|
|
|
Re: Shell 'V' Power = Better Fuel Economy ?
[Re: barnacle]
#915960
11/10/2009 17:34
11/10/2009 17:34
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 32,122 Cumbria
stan
Dr. Frankenstan
|
Dr. Frankenstan
Forum Demigod
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 32,122
Cumbria
|
16v engines retard progress Oh I say! Okay, I'm outta here------------->
|
|
|
Re: Shell 'V' Power = Better Fuel Economy ?
[Re: Edinburgh]
#916104
11/10/2009 23:15
11/10/2009 23:15
|
GT_SEB0
Unregistered
|
GT_SEB0
Unregistered
|
I only use 95 ron standard petrol as the 16vt doesnt learn from what fuel your using so standard or ypower you wont see any gains the only thing i got from a full tank of vpower was less mpg it was shocking so i stick to standard
|
|
|
|