V-Power - Hmmmm.....

[Ennui78]

Ok ok.....so this means, got money and/or lotsa time on the highway - stick to V Power.

Urban and Extra-Urban, with little chance of stretching one's legs on the accelerator, use the 95?

 

[ken]

not 2.25 meh?

confirm v power price is rm2.38 / L

 

[astroboy]

The statistic given by Schwepps for all fuel tyes are RM2/L.. hmnnn.. did I miss anything?!

ULG 95: RM275/153.0lit, RM2/L
ULG97: RM310151.5lit, RM2/L
VPower: RM313136.0lit, RM2/L

 

[Schwepps]

Yes...a) you missed all your math classes, and
b) I've told you before to get a calculator.

ULG 95: RM275/153.0lit = RM1.80/l
ULG97: RM310/151.5lit = RM2.05/l
VPower: RM313/136.0lit = RM2.30/l

 

[astroboy]

oOOoo... Just realised my over sophisticated calculator was set to round up.. dammit! Kids in the house!!

 

[David Yong]

oOOoo... Just realised my over sophisticated calculator was set to round up.. dammit! Kids in the house!!

This shows how much you have been relying on technology to do simple calculation! And worst of all, you have your full trust on it. Hahaha... bad bad astroboy :wink:

 

[Schwepps]

oOOoo... Just realised my over sophisticated calculator was set to round up.. dammit! Kids in the house!!

Yeah, that can happen if you play with the kids' HP scientific calculator. Better use Windows Start-All Programs-Accessories-Calculator. You won't go wrong with that one.

I said already that my test is very accurate. You can trust my numbers. :wink:

 

[Traveler]

My own personal tests comparing the 3 fuels (all using Shell fuels) on my 325i Sports in an urban environment (city roads + city highways only, no outstation trips included), measured over distances of over 1500km each time produced these results:

Shell RON95 (Fuel Save): 6.8km/L or RM0.26/km (@RM1.80/L)
Shell RON97: 7.0km/L or RM0.29/km (@RM2.05/L)
Shell V-Power: 7.4km/L or RM0.32/km (@RM2.38/L) - using the latest price for V-Power

The numbers appear quite close to Schwepps' figures.

However, I noticed the most recent batch of RON95 had noticeably worse FC. Over a distance of 700km or so, I am seeing 6.6km/L or RM0.27/km. I am not sure if this due to recent traffic conditions or the fuel itself. I am continuing this run at RON95 for now.

For city driving, I generally do not notice much difference in "power" between the 3 fuels, although I do think I feel a bit of difference between RON95 and V-Power, but since it wasn't a blind test, it could just be the knowledge of what fuel I am using influencing my perceptions.

 

[racheltoh]

sigh..i didnt know we can use Ron95 for 325...All these while i m hunting Vpower (first priority) then ron97.

 

[Schwepps]

I think we've mentioned before that RON95 is the gasoline used most in Europe. I don't think 2 units of RON will make any difference to the engine timing advance and it's the same base gasoline as RON97 anyway, with a few drops less of octane booster. Try it Rachel, and if your car doesn't knock, you can use it without worry. Even our Merc runs on RON95 now. 25 sen per km vs 32 sen per km is a lot over time.

 

[Traveler]

Rachel, our 325's can take as low as RON91, so don't worry about it

 

[Schwepps]

Yeah, if you use a fuel and you don't hear knocking, it means your car's anti-knock sensor also doesn't hear it, and the ECU won't retard the engine's timing presets to compensate. Power will therefore be the same between ULG95 and ULG97 because they come from the same base ULG stock, only with different levels of anti-knock additive. You'd just be paying 25 sen/lit more for the extra anti-knock which you don't need. The misconception that RON97 is a higher number and therefore must be more powerful than RON95 is completely wrong, just like the misconception that 0W-30 oil is a lower number and therefore must be thinner than 5W-30 oil. RON 92, 95 and 97 are from the same base ULG stock. 0W-30 and 5W-30 are from the same base SAE30 stock. Just different levels of anti-knock and pour point depressant respectively.

Traveller's test results match mine and therefore it would seem that VPower is indeed a different fuel. I've heard from a forumer in the O&G field that the hydrocarbon makeup is different from ULG, and that's probably the reason there is a different burn characteristic and is therefore more EFFICIENT. Whether it's more POWERFUL or not is still a question mark.

I'll continue my test, and I hope that Traveller and others will too. The results are interesting. :top:

 

[racheltoh]

10q....now i will have money to buy Astroboy a birthday gift ;p

 

[e60FANster]

vpower @ 2.38/ltr approximately 6% increase.
vpower still gives me e best milleage in comparison to Ron97.
tried bhp, shell, caltex ron97 and i cld feel performance degradation especially throttle response.
among the 2 if you're dead set on Ron97, i personally think BHP is e best then shell and lastly caltex.
since i've no problem locating a shell station tt stocks vpower, i'm sticking to it despite its price increase.
nothing beats e feeling of punting arnd town on vpower... SHELL VPOWER :top:

 

[Traveler]

I'll continue my test, and I hope that Traveller and others will too. The results are interesting. :top:

I intend to run this test continuously for as long as I own the car, probably resetting the data every 1-2k km. It's a good way to monitor your car and see if something is going wrong. After I changed my four tyres, the tyre guys messed up my alignment and I immediately noticed a rise in fuel consumption (along with the out-of-alignment feel on the steering wheel). So having an eye on your FC is one way of noticing things going awry, especially if you made no changes to your driving routes, driving style, fuel, etc.

 

[e60FANster]

my vpower fc for predominantly city driving averages 6.6 to 6.8km/ltr, i'm on 19"s & pending for 1st service.
hopefully after my 1st service, my FC will improve.. fingers crossed...
fc improves drastically when the car is able to cruise on h/way if 80-90% city driving, 6ish is wat u get

 

[t2ribena]

wah...u guys getting 6.8 to 7.0km/l average fc for 325 and that translate to about 14l/100km of fc right? isn't it abit high? heavy right foot driving?

 

[astroboy]

... However, I noticed the most recent batch of RON95 had noticeably worse FC. ....

Yes! I had the same felling, 2 tanks Shell FuelSave 95 lio... now on 3rd tank into year 2010..

I'm suspecting they have removed the FuelSave additive for RON95 this year.. Last year's Shell Ron95 was good!

 

[Schwepps]

tried bhp, shell, caltex ron97 and i cld feel performance degradation especially throttle response. among the 2 if you're dead set on Ron97, i personally think BHP is e best then shell and lastly caltex.

Try to think where BHP and all the rest get their base gasoline from. Eg, is there a BHP refinery in Malaysia? Caltex refinery? Mobil refinery? Unless they're importing the gasoline, and storing in tank farms, it's all the SAME base ULG from the 2 refineries serving the Klang Valley through the pipeline and KVDT: Petronas Melaka and Shell PD. It's a marketing game. :wink:

 

[etquah]

No more guesswork

Since the subject of fuel has come up again, I'll share the results of the test I've done in the last few months. I filled with 3 consecutive tankfuls of each Shell fuel and recorded the distance travelled. My car is the 6-cyl 325i Sports. Only urban cycle (city and city highway) was recorded, and any outstation trips in between were excluded. The figs are very accurate as they were taken from full tank to full tank. The results are quite telling:

ULG 95: 1,100km - 153.0lit - RM275 - 13.9lit/100km - RM0.25 per km
ULG97: 1,071km - 151.5lit - RM310 - 14.1lit/100km - RM0.29 per km
VPower: 1,075km - 136.0lit - RM313 - 12.7lit/100km - RM0.29 per km

Conclusion - VPower is the clear winner in fuel consumption, but the economy is negated by the high cost. ULG95 is the clear winner in economy. ULG97 is the clear loser all round.

Using ULG95 didn't pose any problem, no knocking nor loss of power in urban driving. In fact, i didn't feel any difference among the 3 fuels in urban driving. I am continuing the 3 consecutive tankfuls test and will see the results when the cumulative distance is ~2,000km each.

Looks like using Ron 95 is value for money. Hopefully in the long run, no side effects on our UDM