Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Shell\s+V\-Power\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Shell\s+V\-Power\s*$/: 10 ]

Total 10 documents matching your query.

1. Re: Shell V-Power (score: 1): Author: "mghirsch" <mghirsch@netzero.net>; Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 19:06:07 -0500; Here in California there is no real difference between brands. Premium is 91 octane across the board, with 10% ethanol (or something like that). Certain brands advertise like crazy how they "clean yo; /html/mgs/2006-08/msg00313.html (7,606 bytes)
2. Re: Shell V-Power (score: 1): Author: Max Heim <max_heim@sbcglobal.net>; Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 18:16:18 -0700; Yes, I've heard them boast of that "top tier" status, and as far as I can tell it's a co-marketing gimmick with the automakers. No 93 in CA, alas. -- Max Heim '66 MGB GHN3L76149 If you're near Mounta; /html/mgs/2006-08/msg00314.html (8,091 bytes)
3. RE: Shell V-Power (score: 1): Author: "Gosling, Richard" <r.gosling@penspen.com>; Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 09:34:22 +0100; The definition of octane levels is different in the UK to the US, but I'm not sure exactly what the difference is or which method gives the higher numbers. But our 98 or 99 octane may not be quite so; /html/mgs/2006-08/msg00341.html (7,949 bytes)
4. Re: Shell V-Power (score: 1): Author: "Paul Hunt" <paul.hunt1@blueyonder.co.uk>; Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 09:56:07 +0100; UK uses RON (Research Octane Number), there is also MON (Motor Octane Number), and America uses (RON+MON)/2 which is known as PON (Pump Octane Number). 99 RON is 90.75 MON or 94.9 PON. See http://www; /html/mgs/2006-08/msg00343.html (7,834 bytes)
5. Re: Shell V-Power (score: 1): Author: Max Heim <max_heim@sbcglobal.net>; Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 09:45:09 -0700; You are correct. The US averages the two common scientific definitions to get the posted octane. I believe this number is 4 or 5 points lower than the UK standard. -- Max Heim '66 MGB GHN3L76149 If y; /html/mgs/2006-08/msg00345.html (7,611 bytes)
6. Re: Shell V-Power (score: 1): Author: Charles & Peggy Robinson <ccrobins@ktc.com>; Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 14:31:55 -0500; Of cuss, you don't need all that octane unless you're running a much-modified engine. CR; /html/mgs/2006-08/msg00352.html (7,919 bytes)
7. Re: Shell V-Power (score: 1): Author: "Paul Hunt" <paul.hunt1@blueyonder.co.uk>; Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 12:59:37 +0100; Not so, of the octane ratings we are talking about the higher ones definitely give better performance, economy, and lower running temps on a standard engine. I know, I've experienced the results when; /html/mgs/2006-08/msg00355.html (7,455 bytes)
8. Re: Shell V-Power (score: 1): Author: "Mike L" <renoman@sympatico.ca>; Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 10:17:22 -0400; A gasoline engineer once explained to me that higher octane is slower burning (to prevent pre-detonation in hi compression applications). This results in less specific chemical energy output. In a hi; /html/mgs/2006-08/msg00357.html (8,443 bytes)
9. Re: Shell V-Power (score: 1): Author: "Paul Hunt" <paul.hunt1@blueyonder.co.uk>; Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 15:57:08 +0100; Heard the *opposite* about using so-called 'engine cleaners' before an emissions test, and not just immediately before. The cleaners work by releasing built-up gunge, which amongst other things adds; /html/mgs/2006-08/msg00360.html (7,316 bytes)
10. Re: Shell V-Power (score: 1): Author: Charles & Peggy Robinson <ccrobins@ktc.com>; Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 13:13:02 -0500; This is all too subjective for words. But I'll try one anyway: Batfeathers! ;^) CR; /html/mgs/2006-08/msg00380.html (7,772 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 10
Page: [1]