Jump to content
SAU Community

Fuel of choice??  

104 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

V Power Racing

Its weird, the car tends to run better with it - sitting at idle and its nice and smooth, when i tried mobil synergy it ran rough, coughed and spluttered on idle - yes, i did run it for a few tanks too. Seemed to get better economy from v power too

V Power Racing

Its weird, the car tends to run better with it - sitting at idle and its nice and smooth, when i tried mobil synergy it ran rough, coughed and spluttered on idle - yes, i did run it for a few tanks too. Seemed to get better economy from v power too

Only crap thing is that not all shells stock the V Power Racing. You may be interested in this if you did not catch it on RPM

this weekend. http://www.motec.com.au/fueltest/index.htm

Only crap thing is that not all shells stock the V Power Racing. You may be interested in this if you did not catch it on RPM

this weekend. http://www.motec.com.au/fueltest/index.htm

And the ones that do stock it have supply problems (in Brisbane anyway). My local was out of the stuff for 6 weeks and that's in metro Brissy as well.

Regretted getting my car tuned on the stuff, should have stuck to BP ulitmate.

Ultimate - as I have a BP 100 meters up the road and it seems to be recommended by most people here. It is also only 10 cents per litre more expensive than ULP. Synergy 8000 was about a 12 cent premium and Shell's old Optimax Extreme 100RON with ethanol (I assume its now called V Power Racing) was about 15 cents per litre more expensive than ULP. I have used Synergy 8000 before and that was really good - the car ran smooth and got good mileage out of it.

I've used the Caltex Vortex 98, BP Ultimate, Mobil Synergy 8000, Shell V Power & Shell V Power Racing. The Shell V Power Racing is far superior than any of the others I have found. The car runs so smoothly and has more 'get up and go'. I'm lucky to have one 5 mins down the road from where I live. Once you've tried the V Power Racing you won't want to go back to anything else.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • For once a good news  It needed to be adjusted by that one nut and it is ok  At least something was easy But thank you very much for help. But a small issue is now(gearbox) that when the car is stationary you can hear "clinking" from gearbox so some of the bearing is 100% not that happy... It goes away once you push clutch so it is 100% gearbox. Just if you know...what that bearing could be? It sounding like "spun bearing" but it is louder.
    • Yeah, that's fine**. But the numbers you came up with are just wrong. Try it for yourself. Put in any voltage from the possible range and see what result you get. You get nonsense. ** When I say "fine", I mean, it's still shit. The very simple linear formula (slope & intercept) is shit for a sensor with a non-linear response. This is the curve, from your data above. Look at the CURVE! It's only really linear between about 30 and 90 °C. And if you used only that range to define a curve, it would be great. But you would go more and more wrong as you went to higher temps. And that is why the slope & intercept found when you use 50 and 150 as the end points is so bad halfway between those points. The real curve is a long way below the linear curve which just zips straight between the end points, like this one. You could probably use the same slope and a lower intercept, to move that straight line down, and spread the error out. But you would 5-10°C off in a lot of places. You'd need to say what temperature range you really wanted to be most right - say, 100 to 130, and plop the line closest to teh real curve in that region, which would make it quite wrong down at the lower temperatures. Let me just say that HPTuners are not being realistic in only allowing for a simple linear curve. 
    • I feel I should re-iterate. The above picture is the only option available in the software and the blurb from HP Tuners I quoted earlier is the only way to add data to it and that's the description they offer as to how to figure it out. The only fields available is the blank box after (Input/ ) and the box right before = Output. Those are the only numbers that can be entered.
    • No, your formula is arse backwards. Mine is totally different to yours, and is the one I said was bang on at 50 and 150. I'll put your data into Excel (actually it already is, chart it and fit a linear fit to it, aiming to make it evenly wrong across the whole span. But not now. Other things to do first.
    • God damnit. The only option I actually have in the software is the one that is screenshotted. I am glad that I at least got it right... for those two points. Would it actually change anything if I chose/used 80C and 120C as the two points instead? My brain wants to imagine the formula put into HPtuners would be the same equation, otherwise none of this makes sense to me, unless: 1) The formula you put into VCM Scanner/HPTuners is always linear 2) The two points/input pairs are only arbitrary to choose (as the documentation implies) IF the actual scaling of the sensor is linear. then 3) If the scaling is not linear, the two points you choose matter a great deal, because the formula will draw a line between those two points only.
×
×
  • Create New...