Im at 220 miles of city driving on Sunoco 94 and my light is still off.

 

I've ALWAYS preffered v-power even before i had the rx8 in much faster cars, now i have the 8 and i dont know if its the new formula or maybe my engine just doesn't make me happy but i get 11.5 MPG with it right now with nitrogen, and i would get 14.5 MPG before this formulation.....and only ONCE after a MAF cleaning i got 17.5 that one time.... so ive always gotten between 155-180 miles to the tank (13.5 gal) with shell

Valero 190 but rough idle
Exxon 210 but the car felt sluggs

 

78%Nitrogen in the Air that is taken into your motor to begin with! I've been using it since it came out and have no problems.....

 

does shell wanna improve MPGs and save people gas money?

maybe they should put the nitrogen in tires instead...

 

I was getting about 18mpg will shell. I switched to AM/PM and immediately bumped up to 22 mpg. Cheaper and better mileage. Hmmm...

 

Yep... Anyone remember the SoCal Dyno with CHR at Neptune Speed last year? Well, guess what? I got the highest N/A non-AP dyno results on Arco.

 

Makes sense. Better mileage=more power.

 

I remember! I organized and hosted the event.
However...none of those results were valid. The dyno was not giving accurate info.
your argument FAILS.


OH, and it's CRH, not CHR.

 

Shh! Don't ruin my moment to shine!

 

NYC must be selling garbage gas.


220 miles a tank ...

 

My God! The Dark side agrees with Jedi the knight.

At least until the new movie comes out...
Mu ha ha............. OBeeWan

 

I got 21+ mpg on my last tank of Brooklyn Hess 87, and only about 65 miles of that was highway driving.

 

If you think Shell is just adding 'nitrogen' you are deluded (and not even listening to the ad.)

'Formula Shell' was based on a potassium compound, this new one is a nitrogen compound.
What part of this don't you get?

Just as an azide - C4 explosive, Amatol, TNT and most modern explosives are also based on nitrogen.........

S

 

Who are you flaming at from 2 months ago?

 

I think the heat has gotten to him. He finally defrosted.

 

Holy !!!

STEALTH ! stop bringing up dead threads !

 

Oh YEAH?

Well.....your momma.....

I know I am, but what are.........

S

 

rofl !

 

funny!

 

Just as an azide.....

I only re-opened this to make my pitiful chemical-geek joke about nitrogen compounds,

but I guess I'm the only one thought it was funny.....

S

God, I gotta getta life.

 

Yes, I know; 4 month revival wah wah. I feel like saying what I have to say here because there seems to be a trend of people believing that if Mazda says they haven't tested something and cannot recommend it, then it is bad. (e.g. Mazda not recommending this "special" Shell gas, ergo if car breaks Shell is liable -- this is what sparked me to reply)

Mazda's response is rather pragmatic; just like their stance on synthetic oils. "Blah blah we haven't thoroughly tested it yet (as if we plan to, ha!), so we cannot recommend it."

Saying that they CANNOT recommend it does not imply they recommend AGAINST it. Their wording of it is masking lack of knowledge -- it's a slicker way of saying "durr, we don't know". If the argument arises that the use of this gas (or synthetic oil) caused the catastrophic failure of an engine, then it is Mazda that will bear the burden of proof.

Disclaimer: I have not done a case study on the synthetic oil bit. If a warranty has been denied because of it for someone, I would be curious to know of it and the details of the case.