You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
__________________ Victoria Car Assessments - Condition assessments (test drive, photos, deficiencies and summary). RS member references available. IG @touringteg
1998 Acura Integra Type R #0635
2017 Honda Civic Type R #01818
So I finally watched part 1 and 2, and I agree #biasconfirmation
A few years ago with my stock focus ST (250hp/272tq rated) my buddy and I went to racing greed. Beforehand my friend was telling me all about shell 91 etc. Up to that point I had always been a chevron guy but I took his word for it. Ended up putting down 187hp/225tq. I know the manufacturer rates flywheel hp but my car felt like crap, pulled lots of timing etc.
Went back the next year on an off the shelf stage 1 cobb tune (on chevron 94) and did 265whp/330tq.
In my 10 years of driving, I have exclusively put in Shell in my cars.
Now that I have 2 cars that require premium, his findings are quite interesting.
I guess I'll stay tuned for part 3.
Airmiles are also nice from Shell as they run decent promos for bonuses if you fill up a certain amount, which I do because I drive a ton.
If the findings in part 3 are significant then I'm willing to switch to Chevron 94.
Does Chevron have a rewards system like Airmiles is to Shell?
In his comments people have asked him to compare Shell 91 vs Esso 91 vs Chevron 91 but he says he won't do it because the Chevron 91 is probably equally as crappy. Unfortunately this doesn't really help me since I used to interchangeably fill up with Shell/Chevron 91 because my car really doesn't warrant 94.
So this test doesn't really confirm that Chevron is better than Shell overall, it just confirms that for max performance vehicles the top tier Chevron is better than Shell. Shell 91 and Esso 91 dyno'd the same... Now if he did a comparison of 87 for all major brands, it would probably be more relevant to the common person.
In his comments people have asked him to compare Shell 91 vs Esso 91 vs Chevron 91 but he says he won't do it because the Chevron 91 is probably equally as crappy. Unfortunately this doesn't really help me since I used to interchangeably fill up with Shell/Chevron 91 because my car really doesn't warrant 94.
So this test doesn't really confirm that Chevron is better than Shell overall, it just confirms that for max performance vehicles the top tier Chevron is better than Shell. Shell 91 and Esso 91 dyno'd the same... Now if he did a comparison of 87 for all major brands, it would probably be more relevant to the common person.
isnt shell 91 priced similar to chevron 94 though?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by jasonturbo
Too bad it isn't about flipping cars to lose money, I'm really good at that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkunkWorks
This wouldn't happen if you didn't drive a peasant car like an Audi...
Quote:
[14-05, 14:59] FastAnna You tiny bra wearing, gigantic son of a bitch
[15-05, 10:35] FastAnna Yeah I was dreaming of those big titties in that tiny bra
Chevron 94 #1 - 288.616 hp / 277.946 lb-ft
Chevron 94 #2 - 281.667 hp / 280.873 lb-ft
Shell V-Power #1 - 246.167 hp / 263.629 lb-ft
Shell V-Power #2 - 243.493 hp / 264.637 lb-ft
All gas were confirmed to be winter blends as the filming was done in Nov 2020. Adam will do a summer blend comparison next year when the time comes again.
Now, while watching the video, it occurred to me that the car have had some time to adapt to the Chevron 94's timing. Would the results have been different had Shell 91 been tested first? That'd be interesting to see.
I don't have time to watch it atm, but I assume they're totally emptying the tank between tests. What are they doing to reset/relearn the ECU between tests?
__________________ 1991 Toyota Celica GTFour RC // 2007 Toyota Rav4 V6 // 2000 Jeep Grand Cherokee
1992 Toyota Celica GT-S ["sold"] \\ 2007 Jeep Grand Cherokee CRD [sold] \\ 2000 Jeep Cherokee [sold] \\ 1997 Honda Prelude [sold] \\ 1992 Jeep YJ [sold/crashed] \\ 1987 Mazda RX-7 [sold] \\ 1987 Toyota Celica GT-S [crushed]
Quote:
Originally Posted by maksimizer
half those dudes are hotter than ,my GF.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RevYouUp
reading this thread is like waiting for goku to charge up a spirit bomb in dragon ball z
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good_KarMa
OH thank god. I thought u had sex with my wife. :cry:
In his comments people have asked him to compare Shell 91 vs Esso 91 vs Chevron 91 but he says he won't do it because the Chevron 91 is probably equally as crappy. Unfortunately this doesn't really help me since I used to interchangeably fill up with Shell/Chevron 91 because my car really doesn't warrant 94.
So this test doesn't really confirm that Chevron is better than Shell overall, it just confirms that for max performance vehicles the top tier Chevron is better than Shell. Shell 91 and Esso 91 dyno'd the same... Now if he did a comparison of 87 for all major brands, it would probably be more relevant to the common person.
The common notion was that Shell 91 performed on par with Chevron 94 and both seemingly priced the same.
I don't have time to watch it atm, but I assume they're totally emptying the tank between tests. What are they doing to reset/relearn the ECU between tests?
He is emptying the tank from the fuel lines between different types of gas, but he did not mention what he has done as far as resetting the ECU or re-learning the fuel trim is concerned.
From Part 1 and Part 3, however, he did mentioned that the car has been running on the type of gas he started the test with for a while -- Chevron 94 blended with E85 to give an E17 blend in Part 1, and pure Chevron 94 in Part 3. So we can only assume at the start of those tests, the ECU has at least adjusted to the starting fuel to some sufficient degree. Had Shell been given the chance to learn the fuel trim, I suspect its numbers would be better than what we've seen in the test, but it'd be too much of a stretch to make up for that 40hp deficit.