That there is an interesting video-anecdote, not science.

 

Do that 20 times and we get some data that we might be able to *start* to safely draw some conclusions from.

 

Testing a few times with each is not reliable, unless we know how accurate and reproducible the result of each test is.

If it's +/- 2%, for example (which is reasonable)  - then there is no statistically significant difference between155 and 161BHP 

 

As well a dyno run variation, there could be fuel-batch variation.

 

Also - all we are testing is peak power, which is fine if that's all you are interested in and that is your definition of "better".

It could be flattening the power at lower revs, using 5% more fuel, making clouds of smoke, wrecking the engine - none of that is known.

There is equally no basis or evidence for your opinions as there are mine, would you not expect some correlation between observed differences being true for one car and another. there both diesel. There are so many factors involved, a fleet car that engine is used frequently is probably not going to need fancier fuels primarily as its hotter for longer.

 

equally do you have any independent validated test data saying categorically these fuels don't do anything, and i am not talking about some crumby car program like 5th gear or top gear, i am talking about enough test data to give statistical confidence.

 

My thoughts are if you don't use a diesel frequently, a fuel with a higher detergent package is probably the thing to buy, also there is other peoples opinions to factor in, I got talking to a taxi driver who says he uses shell as it gives him a better mpg, not scientific but 1st hand experiences this is the only thing you can go of in the absence of independent validated data.

 

I am claiming nothing, I don't need to provide evidence.

 

The burden of proof lies with the person making the claim, especially if they want us to spend more money.

 

 

I have an invisible pink unicorn. Prove I don't.

 

See also:Celestial teapot.

I am claiming nothing, I don't need to provide evidence.

 

The burden of proof lies with the person making the claim, especially if they want us to spend more money.

 

 

I have an invisible pink unicorn. Prove I don't.

 

See also:Celestial teapot.

so what your basically saying is you can shoot from the hip, then run away, by saying your claiming nothing, and anybody who has observed differences in fuel types can not. is that what your saying?

 

and somehow the burden of proof is with the person making the claim?. is that me or shell your driving that question at?

 

you see all of this is opinion based, the whole argument. I know whats involved in producing data with scientific rigger and non of the data observed so far comes close, you can only go off opinion and observations, until there is an independent report by one of the major government funded transport departments.

so what your basically saying is you can shoot from the hip, then run away, by saying your claiming nothing, and anybody who has observed differences in fuel types can not. is that what your saying?

 

and somehow the burden of proof is with the person making the claim?. is that me or shell your driving that question at?

 

you see all of this is opinion based, the whole argument. I know whats involved in producing data with scientific rigger and non of the data observed so far comes close, you can only go off opinion and observations, until there is an independent report by one of the major government funded transport departments.

 

Oh, the burden of proof lies with Shell, not you.

 

You are welcome to say "In my experience X" or "I believe X", it just doesn't make it objectively true.

 

If you are claiming something is true you need evidence.

 

 

What am I claiming?

There is probably very little, if any, benefit from using expensive fuels because its all marketing flannel.

Whats my evidence?

That despite claiming their expensive fuel is better, the biggest industry on earth has failed to produce any credible evidence.

 

You know what? I would FRICKEN LOVE to be able to get a 5% performance and MPG increase for a 5% price increase, I'd switch to Shell Gimmick-Pro in a heartbeat. I'd also be running faster and jumping higher with painless knees.

Edited 10 March, 201610 yr by Jono

If it was found and proven that premium fuels such as v power nitro contained a higher cetane content than that of supermarket fuel then it would be a strong point for arguing but even the shell website is absent of any such claims...

That set aside I have found that my engine runs better on v power as did the golf tdi I previously had.

I never noticed a great deal between regular shell and v power but the difference was more than noticeable between asda fuel and shell.

much quieter, smoother and much less smoke.

I did get a ghost of white smoke regularly when the pumps changed to winter fuel, never really noticed that before.

Edited 10 March, 201610 yr by James@RRGRochdale

Oh, the burden of proof lies with Shell, not you.

You are welcome to say "In my experience X" or "I believe X", it just doesn't make it objectively true.

If you are claiming something is true you need evidence.

What am I claiming?

There is probably very little, if any, benefit from using expensive fuels because its all marketing flannel.

Whats my evidence?

That despite claiming their expensive fuel is better, the biggest industry on earth has failed to produce any credible evidence.

You know what? I would FRICKEN LOVE to be able to get a 5% performance and MPG increase for a 5% price increase, I'd switch to Shell Gimmick-Pro in a heartbeat. I'd also be running faster and jumping higher with painless knees.

The thing is there are so many factors involved in determining if a fuel is better and in what area. I agree with any placebo effect taking place but I think in order to quantify if a fuel is better is extremely difficult, variable like, atmospheric conditions, driving style, engine type, (injector spray dispersal patten, i.e are they worn), engine condition,

even for an oil giant like shell worth 64 billion, I don't think they have the time, or inclination in order to prove any benefits beyond doubt, there simpaly not geared up for it. Basically there prime objective is drilling and processing oil and they sink billions on the best way to get it. What I am trying to say is they'll have a stab at producing a better fuel, better additive package etc and that's it.

Edited 11 March, 201610 yr by Alpha2110

I have only had my Passat for 1 month. When I collected it, it had a full tank of fuel whose origin I did not know. From Pompy to Winchester (M27,M3) it logged 60 mpg on the MD. A week ago I filled with Shell V Power and repeated that trip yesterday (M3,M27) and the MD showed 63 mpg. 90% of the trip was 60mph on cruise control. 

 

I cannot say if it is the fuel, maybe the first tank was Shell V Power but what I can say is that's f'in good for a 2L engine, largish vehicle.

I swear by this stuff its all i have used for 5 years and 2nd car withit now. In my last ibiza fr it wasnt that noticeable a change besides the power but in my new 64 octy VRS Diesel it is a significant difference in mileage and a much cleaner power delivery and will never ever put anything else in my tank or through my filters or injectors. More expensive yes but thats irrelevant to me plus its down to £1.10ltre so is a no brainer. In a nutshell older diesels maybe, new diesels absolutely.

I have heard, but not sure from where. The premium fuels are only designed to give better milleage on petrol vehicles, as they have a higher cetane rating. For diesels the premium fuels aren't designed to give improved mileage. It's mainly to keep the engine etc cleaner. Meant to help the DPF as well. Of course, a side effect of this is probably slightly better milleage, but that isn't the initial point of premium diesel.

Petrol = octane rating

Diesel = cetane rating