Reduced exhaust emissions using Shell V-Power

UK forum for general and technical discussion about the Z3 roadster

Moderator: Gazza

Post Reply
Beemer Man
Joined: Wed 27 Apr, 2011 13:17
Posts: 73

  Z3 roadster 2.8
Location: Harrogate

Reduced exhaust emissions using Shell V-Power

Post by Beemer Man » Wed 02 Sep, 2015 17:27

Since last year's MOT, I've switched exclusively to V-Power from 95-octane (supermarket/Shell/BP) in my W-plate 2.8 Z3. Emissions measured at yesterday's MOT showed a noticeable reduction (=cleaner engine?) compared with last year:

-% vol CO: 0.00 (0.20 last year)

-ppm HC: 27 (47 last year)

-Natural Idle Speed: 820 rpm (630 last year)

Based on the above, I'm inclined to try V-Power in my 525i too.

Beemer Man.

User avatar
Davejue1
Joined: Sun 22 Sep, 2013 08:25
Posts: 1249

  Z3 roadster 2.8
Location: Mansfield

Re: Reduced exhaust emissions using Shell V-Power

Post by Davejue1 » Wed 02 Sep, 2015 18:17

Interesting to know as I struggle every year to get mine through on emissions. We have a shell station just up the road. May well be worth a try for 12 months to see what happens, if anything.
Image

"Growing old is mandatory, growing up is optional!"

peter2b
Joined: Sat 01 Nov, 2014 18:47
Posts: 949

  Z3 roadster 2.2i
Location: cheshire

Re: Reduced exhaust emissions using Shell V-Power

Post by peter2b » Wed 02 Sep, 2015 18:23

I've just filled up with shell V -power just got to see what happens
peter2b

Mugs
Joined: Wed 07 Aug, 2013 02:26
Posts: 341

  Z3 roadster 1.9

Re: Reduced exhaust emissions using Shell V-Power

Post by Mugs » Wed 02 Sep, 2015 19:45

i have sworn by V power for the last year or so.
the guy who mapped my Impreza saw a significant reduction in power when running it on 95 ron and my zed runs much better after a few tanks full.
to coin a phrase.....it does what it says on the tin.
you won't see an immediate difference but stick with it and after a few tanks you will.

Rocketbike
Joined: Thu 17 May, 2012 21:12
Posts: 78

  Z3 roadster 1.9

Re: Reduced exhaust emissions using Shell V-Power

Post by Rocketbike » Wed 02 Sep, 2015 20:53

I've only used 98 octane in my 1.9 for the last three years, and usually V power. Definately goes further per gallon, and on the 1.9 you can tell the differance between the two straight away

Mike Fishwick
Joined: Fri 19 Jun, 2009 11:27
Posts: 1991

  Z3 roadster 2.8
Location: Daglan, France

Re: Reduced exhaust emissions using Shell V-Power

Post by Mike Fishwick » Thu 03 Sep, 2015 12:02

I always use 98 octane, and my CO emission is always 0.0% - in France they do not check hydrocarbons, but measure CO during acceleration from idle to 2000 rpm, which is a tighter test than the UK's 'fast' idle, whatever that means. In the UK my hydrocarbon levels doubled every year - exactly - which made me smell a rat. By 2004 my local MoT tester - Ocean BMW of Plymouth - would obviously have been trying to sell me new two catalytic converters - or a new Z4! There is no law against exaggerating the levels, as distinct from claiming them to be less that they are . . .

Remember that the handbook for the 1.9 states that while it is rated at 140 bhp on 95 octane it will develop more power, and have better fuel consumption, on higher octane fuels. Likewise, all BMW engines are rated for use on 98 octane, so will always run better on such fuels - and worse on the rubbish which passes for 95 octane in the UK. Unfortunately many owners just buy the cheapest fuel available, and imagine that 95 octane is good enough, and in many areas 95 is all one can buy.

When unleaded first replaced the old 91 octane two-star fuel I tried it in my 1000 cc BMW motorcycle, which on two-star always returned 60 mpg on a particular motorway/country road run - on 95 octane it grudgingly returned 50 mpg, but returned to its usual self on 97 octane. A simple test, but one which shows 95 octane to be rubbish!

I have never found V-Power to be much good in comparison to Esso Supreme 97 octane - or even their 95 octane, using fuel consumption over about 250 miles in steady speed driving as a guide. I have always found V-Power and the BP equivalent to be the worst 97/98 octane fuels in both the UK and France - for example, on a trip to le Mans a few years ago our local unbranded supermarket 98 gave 36/37 mpg by calculation at a steady 80 mph pn autoroutes, which fell to 28 mpg after refuelling. I find Total Excellium 98 to be the best fuel in France, with 37/38 on autoroutes and up to 40 mpg on sideroads.

Before thinking that V-Power is wonderful, try Esso Supreme in the same driving profile, and also calculate your fuel consumption accurately - you may be surprised.
A Z3 is not just for Christmas - it's for life!

Del
Joined: Sat 19 Nov, 2011 18:35
Posts: 2122

  Z3 roadster 1.9

Re: Reduced exhaust emissions using Shell V-Power

Post by Del » Thu 03 Sep, 2015 14:00

Bit dubious myself - it all comes from the same tanks at the same terminals - additives get added by the various retailers for which they charge quite heavily in terms of extra pence per litre. As with most European engines for many years, these engines (M aside) were built to run quite happily on 91 octane - as far as I am aware standard UK unleaded is a very decent 95 octane.

User avatar
pingu
Joined: Fri 30 Apr, 2004 17:01
Posts: 3337

  M roadster S50

Re: Reduced exhaust emissions using Shell V-Power

Post by pingu » Thu 03 Sep, 2015 15:13

Del wrote:Bit dubious myself - it all comes from the same tanks at the same terminals - additives get added by the various retailers for which they charge quite heavily in terms of extra pence per litre. As with most European engines for many years, these engines (M aside) were built to run quite happily on 91 octane - as far as I am aware standard UK unleaded is a very decent 95 octane.
I agree with this. Only thoroughbred racehorses need to be fed the best oats.
Pingu

z3lowey
Joined: Wed 03 Jun, 2015 10:47
Posts: 40

  Z3 roadster 1.9i

Re: Reduced exhaust emissions using Shell V-Power

Post by z3lowey » Thu 03 Sep, 2015 16:30

I filled up with ESSO 97ron, their top of the range stuff for the first time - I have a 2002 1.9 with 62k on the clock.

I can feel a difference - it's definitely much smoother. After a couple more tanks I'll report back, have been getting 36/37 MPG so far, with standard 95 ron, will be interesting to see if this improves.

User avatar
pingu
Joined: Fri 30 Apr, 2004 17:01
Posts: 3337

  M roadster S50

Re: Reduced exhaust emissions using Shell V-Power

Post by pingu » Fri 04 Sep, 2015 10:47

V-Power (Nitro+) costs about 10%-15% (120ppl compared to 106ppl) more than supermarket 95 RON. There is no way that my MPG would change by 15% by using it.

The 330 wouldn't go from 27mpg to 31mpg if I started and the M wouldn't drop from 24mpg to 21mpg if I stopped.

The only reasons to use it are

a) the octane rating, or
b) the cleanliness of the fuel (if the hype is to be believed)
Pingu

siwilson
Joined: Fri 19 Jun, 2009 10:54
Posts: 782

  M roadster S54
Location: Horley

Re: Reduced exhaust emissions using Shell V-Power

Post by siwilson » Fri 04 Sep, 2015 11:51

I use it for two reasons.

1. Car just runs better on the super stuff and Shell is readily available where I live.
2. I do get notably better MPG on a long run. Certainly 10%-15% better. I actually managed to squeeze 280 miles out of a tank on the way back from Scotland. Would never have got near that on regular sans plomb.
2001 M roadster S54 Laguna Seca Blue

User avatar
BladeRunner919
Joined: Fri 17 Feb, 2012 20:18
Posts: 2221

  Z3 roadster 1.9

Re: Reduced exhaust emissions using Shell V-Power

Post by BladeRunner919 » Fri 04 Sep, 2015 12:22

I use Tesco Momentum and have very carefully tested the mpg difference between that and their regular fuel. I do get an improvement in mpg that more than covers the difference in price.

Mike Fishwick
Joined: Fri 19 Jun, 2009 11:27
Posts: 1991

  Z3 roadster 2.8
Location: Daglan, France

Re: Reduced exhaust emissions using Shell V-Power

Post by Mike Fishwick » Fri 04 Sep, 2015 16:59

While BMW engines will indeed run on 91 octane (such as American fuel) they do not give of their best - try reading the owners handbook, which states that the engines are optimised for 98 octane. On lower octane fuel the knock detectors will be at work, and the ECU then retards the ignition timing until knocking ceases. Under such circumstances the engine does not run 'happily' at all, even if it tolerates the poorer fuel.

Likewise, the old tale that only M engines can use 97 octne fuel properly was probably put around my uninformed M owners! While the M engine has a compression ratio of 11 to 1, the 2.8 has a cr of 10.2 to 1, which is still pretty high, and will offer higher efficiency - more power, torque, and more miles per gallon - if fed on a decent diet.

Some engines have a restricted advance curve, and so cannot improve when run on a higher octane fuel, but that does not include BMWs, to which the old 'All petrol is the same' does not apply.
A Z3 is not just for Christmas - it's for life!

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests