Better Mileage on Caltex Vortex 98 than Shell V-Power?
  • Register
  • Help
Results 1 to 13 of 13
Like Tree3Likes
  • 3 Post By JBN

Thread: Better Mileage on Caltex Vortex 98 than Shell V-Power?

  1. #1
    Tadpole C5_V6_2006's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    MT Eliza VIC.
    Posts
    13

    Default Better Mileage on Caltex Vortex 98 than Shell V-Power?

    I live and drive my Citroen V6 Ex 2006 in Melbourne Vic. I've generally only used Shell V-Power 98 but have recently started using Caltex Vortex 98. I've always assumed they are basically the same and I wouldn't notice a difference but since using Caltex 98 my fuel consumption appears to have improved modestly from about 9.9L/100 km to 9.4L/100 km.

    Advertisement


    Same commute and (within the vagaries of Melbourne driving condition) same driving style. This is a pattern that appears to be robust after a number of months.

    Do Citroens just prefer petrol from sellers that also start with the letter "C"?

  2. #2
    JBN
    JBN is offline
    1000+ Posts JBN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    8,145

    Default

    I normally use Caltex Vortex as my nearest service station is Caltex (not associated with Woolworths shopper dockets).

    I use Shell when I have some 8c Coles shopper dockets. They have installed brand new vapour reducing pumps, so I nearly die of petrol fumes when I fill up. I prefer the older style pumps at Caltex.

    I have no idea what my fuel consumption is. I basically just fill up with petrol because its easier than pushing the car.

    John

  3. #3
    1000+ Posts Haakon's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    canberra...
    Posts
    8,657

    Default

    Back in the days when premium fuels were 5 cents or so dearer, it was worth it. But if its dollars youre chasing, using straight 91 s the cheapest in th elong run now that there is up to 20 cents difference.

    My Megane seems happy on it, cant really tell if there is any performance loss. Slight decrease in economy more than offset by cheaper fuel.

  4. #4
    Tadpole C5_V6_2006's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    MT Eliza VIC.
    Posts
    13

    Default

    Yeah I typically have an unsettling "you are a mug" feeling when I fill up with the Premium, I'm clearly paying more and even with the reduced fuel consumption I know it's not saving me any money (on the contary costing more). Only problem is if I fill up now with the 91 various warning lights start flashing (ECM typically) because it detects (I assume) a reduction in octane or something and thinks I've filled up with water? I try and convince myself that the various additives are cleaning the engine and thus reducing ware and tear in the long run (not sounding too convincing am I?)

    BTW the only reason I know the fuel consumption is because the C5 Ex dash computer happily displays it on an ongoing basis, it's not like I have my own spreadsheet or something

  5. #5
    1000+ Posts Haakon's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    canberra...
    Posts
    8,657

    Default

    Yeah, some can handle it. My 2002 Xsara pings on 91, but seems happy enough on the 94 octane E10 stuff. Thats the next best bang for buck.

  6. #6
    1000+ Posts PeterT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Castle Hill, Sydney
    Posts
    7,426

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Haakon View Post
    Back in the days when premium fuels were 5 cents or so dearer, it was worth it. But if its dollars youre chasing, using straight 91 s the cheapest in th elong run now that there is up to 20 cents difference.
    That's back in the days when 91 was 70 c/L. The only way to compare is by cents/Km calculation. By my calculations, 98 is still approx 10% more expensive.

    '92 205 Mi16
    '90 Mi16x4

  7. #7
    1000+ Posts Haakon's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    canberra...
    Posts
    8,657

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PeterT View Post
    That's back in the days when 91 was 70 c/L. The only way to compare is by cents/Km calculation. By my calculations, 98 is still approx 10% more expensive.
    Ha, yes of course. It's still dearer than it used yo be percentage wise from what I can tell.
    I tried to drown my sorrows in alcohol, but the bastards learnt how to swim

  8. #8
    JBN
    JBN is offline
    1000+ Posts JBN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    8,145

    Default

    I always use 98. Certainly on the 2CV where every bit of power is important. Also on the Xantia which runs better on it.

    Where I am light years ahead of you blokes is the total purchase price of the Xantia, 2CV Charleston and 2CV Daffy Duck combined is below $10,000, so I can afford to squander money on petrol.

    John

  9. #9
    Tadpole C5_V6_2006's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    MT Eliza VIC.
    Posts
    13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JBN View Post
    Where I am light years ahead of you blokes is the total purchase price of the Xantia, 2CV Charleston and 2CV Daffy Duck combined is below $10,000, so I can afford to squander money on petrol.

    John
    Even better I paid less than $10k for the C5 V6, so I only have one tank to fill whereas you have three

  10. #10
    1000+ Posts Ken W's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    North Brisbane
    Posts
    1,892

    Default

    Folks,

    My 2l, 16 valve Xantia with 10.4 compression definitely runs best on 98. If I try 91, I seem to lose most of the low speed torque. The knock sensor must really retard the ignition. Its OK to drive on 95 but 98 gives the most responsive engine.

    The 2l Activa turbo, pings on 91 and 95 E10 but is OK on 95 100% petrol. It chews so much fuel I don't bother with 98 in that one.

    My BX TZI pings on 91 but seems to love 95 E10 which I can actually get for cheaper at United stations.

    My CX2400 wagon pings on 91 especially if it gets warm but again it loves the 95 E10 juice.

    So I guess you just have to try the different fuels to find out which one suits the tune of the engine best.

    Cheers,

    Ken W

  11. #11
    JBN
    JBN is offline
    1000+ Posts JBN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    8,145

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by C5_V6_2006 View Post
    Even better I paid less than $10k for the C5 V6, so I only have one tank to fill whereas you have three
    Yes, but your single tank probably has the same capacity as all of mine combined. If you hole your tank, your fleet has floundered, whereas I have backup. Not that its much good at the moment as the Xantia is the only goer (my wife wishes the aircon would work, but I insist the an opened window is the more natural option).

    One 2CV is awaiting helicoil inserts for the inlet manifold (owner too busy at the moment). The other 2CV - Daffy Duck took a $200 taxi ride on the back of a tow truck last Thursday night. At least I saved on the fuel cost. No spark (owner too busy to look at it at the moment).

    One of the insomniac neighbours asked me why Daffy duck was on the back of a truck just before midnight. I started to explain to him that the car was designed to drive across a ploughed field with a crate of eggs in the back without breaking any. I went for a drive, couldn't find any ploughed fields in Sydney, got to Coles just after they closed and hence no eggs, got pissed off and called a taxi. He always suspected that I was mad. I don't think I disappointed him.


    John
    Kim Luck, bluey504 and Kenfuego like this.

  12. #12
    Tadpole C5_V6_2006's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    MT Eliza VIC.
    Posts
    13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JBN View Post

    I have no idea what my fuel consumption is. I basically just fill up with petrol because its easier than pushing the car.

    John
    Putting them on the back of a truck is even better than pushing and as you've discovered even better for fuel economy. I'm begining to realise that your fleet of 2CVs are actually a very cunning albeit elaborate and over-engineered fuel storage and transportation system. Surely a petrol can would be cheaper?

  13. #13
    JBN
    JBN is offline
    1000+ Posts JBN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    8,145

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by C5_V6_2006 View Post
    Putting them on the back of a truck is even better than pushing and as you've discovered even better for fuel economy. I'm begining to realise that your fleet of 2CVs are actually a very cunning albeit elaborate and over-engineered fuel storage and transportation system. Surely a petrol can would be cheaper?
    If you saw the size of my nose, to walk around with a petrol can would invite all sorts of comments.

    eg "Look at that old bastard, still getting his kicks from sniffing petrol".

    John

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •